The Shock Doctrine

The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.


An economic and social strategy that was first pioneered by dictator and human rights criminal Agustus Pinoche? No wonder things have been slowly slip-sliding thier way to hell over the hal dozens years.

Denzel Torture Speach from The Seige

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaE766EVocc

Ok, For the Last Time: The Surge is NOT Working!

But if you were so unfortunate as to listen and actually believe Brit Hume, all the crazy people are Democrats.

This whole debate has this aura of unreality about it, at least on the Democratic side, because they keep talking about events in Iraq that do not comport with the reality on the ground over there. You hear it again and again. You hear it in the attitude they have, you know, they’re going to force troop withdrawals, impervious to the fact that troop withdrawals have already begun. It’s happening.

No, it is not happening. By removing the additional troops brought in for the surge and taking us back down to pre-surge levels, right where we were a year ago, Bush is doing the Hokey-Pokey - not implementing an actual Troop Withdrawal.

It should be noted that violence does seem to be going down in many parts of Iraq as a result of Sunni Tribal leaders turning against and fighting al Qeada, a trend that began four months before the Surge was even announced, but what should also be noted is that the Political Reconcilliation - which was the entire POINT of the surge - hasn't even begun yet, and isn't likely to begin anytime soon.

So is the violence down because of the Surge or the Sunnis?

Or was it possibly both? Were the Sunni's emboldened by America's new found commitment to their security? Well according to the Iraq NIE for 2007, not so much.

August 24, 2007 : Yesterday, the National Intelligence Estimate reported “measurable but uneven improvements” in the security situation in Iraq. While the White House has rushed to suggest that the modest gains were the result of escalation, the improvement can more plausibly be the product of Iraqi expectations of a U.S. withdrawal.

" “[F]earing a Coalition withdrawal, some tribal elements and Sunni groups probably will continue to seek accommodation with the Coalition to strengthen themselves for a post- Coalition security environment” [...]

“The IC assesses that the emergence of ‘bottom-up’ security initiatives, principally among Sunni Arabs and focused on combating AQI, represent the best prospect for improved security over the next six to 12 months, but we judge these initiatives will only translate into widespread political accommodation and enduring stability if the Iraqi Government accepts and supports them.”"

Now why would Iraqis have been anticipating a withdrawal of U.S. Troops - Four Months Before Bush initiated the Surge? Could it have been the fact that was September of 2006, just when the Democrats were poised to take control of both houses of Congress?

I think it could.

There is of course a secondary reason why violence levels have decreased - simply put - they're running out of Iraqis to kill.

Joe Christoff of the GAO: I think that’s [ethnic cleansing] an important consideration in even assessing the overall security situation in Iraq. You know, we look at the attack data going down, but it’s not taking into consideration that there might be fewer attacks because you have ethnically cleansed neighborhoods, particularly in the Baghdad area. [...]

Then there's the fact that those that haven't been killed outright - have simply fled.

BAGHDAD, Aug. 23 — The number of Iraqis fleeing their homes has soared since the American troop increase began in February, according to data from two humanitarian groups, accelerating the partition of the country into sectarian enclaves.

The data track what are known as internally displaced Iraqis: those who have been driven from their neighborhoods and seek refuge elsewhere in the country rather than fleeing across the border. The effect of this vast migration is to drain religiously mixed areas in the center of Iraq, sending Shiite refugees toward the overwhelmingly Shiite areas to the south and Sunnis toward majority Sunni regions to the west and north.

All of this information was available two months ago when the NIE was released. Today we have the update that the withdrawal of British Troops from Basra has reduced the violence by 90%.

Britain's 5,000 troops moved out of a former Saddam Hussein palace at Basra's heart in early September, setting up a garrison at an airport on the city's edge. Since that pullback, there's been a "remarkable and dramatic drop in attacks," Binns said.

"The motivation for attacking us was gone, because we're no longer patrolling the streets," he said.

Last spring, British troops' daily patrols through central Basra led to "steady toe to toe battles with militias fighting some of the most tactically demanding battles of the war," Binns said. Now British forces rarely enter the city center, an area patrolled only by Iraqis.

In mid-December, British forces are scheduled to return control of Basra province back to Iraqi officials — officially ending Britain's combat role in Iraq.

So what all this tell us class?

• That when you stop being a target, people stop shooting at you.
  
• When people stop shooting, less people get killed.
  
• When less people get killed, it tends to generally resemble at status often called "Peace", although "Victory" may also be an acceptable answer.
• And lastly what does "The Surge" have to do with any of this?
  

That's right class - "NOTHING!"

Vyan

Update: One skeptical commenter to the Dkos version of this post stated.

Why for a minute there I was beginning to think that we may actually have a military command that was capable of deep analysis of the situation in Iraq and building a strategy of tactics based on those results........

What a waste of taxpayers money, all the US military command have to do is come here and read diaries like these and...voila they got the answer.....

Sheesh......it's all so clear now.....

To Which I say...

You mean Military Commanders like General Ricardo Sanchez, former head of Operations in Iraq?

In one of his first major public speeches since leaving the Army in late 2006, retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez blamed the administration for a “catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan” and denounced the current “surge” strategy as a “desperate” move that will not achieve long-term stability.

“After more than fours years of fighting, America continues its desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a strategy that will achieve victory in that war-torn country or in the greater conflict against extremism,” Mr. Sanchez said, at a gathering here of military reporters and editors.

“There was been a glaring and unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders,” he said, adding later in his remarks that civilian officials have been “derelict in their duties” and guilty of a “lust for power.”

General Richard Cody, Army Chief of Staff who said we're spending too much time fighting insurgents.

General John Batiste, Former Commander of the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq.

Mr. President you did not listen (to the Commanders on the Ground) and continue to persue a failed strategy that is breaking our great Army and Marine Corps.

Batiste also stated that Donald Rumsfeld...

...served up our great military a huge bowl of chicken feces...

Then there's the other 19 Retired Generals who've spoken out against the war.

In op-ed pieces, interviews and TV ads, more than 20 retired U.S. generals have broken ranks with the culture of salute and keep it in the family. Instead, they are criticizing the commander in chief and other top civilian leaders who led the nation into what the generals believe is a misbegotten and tragic war.

As well as young Military Officers...

One question that silenced many of the officers was a simple one: Should the war have been fought?

“I honestly don’t know how I feel about that,” Major Powell said in a telephone conversation after the discussions at Leavenworth.

“That’s a big, open question,” General Caldwell said after a long pause.

And Active Duty Members of the 82nd Airborne who thoroughly rejected the idea that the Surge had been "successful".

The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. […]

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.

To all this, particularly the call by at least 8 Generals for Rumsfeld to be fired, Bush said:

“My reaction,” Bush would recall of the so-called General’s Revolt, “was, ‘No military guy is gonna tell a civilian how to react.’”

The fact is that "The Surge" was not a plan that was developed by the military, it's a political strategy that came from the Armchair General's at the American Enterprise Institute.

the DC Examiner reports today that “a bunch of arm chair generals in Washington” from the American Enterprise Institute “almost single handedly convinced the White House to change its strategy” in weekend meetings last December. The AEI escalation plan reportedly “won out over plans from the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command”:

Is that kind of "deep analysis" you were speaking of?

Vyan

What is EMO?

EMO is stupid, end of story.

Vyan

Not the Daily Show

But close...

Hannity *Hearts* Hate Crimes, Hates Civil Rights

In response to the recent March on the Justice Department pointing out that prosecutions of Hate Crimes have dropped 71% to it's lowest point in the last 10 years - Hannity decided to show his true colors, again.

This coverage was provided by CNN.


But naturally this doesn't much matter to Sean Hannity who ignores each and every one of the incredible abuses in cases like The Jena 6, because he'd rather justify the initial charge of attempted murder for what was essentially a schoolyard brawl and whine about those Poor Victimized Duke Boys. Nice.

From USA Today.

Last year, the department charged 22 people with hate crimes. That was down 71% from 76 in 1997.

Meanwhile, the department has charged more people with police misconduct and human trafficking. For example, since 2001, the department has prosecuted 360 people on charges of human trafficking, compared with 89 in the six years before that.

FBI figures show that hate crime reports fell 11% from 1997 to 2005, the most recent year available.

Ablin says the Justice Department is committed to investigating and prosecuting civil rights cases. It charged a record 201 people with civil rights violations last year.

The number of reports doesn't necessarily reflect the number of hate crimes, says Steve Wessler, executive director for the Center for the Prevention of Hate Violence. Victims are often scared to report the crimes, and police agencies report inconsistently, he says.

"Racial violence is not decreasing," Wessler says. "Either the resources are not going in to prosecute these cases or there isn't a willingness to bring these cases."

Ten-year Justice Department figures show a 60% drop in annual referrals of hate crime investigations to prosecutors.

More from the Seattle-PI on the downward trend of cases brought by the FBI.

The FBI touts civil rights enforcement as a top priority, but the number of investigations into such cases -- from hate crimes to the actions of rogue police officers -- has fallen sharply, raising concerns that victims are left with nowhere else to turn.

Pressed by the Bush administration to beef up counterterrorism ranks, the FBI has pulled agents off civil rights and slashed the number of criminal investigations conducted nationwide.

The bureau has tacitly adopted more-stringent standards governing which cases to open. That move has contributed to two-thirds fewer investigations targeting abusive police officers, cross-burners and other purveyors of hate from 2001 to 2005, according to a Seattle P-I analysis of Justice Department data.

The downward trend began in 1999 and accelerated after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the analysis found.

Civil rights experts -- and even one of the Justice Department's top civil rights lawyers -- are troubled by the trend. They say hate-crime enforcement is too important to ignore, and there is a deterrent effect to federal review of police misconduct that is being muted.

"You're going to have officers getting away with, in some cases, literally, murder," said Jesselyn McCurdy of the American Civil Liberties Union's legislative office in Washington, D.C.

But in truth it's far worse than just what these numbers show. Under Brad Schlozman and Hans Von Spakovsky the Bush Civil Rights Division of the DOJ has been pushed radically to the right and have...

- Implemented Grossly Partisan Highering Practices, shoving out the other people (Blacks, Women) in favor of "Good Americans" (Republicans), prompting the inclusion Black Attorney's in the Division to reach the same level it had in 1978. (2 attorneys out of 50)

- Blocked an investigation into Voter Suppression of Native Americans

- Implemented a New Poll Tax and other restrictions on Minority Voters.

- Appointed as interim U.S. Attorney a former RNC staffer (Tim Griffin) who participated in Voter Caging (Suppression) of African-American Soldiers Fighting in Iraq!

- Implemented extensive investigations into alleged minority "Voter Fraud" when there wasn't any!

From H&C



Threatening someone with a Noose and a Shotgun? No problem. How could a noose or a shotgun hurt anybody? Pfft But hitting someone with a tennis shoe? Attempted Murder!!!

And Hannity is fine with that.

Hannity: This kid that was beaten - who was white - by these kids in the Jena 6 case. He was beaten brutally. And then stomped on after he was cold-cocked from behind. Let me ask you (Reverend), if that was your son - what should the penalty be?

Like anyone taking the Liberal position on Fox, the guest of course stammered and hemmed and hawed barely able to generate a reasonable answer. Then Hannity changed tactics...

Hannity: There have been cases where young African-American men have been accused of crimes and they have been exonerated. What should happen in the case, when that happens - should there be a severe penalty?

Reverend: Sure the people should be held accountable.

Ok, that make sense right? Perfectly reasonable. Then Hannity lowers the Big, Bang - BOOM!

Hannity: You mean Reverend [Jessie] Jackson who offered, on this program, a Scholarship to the woman who was the accuser in the Duke Case? Or Reverend Sharpton who falsely accused Steven Pegonas, who was held liable, in the Tawana Brawley case?

You see what he did there? The little tit-for-tat you bring up some anti-black injustice and I'll raise you some anti-White injustice?

Why don't you care when Injustices Rain down on poor beset-upon white kids (who happen also to Rich and easily able to afford legal representation)?

Why do you Hate Whites?

Don't you care about the children you hypocrit!?

Slick isn't he?

The problem with trying to "level the playing field" between black and white injustice is that in both the Brawley and Duke case, those wrongly accused never served any jail time. It may have been painful, embarrassing and expensive - but the justice system ultimately worked in their favor in both these cases. Sharpton was even required (according to some admittedly pro-Imus sources) to pay $65,000 in restitution to Steve Pagonas for defamation in that case.
(Wouldn't it be great if Hannity has to pay for every time he shot off his damn fool mouth? Ok, ok, I'm dreaming I know...)

But is that also true that Justice is ultimately served in most cases of anti-black bias and false accusations?

Let's not even get into the petty stuff like Michael Richard's 19th Nervous Breakdown of N-Words, Don Imus and his Nappy-H0-ness, Bill O'Reilly having a conniption over Sylvia's lack of MF-ing Ice T or Senator George "Macaca-Man" Allen with the Noose and Confederate flag He Kept in his Office. It's not like any of that just might be signs of like - a trend, or something.

Naw... let not get into all that "He Said, He Said and HE Said" stuff.

If we're talking about Crimes Against the Innocent and we just stick purely with New York - just to keep this diary under 10,000 words - we can find the case of Abner Louima who was tortured and sexually abused by NYPD officers who - get this - mistook him for someone else. You want to make people feel the pain and outrage of the victim Sean? Try describing in graphic detail what happened to Louima. Then there's the shooting murder of Amadour Diallo - for brandishing a cell phone. As well as the shooting death of Patrick Dorismond after he grew upset with an undercover office who was trying to solicit marajuana from him when he didn't have any.

You wanna talk about the wrongly accused Sean?

You wanna talk about restitution and being held accountable?

What do you think should be done to the guy that shoved a broomstick up Louima's rectum?

According to The Innocence Project over 200 wrongly convicted people have been exonerated and released using DNA Evidence over the last decade and a half. Indications are that this is only a fraction of the number of those wrongly accused and convicted. Their data shows that 50% (37 of their first 75 exonerations) were the result of Police Misconduct.



Note to Sean, one of the primary goals of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department is to Implement Accountability for exactly these wrong accusations and prosecutions.

The Racial Breakdown of those Exonerated? Read and Weep Sean.

Of the 208 exonerees:

125 African Americans
58 Caucasians
19 Latinos
1 Asian American
5 whose race is unknown

By the way the average amount of time spent behind bars for these exonerees has been 12 Years.

An average of 12 Long Years Each.

How much jail time did the Duke Boys do again? What's that? None? Do tell...

According to the Sentencing Project the above type of misconduct, combined with racial profiling, manditory minimum sentences and gross disparities in sentencing for drug crimes has lead to dire consequences for minorities in America.

More than 60% of the people in prison are now racial and ethnic minorities. For Black males in their twenties, 1 in every 8 is in prison or jail on any given day. These trends have been intensified by the disproportionate impact of the "war on drugs," in which three-fourths of all persons in prison for drug offenses are people of color.

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics (not that they seem to be investigating these crimes anymore) the vast majority of victims in the cases of racially biased crimes - are not a group of Rich Telegenic White Kids from Duke University.

Among the single-bias hate crime incidents in 2005, there were 4,895 victims of racially motivated hate crime.

* 67.9 percent were victims of an anti-black bias.
* 19.9 percent were victims of an anti-white bias.
* 5.3 percent were victims of a bias against a group of individuals in which more than one race was represented (anti-multiple races, group).
* 4.9 percent were victims of an anti-Asian/Pacific Islander bias.
* 2.0 percent were victims of an anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native bias.
(Based on Table 1.)

Although the Brawley and Duke cases were unfortunately for those who were mistakenly accused - let me repeat, no one went to Prison as a result. No one was Raped. No one Died. The idea that their is any sort of parity between these cases and those of Louima, Dorismond, Dualla, the Jena 6, the Liberty City Seven or any number of literally hundreds of cases which are both more severe and more frequent is just plain ridiculous.

Yes, there are clearly incidents of anti-white and anti-Hispanic and anti-Asian bias. And it's absolutely true and crystal clear these should be persued, but it's also true that the DOJ has not being meeting any of it's responsibilities in this area not just for Blacks, but also Whites to the level that we all should expect and demand.

Oh, and it's also clear that Sean Hannity is an AssClown.

Vyan

Newsweek Hires Kos: Hannity and Colmes Lose Mind - Again

Newsweek has offered a job to Markos and conservatives can't stand the idea even though Newsweek already has conservative writers, and they plan to hire a conservative that will "make liberals heads explode."

Nothing, no amount of accomodation, will ever satisfy these greedy self-entitled bastards. I swear they won't be happy until they pry the last shred of liberty and truth from our cold, dead fingers.

Colmes does his usual wan job of playing desperate defense,and also as usual noone is listening when he points out - like - the facts.

Poor little Alan. All dressed up for a fair fight only to be rabbit punched into oblivion once more. He's like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football, and falling on his back as Lucy yanks it back out of the way each and every time.

Silly Alan, Winning an Argument on Fox is for Conservatives.

Nothing he says stops Hannity and the wingers as they complain about Markos age old comments about not caring about merceneries who were killed in Fallujah. Let us recall that those were members of Blackwater, the mercenary company that the FBI just said was responsible for the unjustified and illegal death of 14 Iraqies, the mercenary company that has just been massively embarrised in Congress as the State Dept. Inspector General was forced to do a complete about face on whether his brother was a member of the Blackwater board.

Conflict of Interest much? I think so.

The facts have shown that Blackwater's vicious bully tactics have repeatedly incited violence in Iraq (far more than any movies by Mark Cuban) and have done our mission in the region far more harm than good. But nevermind that, Kos called them a bad word once, and even though he apologized let's just all pile on him because that way is so much more fun, ok? It's not that they're a bunch of murdering thugs, Markos - who actually is one of "The Troops" unlike everyone that is criticizing his comments - is the problem.

Yeah, ok, sure...

These guys are just so massively pathetic. Even though their endlessly noted canard that "Liberals outnumber Conservatives" in U.S. media has been repeatedly debunked over and over and over again, they still persist in attempting to implement their own version of Affirmative Action for Conservatives.

For over a decade conservatives have said that quotas, goals and parity for Blacks, Latinos and other minorities - even when they have been illegally excluded and persecuted - is somehow "reverse racism", but for Conservatives in the media it's a must. You can't ever have lone liberal gun-man speak his mind openly, anywhere.

That wouldn't be Fairly Unbalanced like Fox News would it?

But I wonder does this mean that every conservative hired for "balance" is nothing more than a token quota baby who should be ashamed they couldn't the job honestly with like - talent? I think possibly. And how 'bout this, maybe, just maybe, Newsweek is hiring Kos because they a) Like his writing and b) Think people might want to READ his writing? Y'know - letting the "Free Markets" rule and all that stuff?

This is just typical isn't it? What a bunch of punk-ass bullies whining to the Principal and painting themselves as the "poor hapless victim" every time they get caught sucker punching the nerdy kids who actually study after class.

What truly terrifies them with Markos hiring is that it's with a Mainstream Paper as influential as Newsweek. Kos blathering away on his little left-wing blog is one thing, but having his views show up on the shelves of Safeway where Sam and Sally Six-pack can read them while in line for over-the-counter diet pills for Puffy little Muffy and fresh Ritalin refills for Aggro Biffy is an entirely different matter. Following in the steps of Glenn Greenwald and Wonkette (Anna Marie Cox), these scruffy foul-mouthed little bloggers are upsetting the stuffy media status quo.

This. Simply. Will. Not. DO!

There's a tea-party taking place all over the Blogosphere that's moving into the Mainstream and people like Hannity and Colmes aren't invited. They can't even sneak in through the servants entrance. That makes them scared, and after they get scared they get mean.

So they lash out as they slowly sink further and further into irrelevance and obsolescence, and like Mark Cuban I think the best thing we can do - is laugh at them.

It's the very least they deserve, and quite possibly the most...

Vyan

O'Reilly Loses his Nut over Mark Cuban's"Redacted"

As reported on Countdown Last Night.

Apparently Bill O'Reilly, who seem still completely unable to seperate fact and the numerous fictions in his own mind feels that Dallas Maverick's owner Mark Cuban should be arrested for making a movie which among other things tells the true story of Moumoudiya, where U.S. soldiers raped a 14-year-old girl then set her and her entire family on fire to cover up the crime.

The fun part is that Cuban, who has a history of not backing down when the facts are on his side, seems to be literally enjoying the entire thing.

Actual news reports concerning the crime in question.

Four more soldiers have been charged with the rape and murder of a young Iraqi woman and her family, the most explosive of the five war crimes investigations currently under way in Iraq.

A fifth soldier was charged with dereliction of duty for failing to report the events of the night of March 12 when a group of soldiers are alleged to have abandoned their checkpoint to enter the home of an Iraqi family in the town of Mahmudiya. They allegedly raped and killed a young woman inside the house, and shot dead her parents and young sister.

In recent weeks, 16 soldiers have been charged with murders in Iraq - more than during the first three years of the war. No Marines have been charged so far in the worst alleged atrocity, the killing of 24 Iraqis at Haditha, but that has been overshadowed by the Mahmudiya episode.

Here's the view from O'Reilly World.

Billo: I would never sit through a movie that shows U.S. Troops raping and murdering a 14-year-old girl. Ever. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. While your dancing withthe starts, sirs, hundreds of thousands of brave military people are risking their lives so you can do the "mambo" without fear of some terrorist blowing you the hell up.

You're Arrogance is Horrifying.

During WWII President Roosevelt would have had Cuban jailed without a trial, Patton would have slapped his face.

First of all I thought the entire point of our soldiers being in Iraq was just so that people like (and unlike) Mark Cuban could do exactly what he's doing - including the "mambo" - without fear of some terrorist blowing anyone the hell Up.

Didn't Bush tell us all to "Go Shopping" after 9-11? We're not "fighting them over there" just so that we can cower over here!

If we can shop 'til we drop, why the hell can't we go dancing too? Oh, but wait - it's not dancing that's a problem, it's the fact that Cuban chooses to actually use one those other things - um, yeah, Freedoms - that all of Americans are supposed to have. Free Speech.

Secondly, it was Japanese American's that were interned without a trial during WWII, not political dissenters or filmakers. It wasn't until the 50's and full-on McCathyism that the government was used to openly stiffle dissent via the proliferation of The Black List.

I suspect O'Reilly is a big fan of the Black List and Senator Joseph McCarthy (whom some Conservatives claim was ultimately vindicated)

In his segment on "America Haters", O'Reilly not only goes after Cuban he goes after the Seattle Post-Intelligencer who choose not to publish photobgraphs of two "suspicious individuals" on a ferry, and one of their reporters who dared to say she could "understand" why a potentially suicide bomber just might hate religion.

O'Reilly: After the Iraq War started the far left has grown bitter against President Bush. (And has now) become off the chart nuts.

Yeah, we should never seek to "understand" what our potentially enemies are thinking or anything - that's almost like pulling the trigger ourselves isn't it? Or not. After sending one of his staffer to perform a classic Ambush Interview with the Seattle PI's publish he moves on to Cuban.

O'Reilly: Dallas Mavericks' own Mark Cuban has produced a movie which portrays American Troops as rapists and murderers. There is no question that this movie will incite anti-American hatred around the world, but Cuban doesn't seem to care. For some reason Mark Cuban has a grudge against this country.

If you attend a Dallas Mavericks game you should hold up a sign that sasys "Support The Troops" maybe then Cuban will get the message.

As it just so happens the Dallas Mavericks organization will be giving out thousands of t-shirts during their upcoming nationally televised game against the San Antonio Spurs on Thursday which will includes toll free number to Join the Texas National Guard.

Mark Cuban founded the Fallen Patriot Fund to help provide for the families of soldiers and also has a program for season ticket holders to donate their unused ticks called Seats for Soldiers.

Cuban doesn't just talk about "Supporting the Troops" by slapping a cheap magnet on his car, he actually goes out and does it.

From Cuban's Blog.

I've grown to love Bill OReilly. Seriously. If there is anyone who can publicize a political movie, its Bill and I truly appreciate that about him.

Magnolia Pictures and HDNet Films' Redacted premiered last week as part of HDNet's Ultra VOD program. With HDNet Ultra VOD movies premiere first in Hotels and on cable and satellite VOD systems PRIOR to making their national theatrical premieres. HDNet Movies will also show a sneak preview on Nov 14th, 2 days before the Nov 16th theatrical release.

Its a new and different approach to selling movies, but it gives everyone and anyone who cant make it to theaters or who prefer their living room to a theater the chance to see the movie without leaving the comfort of their own homes.

The way the movie is released is important because it has allowed us to benefit from Mr OReilly's comments about Redacted even before the movie has made its theatrical debut. If you don't happen to watch his show, he has made the movie out to be Anti Troops. Of course there is one catch, he hasn't seen the movie yet. But why should that get in the way.

You see, Mr OReilly thinks that movies are a tool used by terrorists, and any Anti American faction as motivation to hate us and everything we stand for even more than they already do. I'm not sure that terrorists and those who are Anti American need any more motivation , or if they are even capable of hating us even more than they do. We are at war. There are people willing to be convinced to blow themselves up to kill as many of us as possible. Anytime, anywhere. I don't think there are any clerics expanding the offer of 70 virgins to include a DVD. Nor do I believe that they are translating the movie and then gathering around a TV or Internet screen to get motivated to strap explosives to themselves or to build IEDs.

That's right, all these people would just love America if not for Mark Cuban and his movie. It has nothing to do with our invading an unarmed country then completely screwing up the rebuilding and occupation of that nation to the tune of $1.5 Trillion and Millions of Iraqis either killed or displaced. It's not the rape and the killing that's a problems - it's the movie about it.

I don't see it. I have asked many of Mr OReilly's followers if they have any factual evidence that this takes place, or is this just a ploy by Mr OReilly to get his viewers all riled up , without any basis in fact. ? No one has come up with any factual examples to this point. In fact, when Mr Oreilly had the author of "Schmoozing with the Terrorists", when asked whether the terrorists the author had dealt with had even heard of several people Mr OReilly considered aiding the cause of the enemy, the author stated the terrorists had never heard of them. That they didn't know their positions until Mr Klein told them , at which point they loved them. Which of course means that Mr OReilly was supportive of a guest that was engaging the enemy and giving them new information they found encouraging. How could you Mr OReilly ? Supporting an author who sourced information the terrorists found encouraging, isn't that traitorous ?

There are of course some movies that O'Reilly likes, such as the upcoming Vince Vaughn film "Fred Clause" because it's so helpful in fighting the "War On Christmas" don't cha know. Cuban who unlike O'Reilly actually has paid attention to the person he's criticizing had a few things to say about Vaughn's recent appearance on the Factor.

Last week he wrote an article entitled "Harming America the Pop Culture Way". It starts off with:

" Some Americans believe that pop culture has no impact on the state of the nation. They think that reporting on the media is frivolous - a complete waste of time. They are dead wrong. Just look at how the hip-hop industry has damaged so many young Americans, giving them insidious role models to glorify crime and self- destructive behavior."

Maybe 28 years of hearing "Hotel Motel Holiday Inn, if your girl starts acting up, then you take her friend" has corrupted our minds. Mine included. But come one Bill, can you at least quote one study or source ? I also wonder if you actually believe what you say and write. Just yesterday on your TV show, in an interview with the hilarious Vince Vaughn, you called Wedding Crashers on your personal 5 top favorites of all time. Now maybe I was laughing so hard during the movie I misunderstood, but didn't the Wedding Crashers feature guys taking on fake identities at weddings to try to get laid ? I'm stunned. You thought that this example of Hollywood corrupting the morals of the kids in this country was funny ?

Bill, do movies corrupt absolutely, or do they not ?

In further updates on his blog, Mark actually does finally tells us what the film is actually about - and it's not really about the criminals who attacked and raped a 14-year-old girl anymore than every cop show on TV is about murder - it's about what our troops have to deal with to overcome the sitautions they find themselves in.

Cuban: The movie is about what soldiers of every walk of life go through on a daily basis in Iraq. The challenge of facing 99pct of the day bored to tears, while at the same time being terrified that you never know who the enemy really is. Kids can be just kids, or they can be placing IEDs. Women can be just wives, or sisters or mothers, or they can be suicide bombers. Telling each from the other is impossible.

The movie is about this impossible position that soldiers are put into. No amount of training can prevent the humanity that comes from our soldiers , yet is the very trait that puts them in harm's way. No amount of training can prepare them for seeing their friends die. This film recognizes that 99.9 pct of our forces cope with it and do their jobs. That each knows that among their peers , some may have a breaking point, and they do all they can to prevent them from reaching that breaking point. But they arent, and cant always be successful.

This movie is so far from being anti troops. You can't watch this movie without it smacking you across the face that the battles that come with serving our country are as much mental and emotional as they are physical. That the weight and burden of survival they must carry every minute of every day is incomprehensible . You cant watch this movie without your heart going out to each and every serviceperson who is put in harms way.

When a couple of the servicepeople crack from the pressure, they dont become the story. They become one more burden that everyone else associated with them must carry. They become one more obstacle to be conquered, and that is conquered.

It seems to me what Cuban is describing, people who struggle and ultimately overcome amazing adversity, are Heroes.

O'Reilly alludes that President Roosevelt may have tried to limit and restrict a movie that showed the people about the difficulties our soldiers encountered in WWII, and during the beginning of the war this war true - but as time wore on this changed. Eventually the War Dept itself began releasing film footage of American soldiers piled upon the shores of south east asian islands, but rather than demoralizing the populace, rather than breaking thier spirit, showing them the truth made them appreciate just what our troops had sacrificed and made them support the winning and ending the war all the more.

Vyan