The Highest Rated Political Video on YouTube

You might not remember, but way back in 1994 Cheney was interviewed and opined all the reasons why it would not be a good idea to go into Iraq.

At what point does "quagmire" come up in the discussion instead of "Surge?"

The State Department promised Blackwater USA bodyguards immunity

By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer

"WASHINGTON - The State Department promised Blackwater USA bodyguards immunity from prosecution in its investigation of last month's deadly shooting of 17 Iraqi civilians, The Associated Press has learned.

The immunity deal has delayed a criminal inquiry into the Sept. 16 killings and could undermine any effort to prosecute security contractors for their role in the incident that has infuriated the Iraqi government.

"Once you give immunity, you can't take it away," said a senior law enforcement official familiar with the investigation.

State Department officials declined to confirm or deny that immunity had been granted. One official — who refused to be quoted by name_ said: "If, in fact, such a decision was made, it was done without any input or authorization from any senior State Department official in Washington."

Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd and FBI spokesman Rich Kolko declined comment..."

Well, looks like it's open season on rag heads. And to think... we were all getting bored with nothing to do. Now Uncle Sam will make ok to murder civilians... as long as they aren't our civilians.

Is The Surge Working? You Decide.

Is the surge working? Let's see what you think once you look at the numbers. Above is a graph of the cumulated deaths (Civilian and US) in Iraq comparing 2005 through 2007, June through October (assuming that no more deaths occur in October).

The numbers used to generate the graphs are below. They were found on these two pages US deaths, Civilian Deaths.

If you look at the numbers, and please double check them if you will, you will see that the total deaths are as follows.

• 2005 = 739 deaths
• 2006 = 709 deaths
• 2007 = 749 deaths

Even though the graph will show that, "Yes the number of deaths have dropped from September through October 2007, the total number of deaths is still higher than 2005 and even 2006.

I can see how one group of people might consider this something to be ecstatic about, that our numbers have dropped over the last two months. This might incline a person to say, "Yes, the surge is working" since the graph does show a decrease in casualties from August 2007 on.

But at the same time, I can see how another group of people would question, "Why are you ecstatic when our overall numbers are not only unacceptable... but actually worse than the last two preceding years?"

Does the successful surge take precedence over the total casualties accumulated?

Which group are you? Are you the Cheerleader over the successful surge? Or are you unhappy with our overall accumulated numbers?

Greenspan: 'Iraq war all about OIL'

One of the most respected officials in government. Similar to what was said 16 years ago during Desert Storm, Gulf War I.

"The Iraq War is largely about oil."





Not a credible source... but it's cool.

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel WARNS our Government has LIED about WAR!

Does any of this sound familiar? Iraqi Civil War... Sectarian Violence... Morally Wrong... Tactically Wrong... We will not win a war of attrition... Skepticism of the American people over a 4 year period. The reality of what's going on, as ol' Chuck says, is that we are engaging in a “war” that is not only a lie but is ruining our country.

All from a Republican, Chuck Hagel, criticizing Bush and the administration and our very presence in Cambodia…. I mean Vietnam… oops, I mean Iraq.

Greenspan Links Iraq War to US thirst for oil - Blames Republicans

"...The Iraq war is largely about oil." Says Alan Greenspan the Former Federal Reserve chairman . Greenspan, who is a lifelong Republican, writes that he advised the White House to veto some bills to curb "out-of-control" spending while the Republicans controlled Congress.

Here we have another person from within the upper echelons that be stating the truth. The other Richard Clarke (who worked for the State Dept. under Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Dubya and was promoted to chief counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council). Clarke was immediately demonized for his unpopular stance on the Iraq threat.

I highly suggest that you read what Greenspan says about republicans and the conservative elite who march to battle with empirical hubris over oil under the Trojan Horse of “Eminent WMD Threats / Democracy”… take your pick.

"I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows -- the Iraq war is largely about oil," he wrote in reported excerpts of the book, which is set for release on Monday.

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, while explaining his "respect" for Greenspan, rejected the charge that a thirst for crude explained the decision to invade Iraq in March 2003. "I know the same allegation was made about the Gulf War in 1991, and I just don't believe it's true," he said on ABC television Sunday. "I think that it's really about stability in the Gulf. It's about rogue regimes trying to develop weapons of mass destruction," he said.

Some articles on Greenspan and his highly respected stance and criticism of the Bush administration.

• Greenspan labels oil as prime motive for Iraq war
• Greenspan memoir links Iraq war to US thirst for oil
• Greenspan's shock: oil behind Iraq invasion
• Greenspan Says Politics Are Getting In The Way Of Sound Policy
• Alan Greenspan: "Iraq was invaded for oil"

Who is Alan Greenspan?
Greenspan is an American economist and was Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve of the United States from 1987 to 2006. Following his retirement as Fed chairman, he accepted an honorary (unpaid) position at HM Treasury in the United Kingdom. Read More on Wikipedia.

Private Contractors Outnumber US Troops in Iraq

COALITION OF THE BILLING

Published on Wednesday, July 4, 2007 by the Los Angeles Times (Page was removed when I went to check it out)

The number of U.S.-paid private contractors in Iraq now exceeds that of American combat troops, newly released figures show, raising fresh questions about the privatization of the war effort and the government’s capacity to carry out military and rebuilding campaigns.
More than 180,000 civilians - including Americans, foreigners and Iraqis - are working in Iraq under U.S. contracts, according to State and Defense department figures obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

Including the recent troop buildup, 160,000 soldiers and a few thousand civilian government employees are stationed in Iraq.
The total number of private contractors, far higher than previously reported, shows how heavily the Bush administration has relied on corporations to carry out the occupation of Iraq - a mission criticized as being undermanned.

“These numbers are big,” said Peter Singer, a Brookings Institution scholar who has written on military contracting. “They illustrate better than anything that we went in without enough troops. This is not the coalition of the willing. It’s the coalition of the billing.”
The numbers include at least 21,000 Americans, 43,000 foreign contractors and about 118,000 Iraqis - all employed in Iraq by U.S. tax dollars, according to the most recent government data.
The array of private workers promises to be a factor in debates on a range of policy issues, including the privatization of military jobs and the number of Iraqi refugees allowed to resettle in the U.S.

But there are also signs that even those mounting numbers may not capture the full picture. Private security contractors, who are hired to protect government officials and buildings, were not fully counted in the survey, according to industry and government officials.
Continuing uncertainty over the numbers of armed contractors drew special criticism from military experts.
“We don’t have control of all the coalition guns in Iraq. That’s dangerous for our country,” said William Nash, a retired Army general and reconstruction expert. The Pentagon “is hiring guns. You can rationalize it all you want, but that’s obscene.”

Although private companies have played a role in conflicts since the American Revolution, the U.S. has relied more on contractors in Iraq than in any other war, according to military experts.
Contractors perform functions including construction, security and weapons system maintenance.

Military officials say contractors cut costs while allowing troops to focus on fighting rather than on other tasks.

“The only reason we have contractors is to support the war fighter,” said Gary Motsek, the assistant deputy undersecretary of Defense who oversees contractors. “Fundamentally, they’re supporting the mission as required.”

But critics worry that troops and their missions could be jeopardized if contractors, functioning outside the military’s command and control, refuse to make deliveries of vital supplies under fire. At one point in 2004, for example, U.S. forces were put on food rations when drivers balked at taking supplies into a combat zone. Adding an element of potential confusion, no single agency keeps track of the number or location of contractors.

In response to demands from Congress, the U.S. Central Command began a census last year of the number of contractors working on U.S. and Iraqi bases to determine how much food, water and shelter was needed.
That census, provided to The Times under the Freedom of Information Act, shows about 130,000 contractors and subcontractors of different nationalities working at U.S. and Iraqi military bases.

However, U.S. military officials acknowledged that the census did not include other government agencies, including the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department.
Last month, USAID reported about 53,000 Iraqis employed under U.S. reconstruction contracts, doing jobs such as garbage pickup and helping to teach democracy. In interviews, agency officials said an additional 300 Americans and foreigners worked as contractors for the agency.

State Department officials said they could not provide the department’s number of contractors. Of about 5,000 people affiliated with the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, about 300 are State Department employees. The rest are a mix of other government agency workers and contractors, many of whom are building the new embassy.
“There are very few of us, and we’re way undermanned,” said one State Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity. “We have significant shortages of people. It’s been that way since before [the war], and it’s still that way.”

The companies with the largest number of employees are foreign firms in the Middle East that subcontract to KBR, the Houston-based oil services company, according to the Central Command database. KBR, once a subsidiary of Halliburton Co., provides logistics support to troops, the single largest contract in Iraq.

Middle Eastern companies, including Kulak Construction Co. of Turkey and Projects International of Dubai, supply labor from Third World countries to KBR and other U.S. companies for menial work on U.S. bases and rebuilding projects. Foreigners are used instead of Iraqis because of fears that insurgents could infiltrate projects.

KBR is by far the largest employer of Americans, with nearly 14,000 U.S. workers. Other large employers of Americans in Iraq include New York-based L-3 Communications, which holds a contract to provide translators to troops, and ITT Corp., a New York engineering and technology firm.

The most controversial contractors are those working for private security companies, including Blackwater, Triple Canopy and Erinys. They guard sensitive sites and provide protection to U.S. and Iraqi government officials and businessmen.
Security contractors draw some of the sharpest criticism, much of it from military policy experts who say their jobs should be done by the military. On several occasions, heavily armed private contractors have engaged in firefights when attacked by Iraqi insurgents.

Others worry that the private security contractors lack accountability. Although scores of troops have been prosecuted for serious crimes, only a handful of private security contractors have faced legal charges. The number of private security contractors in Iraq remains unclear, despite Central Command’s latest census. The Times identified 21 security companies in the Central Command database, deploying 10,800 men.

However, the Defense Department’s Motsek, who monitors contractors, said the Pentagon estimated the total was 6,000. Both figures are far below the private security industry’s own estimate of about 30,000 private security contractors working for government agencies, nonprofit organizations, media outlets and businesses.

Industry officials said that private security companies helped reduce the number of troops needed in Iraq and provided jobs to Iraqis - a benefit in a country with high unemployment.
“A guy who is working for a [private security company] is not out on the street doing something inimical to our interests,” said Lawrence Peter, director of the Private Security Company Assn. of Iraq.

Not surprisingly, Iraqis make up the largest number of civilian employees under U.S. contracts. Typically, the government contracts with an American firm, which then subcontracts with an Iraqi firm to do the job.

Stan Soloway, president of the Professional Services Council, a contractors’ trade group, said the number of Iraqis reflected the importance of the reconstruction and economic development efforts to the overall U.S. mission in Iraq.

“That’s not work that the government does or has ever done…. That’s work that is going to be done by companies and to some extent by” nongovernmental organizations, Soloway said. “People tend to think that these are contractors on the battlefield, and they’re not.”

The Iraqis have been the most difficult to track. As recently as May, the Pentagon told Congress that 22,000 Iraqis were employed by its contractors. But the Pentagon number recently jumped to 65,000 - a result of closer inspection of contracts, an official said.

The total number of Iraqis employed under U.S. contracts is important, in part because it may influence debate in Congress regarding how many Iraqis will be allowed to come to the U.S. to escape violence in their homeland.

This year, the U.S. planned to cap that number at 7,000 a year. To date, however, only a few dozen Iraqis have been admitted, according to State Department figures.

Kirk Johnson, head of the List Project, which seeks to increase the admission of Iraqis, said that the U.S. needed to provide a haven to those who worked most closely with American officials.
“We all say we are grateful to these Iraqis,” Johnson said. “How can we be the only superpower in the world that can’t implement what we recognize as a moral imperative?”

The back story
Information in this article is based in part on a database of contractors in Iraq obtained by The Times under the Freedom of Information Act, which allows the public access to government records.

The database is the result of a census conducted earlier this year by the U.S. Central Command.
The census found about 130,000 contractors working for 632 companies holding contracts in Iraq with the Defense Department and a handful of other federal agencies.
The Times received the database last month, four months after first requesting it. Because the Freedom of Information Act law requires an agency to provide only information as of the date of the request, the census is based on figures as of February. During interviews, Pentagon officials said the census had since been updated, and they provided additional figures based on the update.

Contractors in Iraq
There are more U.S.-paid private contractors than there are American combat troops in Iraq.
Contractors: 180,000
U.S. troops: 160,000

Continue reading the story

Petraeus Testamony

So ends the second day of General Petraeus' testimony on the current status on the Iraq war. The assessment was that there is less sectarian violence, the lowest since July and everything is going in a positive direction since the "surge."

Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker was just as optimistic. The liberal left cried "boooo, boooo" and the republican politicians jumped on the opportunity to humiliate their democrat cohorts by trying to get them to sign on to condemning the MoveOn.org ad. Apparently MoveOn paid $65,000 for a page ad in the NY Times, basically condemning Patraeus, stating, "Cooking the Books for the White House" and asserts "General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts."


Preview: Petraeus Goes to Washington President Bush chose Gen. David Petraeus to take command of American forces in Iraq for several reasons. He cited Iraq combat experience and counterinsurgency expertise, but Mr. Bush also hoped that the American public would find the articulate general more persuasive than a president who had “been here too long.” The latest New York Times/CBS News Poll seems to confirm his thinking. ..


Watching the Iraq Hearings, Day 1 The Lede is following the Petraeus-Crocker hearings live with the help of Times reporters in Washington, including Thom Shanker, who is inside the hearing room. Even though the boiled-down version of their message is now well-known — military progress has been uneven and political progress unsatisfactory — we are expecting to learn much from the testimony of the two star witnesses, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker. ...

Watching the Iraq Hearings, Day 2 Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker testified today in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee, and we followed the whole thing live with the help of Times reporters in Washington, including David Cloud, who contributed entries and reporting from inside the hearing room. On Monday, the two star witnesses argued to a House panel that military progress justified continued support for full troop strength in Iraq, despite little political progress. ...

Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified before a joint session of the House armed services and foreign affairs committees on Monday. In response to accusations that the General was a spokesman for the White House, Petraeus said that his testimony was purely his own, stating "as a bottom line up front, the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met." He talked of US troop levels beginning to fall by the summer of 2008.

The general presented slides depicting graphs to represent the progress that has been made since the "surge" was put into place, stating that"the nature of the conflict in Iraq, recall the situation before the surge, describe the current situation, and explain the recommendations I have provided to my chain of command for the way ahead in Iraq."

Petraeus' Testimony, Report To Congress on Iraq 9 pages pdf.

US Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan C. Crocker said a "secure, stable, democratic Iraq at peace with its neighbors is attainable." Further adding, "the process will not be quick, it will be uneven, punctuated by setbacks as well as achievements, and it will require substantial U.S. resolve and commitment." Both accounts depicted, overall, more pros than cons.

US Ambassador to Iraq: Ryan Crocker's Before Congress 9 pages pdf.

9/11 Anniversary, 6 years today

Today is the anniversary of 9/11. Some key things to contemplate as you go through life today.

• Those responsible - Al-Qaeda With center of gravity in Pakistan have an area of operation around the world, specifically: Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, United States, United Kingdom, Indonesia, Philippines, Jordan, Kuwait, Iran, Chechnya.


• State Sponsors - Formerly Sudan, Formerly Afghanistan. Not Iraq.


• Al-Qaeda's goal - To spread militant Sunni Islam worldwide


• Leader of Al-Qaeda - Osama bin Laden (full given name Osama bin Muhammad bin Awad bin Laden) a Saudi was born in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. He is 50 years old, born 1957, is 6'5" tall at 160 pounds.


• Osama bin Laden's history - Veteran of Afghanistan-Soviet civil war (1980-1989). 9/11 Attack on the Twin Towers in NY 2001 with a death toll 2,973 . Two East African US Embassy Bombings in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania in 1998. The FBI says 213 died at Nairobi, plus 12 at Tanzania, for a total of 225.

Who and what is Al-Qaeda? source

1) Al-Qaeda was formed in 1988 by veterans of the anti-Soviet civil war in Afghanistan, with the purpose of exporting the victory worldwide. At its core was Azzam and his deputy, bin Laden, who may have differed how best to proceed.

When Azzam was killed in 1989, bin Laden assumed full control of the organization.Though he was a Saudi, most of his senior leadership was Egyptian. Between 1991 and 1996, al-Qaeda was headquarted in Sudan, where it enjoyed friendly relations with the governing National Islamic Front. International pressure forced bin Laden to relocate back to Afghanistan in 1996, where it allied with the then-nascent Taliban. In late 2001, most of its training camps were destroyed, and the group became somewhat diffuse, with much of its leadership relocating either to Iran, the mountainous region along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, or to Pakistan's cities.

Many of those work in Pakistan's cities were caught. The status of the leadership in Iran remains unclear. Al-Qaeda's purpose is to spread jihad worldwide through a number of means, including funding and training Islamic and ethnic guerilla movements, issuing propaganda aimed at inspiring freelance jihadists to commit acts of terrorism, and organizating and conducting complex attacks on countries it sees opposing it. The organization is funded largely by charitable donations, some intended, and some diverted by symathizers from poorly managed Gulf charities. Before 9-11, the organization had an estimated annual budget of about $30 million.

2) Al-Qaeda (Translated from Arabic: The Base) is an international alliance of militant Sunni jihadist organizations. Its roots can be traced back to Osama bin Laden and others around the time of the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989. Al-Qaeda's objectives include the end of foreign influence in Muslim countries and the creation of a new Islamic caliphate.

Al-Qaeda has been labeled a terrorist organization...Its affiliates have executed attacks against targets in various countries, the most prominent being the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Northern Virginia. Following the September 11 attacks, the United States government launched a broad military and intelligence campaign known as the War on Terrorism, with the stated aim of dismantling al-Qaeda and killing or capturing its operatives.

Due to its structure of semi-autonomous cells, al-Qaeda's size and degree of responsibility for particular attacks are difficult to establish. However, this may also be because its size and degree are exaggerated. Although the governments opposed to al-Qaeda claim that it has worldwide reach, other analysts have suggested that those governments, as well as Osama bin Laden himself, exaggerate al-Qaeda's significance in Islamist terrorism. The neologism"al-Qaedaism" is applied to the wider context of those who independently conduct similar acts through political sympathy to al-Qaeda ideology or methods or the copycat effect.

This part is important...

Following the Soviet Union's withdrawal from Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 had put the country of Saudi Arabia and its ruling House of Saud at risk as Saudi's most valuable oil fields (Hama) were within easy striking distance of Iraqi forces in Kuwait, and Saddam's call to pan-Arab/Islamism could potentially rally internal dissent.

In the face of a seemingly massive Iraqi military presence, Saudi Arabia's own forces were well armed but far outnumbered. Bin Laden offered the services of his mujahedeen to King Fahd to protect Saudi Arabia from the Iraqi army.

The Saudi monarch refused bin Laden's offer, opting instead to allow U.S. and allied forces to deploy on Saudi territory. The deployment angered Bin Laden, as he believed the presence of foreign troops in the "land of the two mosques" (Mecca and Medina) profaned sacred soil. After speaking publicly against the Saudi government for harboring American troops, he was quickly forced into exile to Sudan and on April 9, 1994 his Saudi citizenship was revoked. His family publicly disowned him. There is controversy over whether and to what extent he continued to garner support from members of his family and/or the Saudi government.

Shortly afterwards, the movement that came to be known as al-Qaeda was formed.

This is the issue that Osama bin Laden has with the United States. It is not because they "hate our freedom." It is not because "he wants to terrorize Christians." It is because he doesn't like us in his home land territory.

Yes, Saddam was a brutal and bloody dictator. But that was never the issue. Saddam and Iraq and Osama/Al-Qaeda are two seperate entities. Iraq did not attack the United States.

Number Of Dead US Soldiers/Contractors and Iraqis

I’ve been wanting to put together a ticker for the dead soldiers in Iraq for quite some time now. Unfortunately, I have to deal with a simple graph of all the accumulated dead US Soldiers (including contractors) and Dead Iraqis (which includes civilians).

The numbers for the dead US Soldiers and dead Iraqis comes from ICaualties.org and AntiWar.com So far, we have 3919 dead US soldiers and contractors. We have caused the deaths of over 46,000 Iraqis, most who are civilians. Some estimates are between 60,000 to 600,000 all the way up to a million.

How many more soldiers have to die before we pull out? How many Iraqi civilians have to die before we realize that our actions are killing innocents? We killed over 3 Million Vietnamese people in Vietnam. We also lost close to 60,000 American soldiers. There are so many parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, It’s uncanny.

Ron Paul might be a WingNut with extreme thoughts, but he got one thing right… “Get the hell out of Iraq right now!”