The farce that is the global war on terror

Why is it that there are still (some) people who believe the U.S. is fighting a true "global war on terror" while the Bush administration arms the entire fucking planet to the teeth? Checkout how our government essentially props up our GDP via A Nation of Firsts Arms the World:

-First in Sales of Surface-to-Air Missiles:

Between 2001 and 2005, the United States delivered 2,099 surface-to-air missiles to nations in the developing world, 20% more than Russia, the next largest supplier.

-First in Sales of Military Ships:

During that same period, the U.S. sent 10 “major surface combatants” like aircraft carriers and destroyers to developing nations. Collectively, the four major European weapons producers shipped thirteen. (And we were first in the anti-ship missiles that go along with such ships, with nearly double (338) the exports of the next largest supplier Russia (180).

First in Military Training:

A thoughtful empire knows that it is not enough to send weapons; you have to teach people how to use them. The Pentagon plans on training the militaries of 138 nations in 2008 at a cost of nearly $90 million. No other nation comes close.

First in Weapons Sales:

Since 2001, U.S. global military sales have normally totaled between $10 and $13 billion. That’s a lot of weapons, but in fiscal year 2006, the Pentagon broke its own recent record, inking arms sales agreements worth $21 billion. It almost goes without saying that this is significantly more than any other nation in the world.

The U.S. also ranks first in oil consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, external debt, military expenditures, private military personnel, and radical Christian extremists!

Thanks a lot George Bush and co.!

[Cross posted at Daily Kos, and Raising Kaine]

Rumsfeld filled his pockets with Pyongyang's nuclear loot?

If this is true, well, all I can really say is that it doesn't surprise me.

It's a well-known fact--oft detailed in this column--that the boys in the Bush Regime swing both ways. We speak, of course, of their proclivity--their apparently uncontrollable craving--for stuffing their trousers with loot from both sides of whatever war or military crisis is going at the moment.

That's why it came as no surprise to read last week that just before he joined the Regime's crusade against evildoers everywhere (especially rogue states that pursue the development of terrorist-ready weapons of mass destruction), Pentagon warlord Donald Rumsfeld was trousering the proceeds from a $200 million deal to send the latest nuclear technology--including plenty of terrorist-ready "dirty bomb" material--to the rogue state of North Korea, Neue Zurcher Zeitung reports.

White House: bin Laden Capture "A Success That Hasn't Occurred Yet"

The White House told CNN White House correspondent Ed Henry recently that the capture of Osama bin Laden was not a failure of White House policy:

ED HENRY: You know, going back to September 2001, the president said, dead or alive, we're going to get him. Still don't have him. I know you are saying there's successes on the war on terror, and there have been. That's a failure.

FRANCES FRAGOS TOWNSEND: Well, I'm not sure -- it's a success that hasn't occurred yet. I don't know that I view that as a failure.

For more information on a success that hasn't occurred yet, see Iraq.

Update: White House denies it's at odds with Joint Chiefs

Cross posted at Raising Kaine.

The White House is denying that it is at odds with the Joint Chiefs of Staff over troop levels in Iraq after it was reported earlier today that the Joint Chiefs are opposed to Bush's plan for a temporary infusion of 15,000 to 30,000 troops to the country.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow accused the media of trying to fabricate a story that does not exist (this is becoming a disturbing trend for Snow, who accused an NBC reporter last week of being a partisan when he quoted a part of the Iraq study group report). A Reuters news article quoted Snow as saying the following:

"I think people are trying to create a fight between the president and the Joint Chiefs where one does not exist."

According to the article, Bush hasn't made a decision on Iraq, and has asked military commanders to consider numerous options on how to proceed forward:

"So the idea that there is a decision and a squabble would be wrong," Snow said.

Of the WaPo article which reported of the possible White House, Joint Chiefs squabble this morning, Tony Snow said:

"I'm saying, tonally, it's wrong."

Incoming House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) also said that he was skeptical about a troop infusion to Iraq:

"I don't think it will change a thing. It could actually exacerbate the situation even further. And I'm very concerned about additional burden on the Army and Marine Corps."

Not only that, but like I wrote this afternoon, many members of the Joint Chiefs feel a troop infusion may do nothing more than provide more "targets" for insurgents in Iraq, and create a broader appeal for terror recruiting.

In November, General John Abizaid, the U.S. military commander of forces in the Middle East said:

"Troop levels need to stay where they are."

Like the Iraq study group, Abizaid has rejected calls for troop increases, as well as any plan for immediate withdrawals. I agree with the General in that BOTH an IMMEDIATE withdrawal of all American forces from Iraq, AND an infusion of U.S. troops could EACH spell potential disaster.

In another story today from The Washington Post, Bush said that he believes the overall size of the army needs to increase. He told the WaPo that he planned to expand the size of the military to deal with a long term fight against terrorism.

"I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops -- the Army, the Marines," Bush said in the Oval Office session. "And I talked about this to Secretary Gates and he is going to spend some time talking to the folks in the building, come back with a recommendation to me about how to proceed forward on this idea."

I'm curious to know how the President plans on doing this, in an all volunteer force. Here's an idea that may help boost enlistment levels though: why don't we try paying our military members A DECENT WAGE, a wage that actually enables them to support their families? Why don't we stop telling BLATANT LIES to new recruits? Why don't we stop giving pay raises to members of Congress, and instead give raises to those who really need them, and deserve them, members of the U.S. military.

Another point of interest is this quote from Bush, where he seems to hint that the "war on terror" (not specifically just the war in Iraq) may be one that the U.S. is going to be involved in for a long, long time:

"It is an accurate reflection that this ideological war we're in is going to last for a while and that we're going to need a military that's capable of being able to sustain our efforts and to help us achieve peace."

Yes, and you're doing a fine job of that in Iraq, Mr. President. He went on to say the following (pay close attention to the bold text):

"There's no question the military has been used a lot. And the fundamental question is, will Republicans and Democrats be able to work with the administration to assure our military and the American people that we will position our military so that it is ready and able to stay engaged in a long war?"

Not quite sure what to make of that. Is Bush trying to say that it's going to be his way or "the highway" for Congress when it comes to his "war on terror?"

Regardless of whether or not the Joint Chiefs and the White House are at odds over troop levels (although I will say I have a feeling there is more truth to the WaPo article claiming there is a rift between the two, than Tony Snow's denial), any "infusion" of U.S. troops to Iraq, temporary or not, would be absurd. As the Pentagon has said, it would do nothing more than provide more targets to insurgents, and broaden the appeal for terror recruiting in the Middle East.

For all those interested, here are some additional interesting facts to consider regarding the U.S. military and the war in Iraq:

- The army has temporarily increased it's size from 482,000 active duty soldiers in 2001 to 507,00 today.
- That number will soon be increased to 512,000.
- The army wants to make the 30,000 increase permanent.
- After making the 30,000 increase permanent, the army wants to grow by about 7,000 soldiers or more per year.
- For every additional 10,000 soldiers, the army estimates a cost of about $1.2 billion per year.
- For the fiscal year that began October 1, 2006 - the U.S. cost in Iraq are likely to exceed $110 billion.
- For the fiscal year that ended September 30, 2006 - the U.S. spent $120 billion in Iraq.
- On Monday (December 18), the Pentagon said there has been a 22 percent rise in violence in Iraq over the past three months.

Charlie Rangel's draft proposal is still ridiculous; new poll numbers on Iraq

You may remember last month I wrote on Charlie Rangel's attempt to bring back mandatory military service to the United States for citizens aged 18-42, and then how virtually no one agrees with him. Well I ran across this piece of good news today, further proving that a draft in the U.S. is unnecessary, and ridiculous:

"Though Americans are increasingly pessimistic about the war in Iraq, the Pentagon said Tuesday it is having success enlisting new troops. The Navy and Air Force met their recruiting goals last month while the Army and Marine Corps exceeded theirs, the Defense Department announced."

According to the Associated Press article, the Army, bearing the brunt of the work in Iraq, did the best, signing up 6,485 recruits in November (it had a target of 6,150). The Pentagon released figures showing that in November, the Navy signed up 2,887 recruits (100% of it's goal), the Marines 2,095 (104% of it's goal), and the Air Force signed up all 1,877 of it's target.

The article also contained some new AP-Ipsos poll numbers:

63 percent of Americans said they don't expect a stable, democratic government to be established in Iraq, up from 54 percent back in June.

Dissatisfaction with President Bush's handling of Iraq has climbed to an all-time high of 71 percent.

Shocked? I'm not. In fact, I'm actually surprised the numbers aren't a tick higher.

A summary of the Iraq study panel's report

You can view the report here (PDF format).

Most of what I've seen today has been Republicans attacking the report, and Democrats are having mixed reactions, but the majority are receiving it favorably.

Check out Tony Snow today CALLING A REPORTER "PARTISAN" FOR QUOTING DIRECTLY FROM THE REPORT! Amazing, he manages to ANSWER NOTHING, while pulling a page RIGHT from the GOP playbook: attack the media!!!

According to another AP article which appeared on the Boston Globe's website, some U.S. soldiers didn't see a short term withdrawal from Iraq coming:

"There's no way we're leaving in two years no matter what any recommendation says," Spc. Eisenhower Atuatasi, 26, of Westminster, Calif., said. He thought 2012 was more realistic.

Sgt. Christopher Wiacik, 28, of Lavonia, Mich., also was pessimistic.

"It's just a study group. It's not really going to affect the president. I don't see any major changes happening until presidential elections start," Wiacik said. "I think both sides will promise to get troops out and give timelines then, but not before."

"We've been here for 12 months now and there's been no progress," said Spc. Richard Johnson, 20, of Bridgeport, Conn., as he manned a machine gun on the rooftop of an outpost ringed by a shallow moat of sewage.

"It's like holding a child's hand. How long can you hold onto his hand before he does something on his own?" Johnson said. "How much longer do we have to get shot at or blown up?"

1st Lt. Gerard Dow said he agreed with the commission's assessment that the situation in Iraq was "grave and disappointing."

"In Iraq, we try to win the hearts and minds of population," said Dow, 32, of Chicago. "They want Americans out of here. They blame us for all their problems. They look at us as the terrorists and then they turn around and help the terrorists who are trying to kill us."

He went on to say that he was angry because US soldiers are dying trying to help people that DON'T WANT THEIR HELP. That from a US SOLDIER ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ, NOT ME, NOT THE DEMOCRATS, BUT A U.S. SOLDIER!

He also told the AP that soldiers in Iraq welcomed the confirmation of new Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who will replace Donald Rumsfeld:

"Yes, please! All of us want to change what we're doing because we're not doing very much," said Staff Sgt. Rony Theodore, 33, of Brooklyn, N.Y.

"We're just sitting around not making any progress. It's annoying. You're not motivated to help anybody," he said, adding his contract was up in 2008 and he did not plan to re-enlist.

"I don't want to live my life like this," he said.

Members of Congress reacted earlier today as well:

"The report is an acknowledgment that there will be no military solution in Iraq. It will require a political solution arrived at through sustained Iraqi and region-wide diplomacy and engagement," said Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE).

"If the president is serious about the need for change in Iraq, he will find Democrats ready to work with him in a bipartisan fashion to find a way to end the war as quickly as possible," incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.

A quick look at the Virginia blogosphere showed that not many were talking about this. Vivian Paige gave it brief mention, and Rick Howell had a pretty good summary.

Although admittedly I have not read the entire report, maybe the reason some are neglecting to write about it is because it, in all honestly, really serves to do nothing more than confirm what most of us already knew. Again though, I have not read the whole thing, and would be interested to hear what other's think about it...

The United States is not losing, but not winning either?

Robert Gates, President Bush's nominee to run the Pentagon, was approved unanimously by a the Senate Armed Services Committee today. After five hours of questioning, the panel headed by Senator John Warner (R-VA), voted 21-0 to approve Gates. The full Senate is expected to vote by the end of the week.

According to an Associated Press article, Robert Gates said, if he is approved, he plans to visit U.S. commanders, and troops in Iraq soon. Gates also went on to say that the progress in Iraq is not satisfactory, and the U.S. needs a new strategy, but didn't commit to anything specific:

"What we are now doing is not satisfactory. In my view, all options are on the table in terms of how we address this problem in Iraq." He did not commit to any specific new course, saying he would consult first with commanders and others.

Gates was also asked by Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) if he thought the United States was winning in Iraq, to which he responsed "no, sir." "At this point," he went on to say that the United States is neither winning nor losing. I would agree with him on that point. The United States is certainly NOT WINNING, but we have not yet lost either, although I'm not sure if we'll ever achieve our original goals. As I mentioned the other day though, the White House may launch a plan to "dumb down Americans," and their expectations, to avoid the appearance of losing.

Levin responded to Gates' answers at the hearing this morning calling them a "welcome breath of honest, candid realism."

When White House Press Secretary Tony Snow was pressed on whether Gates and Bush had differing opinions on Iraq (which any idiot can clearly see that they DO):

Snow said that Gates' testimony, taken in its entirety, showed he shares Bush's view that the U.S. must help Iraq govern and defend itself.

"I know you want to pit a fight between Bob Gates and the president, it doesn't exist," Snow told reporters.

Sorry Tony, but no one is trying to "pit a fight" between Gates, and Bush, although it is pretty funny that you try and turn a perfectly logical question into such nonsense, to avoid having to give an intelligent answer.

Another question raised was whether Gates would be able to provide Bush with "independent" advice, not just be yet another rubber stamp to the administration, to which Gates told the panel:

"I did not give up my position as president of Texas A&M University and return to Washington to be a bump on a log."

We'll see. Frankly, I'm not convinced that a long time family friend of the Bush's, is going to be anything more than a rubber stamp to an administration that has clearly failed in Iraq. However, I hope Gates is indeed that independent voice that has been needed within the administration for some time now. I'll be pleasantly surprised though, if he is.

Older war supporters can now walk the walk!!!

Now the army is allowing you older war supporters to sign up! It's true, 35-42 years old? No problem, the military STILL WANTS YOU (if you're willing to put your money where your mouth is, as West of Shockoe puts it.)

Still supporting the war? Still want to run your mouth for hours on end about how it's unpatriotic not to support the war? Go ahead, sign up for yourself.

The plan to dumb down Americans and their expectations to avoid "losing"

Oh, this is rich, last night when I planned to write this, I thought it would just be a recap, and a brief opinion piece on how Rumsfeld had written a memo outlining the need for a change in strategy in Iraq just two days before he resigned. However, I've come to understand that, that wasn't his only intention. No, instead, Rumsfeld thought the White House needed to change strategy in Iraq, and LOWER AMERICAN EXPECTATIONS, BY REDEFINING VICTORY, TO AVOID THE APPEARANCE OF LOSING. That's right, instead of trying to change the strategy in an attempt to improve the situation in Iraq, he simply wanted to "trick" Americans into thinking we were winning by DUMBING US DOWN - and here's how the story goes:

Two days before resigning as Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld wrote to the White House explaining that he thought the strategy in Iraq was not working, and a major change was needed. According to an article which appeared on the New York Times' website, Rumsfeld recognized the need for a change:

"In my view it is time for a major adjustment," Rumsfeld wrote in a Nov. 6 memo to the White House. "Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough."

The story goes on to say that DONALD RUMSFELD HIMSELF WAS NOT CONFIDENT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WOULD ACCEPT ANY PLANS TO DEVELOP AN EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE STRATEGY, AND TO LIMIT FURTHER POLITICAL FALLOUT, HE SUGGESTED A CAMPAIGN TO LOWER PUBLIC EXPECTATIONS FOR SUCCESS IN IRAQ.

Hook. Line. Sinker.

Rumsfeld said that upon announcing any new strategy, the Bush administration should ALSO announce that they are only doing so on a "trial basis." Rumsfeld apparently wanted nothing more than to avoid appearing to have "lost."

“This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not ‘lose.’

Recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals (how we talk about them) — go minimalist."

According to the article, Rumsfeld wants to withhold reconstruction funding (and security), from areas prone to violence:

One of the more provocative options would punish provinces that failed to cooperate with the Americans by withdrawing economic assistance and security. “Stop rewarding bad behavior, as was done in Falluja when they pushed in reconstruction funds, and start rewarding good behavior,” the option reads. “No more reconstruction assistance in areas where there is violence.”

But wait, wouldn't this amount to "cutting and running?" One of the main talking points the GOP has used against the Democrats for MONTHS now?

To be fair though, no one is really paying any attention to this inane proposal by the outgoing Bush puppet. I'd also like to point out one proposal that's being disregarded (according to the NYT article) as "below the line (of acceptability):"

"...an international conference modeled on the Dayton accords that produced an agreement on Bosnia..."

Because clearly, meeting with other countries in an effort to solve the problem in Iraq is unpatriotic, and un-American.

All of this was leaked to the New York Times last night, and according to an Associated Press article, Pentagon press secretary Eric Ruff denied he was the source, but confirmed the memo's authenticity. Ruff told the AP:

"The formulation of these ideas evolved over a period of several weeks."

What, like maybe 156 of them?

Here's a few of the options listed in the memo, as they appeared in the afore mentioned AP article:

1. "Publicly announce a set of benchmarks agreed to by the Iraqi government and the U.S. ... to chart a path ahead for the Iraqi government and Iraqi people (to get them moving) and for the U.S. public (to reassure them that progress can and is being made)."

2. "Significantly increase U.S. trainers and embeds, and transfer more U.S. equipment to Iraqi security forces."

3. "Initiate a reverse embeds program ... by putting one or more Iraqi soldiers with every U.S. and possibly coalition squad."

4. Aggressively beef up Iraqi ministries by reaching out to U.S. military retirees and Reserve and National Guard volunteers.

5. Conduct an accelerated drawdown of U.S. bases, noting they have already been reduced from 110 to 55. "Plan to get down to 10 to 15 bases by April 2007, and to 5 bases by July 2007."

6. "Retain high-end ... capability ... to target al-Qaida, death squads, and Iranians in Iraq, while drawing down all other coalition forces, except those necessary to provide certain key enablers" for Iraqi forces.

7. Provide U.S. security forces "only for those provinces or cities that openly request U.S. help and that actively cooperate."

8. Stop rewarding "bad behavior" with reconstruction funds and start rewarding "good behavior."

9. "Position substantial U.S. forces near the Iranian and Syrian borders to reduce infiltration and, importantly, reduce Iranian influence on the Iraqi government."

10. Withdraw U.S. forces from vulnerable positions and move to a quick reaction force status, operating from within Iraq and Kuwait, to be available when Iraqi security forces need assistance.

11. "Begin modest withdrawals of U.S. and coalition forces (start `taking our hand off the cycle seat') so Iraqis know they have to pull up their socks, step up and take responsibility for their country."

In conclusion, America, the GOP thinks you're simply too stupid to understand, and all they really want to do is lower your expectations to avoid the appearance of "loss." Please remember this in 2008.

Faux News joins Newt in making the case to destroy the first amendment

Here's a bit of a followup (sort of) to a story I mentioned in Tuesday night's (November 28) Daily RunDown, about Newt Gingrich's desire to burn the Constitution, saying that he thinks America needs to rethink free speech before we "lose a city" (won't the GOP ever grow tired of using scare tactics on American citizens dumb enough to believe them?).

Anyway, I found the video below via a News Hounds column revealing a stark contrast in the way the story was covered by both Faux News, and Countdown w/ Keith Olbermann. While Faux, as you may have guessed, used the afore mentioned scare tactics, Olbermann gave the ENTIRE STORY, and, unlike Faux, turned to someone who might actually KNOW SOMETHING on the subject.

For reaction, Olberrmann went to Jonathan Turley, an expert on constitutional law from George Washington University. Turley warned that Gingrich's appeal likely fall on receptive ears among some Americans because fear can be a powerful motivator. "People don't seem to appreciate that you really can't save a constitution by destroying it," he said.

MacCallum's piece, which ran on Wednesday (November 29, 2006) was markedly different. She framed the story with an unrelated event -- the guilty pleas of two Texas men to charges that they tried to join the Taliban by using their ATM cards to send money to a charity. Then she quoted only a brief segment of Gingrich's remarks, the scary part: "We need to get ahead of the curve before we actually lose a city ... which I believe could happen in the next decade."

For comment, MacCallum turned not to experts on the constitution, but to a former FBI official and a terrorism analyst. Their comments focused almost exclusively on the lack of funds for fighting terrorism and the problems raised for law enforcement by the constitution. MacCallum introduced one of them by asking, "Are we mired in our own muck in terms of our intelligence?"

"We need to get out of our own way. We are defining as civil liberties things that are basic to investigative law enforcement, protecting us against terrorism," said David Katz, a terrorism analyst.

MacCallum never questioned the Gingrich premise -- that law enforcement lacks the tools for fighting terrorism. She never expressed any doubts about the loss of free speech and how that would be administered. She never mentioned Gingrich's proposal that web sites that someone deems dangerous (like this one?) should be closed down.

And she totally missed the irony of Gingrich making his proposal at a First Amendment dinner. But then, that's no surprise.

No surprise indeed. Checkout the video for yourself: