'I Am Not in the Entertainment Business'

and Other Rules of MacNeil/Lehrer Journalism

As the PBS Newshour once again changes it's name and enhances it's News gathering and presentation of using the tools of expanding technology in the 21st century Jim Lehrer closed the friday show off with the following:

JIM LEHRER: People often ask me if there are guidelines in our practice of what I like to call MacNeil/Lehrer journalism. Well, yes, there are. And here they are:

* Do nothing I cannot defend.

* Cover, write and present every story with the care I would want if the story were about me.

* Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story.

* Assume the viewer is as smart and as caring and as good a person as I am.

* Assume the same about all people on whom I report.

* Assume personal lives are a private matter, until a legitimate turn in the story absolutely mandates otherwise.

* Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories, and clearly label everything.

* Do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes, except on rare and monumental occasions.

* No one should ever be allowed to attack another anonymously.

* And, finally, I am not in the entertainment business.

Here is how I closed a speech about our changes to our PBS stations family last spring:

"We really are the fortunate ones in the current tumultuous world of journalism right now. When we wake up in the morning, we only have to decide what the news is and how we are going to cover it. We never have to decide who we are and why we are there."

That is the way it has been for these nearly 35 years. And that's the way it will be forever. And for the NewsHour, there will always be a forever.

Visit the The New but still PBS News Hour to view the new look, new add-ons, new or expanded collaborations with others and more.

These Simple Rules

Are what should be followed by All Media Outlets, separating them from their 'entertainment and opinion' addon's, which is many cases, even local outlets, is now totally blurred journalism or more often not even journalism!

They should also be followed by the legitimate new technology online sources with no expanded ego's nor arrogance if the few become the popular high traffic sites. And everyone should check other sources before giving senseless and way to often possibly dangerous opinionated responses.

Speaking of PBS

Bill Moyers Journal, Essay: War Powers last night:



And Talking to brother 'Nam Vet Oliver Stone

"Trooper"

Murphy OShea, an Iraq Veteran, has a hard time re-adjusting to society upon his return from a long tour. His world crumbles when he discovers his father, Bill, a Vietnam Veteran, is dying. Trooper is a story of a father and son, two veterans from two very different Wars, helping each other to get through each day, and heal the wounds of War.

Trailer

“Finally, a film producer that gets it right! Trooper may serve well to educate an unaware public about the epidemic level of emotional trauma that today’s young warriors are living with. It is a dark journey and this film captures its pain—and also gives us a glimmer of hope.” Rev. Bill McDonald Founder The Military Writer’s Society of America.

MOVIE REVIEW: TROOPER

Iraq War Inquiry, Day Seven

Today, Dec 4th, they're already into day eight of the Inquiry with that covering "Military Planning" and "The view from London and Baghdad 2004-2007".

But so far some of what has come forth has been that the administration, long before Sept 11 2001 were focusing on regime change in Iraq and probably looking for ways to justify their wants. On 9/11 Condi Rice mentioned not only al Qaeda as being suspected guilty parties to the attacks that day but also Saddam might have had a hand in them. This while the rest of the Country was intently focused on the devastating Deaths and Destruction and while the President was flying around the Country instead of directly back to Washington from the Florida visit when the attacks took place. Not three days later even President Bush was talking up possible Saddam's guilt

Well yesterday it was Donald Rumsfeld turn on the wheel, the then growing darling of the U.S. press but soon to find out by many "you go to war with the secretary of defense you have!". On day 7 we find out that while seeking backing from the Brits he was only conferring with Col. Franks in Florida and little to nothing with the Joint Chiefs or other Military nor Civilian connections in Washington. In other words, they testified, that back in the First Gulf War everyone was in the loop, this coming invasion of Iraq, while busy seeking reasons for, almost everyone was kept out of the need to know anything and the Brits were answering the questions of the State Department and others. As you'll see in the cut of the transcript below.

Now remember We and the Brits, along with other NATO forces, had already planned then invaded Afghanistan, troops on the ground and an intense Guerilla Insurgency by the Taliban and supporters of had been started.

Iraq inquiry – live

Minute-by-minute coverage as Chilcot hears evidence from Admiral Lord Boyce and Sir Kevin Tebbitt

Today, for the first time, we're going to hear from the armed forces. The Iraq inquiry is taking evidence on the military preparations for war and it will be quizzing Admiral Lord Boyce, the chief of the defence staff from 2001 to 2003. Boyce will be appearing alongside Sir Kevin Tebbit, permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence from 1998 to 2005.

Snip

Sir Roderic Lyne starts the questions. He goes back to late 2001. Britain went into Afghanistan. As far as Iraq was concerned, the containment policy was beginning to "creak". In the US people were beginning to talk about "doing Iraq" after Afghanistan. At what point did the MoD start thinking about the contingency of full-scale military action against Iraq and discussing it informally with officials in the US?

Boyce says that in the later part of 2001 he heard talk from the Americans about Iraq. "We absolutely did not want to get involved in such conversations." No contingency planning went on in relation to Iraq. The MoD was heavily preoccupied with Afghanistan.

Snip

But it was clear that the "axis of evil" speech meant the Americans were considering military action. Tebbit knew from his own visits to the US that the neocons were pushing for military action. In the papers prepared for Blair's visit to Crawford "we needed to consider that option".

Snip

Tebbit says: "I think that was indeed that case." In July 2002 everyone involved tried to make sure those conditions were being pursued. But the environment in Washington made this "hard". The military planning track involved a dialogue between Donald Rumsfeld and the central command at Tampa. The Washington chiefs of staff were less involved. The system of "well-structured" discussions between the state department and the Pentagon and other agencies that had existed at the time of the first Gulf war was not evident this time round.

Boyce mentions the "dysfunctionalism" of Washington. He says that he would find himself briefing his American counterparts on what was happening in different parts of the US adminstration. Rumsfeld was not sharing information....>>>>>

Seems talk of Iraq's oil was also being brought up, the reasons sound legit but could there be that underlining many still think was a big part of toppling Saddam, our oil was under the Iraqi's sand.

Sir Kevin Tebbit gives evidence at the Iraq inquiry

Former permanent secretary at the MoD gives evidence at the Iraq inquiry, where he says Britain had to consider the oil in the north of the country when invading

Secrecy delayed Iraq war planning

The former Chief of the Defence Staff was told to remain silent on preparations for the Iraq War in case it harmed the UK's chances of securing a UN Security Council resolution, the Iraq War Inquiry has heard.

"I was not allowed to speak, for example, to the chief of defence logistics," said Admiral Lord Boyce, who was Chief of the Defence Staff from 2001 to 2003.

Snip

The Former Chief of the Defence Staff revealed that American officials, Donald Rumsfeld in particular, would not countenance the idea of Britain not being involved in the conflict without a UN resolution. "We know you say that, but come the day you will be there' was the attitude," said Lord Boyce...>>>>>

ONLY 24 HOURS TO SPARE IN RUSH FOR IRAQ

Tony Blair and his Cabinet gave military chiefs so little time to plan the Iraq war that some units were ready only 24 hours before the invasion, the inquiry into the conflict heard yesterday.

Former chief of defence staff Admiral Sir Michael Boyce said ministers were worried deployment details would leak out, wrecking efforts to get a UN resolution requiring Iraq to give up weapons of mass destruction.

The issue was considered so sensitive he was ordered by the then Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon not even to discuss war plans with the chief of defence logistics...>>>>>

Armed forces chief reveals Campbell role

Alastair Campbell, the former Downing Street spin-doctor, asked the head of the armed forces to give Tony Blair a more "glass half-full" assessment of Iraq war preparations, it emerged yesterday.

Lord Boyce, the former chief of defence staff, told the Iraq inquiry that he was "taken aside" and asked to give more optimistic advice after warning the prime minister over military planning. The inquiry did not ask who urged Lord Boyce to offer more upbeat analysis. But he later confirmed to the Financial Times he was approached by Mr Campbell.

Lord Boyce told the inquiry that he had been "very frustrated" because he had been prevented from ordering kit and mobilising troops for the Iraq war as ministers feared "military signals" would "scotch" public support.

Snip

Lord Boyce said the military efforts were "anorexic" and "terribly underresourced" because senior US officials never prepared for the army to have a peacekeeping role. "I could not get across to them that the coalition would not be seen as a liberation force and that flowers would not be stuffed at the end of rifles," he said...>>>>>

Americans knew us better than we knew ourselves

There was one gesture from Sir Kevin towards the end; a small, placating, slightly circular sort of gesture across his arm to Lord Boyce (who'd just said that the Yanks' Iraq troop commitment had been "anorexic"). "We certainly encouraged them to have a maximum coalition effort," he said before adding: "That perhaps is the way round it."

There were some big things in yesterday's evidence but it's the little things that last. "That perhaps is the way round it" was a highlight for Sir Kevin Tebbit, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence. It was very nearly a flawless performance – we still need a better way round the lack of a second resolution. He said it didn't matter in the end because it was the result of "unreasonable behavior by the Security Council". That needs more work. He'd been running interference on Lord Boyce, who'd had a number of frank things to say. "We kept telling the Americans how important to us the UN and Parliament were but there was a complete reluctance to believe us. 'We know you have to say that but come the day you'll be there.'" That's what the Americans said – and how right they were. They knew us better than we knew ourselves....>>>>>

You get the jist of yesterdays testimony and for more you can find a growing slew of reports esopecially at outlets over the pond but even some here are taking notice. The Guardian has been doing alot of reporting and archiving those at that link.

One of many devastating issues developed as to the invasion and long occupation of Iraq not covered in the so called media, one would think there's a want and need to keep it out of site, is the creation of millions of refugees, Iraqi refugees, within their own country or escaping to the neighboring countries, the cleansing of Iraq!

Iraqi Refugees: Women on the Margins

Many Iraqi women refugees, sheltered temporarily in Syria, bear the scars and trauma of extreme violence suffered in their homeland. Ethnic and religious-based persecution tore apart previously stable communities in Iraq, removing these women and their children from their traditional support systems. Stripped of the normal protections of home and extended family life they exist on the margins of society.

Refugee widows and single women without the support and protection of male relatives face substantial psychological and physical risk. When we were speaking with Iraqi refugees earlier this year, many single heads of families remarked on their ability to access Syrian public health care and education for their children and the kindness of many Syrians. Yet other refugee widows and single women expressed their unhappiness and fear over some of neighbors questioning their character and virtue, believing good women would not live alone...>>>>>

And, as mentioned above, while all this planning, quietly, was taking place as to invading Iraq and toppling Saddam we had troops in Afghanistan, Afghanistan where al Qaeda was hold up and the Taliban regime was protecting. As it seemed the focus even before the invasion of that country took place to get to the guilty band of extremist who carried out 9/11 was on and growing towards Iraq, the President was telling everyone we were going to get bin Laden Dead or Alive but we were going to get him.

He hasn't been gotten and we're well into our ninth year of occupying the country. And while everyone was focused on Iraq the Taliban and their supporters have only grown in numbers, we created the recruiting tools needed, especially the killing of innocent people, in Afghanistan and for the last few years across the border into Pakistan.

Here's a light shined on that Country as we are set to send in more military troops:

Covert Black Ops: How to Create More Enemies

Especially when not overseen nor carried out by Military/Intelligence Personal but outside the Military and it's Chain of Command as well as UCMJ and International/National Laws by Private Government Contractors!

Dec. 3: Rachel Maddow is joined by Jeremy Scahill whose cover story in The Nation magazine is about U.S. contractors working in Afghanistan, and Blackwater founder Erik Prince's roots in the CIA.

The Secret US War in Pakistan

The source, who has worked on covert US military programs for years, including in Afghanistan and Pakistan, has direct knowledge of Blackwater's involvement. He spoke to The Nation on condition of anonymity because the program is classified. The source said that the program is so "compartmentalized" that senior figures within the Obama administration and the US military chain of command may not be aware of its existence.

Snip

The military intelligence source says that the drone strike that reportedly killed Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, his wife and his bodyguards in Waziristan in August was a CIA strike, but that many others attributed in media reports to the CIA are actually JSOC strikes. "Some of these strikes are attributed to OGA [Other Government Agency, intelligence parlance for the CIA], but in reality it's JSOC and their parallel program of UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] because they also have access to UAVs. So when you see some of these hits, especially the ones with high civilian casualties, those are almost always JSOC strikes." The Pentagon has stated bluntly, "There are no US military strike operations being conducted in Pakistan."

Snip

The military intelligence source also confirmed that Blackwater continues to work for the CIA on its drone bombing program in Pakistan, as previously reported in the New York Times, but added that Blackwater is working on JSOC's drone bombings as well. "It's Blackwater running the program for both CIA and JSOC," said the source. When civilians are killed, "people go, 'Oh, it's the CIA doing crazy shit again unchecked.' Well, at least 50 percent of the time, that's JSOC [hitting] somebody they've identified through HUMINT [human intelligence] or they've culled the intelligence themselves or it's been shared with them and they take that person out and that's how it works."

The military intelligence source says that the CIA operations are subject to Congressional oversight, unlike the parallel JSOC bombings. "Targeted killings are not the most popular thing in town right now and the CIA knows that," he says. "Contractors and especially JSOC personnel working under a classified mandate are not [overseen by Congress], so they just don't care. If there's one person they're going after and there's thirty-four people in the building, thirty-five people are going to die. That's the mentality." He added, "They're not accountable to anybody and they know that. It's an open secret, but what are you going to do, shut down JSOC?"...>>>>>

Why they hate us: How many Muslims has the U.S. killed in the past 30 years?

Tom Friedman had an especially fatuous column in Sunday's New York Times, which is saying something given his well-established capacity for smug self-assurance. According to Friedman, the big challenge we face in the Arab and Islamic world is "the Narrative" -- his patronizing term for Muslim views about America's supposedly negative role in the region. If Muslims weren't so irrational, he thinks, they would recognize that "U.S. foreign policy has been largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny." He concedes that we made a few mistakes here and there (such as at Abu Ghraib), but the real problem is all those anti-American fairy tales that Muslims tell each other to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions.

I heard a different take on this subject at a recent conference on U.S. relations with the Islamic world. In addition to hearing a diverse set of views from different Islamic countries, one of the other participants (a prominent English journalist) put it quite simply. "If the United States wants to improve its image in the Islamic world," he said, "it should stop killing Muslims."

Snip

Contrary to what Friedman thinks, our real problem isn't a fictitious Muslim "narrative" about America's role in the region; it is mostly the actual things we have been doing in recent years. To say that in no way justifies anti-American terrorism or absolves other societies of responsibility for their own mistakes or misdeeds. But the self-righteousness on display in Friedman's op-ed isn't just simplistic; it is actively harmful. Why? Because whitewashing our own misconduct makes it harder for Americans to figure out why their country is so unpopular and makes us less likely to consider different (and more effective) approaches...>>>>

Innocent civilians killed, especially in large numbers, all have relatives, friends and regional ties to their countries and neighbors, who survive them many being younger children or young adults, does anyone think they just say "Oh well it was a mistake and we forgive!!", would you!

As well as these types of policies, silent or known, have grave 'blowback' on not only Military personal, in the occupied theater of operations, but also civilians anywhere from criminal terrorist actions!

Covert Black Ops: How to Create More Enemies

Especially when not overseen nor carried out by Military/Intelligence Personal but outside the Military and it's Chain of Command as well as UCMJ and International/National Laws by Private Government Contractors!

Dec. 3: Rachel Maddow is joined by Jeremy Scahill whose cover story in The Nation magazine is about U.S. contractors working in Afghanistan, and Blackwater founder Erik Prince's roots in the CIA.

The Secret US War in Pakistan

The source, who has worked on covert US military programs for years, including in Afghanistan and Pakistan, has direct knowledge of Blackwater's involvement. He spoke to The Nation on condition of anonymity because the program is classified. The source said that the program is so "compartmentalized" that senior figures within the Obama administration and the US military chain of command may not be aware of its existence.

Snip

The military intelligence source says that the drone strike that reportedly killed Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, his wife and his bodyguards in Waziristan in August was a CIA strike, but that many others attributed in media reports to the CIA are actually JSOC strikes. "Some of these strikes are attributed to OGA [Other Government Agency, intelligence parlance for the CIA], but in reality it's JSOC and their parallel program of UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] because they also have access to UAVs. So when you see some of these hits, especially the ones with high civilian casualties, those are almost always JSOC strikes." The Pentagon has stated bluntly, "There are no US military strike operations being conducted in Pakistan."

Snip

The military intelligence source also confirmed that Blackwater continues to work for the CIA on its drone bombing program in Pakistan, as previously reported in the New York Times, but added that Blackwater is working on JSOC's drone bombings as well. "It's Blackwater running the program for both CIA and JSOC," said the source. When civilians are killed, "people go, 'Oh, it's the CIA doing crazy shit again unchecked.' Well, at least 50 percent of the time, that's JSOC [hitting] somebody they've identified through HUMINT [human intelligence] or they've culled the intelligence themselves or it's been shared with them and they take that person out and that's how it works."

The military intelligence source says that the CIA operations are subject to Congressional oversight, unlike the parallel JSOC bombings. "Targeted killings are not the most popular thing in town right now and the CIA knows that," he says. "Contractors and especially JSOC personnel working under a classified mandate are not [overseen by Congress], so they just don't care. If there's one person they're going after and there's thirty-four people in the building, thirty-five people are going to die. That's the mentality." He added, "They're not accountable to anybody and they know that. It's an open secret, but what are you going to do, shut down JSOC?"...>>>>>

Why they hate us: How many Muslims has the U.S. killed in the past 30 years?

Tom Friedman had an especially fatuous column in Sunday's New York Times, which is saying something given his well-established capacity for smug self-assurance. According to Friedman, the big challenge we face in the Arab and Islamic world is "the Narrative" -- his patronizing term for Muslim views about America's supposedly negative role in the region. If Muslims weren't so irrational, he thinks, they would recognize that "U.S. foreign policy has been largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny." He concedes that we made a few mistakes here and there (such as at Abu Ghraib), but the real problem is all those anti-American fairy tales that Muslims tell each other to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions.

I heard a different take on this subject at a recent conference on U.S. relations with the Islamic world. In addition to hearing a diverse set of views from different Islamic countries, one of the other participants (a prominent English journalist) put it quite simply. "If the United States wants to improve its image in the Islamic world," he said, "it should stop killing Muslims."

Snip

Contrary to what Friedman thinks, our real problem isn't a fictitious Muslim "narrative" about America's role in the region; it is mostly the actual things we have been doing in recent years. To say that in no way justifies anti-American terrorism or absolves other societies of responsibility for their own mistakes or misdeeds. But the self-righteousness on display in Friedman's op-ed isn't just simplistic; it is actively harmful. Why? Because whitewashing our own misconduct makes it harder for Americans to figure out why their country is so unpopular and makes us less likely to consider different (and more effective) approaches...>>>>

Innocent civilians killed, especially in large numbers, all have relatives, friends and regional ties to their countries and neighbors, who survive them many being younger children or young adults, does anyone think they just say "Oh well it was a mistake and we forgive!!", would you!

As well as these types of policies, silent or known, have grave 'blowback' on not only Military personal, in the occupied theater of operations, but also civilians anywhere from criminal terrorist actions!

GOP takes on Franken

With NO APOLOGIES to those who've been Forcefully Attacked and Raped by their rubber stamped no bid Private Government Contractors, War Profiteers Especially, instead they Attack the messenger seeking Justice for those who have been!!

Dec. 3: The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson talks about why Republican senators are rallying against an amendment introduced by Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn. The amendment would prevent the government from doing business with military contractors.

Violation of Disability Rights

Protest of McDonalds over Violation of Disability Rights

Capt. Luis Montalvan was joined by supporters to protest his mistreatment by McDonald's employees when he went there to eat with his service dog, Tuesday.

Protest of McDonalds over Violation of Disability Rights

Luis Carlos Montalván's Facebook Page for more on this.

Why they hate us........

How many Muslims has the U.S. killed in the past 30 years?

Tom Friedman had an especially fatuous column in Sunday's New York Times, which is saying something given his well-established capacity for smug self-assurance. According to Friedman, the big challenge we face in the Arab and Islamic world is "the Narrative" -- his patronizing term for Muslim views about America's supposedly negative role in the region. If Muslims weren't so irrational, he thinks, they would recognize that "U.S. foreign policy has been largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny." He concedes that we made a few mistakes here and there (such as at Abu Ghraib), but the real problem is all those anti-American fairy tales that Muslims tell each other to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions.

I heard a different take on this subject at a recent conference on U.S. relations with the Islamic world. In addition to hearing a diverse set of views from different Islamic countries, one of the other participants (a prominent English journalist) put it quite simply. "If the United States wants to improve its image in the Islamic world," he said, "it should stop killing Muslims."

Snip

Contrary to what Friedman thinks, our real problem isn't a fictitious Muslim "narrative" about America's role in the region; it is mostly the actual things we have been doing in recent years. To say that in no way justifies anti-American terrorism or absolves other societies of responsibility for their own mistakes or misdeeds. But the self-righteousness on display in Friedman's op-ed isn't just simplistic; it is actively harmful. Why? Because whitewashing our own misconduct makes it harder for Americans to figure out why their country is so unpopular and makes us less likely to consider different (and more effective) approaches...>>>>

Obama: War President?!

Last night after the Presidents speech at West Point, and since, everyone is attempting to break it down, praise it, or totally attack the policy of another escalation of troops into an already long running occupation of the country of Afghanistan. This occupation stopped being anything about the attacks on this country on Sept 11, 2001 as soon as the first drumbeat towards invasion and then long occupation of an innocent country and people Iraq. Afghanistan stagnated into an occupation and insurgent war of continuing death and destruction to all involved but especially to the greater innocent population of Afghanistan now into it's ninth year!

I watched two reports, this morning on the Rachel Maddow show, which touch well on what I'd like to say, that gives us cuts of speeches made by then President bush about Afghanistan, in comparing what President Obama laid out last night on the current Escalation {Not surge} of military personnel into the long occupation of Afghanistan, and his vision called "The Bush Doctrine" and what was left to this Present Administration and Country by Them. And this is just about the two present occupations, not the economy, the deficit which is tied in by the costs of both occupations off the books plus, the possible rampant corruption from the incompetent policies and the no bid contracts to War profiteers, and much more!

We now know, coming out daily, that the bush admin, prior to 9/11 and then within hours of the destruction and deaths of 9/11 and going forward, they were starting to focus more on Iraq and Regime Change there than on Afghanistan, al Qaeda and bin Laden. How do we know that, besides what had already surfaced these years, through the British Iraq War Inquiry with pieces of information coming daily since last week. There's a day off from testimony today but more coming from the Inquiry again tomorrow when British Military and MoD personal testify! What I hope is that there are some questions as to what these military and MoD personal might have also been discussing with their American military and DoD counterparts as to what was already going on the Afghanistan invasion and beginning occupation by U.S. forces, British forces joined with others through the United Nations.

The Bush Doctrine


Rachel next discusses the concept of "Counter Insurgency" with Lt Col. John Nagl an architect of the current counter Insurgency concept, supposedly updating what was left from our Vietnam occupation debacle.

I would hope that in McCrystal's wants, and now President Obama's CiC policy, they understand that the Taliban, probably al Qaeda {the ghost enemy meme which is anyone we label as a member of or supporter that we can't pigeon hole anywhere else in our Fear/War Speak just as we use Terrorists while waging Terror}, and the others of another Mujahadeen are also going to be building up forces from around the regions, especially Afghanistan and Pakistan but possibly the destroyed Iraq, just as they built up against the Soviets, only now they're really pissed off as to the damage and deaths caused in the region, not just Afghanistan, these past years! The Insurgent forces, people of the country and region already did so after the previous buildup of troops only months ago. We've seen the results in the rising number of military personal killed and maimed these last couple of months and the brazen attacks on coalition forces outposts around Afghanistan.

CounterInsurgency in Afghanistan


Lets look at "Counter Insurgency" which covers many aspects after an invasion and starting occupation of a Country invaded:

Counter-insurgency is common during occupation and armed rebellion.

One extremely important aspect of any try at success in an Insurgent War, the fighting back by the invaded and occupied as to the occupying forces, is the winning of the Hearts and Minds of the population by the occupying forces. You already go in at an extreme negative as soon as the bombs start dropping, the artillery and missiles start flying and destroying and the bullets start flying and killing. They are killing and maiming more of the innocent population then any insurgent push back causing many of the survivors of to join or support the insurgency, for many obvious reasons.

Saying the above there was a point of a very possible chance of success in our invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11, and the "Counter Insurgency" ideals. The World watched what happened that day, they joined in our sorrow and rage and the evidence seemingly showed who was responsible. We and they knew where those who planned and came out of to implement these attacks came from, Afghanistan militant camps, allowed to function in a country ruled by a rogue government few in the world recognized and many within wanted gone.

That chance quickly dissolved as the drums of another invasion, war and then occupation started beating towards the innocent people of Iraq and we're still there as well.

Once the Taliban regime was toppled and they and the ghost enemy al Qaeda were put on the run, instead of boxing them in, as they ran across the border into Pakistan, and with the help of the then Pakistan regime and the regions other countries possible help, and bringing in what had been promised the rebuilding monies and the NGO's needed to help the Afghans rebuild after years of destructive war with the Soviets and then the rule under the Taliban, we allowed the occupation to basically stagnate into ongoing killing, maiming and destruction in many area's of the country for the next eight years and still ongoing, now ramping up with more occupation forces! The line was crossed way back and any chance has been lost as to "Hearts and Minds" of those who call Afghanistan home. Too many deaths, too many maimed, too much destruction, too many refugee's in country and outside of it's borders now after this almost decade of War!

What we, the arrogant, apathetic, military and once economic power United States, as well as other so called developed nations, are asking the Afghan people as well as the Iraqi people and many in Pakistan is to forget the terror and destruction wrought on them over many years of invading and then occupying their countries, just forget and accept what we are now trying to do, whatever that may be, and become our friends!

Would You!

No You Wouldn't, as we've watched this Country, since 9/11, deteriorate into one of hate speak towards each, acts of violence on each other with twisted political and religious ideologies at the base of, and extreme racism coming out once again! As well as being witness to these long occupations, the numbers rising of the soldiers we've sent being killed and maimed, the civilians of these occupied countries fleeing into refugee status as well as killed and maimed in ever growing numbers, we've been witness to the rising hatreds, fear and want for total destruction of those 'over there so we don't have them here' and the hatreds towards each other fed on by the few who manage to jump on those fears with a mike in their hands or ability to use extremism on our airways, in public gatherings as well as the halls of our government!

We, as Americans, can get extremely Mad and keep that feeling growing into Hatreds of others, not just those who are guilty but any who come from the same area's of the planet or believe in ideologies or religions many don't accept and even live amoug us.

But let those we've sent our military forces in to occupy get Mad and start Hating us and that's Unacceptable!

The following is used as a signature by a brother veteran:
Blood cannot wash away blood. Hate cannot wash away hate. War cannot wash away war. ( an Afghan Proverb )

PTSD as a mitigating factor

Supreme Court throws out Korean war veteran's death sentence

PTSD must be considered by a jury, the justices rule for the first time in a Florida case in which murderer George Porter's own lawyer didn't know he served in the Army, earning two Purple Hearts.

Reporting from Washington - The Supreme Court on Monday threw out a death sentence for a decorated Korean War veteran, ruling for the first time that combat stress must be considered by a jury before it hands down the harshest punishment.

"Our nation has a long tradition of according leniency to veterans in recognition of their service, especially for those who fought on the front lines as [George] Porter did," the justices said in a unanimous, unsigned opinion. "Moreover, the relevance of Porter's extensive combat experience is not only that he served honorably . . . but also that the jury might find mitigating the intense stress and mental and emotional toll that combat took on Porter." George Porter Jr. was convicted in the 1986 shooting deaths of his ex-girlfriend and her then-boyfriend in Florida during a drunken rage. But the jury that sentenced him was never told -- and his appointed lawyer did not know -- of his military service more than three decades earlier...>>>>>

This is Big and one of the many issues, as to Combat PTSD, we've been trying to get across these last four plus decades!!!

Iraq War Inquiry, Day Six

As we wait to hear President Obama we already know that he will be increasing military troops in Afghanistan. We now need to hear just what the plan is now going to be, i.e. Exit Strategy, once a mainstay meme of the so called Strong on National Defense GOP. Even a certain State Governor called on the meme: "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is," - George W. Bush, Texas Gov., 1999

But that was before they increased the hatreds and thus possible enemies towards us a thousand fold and for the coming decades!

I have had on my own mind, especially as I've been catching these reports out of the Inquiry, that we and the U.N. had military troops in Afghanistan already fighting and supposedly searching for the ghost enemy al Qaeda and Especially, "wanted dead or alive", bin Laden, while the drums started beating towards Iraq, We've learned those drum beats started right on 9/11 only hours after the destruction and death, mentioned by Condi Rice and then some three days later by President Bush himself.

This has started raising some more questions we need to hear answers for. We had promised, and not only us but the other western countries, once ridding Afghanistan, and still going after bin Laden, that monies and help would start coming into that country helping them to rebuild, something we promised once before but never kept, after their years of war with the Soviets and the damage we inflicted after 9/11.

One question, with all the beating drums, Who was talking about Afghanistan, securing the country and helping them rebuild? We all know what wasn't done, but was there even any mention of, or were they all so focused on an innocent country Iraq and an old friend Saddam, friend no more, and he knew too much! We may get a chance to find out if there was mention of the Afghan's.

Iraq Inquiry - Day 6

Today, for the first time since the Inquiry began last week, we got a clear sense of a developing narrative... and it is this:

In the run-up to war - those key months between 9/11 (when the Bush Administration's grumblings about Iraq turned to more distinct drum-beats) and the invasion in March 2003 - the UK was determined to lead America down the 'UN route'.

All the witnesses have cited numerous occasions when Tony Blair, with the help of his diplomats and ambassadors, pushed an increasingly disinterested American Administration back to the UN table.

And it worked - to a certain extent.

Snip

They tried, they said, to tell the Americans that there needed to be a plan for what would happen after the invasion. But their message was not getting through.

Sir Peter Ricketts described it like this: "I don't think in the summer of 2002/3... they [the Americans] were putting a great deal of thought into the aftermath period. I think that only really picked up steam in the autumn, when our own discussions with them began to intensify.... it wasn't until the autumn, I think I'm right in saying, that we started to really engage the Americans in a serious discussions of this."

But, by the Autumn, it was the Pentagon, not the State Department taking the lead on all the Iraq planning - invasion and after. And, according to Edward Chaplin - the Pentagon may have been listening, but it was not accepting anyone's advice:

"They [the Pentagon] didn't take many steps to involve their own colleagues in the administration in planning! On the other hand, they were perfectly happy to listen to us..... So it wasn't that they didn't listen, and they were grateful for the papers that we provided and the ideas that we provided, but I don't think the main ideas we were putting forward... got much traction where they counted, which was with the Pentagon."

Snip

The Inquiry is not sitting tomorrow but on Thursday it's the turn of the military chiefs and MoD civil servants. Key questions for them: when were they asked to prepare for military action? What were they asked to prepare for? Was it the right plan? And crucially - to what extent was the UK military participation governed by an inflexible Rumsfeld-driven American military machine?...>>>>>

Maybe on thursday the Military Chiefs and MoD civil servants might be asked, and will answer, what they were talking to their counter parts in the U.S. Military and the Pentagon as they were jumping further into the Iraq invasion plans and searching for the right set of excuses to use, we all know they kept changing so did the U.N.. Was anyone even thinking about bin Laden, al Qaeda, and Especially helping the Afghan People??

Chilcot inquiry: US said Iraqis would welcome invasion

• Post-war plans lost due to 'blind spot' in Washington

• Legality of war questioned by top cabinet members

British attempts to persuade the US to plan for the consequences of an invasion of Iraq foundered on a "blind spot" in Washington where senior officials thought "everyone would be grateful and there would be dancing in the streets", the Chilcot inquiry into the war was told today.

There was "a touching belief [in Washington] that we shouldn't worry so much about the aftermath because it was all going to be sweetness and light", added Edward Chaplin, head of the Middle East department of the Foreign Office at the time.

It was assumed that all would be well, especially if power was handed to an exiled opposition spokesman such as Ahmed Chalabi. "We said [to the Americans] they had very little credibility in Iraq," Chaplin told the inquiry.

Snip

Senior figures in Whitehall said the failure to draw up a proper plan to protect the civilian population after Iraq was occupied was a prima facie breach of the Geneva conventions.

Today, Chaplin and Sir Peter Ricketts, then political director at the FCO, said they were dismayed by the way the Bush administration failed to take the issue seriously, despite personal appeals from Tony Blair to George Bush...>>>>>

I'll bet that some once friends, probably not real bosom buddies, won't be talking to each other across the pond, as the testimony is really not making the U.S. leadership look very good, not at all, and Rightfully So!

A 'real blind spot' and 'dancing in the streets'!

British attempts to improve postwar planning for Iraq 'ignored by US'

A US marine watches a statue of Saddam Hussein being toppled in Baghdad on 9 April 2003. Photograph: Jerome Delay/AP

Iraq inquiry told by diplomat Edward Chaplin that senior Washington figures had 'real blind spot' and assumed there would be 'dancing in streets' after invasion

British attempts to improve "dire" planning for the aftermath of the Iraq invasion were repeatedly ignored by the US, the inquiry into the war heard today.

Tony Blair raised concerns directly with George Bush amid alarm in Whitehall at the state of the Pentagon's preparations.

But senior figures in Washington had a "real blind spot" and assumed there would be "dancing in streets" when the invasion took place, senior diplomat Edward Chaplin told the inquiry.

"We tried to point out that was extremely optimistic," he said.

Chaplin, who was head of the Middle East section of the Foreign Office at the time of the March 2003 invasion, said there was "a pretty dire state of lack of planning".

There was "a touching belief [in Washington] that we shouldn't worry so much about the aftermath because it was all going to be sweetness and light"....>>>>>

Law lord: Iraq inquiry should issue interim finding that war was illegal

Lord Steyn says it would be a mistake for issue of legality to be kicked into the long grass until after the election

The Iraq inquiry should publish an interim report before the general election declaring the war illegal, a former law lord said today.

Writing in the Financial Times, Lord Steyn said that it would be a mistake for the issue of the legality of the war to be "kicked into the long grass for party political reasons until after the election".

Steyn also criticized the prime minister for not putting a lawyer or a military figure on the inquiry.

Snip

Steyn also said that the inquiry ought to conclude that the war was illegal.

"I would expect the inquiry to conclude – in agreement with Kofi Annan, former secretary-general of the United Nations – that in the absence of a second UN resolution authorizing invasion, it was illegal," he said....>>>>>

And there are some press outlets picking up the inquiry here in the states.

U.S. troops did not expect postwar role, Blair aide says

A mask depicting former Prime Minister Tony Blair is burnt by a demonstrator outside the Iraq-war inquiry in London. KIRSTY WIGGLESWORTH / Associated Press

American troops did not expect to play a role in stabilizing Iraq after overthrowing Saddam Hussein, a key adviser to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair said yesterday.

David Manning, who served as a Blair's top foreign-policy aide before being appointed ambassador to Washington in 2003, told a British inquiry into the Iraq war that the American military did not believe peacekeeping was their responsibility.

"The American military thought that they were fighting a war and when the war was over they were expecting to go home," he said.

Snip

(Reviving terrorism allegations against the Hussein regime, the Czech Republic's counterintelligence service said yesterday that in 2000 it disrupted plans by the dictator to attack the offices of U.S.-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in Prague to halt its broadcasts into Iraq.)...>>>>>

This short piece, below, by a Mostafa Zein, closes out what has been presented so far very well, with more to come from the inquiry but also the voices of more Mostafa Zein's, I'm sure.

Liars Who Always Speak the Truth

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has returned to the media forefront. He is now the best example of the old philosophical debate about lying and the truth. The committee tasked with investigating him will focus on his violation of laws, falsification of the facts, failure to listen to intelligence advisers, and reliance on a silly university thesis to prove the Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Snip

At the time (2002), Blair was unwilling to hear any opinion that contradicted his policies. The shouting from President George Bush, appearing like an Old Testament prophet, was louder than anything else, and more important than any legal pretext. This shouting, and Bush’s decision to return Iraq to the Stone Age and his threat to anyone who disobeyed his orders, were the law. Bush found no better partner than the British Prime Minister, who outdid Bush and took it upon himself to gather pretexts and excuses to justify the war. He was smarter than Bush, but was also under his spell. No one else was taken by the charisma of the US president; the British press labeled Blair “Bush’s spoiled puppy.” His decision to take part in the war provoked the public. More than a million demonstrators walked the streets of London to protest his decision. Blair’s foreign minister, Robin Cook, resigned. However, none of this dissuaded him from helping “our grandchildren across the ocean,” as Margaret Thatcher used to say....>>>>>

Soldiers and Families, Fort Carson

November 30 2009

U.S. Soldiers, Families Brace for More Deployments

In Colorado, Tom Bearden visited Fort Carson Army base to speak with troops ahead of President Obama's unveiling of his new Afghanistan plan....Transcript and audio video links here

Afghanistan Crossroads

The dust track-turned-highway from Kabul to Torkham, on the Afghan-Pakistan border, is a journey of pleasure and peril. CNN's Jonathan Wald captures the trek on this featured post in CNN's new blog, Afghanistan Crossroads.



Special Comment: Afghanistan

Iraq War Inquiry, Day Five

Caught the first piece earlier today, lays out similar to what many in our country have been saying for years, especially the recent years, and similar to other countries that are supposed to be leaders on this planet.

Whose foreign policy is it anyway?

Disillusionment with Britain's actions abroad will only intensify without a democratic reassessment of foreign policy principles

Britain is deeply involved in an escalating war in Afghanistan. The legacy of the Iraq war lives on with the drip-drip of revelations emerging from the Chilcot inquiry. This month the first EU foreign secretary was appointed. A general election is months away. These factors constitute a perfect storm that should result in a public debate about the future direction of foreign policy.

Snip

Without accountability we have apathy and frustration. An active, effective and truly participatory debate on the fundamentals of how we conduct politics beyond our national borders will stimulate a broad discussion ranging from issues of national identity to dealing with the foreign policy challenges of the 21st century, from climate change to the threat of sub-state terrorism....>>>>>

Then we get into day five of the inquiry with an aid to Tony Blair testifying, and probably suspected trying to put the best face on the actions taken then and disavowing some previous testimony. But he did make some more interesting points, now on the record, as to what was going on in the minds of our Highest Representative in the Halls of Power the White House!

Blair Aide: 'US Focus On Iraq Days After 9/11'

George Bush raised the issue of Iraq with Tony Blair just three days after the 9/11 attacks, Mr Blair's former foreign policy adviser has said.

He said the former US President told Mr Blair during a phone conversation on September 14, 2001, that there could be a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda...>>>>>

Three days later, Condi brought it up on 9/11, and this would be right around the time all the photo's of all the hijacker's hit the news media and even what planes they were on, and none were Iraqi!

Iraq inquiry: Tony Blair asked for war plans to be prepared in June 2002

Tony Blair asked for war plans to be secretly drawn up in June 2002, almost a year before the invasion of Iraq, his former foreign policy adviser Sir David Manning has told the Iraq Inquiry.

Snip

Sir David said the former prime minister asked defence chiefs to prepare a list of options for military support of a US-led invasion after being told President Bush had set up a “cell” dedicated to planning for a war.

Sir David also disclosed that President Bush and Mr Blair first discussed a possible link between Saddam and the 2001 terrorist attacks on the US just three days after 9/11.

Snip

“At this stage we are aware that military planning is going ahead, that this cell had been set up in Florida, and he was anxious to know what sort of options do we have.

“In July 2002 a letter was sent to the Prime Minister from the defence secretary’s office saying there were three options if we found ourselves involved in military action."...>>>>>

War plans, for an invasion on Iraq? Go figure, and cheney/bush had set up a military cell in the Florida command center to study same back in early 2002. Was this a part of "We're gonna get him dead or alive!" as to bin Laden or Saddam, only the little cowboy would know, or his handlers!

Chilcot inquiry hears Bush began Iraq war drumbeat three days after 9/11

Blair foreign policy adviser David Manning says US president talked up possible links between Saddam and al-Qaida

George Bush tried to make a connection between Iraq and al-Qaida in a conversation with Tony Blair three days after the 9/11 attacks, according to Blair's foreign policy adviser of the time.

Sir David Manning told the official inquiry into the war that Bush, speaking to Blair by phone on 14 September 2001, "said that he thought there might be evidence that there was some connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida."The prime minister's response to this was that the evidence would have to be very compelling indeed to justify taking any action against Iraq," Manning said.

Blair followed up the conversation with a letter stressing the need to focus on the situation in Afghanistan, where the attacks originated.

But by the time Blair went to visit Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002 the British were "very conscious that Iraq would be on the agenda", Manning said...>>>>>

Blair adviser: US did not expect to stabilize Iraq

A mask of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is burnt by a demonstrator outside the Iraq Inquiry in London, Monday, Nov. 30, 2009

American troops did not expect to play a role in stabilizing Iraq after overthrowing Saddam Hussein, a key adviser to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Monday.

David Manning, who served as a Blair's top foreign policy aide before being appointed ambassador to Washington in 2003, told a British inquiry into the Iraq war the American military did not believe peacekeeping was their responsibility.

"The American military thought that they were fighting a war and when the war was over they were expecting to go home," he said.

Manning said British troops in Basra talked to local people, but that American troops were not willing to do the same.

Snip

Jeremy Greenstock, the former British ambassador to the United Nations, told the inquiry on Friday that the U.S. was "hell bent" on war with Iraq from the very beginning and undermined efforts by Britain to win international authorization for the invasion. Manning's predecessor as ambassador to the United States, Christopher Meyer, also testified that the U.S. was looking for connections between Iraq and Sept. 11 within hours of the attacks.

Manning echoed Meyer's claim, saying that then-President George W. Bush talked about possible links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, right after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, but that Blair had counseled caution...>>>>>

Well the above is now widely known especially by the tens of tousands of Iraqi dead and their survivors and the millions of refugee's who fled in country or to neighboring countries, not to mention the rest of the World. And here the brains, civilian and military, thought when the War was over Home would be where the soldiers ended up, tell that to those who've done multiple tours since, especially the dead and maimed and their families!

Blair 'sought UN solution' for Iraq

Tony Blair was committed throughout the Iraq crisis to achieving an international solution through the United Nations, his key foreign policy adviser has said.

Giving evidence to the official inquiry into the war, Sir David Manning denied Mr Blair and George Bush had secretly agreed on military action during talks at the President's Texas ranch 11 months before the invasion in March 2003....>>>>>

Iraq inquiry – live, Day Five Minute-by-minute coverage of what could be the most interesting hearing yet

Manning is also interesting because he is the author of at least two leaked memos which are likely to be discussed this afternoon. The first was written in March 2002 and the full text is available on the Downing Street memo website. Manning wrote it after a dinner with Condoleezza Rice, George Bush's national security adviser at the time, and it shows that Blair was declaring his support for regime even before he met Bush at Crawford in April. This is the key quote:

I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was very different than anything in the States. And you would not budge either in your insistence that, if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done and produce the right result.

Manning also wrote a memo, described as the "Manning memo" on Wikipedia, describing the outcome of a meeting that took place between Blair and Bush in the White House on 31 January 2003. The memo shows that Bush was, by then, determined to invade regardless of what happened at the UN and that the two leaders discussed the idea of getting Iraq to shoot down an American spy plane painted in UN colours to create a pretext for war. Philippe Sands, the British law professor who revealed the existence of the memo, said it raised "some fundamental questions of legality, both in terms of domestic law and international law"...>>>>>

Who ya gonna believe, we'll see as this progresses now won't we (?)

Goldsmith was not bullied into declaring Iraq invasion legal, says Blair

Former prime minister denies claims that then-attorney general had been pressured to change stance over legality of conflict

Iraq inquiry team pulls its punches

David Manning, Blair's foreign policy adviser in the run-up to war, was given the safest of rides at the Chilcot inquiry

It is easy to second-guess the Iraq inquiry and, as one watches it unfold live on the internet, to think of all the questions its distinguished members fail to ask. It is also easy to be upset by their manifest unwillingness to use a more forensic style. But today's session of the Chilcot inquiry with Sir David Manning, Tony Blair's foreign policy adviser in the run-up to the war, was truly disappointing.

Snip

Yet he was given the safest and most deferential of rides. Two issues cried out for deeper scrutiny. One was the so-called UN route to tightening the pressure on Saddam Hussein and the consequences of the UN route's failure. Manning laid out the case – which Blair will no doubt repeat when he faces the inquiry next year – that throughout 2002 and early 2003, the PM pressed hard for Bush to take the international coalition approach through the United Nations, while also emphasizing that if it failed, the UK would be at Bush's side in going for war.

Snip

There always was another definition of UN failure, and it was at least as likely as defiance by Saddam. Yet the inquiry members never asked about it. This was the possibility that the UN, for whatever reason, would refuse to authorize war in accordance with Bush's preferred timetable for action.

And this, of course, is what happened. Bush was the man who defied the UN....>>>>>

What will turn up as the days progress? We'll see!

Counting the War Dead, Daily

As a hobby, he counts the war dead

Michael White says he didn't anticipate casualities continuing at this pace, or the toll his Web site would take on him.

Every day, White, 51, updates a Web site he launched in 2003, icasualties.org, to keep count of the dead: American troops, coalition troops, contractors and Iraqi civilians. He eventually began documenting deaths in Afghanistan as well.

Snip

Nor could White have predicted the toll his task would take on him. As the numbers climbed, the dead came back to life on his screen. They weren't just statistics anymore...>>>>>

Iraq War Inquiry: Analysis and Push Back Grows Against any Coverup

But first we have the release of a scathing report from the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, {46 page PDF} How we failed to get bin Laden and why it matters today

As I've said in a few posts, the past week of the hearings, the picture coming out was our administration then especially, and others, weren't focused on bin Laden, al Qaeda nor the Taliban who were harboring them in Afghanistan, their almost complete focus prior to 9/11, as to that region, was a growing want to have regime change in Iraq, that became the total focus on the same day as 9/11, as has been noted by Condoleezza Rice mentioning Saddam as a possible suspect behind the 9/11 attacks or supporter of al Qaeda, which he never was.

Here is an analysis of the released report:

Report savages 'lost opportunity' to stop bin Laden

A report from a US senate committee has criticized the failure of Bush administration to use all available military means to pursue and capture the Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden eight years ago.

Snip

But the military strategy was faulty and its failure meant a lost opportunity to defeat international terrorism.

"The decisions that opened the door for his escape to Pakistan allowed bin Laden to emerge as a potent symbolic figure who continues to attract a steady flow of money and inspire fanatics worldwide," the report says.

"The failure to finish the job represents a lost opportunity that forever altered the course of the conflict in Afghanistan and the future of international terrorism, leaving the American people more vulnerable to terrorism, laying the foundation for today's protracted Afghan insurgency and inflaming the internal strife now endangering Pakistan.">>>>>

Millions around the World knew, as soon as the drums started beating, that Afghanistan stopped being about 9/11, bin Laden, al Qaeda and the help Afghanistan needed to rebuild their country after the promised help, never kept, following the Soviet occupation and war and the rule of the Taliban!

The World, especially Iraqi's and the Afghans, seek answers as to why the start of this century turned so deadly and possibly turning the coming decades of into a much more Dangerous World Stage. They seek Accountability for the crimes committed, by those setting policy thousands of miles away, and all the innocent lives lost and maimed, the instability wrought with the changing of their people's way's of life and their countries destructions.

The British people, especially families of their fallen, have pushed for this inquiry. The American People, on the other hand, have moved on with their lives, their political infighting and games as well as their lives and apathy towards others, seeking no answers, no accountability and laying blame on others when something devastating and destructive occurs, criminal terror. Oh ya and the really important and seemingly growing new past time of some seeking their reality, even ex vice presidential candidates, on 'Reality TV' by doing possibly extremely dangerous stunts, and using inflammatory speak, in seeking their 'trickle down wealth' while America watches and holds it's collective breath in anticipation of more to come.

The British people, now that the Inquiry has opened and more has been stated then known before, only suspected, want it to become a wide open investigation of everything, as it should, and the calls for grow!

Iraq: The war was illegal

Then Attorney General Goldsmith was 'pinned to the wall and bullied into keeping quiet' while the Prime Minister kept the Cabinet in the dark.

Tony Blair will be quizzed over a devastating official memo warning him that war on Iraq would be illegal eight months before he sent troops into Baghdad, it was claimed last night.

Snip

But Mr Blair refused to accept Lord Goldsmith's advice and instead issued instructions for his long-term friend to be "gagged" and barred from cabinet meetings, the newspaper claimed. Lord Goldsmith apparently lost three stone, and complained he was "more or less pinned to the wall" in a No 10 showdown with two of Mr Blair's most loyal aides, Lord Falconer and Baroness Morgan. Mr Blair also allegedly failed to inform the Cabinet of the warning, fearing an "anti-war revolt"....>>>>>

And so far {from link above}

Critical evidence from key figures to Chilcot inquiry

Sir Peter Ricketts "We quite clearly distanced ourselves from talk of regime change... that was not something we thought there would be any legal base for."

Sir William Patey "We were aware of those drumbeats from Washington [about regime change]. Our policy was to stay away from that end of the spectrum."

Sir Michael Wood "[Establishing no-fly zones over Iraq] was very controversial ... The US government was very careful to avoid taking any real position on the law."

Sir William Ehrman "We did, on 10 March, get a report that chemical weapons might have remained disassembled and Saddam hadn't yet ordered their assembly."

Sir Christopher Meyer "Suddenly, because of the unforgiving nature of the military timetable, we found ourselves scrabbling for the smoking gun."

Sir Jeremy Greenstock "I regarded our participation in the military action against Iraq in March 2003 as legal, but of questionable legitimacy."

And the push back for all that went on has been growing:

Iraq and the sarin gas of spin: An extraordinary eyewitness account of the regiments of spin doctors sent to Baghdad

Front Line: Stephen Claypole with a young local boy in front of a tank in Iraq

In the pre-dawn darkness of an April morning in 2003 an American C-130 Hercules transporter made a forced zig-zag descent through a potentially hostile sky and came to a screeching halt in an arc of armoured vehicles at Baghdad international airport.

On board – as well as me – was a human cargo of the first civilian administrators in post-Saddam Iraq led by Jay Garner, a retired US Army General.

Snip

They were not going to do much to overhaul Iraq’s creaking power stations. But the reality was that they were in control.

There was Larry Di Rita, one of the right-hand men of US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld and later Pentagon chief spokesman; Margaret Tutwiler, a former State Department spokesman and Republican campaigner who helped to end the 2000 Florida recount impasse in George W. Bush’s favour; Dan Senor, a former White House assistant Press secretary; Emily Hands, a Downing Street Press officer; and Charles Heatly, a young Arabic-speaking British diplomat who was acting as a pair of eyes and ears for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).

Forget the oxygen of publicity. This was about the sarin gas of spin and ‘information operations’. It came to me that just as the Spanish-American War in 1898 had been a newspaper proprietors’ war, the invasion of Iraq was a spin doctors’ war...>>>>>

Gordon Brown urged to lift Iraq inquiry secrecy

Fears most explosive documents related to beginning of war will not be aired at Chilcot hearing

Gordon Brown is facing demands to change the rules of the Iraq inquiry this weekend amid fears that the most explosive documents explaining why Britain went to war will not be made public.

As the inquiry enters its second week, the prime minister is under pressure to make key evidence relating to secret government discussions public, including minutes showing how the then attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, changed his mind about the legality of the war.

The demands are made in a letter to Brown from the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, who insists that unless the lid is lifted on secrecy, the Chilcot inquiry will fail to satisfy the public's demands for honesty...>>>>>

Iraq Inquiry bombshell: Secret letter to reveal new Blair war lies

Pressured: Lord Goldsmith leaves No10 in March 2003 after talks with Blair

An explosive secret letter that exposes how Tony Blair lied over the legality of the Iraq War can be revealed.

The Chilcot Inquiry into the war will interrogate the former Prime Minister over the devastating 'smoking gun' memo, which warned him in the starkest terms the war was illegal.

The Mail on Sunday can disclose that Attorney General Lord Goldsmith wrote the letter to Mr Blair in July 2002 - a full eight months before the war - telling him that deposing Saddam Hussein was a blatant breach of international law...>>>>>

Diary of deceit ... and how the Attorney General lost three stone

Blair 'knew WMD claim was false'

Has this Inquiry had an effect on decisions as to Afghanistan and the British presence there, as the U.S. looks to be ramping up forces in a conflict and occupations that mirrors the one many of us served in some four decades ago, Vietnam, and our Country and Military never learned the real lessons of, especially those of the previous administration and congresses and their outside of government co-conspirators, most never having served in that occupation nor even the military, it looks that way with the following Gordon Brown announcement:

Troops may begin Afghan pull-out in a year, says Gordon Brown

The Prime Minister is responding to growing public opposition to the war

Gordon Brown yesterday set out a timetable for British troops to start pulling out of war-torn Afghanistan by this time next year.

The Prime Minister responded to growing public opposition to the war by signalling that within 12 months, five of the deadliest provinces currently occupied by British and American soldiers will be returned to Afghan control.

‘It is at that point that we would look at whether there is the need for British troops,’ Mr Brown said – the first sign of a clear exit strategy after an eight-year campaign in which 235 have died and thousands more have been injured...>>>>>

While it reads as not being set in stone, it is interesting that his timetable comes just before this countries President speaks to the Nation on the new Afghanistan strategy, or will President Obama be making a similar call, we'll know soon, and so will the Afghans.

These next couple of links and cuts I had posted with some others yesterday which seem to be leading to others coming forward in the peoples push of Accountability.

Why I believe Blair should stand trial - and even face charges for war crimes, by General Sir Michael Rose

Without blame: The Chilcot Inquiry will not hold leaders to account

The inquiry into the Iraq War is not a court and no one is on trial. So said Sir John Chilcot, chairman of the inquiry, in his opening statement. He added that he was not there to determine the guilt or innocence of those responsible for the invasion of Iraq.

The object of the inquiry is simply to identify the lessons that should be learned from Iraq in order to help future UK governments who may face similar situations.

Snip

But although these are worthy objectives, they fall scandalously short of the crucial issue which millions of people in this country - myself included - believe this inquiry should be about.

With respect to Sir John, there is really no point in holding a further inquiry unless it does apportion blame, unless it does hold to account those who led us into this unnecessary, unwinnable and costly war in Iraq.

The inquiry should be the first step in a judicial process that brings those responsible for the disasters of the Iraq war before the courts - and could, as I shall explain, ultimately result in Tony Blair being indicted for war crimes.....Read the Rest of what General Sir Michael Rose writes

General Sir Michael Rose was commander of UN peacekeeping forces in Bosnia. He is shortly to appear as a witness in the Karadzic war crimes trial in The Hague.

The World Waits, but more Importantly the Iraqi People Deserve Their Day in Court and Much More, as the World needs the Accountability:

Iraqis' stories must be heard

Four years ago, I traveled to Iraq to talk with its besieged people. Chilcot cannot ignore them now

Four years ago this week I was kidnapped in Baghdad. My trip to Iraq had been motivated by frustration at the government's deafness to all voices of reasoned opposition to the war in Iraq. I went to meet Iraqis to reassure them that most people in Britain did not regard them as enemies. Today, the lead-up to that war is back in the spotlight with the Chilcot inquiry. This is more than just an academic exercise to many. Anyone – in Britain, Iraq or elsewhere – who had a relative killed in the conflict will feel an intense personal need to discover the truth. They will be listening to testimony that appears to gravely undermine the official justification for going to war. They will want to learn the reaction by the then government to the advice of Middle East diplomats who knew about the conflicts within Iraqi society, conflicts that Saddam had suppressed but were always likely to explode on his removal. If you are going to war, ignorance of the probable effects on the country in the aftermath is inexcusable. Why else do you have a large diplomatic and intelligence force in the area?...>>>>>

Baghdad Garden Becomes Graveyard, Full of Grieving

An Iraqi woman at the grave of a relative behind Baghdad's Abu Hanifa mosque, the most hallowed place of worship for Sunnis in Iraq.

BAGHDAD — In the gardens of the living and the dead, the war goes on; not so much with enthusiasm as with resignation.

Snip

Thousands of mourners throng the headstones in what only three years ago was a community garden on the banks of the Tigris River. This is a relatively new tradition in Iraq, paying respects to the dead between morning prayers and the feast held later in the day. On this one day, the garden of the dead overflows with the living.

Snip

Now this garden, known as the Martyrs of Adhamiya since it became a cemetery in 2007, is so densely packed with graves that it is often difficult to walk between the rectangular capstones that cover each one (out of reverence, no one dares tread on top). Six months ago, the authorities counted 9,000 graves, but many more have been added since. Nearly all are victims of Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence of one sort or another — terroristic bombings, sectarian killings, political assassinations...>>>>>

The Pandora's Box, of an innocent country and people, different religious sects, ancient trible communities, political ideologies, ethnicity, heritage, all living together under a U.S. supported dictator. We not only opened but totally destroyed and that it take decades to be rebuilt, if ever!

Scott Ritter: The truth of UK's guilt over Iraq

Until Chilcot hears UN weapons inspectors' testimony, the fiction of Britain honestly seeking a WMD smoking gun prevails

With its troops no longer engaged in military operations inside Iraq, Great Britain has been liberated politically to conduct a postmortem of that conflict, including the sensitive issue of the primary justification used by then Prime Minister Tony Blair for going to war, namely Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, or WMD.

The failure to find any WMD in Iraq following the March 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of that country by US and British troops continues to haunt those who were involved in making the decision for war. The issue of Iraqi WMD, and the role it played in influencing the decision for war, is at the centre of the ongoing Iraq war inquiry being conducted by Sir John Chilcot....>>>>>

Some may want to close by reading this as posted on the 26th at the Veterans Today online News Site:

GENERAL MCCHRYSTAL, WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON?

ILL INFORMED, ILL ADVISED AND ILL PREPARED MCCHRYSTAL SENDS OTHERS OFF TO WAR

You could ask, how do you get to be a General if you haven't had one second of combat in an entire career spanning decades? Was being born the son of a General a help? Did kissing up to Dick Cheney help? Did a lifetime of telling people what they wanted to hear, no matter how stupid or what the cost, help? Do we want to turn the lives of our children over to this man, someone who is 90% politician and 10% soldier?

Where does McChrystal get his information? Does he get it from Karzai, defacto president of ten square miles of Afghanistan? Who is McChrystal planning on defeating?...>>>>>