Iraq War Inquiry, Day Nine

Drip, drip, drip, ""He recalled noting that: "the dog didn't bark - it grizzled." Don't forget - this 'grizzling' for regime change was 6 months BEFORE 9/11."". drip, drip, drip, ""But there was a 'sea change' in attitude after the atrocities, with former national security adviser Condoleezza Rice targeting Iraq on the very day of the outrage."", drip, drip, drip, ""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."", drip, drip, drip, ""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"."", drip, drip, drip, ""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"", drip, drip, drip...........!

Written Transcripts by Date of each session.

The Video's of the Daily Testimony.

Trickle down information, while slow and coming in bits and pieces, does come quicker then economic trickle down capitalism.

Keep in mind as you come across the time lines in this Inquiry who was responsible for the 9/11 criminal terrorist attacks on this country,

Senate Report Revisits Osama bin Laden's Great Escape

Less than a month after the 9/11 attacks, the military began bombing al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan. It was the start of a campaign orchestrated by the CIA and Special Forces troops that quickly ousted the ruling Taliban from power but led to an insurgency that continues today...>>>>>

and what the then president bush stated a few years into both and close to leaving office, about "not thinking about bin Laden much anymore!", which they really had already started to do on 9/11 and after! That should give to one the simple reason why we're still sending Ours and NATO troops into Afghanistan and still fighting a growing Insurgency and the Afghans have seen little in Actually helping them rebuild their country after decades of destructive war by Foreign Occupiers!

You can Watch the Inquiry Live when in Session

And we "Drip" into day nine with other information from the weekend:

As the British Iraq war Inquiry moves ahead, day eight was friday, new calls for investigations of issues related to the Iraq buildup and questions of the reasons given for invading are heating up!

Call for inquest into 'suicide' question

Six British doctors have begun legal action for a new coroner's inquest into the controversial death of U.N. weapons inspector David Kelly, authorities say.

Kelly's former colleagues suspect the original verdict of suicide is incorrect and should be overturned.

Kelly, a 59-year-old microbiologist died days after being revealed as the source of confidential information in a 2003 BBC story about the Iraq war, The Daily Telegraph reported Saturday. In it, Kelly alleged the British government "sexed up" evidence against Iraq to justify the invasion....>>>>>

An Op-Ed I caught, at least some are paying attention, across the pond, here in the states:

We've spent too much on war; seek peace

The call for peace has nothing to do with the Democratic Party or the Republican party; this is about the American people and about people of other lands who struggle to defend their homes. It makes little difference which political party is in power; both are heavily influenced by corporate elite who profit directly or indirectly from wars.

The Iraq Inquiry, currently being held in Britain and chaired by Sir John Chilcot, reveals that the American and British governments knew very well that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, and no weapons of mass destruction. They were told that the invasion was illegal and unwarranted, but that made no difference.

Snip

But overall American poverty cannot compare with the poverty, destitution and pain suffered by the hundreds of thousands of people who are victims of military invasions.

The death, disease, maiming and displacement of whole populations subject to the violence of wars is unimaginable. The use of hideous weaponry that leads to hideous suffering that goes on long after an attack, destroying young and old alike, is morally indefensible and unforgivable....>>>>>

US 'neglected' southern Iraq, ambassador tells Chilcot inquiry

Edward Chaplin tells inquiry that despite billions of dollars being poured into Iraq by the US, little went to the main UK area of operations around Basra

Edward Chaplin, who in 2004 became the first British ambassador to Baghdad for 13 years, said that despite the billions of dollars being poured into Iraq by the US, little went to the south, which was the main UK area of operations.

He said that the lack of assistance was "damaging", breeding resentment in an area which had been historically neglected under the rule of Saddam Hussein...>>>>>

Senior officer says he urged Tony Blair to delay invasion

Major General Tim Cross tells Chilcot panel that preparations were 'woefully thin'

"We talked for about 30 minutes or so. I was as honest about the positions as I could be, essentially briefing that I did not believe post-war planning was anywhere near ready," he said.

"I told him that there was no clarity on what was going to be needed after the military phase of the operation, nor who would provide it.

"Although I was confident that we would secure a military victory, I offered my view that we should not begin that campaign until we had a much more coherent post-war plan."

He also criticised the then-international development secretary, Clare Short – who subsequently resigned over the war – saying she would not allow one of her officials to work with him on a full-time basis because of her "well known concerns".

"This was, I am bound to say, unhelpful for me, and it was an early indicator that Whitehall was not much more joined up than Washington," he said....>>>>>

Chilcot tantalises us with documents

The cosy Iraq inquiry has an infuriating habit of referring to key evidence but not indicating when, if ever, it will be published

Snip

Observers have commented already on the cosy nature of the proceedings, the formally polite, almost oleaginous, interventions of the chairman. As important is the deeply frustrating manner in which the inquiry panel members refer to documents but do not quote from them. They do not quote even from the Downing Street documents (which appear on more than one dedicated website) leaked more than four years ago.

These make clear that senior officials and ministers were warning Tony Blair even before his private head-to-head meeting with George Bush at the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002, 11 months before the invasion, that military action to topple Saddam would be unlawful, that the government should first have to spend a lot of effort massaging British public opinion, and that in the notorious phrase attributed to Sir Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, "the facts and intelligence" were being "fixed round the policy" in Washington. These documents were given to the Butler review into the way intelligence was used and abused in the runup to the invasion but not published on the grounds that that inquiry had limited terms of reference...>>>>>

Blair warned over Iraq war planning

Major General Tim Cross

A senior Army officer described how he warned Tony Blair two days before the invasion of Iraq that there were insufficient preparations for dealing with the aftermath of the conflict.

Giving evidence to the official inquiry into the war, Major General Tim Cross said he told Mr Blair that he did not believe the post-war planning was "anywhere near ready" and that the situation in the country could be "chaotic".

Gen Cross said that in the weeks leading up to the invasion he had tried to raise his concerns in both London and Washington, but that his views were "not particularly warmly received" by US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Snip

Gen Cross - who was attached to the US Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (Orha) which was supposed to manage the aftermath - said that he set out his concerns in a 30 minute meeting with Mr Blair in No 10 on March 18...>>>>>

Tony Blair Ignored Iraq Warning, Top General Says

U.S. Marine Corps / Lance Cpl. Matthew R. Jones

Add Maj. Gen. Tim Cross to that growing list of people who foresaw disaster in Iraq but were ignored. The senior British liaison to the U.S. reconstruction effort warned his prime minister before the invasion that insufficient postwar planning would lead to chaos. The rest is history...>>>>>

The truth about the Iraq war finalling coming out

The current Chilcot Enquiry in the UK is at last bringing out the truth about the illegal Iraq War. The fact long known by many that there was no justification for this war and that the agenda was completely different to that purported is confirmed by Christopher Story of World Reports in his Global Analysis of 3 December 2009. ..>>>>>

Todays Inquiry is still going on as I post this, around four pm U.S. est., as they are talking to Government official of that time, didn't catch name but reports will be coming on his testimony shortly I'm sure.

Military Children Face More Emotional Challenges as Parental Deployments Grow Longer, Study Finds

Children in military families may suffer from more emotional and behavioral difficulties when compared to other American youths, with older children and girls struggling the most when a parent is deployed overseas, according to a new RAND Corporation study...>>>>>

Iraq War Inquiry, Day Eight

Friday, 12.04.09, was the eighth day of the British Iraq War Inquiry which has been bringing forth some very interesting, and adding to the possibility of incriminating, pieces of information pertaining to what had been going on within the administration of President Bush prior to what happened on Sept 11 2001, on the day of the destructive deadly attacks of Sept 11 2001 and in the immediate days following and leading up to the invasion and lack of concern about after the destruction and then occupation of Iraq.

Before, on and right after 9/11 the administration was seemingly more focused on Iraq and not on Afghanistan as the evidence grew that the al Qaeda group, harbored by the Taliban in Afghanistan, were the criminal terrorist who carried out the attacks that tragic day. While planning and placing military troops, U.S. and NATO, in position for an attack and invasion of that country discussion and planning started on also invading Iraq and seeking the needed reasons for such an attack trying to connect Iraq to the 9/11 attacks and support of al Qaeda.

On day seven we find out more about how the issue of Iraq and Saddam was being handled as to the Defense Department and U.S. Military Planners:

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 administration. Rumsfeld was not sharing information....>>>>>

While most of the reporting about the inquiry is coming out of the British media there are a few popping up here in the states, like this one from the Tennessean

Britain right to open investigation over war

I see that Britain is finally getting to the bottom of the cause and the lies that led up to the invasion of Iraq (“British open inquiry on Iraq war causes,” Nov. 25). Of course, this is more than our own Bush political party will condone.

That’s all well and good for future reference, but it does nothing to punish the perpetrators behind this mass illusion, which was orchestrated by Mr. Bush and his underlings.

Snip

We already know that planning for the invasion started when Mr. Bush took the oath of office and had nothing to do with terrorism or weapons of mass destruction.

Evidently part of that oath had nothing to do with honesty....>>>>>

Good to see a few are paying at least a tiny bit of attention, here in this country, as the inquiry unfolds.

Iraq war inquiry sees fingers pointed at US

Lord Boyce called American lack of communication "dysfunctionalism"

The Iraq inquiry has produced another week of compelling evidence.

We are beginning to understand how and why Iraq ended up in such a parlous state after the 2003 invasion.

A number of witnesses have pointed a finger of blame at the United States for the chaos that ensued....>>>>>

I'm beginning to think that if there ever was there won't be any more high fives or exchange of Christmas cards or gifts in either direction across the pond starting this year, eight years in the Iraq occupation and nine years into the Afghanistan occupation, which now is growing.

Ex-UN weapons inspector condemns Blair, Bush on Iraq

Blix said he warned Blair not to invade

George W. Bush and Tony Blair's conviction that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was a threat blinded them to the lack of evidence justifying a war to depose him, an ex-UN weapons inspector said Saturday.

Hans Blix, who led the UN weapons inspection team in the run-up to the 2003 invasion, told the Daily Mail that the then US and British leaders had "misled themselves and then they misled the public" about the reason for the conflict....>>>>>

Treasury accused over Iraq funds

The inquiry heard Whitehall was told there was no extra cash for rebuilding

The Treasury refused to release extra funds for the reconstruction of Basra, the Iraq war inquiry has been told.

Dominic Asquith, the former Foreign Office director for Iraq, said more money was requested to help rebuild the southern Iraqi city.

But Mr Asquith said government departments were told they would have to find the cash from existing budgets.

This was despite the fact that rebuilding was supposed to be a high priority for ministers, he added....>>>>>

UK sent large force to Iraq to raise standing with US, Chilcot inquiry hears

Former deputy chief of the defence staff says major military role meant Britain was able to show it was a 'serious player'

Britain committed a large land force to the invasion of Iraq in an attempt to buy influence with the United States, the official inquiry into the war has been told.

Lieutenant General Sir Anthony Pigott, who was deputy chief of the defence staff responsible for commitments, said that by taking on a major military role the UK was able to show the Americans that it was a "serious player". After Tony Blair's meeting with George Bush at the president's Texas ranch in April 2002, Pigott said he set up a small team to look at the options for military action against Iraq....>>>>>

Everything that is coming out of this inquiry as to what was going on within the British Government and Military can only be thought of as Compounded here in the United States as to our own Government and Military Leaders, we were the driving force the rest were following our lead, which continued!

Brown refused to increase Iraq funds

Gordon Brown as chancellor refused to increase funds for the reconstruction of southern Iraq in spite of pleas for more resources from the frontline, an inquiry heard on Friday.

Dominic Asquith, a senior Foreign Office official, told the Iraq inquiry that efforts to rebuild Basra, where British forces were based, were held back by a lack of money.

“The direction was that this was a high priority but we weren’t being given the extra resources to deliver,” he said. “It was left to Whitehall departments to put the case to the Treasury for resources to cover this to which the answer was ‘There are no resources’.”...>>>>>

And of course we all know, and are living in, what has happened since as to Economies around the globe.

And more information keeps dripping out, one can only imagine, especially as our country moved on from any accountability, what was going on within our own Government and Military, all this while we and others were still occupying Afghanistan and the insurgent forces were growing and improving their tactics and attacks!

Lord Goldsmith 'was stopped from going to Iraq by John Reid'

Shocking new evidence reveals how the Labour Government bullied the Cabinet Minister who told Tony Blair that the Iraq War was illegal.

Former Defence Secretary John Reid banned the head of the Army, General Sir Mike Jackson, from taking Attorney General Lord Goldsmith to Baghdad to investigate alleged mistreatment of Iraqi civilians by British soldiers.

According to a Ministry of Defence source, Dr Reid told the Army chief: 'I'm your commanding officer. You're not taking Goldsmith with you, is that clear?'

Snip

Lord Goldsmith, who was leading moves to crack down on British soldiers accused of brutality against Iraqis, agreed - but when Dr Reid found out, he pulled rank on Sir Mike, one of the most respected British Army commanders of his generation.

Snip

Today's disclosure follows a report in last week's Mail on Sunday that Lord Goldsmith told Mr Blair eight months before the conflict that it was illegal - and was 'bullied' into backing down at the last minute....>>>>>

Wonder if this will get even a slight mention today on our Sunday Morning Talking Heads Shows, just wonderin, especially if any discussion is done as to the escalation of the Afghanistan Conflict by the US and NATO!!

'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