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....>>>>>

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!

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?...>>>>>

Artists and Writers Against Torture

World Can't Wait: Call for Entries

In the months following 9/11, the government of the United States began unjust and immoral occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq leading to the deaths of countless civilians. It began warrantless wiretapping and suspended habeas corpus. And it began openly torturing people and justifying it with questionable legalese.

In the hyper-sensitive environment that surrounded 9/11 and the military action that followed it, we lost sight of the most important commodity to which we can lay claim:

the Truth.

And the Truth is: torture is a crime.

Snip

Submission Deadline

The deadline for submissions of artwork or written work is November 1, 2009. If your piece/s is/are accepted for inclusion in Artists and Writers Against Torture, you will be notified by email by the end of November 2009........Rest Found Here

Now at the end of the page they give this: Remember to attach all submission files to your email! We look forward to seeing your submissions. Good luck! with the type files and other information you can send them in boxes provided.

Mother’s love: a plea to Michelle Obama

An Agent Orange activist calls on the first lady to help dioxin victims in Vietnam.

Vietnamese victims of the defoliant Agent Orange play at a social sponsorship center in Da Nang City June 26, 2009. US warplanes dropped about 18 million gallons of the defoliant on southern Vietnam for most of the 1960s.

The following is a letter sent to Michelle Obama by Secretary of the Britain-Vietnam Friendship Association Len Aldis, who has worked for years to spread awareness of Agent Orange victims’ plight.

August 2 marks the beginning of Orange Week, a government program to create Agent Orange awareness through various programs nationwide. Orange Week ends on August 10, 48 years to the day since the US military begin spraying the defoliant on Vietnam.

Dear Michelle Obama,

You can find the Letter Here

Britain-Vietnam Friendship Association


"AGENT ORANGE: 30 YEARS LATER"

“AGENT ORANGE: 30 YEARS LATER” is a drama-documentary about the victims of Agent Orange 30 years after the Viet Nam War.

The goal of this documentary is to make the viewers aware of the impact of dioxin on the environment and the people. The film also underscores the need for compassion and heightens a sense of responsibility for our actions towards each other as stewards of the planet without regard for political differences.....>>>>>Much More Here

Justice for Victims of Agent Orange

I put this together when the Vietnamesse Reps were attempting to get the U.S. Courts to rule on Compensation for Defoliant Victims that still plague that country today.

The Vietnamese government says this has left more than 3
million people disabled.
Please Visit The Following Links

Vietnam Agent Orange Relief & Responsibility Campaign

The Thanh Xuan Peace Village in Vietnam

Agent orange girl determined to overcome her destiny

"Chorus for Justice"

Vietnamese Delegation in U.S. to Sue Chemical Companies for Ongoing
Effects of Agent Orange

Justice for Victims of Agent Orange


'Nam Vets Again Press VA on Agent Orange

Armed with the latest study from the Institute of Medicine, Vietnam Veterans of America is petitioning Veterans Administration Secretary Eric Shinseki to add three illnesses -- including high blood pressure -- to the long list of deadly or debilitating ailments that have been linked to Agent Orange exposure.

The outreach is the latest in a long fight between some Vietnam veterans’ organizations and the U.S. government to connect a wider range of ailments to the chemical defoliant used throughout the conflict to strip away the enemy’s jungle sanctuaries.............

39 years later, Australia finds last Vietnam War missing
The officer in charge of Operation Magpies Return, wing commander Michael Warby (L), assisted by Vietnamese workers, sieves soil at the crash site.

An Australian search team has found the remains of the country's last two missing Vietnam War servicemen, 39 years after their aircraft crashed into a thick jungle, officials said Thursday............

Guantanamo - Human Rights - Torture - War Crimes

Gitmo Guard Brandon Neely Speaks

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Guantanamo

The video is a combination of three BBC News reports on Guantanamo from Dec. '08 to Jan '09, it's about 141/2 minutes long, the links to each individual video at their site found below.

Guantanamo "Abandoned Our Values and Defiled Our Constitution!"


Guantanamo 'a stain on US military' Dec 3rd '08

Guantanamo closure plan ordered Dec 19th '08

Former guard on Guantanamo 'torture' Jan 9th '09

The Special Prosecutor Petition

In the bush Exit Speech 1-12-09

"The most urgent threat that he'll have to deal with and other presidents after him will have to deal with is an attack on our homeland," Bush said. "You know, I wish I could report that's not the case, but there's still an enemy out there that would like to inflict damage on America."

For once I agree with this incompetent,immoral, unrepentant little man, he's created tens of thousands that didn't exist before, who now wish this Country and It's Citizens Harm, "Mission Accomplished"!!

Philippe Sands Considers A Legacy Of 'Torture'

Fresh Air from WHYY, January 7, 2009 · Although the Bush administration has stated that the interrogations techniques used at Guantanamo Bay came from the bottom up, British lawyer Philippe Sands disagrees.

In his 2008 book, Torture Team: Rumsfeld's Memo and the Betrayal of American Values, Sands argues that the harsh interrogation policy that emerged after Sept. 11 came from high-ranking government officials and top military figures.
Sands warned in a June 2008 Fresh Air interview that the impact of the Bush administration's conduct would be felt internationally:

Read Rest Here

Listen To Todays Show With This Link

The June 2008 Discussion

You Can Listen To That One With This Link

Announcing capUSAwc.org

capUSAwc.org the Coalition for the Arrest & Prosecution of U.S./Allied War Criminals

for more info, please visit: capUSAwc.org

War on Terror? Criminal Terrorism!! The Rand Report

On the 29th of July an extremely important think tank report, paid for by the government, came forth from the Rand Corporation, a favorite of the Pentagon on National Security matters.

I heard the report early that morning on a news blip on NPR and went over to the Rand Site and found the report. I than posted about it on a number of sites as well as sent it out, all with back links.
There was also a link for a Congressional Briefing to be held on that day on the report.

At first I was shocked that very few picked up on the importance of this report, that day and the next, as well as the hearing. Than thinking about it later maybe I shouldn't have been surprised that few political boards saw the need to report and most certainly fewer MSM outlets as well. There's an Awful Lot of sheepish guilty consciouses that supported this criminal administration, and criminal it is, in the direction it started selling this 'War on Terrorism', and the MSM, purely for commercial profit, would love to see what their advertisers were paying for ads than, happily went along, War Sells Big Time! Hell these political people, the boards, the MSM, the majority of the voters even fear bringing charges and accountability, fear of what that may mean on the political front, to hell with the Constitution the Politics are more important!

There were a few people who like me tried to rattle the cages of these boards to pay attention, sadly they to were ignored. This morning truong son traveler had another great report posted on a couple of boards, after the MSM finally started to Get It, such as Keith Olbermann, after two days:

{ had to edit the end, didn't need the two reports prior and uploading, even with those cut off his last words, so I edited and put them in as closing text plus }

War on Terror? Criminal Terrorism!! The Rand Report

Other News outlets have also started grasping the importance of the Conservative Rand Corporations report and it's real meaning and have written it up, like these:

U.S. News and World Report

Since 2001, al Qaeda has conducted a greater number of attacks across a larger geographic area than at any time in its history. "We find it hard to agree that al Qaeda has been significantly weakened since Sept. 11, 2001," says Seth Jones, coauthor with Martin Libicki of the report titled "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qaeda."

The authors evaluate al Qaeda since 2001 as being both "strong" and "competent."

What's needed, the report suggests, is a "fundamental rethinking of U.S. strategy" to focus on minimizing overt military action and increasing intelligence collection and partnerships with law enforcement agencies around the world.

The report couldn't have been clearer in its refutation of one of the central tenants of the Bush administration's strategy against al Qaeda: the characterization of the conflict as a "global war." The administration has frequently attacked critics—especially Democrats—who say that counterterrorism should be built around law enforcement strategies.

As well as this:

Countering al Qaeda, a must-read for Pakistan from Reuters.

It’s probably unusual to link to a report by the RAND Corporation and an op-ed on Foxnews.com in the same blog, but since both address the same subject – tackling al Qaeda in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region – here goes.

The first is a detailed report by RAND called “How Terrorist Groups End”.

Its analysis of 648 groups that existed between 1968 and 2006 concludes that ”military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups, and few groups within this time frame have achieved victory.” Calling for a rethink of U.S. strategy, it argues that policing and intelligence, rather than military force, should form the backbone of U.S. efforts against al Qaeda.”

And this:

Kerry Was Right from the Atlantic

As you may recall, back during the 2004 campaign John Kerry said something about counterterrorism being primarily a question to be dealt with through law enforcement and intelligence rather than something that should be understood as primarily a kind of war. George W. Bush was eager to pounce:

Some are skeptical that the war on terror is really a war at all. My opponent said, and I quote, "The war on terror is less of a military operation, and far more of an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation." I disagree—strongly disagree.

After 9/11 many were saying exactly what this Rand Report is now saying, seven years into this so called 'War on Terror', as well as our allies and even countries considered our foes or rather not friendly towards us, in going after al Qaeda and international criminal terrorism. We, the United States, had universal support from all corners of this planet after the devastating attacks on our country, that support would have brought the intelligence, the law enforcement agencies, and the militaries, if needed, to our aid in tracking down these criminal terrorists. This administration saw it differently and much more dangerously, wage a War on unknown factions, label them all terrorists, kill and destroy, thus creating the hatreds needed to enhance the threat leading to a replacement for the phony 'Cold War' by a 'War on Terrorism' for the wealth and power of the few and a long lasting destructive endeavor for the World to handle, and soon they will walk away with their profits and we as a Nation will hold no one Accountable!

Let me tell a little story here. After we invaded Afghanistan and ousted the Taliban, still not catching the leaders of al Qaeda, Veterans started planning an action of a Teach In to take place in Washington and called Operation Dire Distress, we saw the writing on the wall, what we 'Nam Vets especially had promised we would never allow to happen again was about to do just that. The talk changed from Afghanistan to Iraq and invading that country and toppling that leader, though the Iraqi people had nothing to do with 9/11. As the drums of war with Iraq were beating louder the planning went on. The Teach In took place, at American University in DC, on Saturday March 22nd 2003, some two days after 'Shock and Awe' started destroying the country of Iraq and it's people, there were some 300 to 400 Veterans, from World War II to the 1st Gulf War, as well as family and friends of some, from around the country.

This link is a PDF of the VFP Newsletter from that time, after that weekend Veterans For Peace Newsletter

THE TEACH-IN - Saturday, March 22
The Kay Chapel at the American University, Washington, D.C.,
teach-in was packed all afternoon as speaker after speaker, with
solid knowledge and passionate eloquence, expertly laid out the fallacies
and falsehoods driving the war in Iraq, the ways it could have
been averted, with honor, and the need to end it quickly.
I was impressed by the sanity with which people who have
earned the right to speak as soldiers and citizens and patriots of the
highest order confronted the insanity of the actions of the Bush
administration. It was a long and illustrious list of combat nurses,
intelligence experts, academics, clerics, citizens of all stripes - people
like Bobby Muller, Daniel Ellsberg, Ray McGivern, Charles
Sheehan-Miles, Jamie Vasquez, Jonathan Schell, Charley
Richardson and Nancy Lessing of Military Families Speak Out, our
president, David Cline. C-Span saw fit to broadcast it for four solid
hours.

A number of the speakers listed above, and there were more, were saying almost the exact same thing this Rand Report is now saying and much more, and we along with a growing voice of millions, in this country and around the world, have said since!

The next day a wreath laying was planned for all the monuments to those lost in our previous conflicts in Honor to their Service as our Brothers and Sisters in uniform, at the time the World War II monument had just started to be constructed

Two things happened that next day that I'll never forget, one really moved me and others, the other showed us 'Nam Vets how far this country hadn't come and hos sheepish it's citizens truly are, first a cut from the newsletter:

THE PROCESSION - Sunday,
March 23
The day of the march was brisk and
sunny. Veterans and Military Families
from all over the country collected on a
knoll near the Vietnam Memorial. We listened
to a few, short speeches. Most of us
had our messages firmly placed in our
hearts and minds. In solemn procession
we made our way from one war memorial
to another.
At each, a small delegation of veterans
walked in and placed a wreath in
memory of those we knew and didn’t
know that were lost to their families.
Peter Shaw played his bagpipes on
each occasion but one; when he joined the
delegation to the Korean War memorial.
There we laid our arms on each others’ shoulders and kept a short
silence.
We visited the Office of Veterans Affairs. The Gulf War I vets,
of a war not yet memorialized, laid their wreath at the doorstep. In a
short speech, Erik Gustafson of EPIC and a member of VFP, noted
how the Congress voted out a resolution supporting the troops, yet,
at three the next morning, voted to cut billions from the budget of
the Office of Veterans Affairs over the next ten years.
The final official delegation delivered the VAIW statement of
purpose, signed by over 3000 veterans, ranking from Admirals and
Generals to PFCs, Airmen and Seamen, to the Whitehouse.
The President’s people refused to accept it.

The first, never to be lost memory, the one that moved me.

I had gotten to the Mall early in order to take some pictures of the War Memorials before the crowds started and the rest of the Veterans and friends showed up. There was a stage setup at the Lincoln Memorial didn't go over there and didn't know what it was for but was soon to find out. While there taking a few shots and waiting for the Vets I noticed people started showing up and heading down towards the stage area, none would look at me or if they did and I caught their eyes they would quickly look away. I asked a DC cop that was near by what the stage was for, it was a planned Clear Channel 'support The Troops' rally, now I understood why the no looks, I had my Veterans For Peace T-Shirt and Ballcap on, I'll explain in a moment.

The vets started coming to the mall, as we were talking DC park personal started showing up with crowd control tube barriers, they look like bicycle racks without the center bars, They set them up in a line along the hill between us and the Vietnam Memorial, i.e. the Lincoln Memorial. While this was taking place we were joined by some other Vets, from around the area, that hadn't been at the Teach In the day before. While talking I noticed one guy running towards us from the corner of the Mall. When he got up to us, out of breath, he asked who he should talk to to join VFP. Come to find out he had watched the Saturday Teach In on C-Span, jumped on a Red Eye out of Chicago and flew down to join us for Sunday's Wreath laying, he was a 'Nam Vet who hadn't been active prior to the debacle that had started a few days before.

Now to the second occurrence, the state of this Nations Citizens, and the Treatment of Veterans, though us 'Nam Vets had already lived with it for years.

See the picture above, see the horses, well about 8to10 of DC's finest showed up riding them and took a line along the barriers. They were extremely nice to us but told us we couldn't pass over, especially in masse to lay one of the Wreath's at the Vietnam Memorial as we planned, only a small group of 3 to 4 would be allowed to do that Honor. Now as there were Veterans from WWII, through Korea, to 'Nam and up to Gulf War I the majority were Korea to 'Nam and we weren't allowed to honor our Fallen Brothers of 'Nam because the police thought there might be trouble if we Veterans got to close to the Rally 'Supporting The Troops', it was at the rally organizers request to keep us Veterans Away! No one was approached by any attending this rally, some 200 or so, so not one Vet was asked if they wanted to attend a rally in Support Of Our New Generation Of Coming Conflict Veterans! They were waving American Flags, playing Patriotic Music, singing along with the Patriotic songs and making speeches of 'Supporting The Troops' while Spitting Once Again On The Veterans Who Had Served Them In Protection Of Their Freedom, supposedly, and Democracy, supposedly!

A problem arose, if we couldn't walk near this Patriotic Rally for our Service Members how does one get from the Vietnam Memorial and the others on that side of the reflecting pool to the Korean Memorial on the otherside, there was a fence up at the opposite end from the Lincoln Memorial for the WWII Construction, why one allows the DC Police to lead, enmasse, a walk through the reflecting pool which just happened to be empty for a well needed cleaning, like a miracle only the water didn't need to part!!

Think about the above and if you've ever been to DC you can get a picture of how we were treated and the Honor Wreath laying, about 400 Veterans Shunned by the Patriotic Americans they served and our brothers and sisters died for!!

You know, those Clear Channel Rallies were never attended by huge crowds nor did they last long, they sort of went quietly away as the cheap magnetic ribbons took over, they too have pretty much disappeared.

We were saying, and have since, Exactly what this Rand Corporation report is saying now, and Think how many have died, been maimed physically and mentally, not just soldiers but civilians of another small country and how much damage has been done and the hatreds now that have been created!!


you can get the press release here, you can get the full document here or a summary of the research brief here.

"How Terrorist Groups End"

The title above comes from a new Rand Corporation Report

After 7 years of conflict and occupations, with 893 coalition deaths -- 556 Americans, in Afghanistan and increasing, and 4,438 coalition deaths -- 4,124 Americans in Iraq and increasing, with tens of thousands of injured and maimed, physically and mentally, and millions of innocents in both countries killed, maimed, living as refugee's, fighting each other in sectarian civil wars, living in ethnically cleansed neighborhoods and area's in Iraq behind huge concrete blast walls, this "Think Tank?" comes out and says:

U.S. Should Rethink "War On Terrorism" Strategy to Deal with Resurgent Al Qaida

Current U.S. strategy against terrorist organization al Qaida has not been successful at limiting the group's capabilities. Since Sept. 11, 2001, al Qaida has been involved in more terrorist attacks than ever before and over an increasingly broader range of targets.

No F'in Shit!!!!!

Millions of us, here and around the world, before the invasions and occupations, were saying exactly the same and more, and we weren't called a "Think Tank" we were labeled as "Focus Groups" not to be listened to, those here were labeled as "Unpatriotic", "Traitors", "Enemy Sympathizers", you name it "We Were In The Wrong" and the lying bastards of power Were Right, over seventy percent of this countries people Said So, and now hide from that support and tune out what the reality is!

And what does this "Think Tank" think we should do, not only this country but the world, well according to their press release:

Current U.S. strategy against the terrorist group al Qaida has not been successful in significantly undermining the group's capabilities, according to a new RAND Corporation study issued today.

Oh if you click the link directly above they'll sell you the study in paperback. But you can download the Full Document (File size 3.1 MB, 13 minutes modem, 2 minutes broadband) in PDF or download the Summary Only (File size 0.1 MB, 1 minute modem, 1 minute broadband) also in PDF.

From the site page linked above, a short description:

All terrorist groups eventually end. But how do they end? The evidence since 1968 indicates that most groups have ended because (1) they joined the political process (43 percent) or (2) local police and intelligence agencies arrested or killed key members (40 percent). Military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups, and few groups within this time frame have achieved victory. This has significant implications for dealing with al Qa'ida and suggests fundamentally rethinking post-9/11 U.S. counterterrorism strategy: Policymakers need to understand where to prioritize their efforts with limited resources and attention. The authors report that religious terrorist groups take longer to eliminate than other groups and rarely achieve their objectives. The largest groups achieve their goals more often and last longer than the smallest ones do. Finally, groups from upper-income countries are more likely to be left-wing or nationalist and less likely to have religion as their motivation. The authors conclude that policing and intelligence, rather than military force, should form the backbone of U.S. efforts against al Qa'ida. And U.S. policymakers should end the use of the phrase “war on terrorism” since there is no battlefield solution to defeating al Qa'ida.

If you noticed in the above the terms "leftwing" and "nationalists" are used. While both so called ideologies, across many spectrum's not only political have their extremists I would argue that we recently became witness to a terrorists attack, on innocents, in a church, that from the reporting of it coming out hardly shows this terrorists was of a "leftwing" ideology, a "nationalists" maybe, but I doubt he even knows what that is.

And those we presently label as "Terrorist", any we wish as those naming wage terror, are hardly "leftwing", more of the extreme "rightside" of political, religious, and corporate entities.

If you also noticed, near the end of the above, it says, "U.S. policymakers should end the use of the phrase "war on terrorism" since there is no battlefield solution to defeating al Qa'ida."!

Now where have I heard that before, oh ya, from the Millions of us in the "Focus Groups" for over seven years! And what do they suggest we call it exactly, why "CounterTerrorism" instead, and why, because Terror is a Criminal Act and can only be gone after as a Crime finding and arresting, and if a fight ensues possibly killing, those carrying out these crimes, breaking up the organizations big and small, and I'll add change the policies the powerful practice to suppress any need for the disenfranchised to rebel against that power and those failed policies!

From the Press Release:

Among the other findings, the study notes:

* Religious terrorist groups take longer to eliminate than other groups. Since 1968, approximately 62 percent of all terrorist groups have ended, while only 32 percent of religious terrorist groups have done so.

* No religious terrorist group has achieved victory since 1968.

* Size is an important predictor of a groups' fate. Large groups of more than 10,000 members have been victorious more than 25 percent of the time, while victory is rare when groups are smaller than 1,000 members.

* There is no statistical correlation between the duration of a terrorist group and ideological motivation, economic conditions, regime type or the breadth of terrorist goals.

* Terrorist groups that become involved in an insurgency do not end easily. Nearly 50 percent of the time they end with a negotiated settlement with the government, 25 percent of the time they achieved victory and 19 percent of the time, military groups defeated them.

* Terrorist groups from upper-income countries are much more likely to be left-wing or nationalistic, and much less likely to be motivated by religion.

"The United States has the necessary instruments to defeat al Qaida, it just needs to shift its strategy and keep in mind that terrorist groups are not eradicated overnight," Jones said.

It took over seven years for this thinktank to come up with the obvious.

We waged War, mostly on Innocent Human Beings, using such catch phrases as "They hate our Freedom and Democracy", "They want to convert all to Islam", the so called leader? of the pack even used a term describing it was another "Religious War" and called himself a "War President" and "The Decider".

What we have done is create not only new generations of Hatred, we have made New Enemies of us and the World, tens of thousands if not millions, by the Failed Policies, the Death and Destruction, the Want To Control Them. And the generations behind us will be left dealing with the New World We Have Given Them!!

Once again, you can get the press release here, you can get the full document here or a summary of the research brief here. There is also a link for a Congressional Briefing to be held today:

Speakers: Seth Jones Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 Time: 2:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. Location: 210 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C.

If televised I'm wondering if I should watch it, I'm afraid I might either start pulling out my hair or throw something into the tv screen, as I think of All that has been Done these past seven years and none can be taken back!!!!!!!

Condi Must Go

All Their Worried About Is Individual Legacies??

We have Tens of Thousands Dead and Maimed!

A small country, loaded with historic value of the origins on Man, Destroyed and in Destructive Turmoil, threatening the whole region, while we threaten others in the region ourselves!

We have awakened long surpressed hostilities, started long ago by others, who tried to control the peoples of the region, dictating to them how they should exist, forcing through destructive violence the ideologies of those others who tried to control!

And all those who were at the helm of this destruction, preaching fear and lies, can think of is Their Legacy?????

This Washington Post article tells us all most of us already know An Exit Toward Soul-Searching
As Bush Staffers Leave, Questions About Legacy Abound

and need to know about this incompetent administration, filled with lyers and frankly thieves!

It starts out with this:

It had been four days since Meghan O'Sullivan left her job at the White House. Just four days since she gave up her Secret Service pass, her classified hard drive and her entree to the president. Four days since she gave up any day-to-day responsibility for Iraq.

Too soon, evidently, for the dreams to end. "In fact, I was dreaming about Iraq last night," she said. "And I woke up and thought, 'When do you think this will stop?' "

Hey Meghan, "It Should Never Have Started!"!

And than a short distance down gives us this quote by one of the most destructive, criminal, political hacks, to inhabit the Peoples House, bringing shame and the downward spiral of this countries political process and stature in the world:

Karl Rove feels guilty for leaving in a time of war, yet he wants to reinvent himself as more than simply "the Bush guy."

So that's what the karl thinks about, reinvention!

While he's not the only one who has disgraced this Nation, and it's citizens, this administration and congresses are loaded with the Guilty, the karl's legacy will have two writes, one of fact the other of propaganda and double speak, as will all the others!

We have an opposition political party, and a large section of it's base, who don't see the real damage done to this countries ideology and fragility, the experiment of this type of Democracy is wavering towards destruction, if no one is held accountable for all that has taken place!

If there ever were a Real Reason for not only a real Impeachment, not only of a President but the removal of a whole administration, a coup if you will by the citizens, than Indictments and Trials, this is the time!

Yet all many think about, and are really worried about, is that if going after the Guilty, proof is already out there on a number of charges, they will severly damage their own chances of Control in Washington, their own legacies!

We, as responsible adults, have now left, for the coming generations, not a better world, but one of further destruction and turmoil. They will be cleaning up the mess we have left for decades, that is if they recognize that which we have done, and are not doing. Or they will take the same destructive ideologies as their own leaving those that follow them into an abyss of never ending hostilities of man and destruction of this planet, not by some spiritual being but by us so called intelligent beings!

Legacies-Arrogance,Apathy,Corruption,Incompetence,Self Centered,Inhumanity....................................!!!!!!!

Soldier Diagnosed With Mental Problems

Give diagnosis, Give drugs, Tell him to get more Sleep, Send him back on partrols, where he Rapes a Young Iraqi Girl and Kills Her and the Entire Family, and THE ARMY KNEW!!!!!!

Putting All U.S. Trops into even More Danger than they already were, the Army Itself is complicent in this Atrosity

By RYAN LENZ
Associated Press Writer

FORT CAMPBELL, Ky. (AP) -- An Army private charged with the slaughter of an Iraqi family was diagnosed as a homicidal threat by a military mental health team three months before the attack.

Pfc. Steven D. Green was found to have "homicidal ideations" after seeking help from an Army Combat Stress Team in Iraq on Dec. 21, 2005. Green said he was angry about the war, desperate to avenge the death of comrades and driven to kill Iraqi citizens, according to an investigation by The Associated Press.

The treatment was several small doses of Seroquel - a drug to regulate his mood - and a directive to get some sleep, according to medical records obtained by the AP. The next day, he returned to duty in the particularly violent stretch of desert in the southern Baghdad suburbs known as the "Triangle of Death."

On March 12, 2006, Iraqi police reported a break-in at the home of a family in Mahmoudiya, about 20 miles from Baghdad. The intruders shot and killed the father, mother and two young daughters. The older girl, 14-year-old Abeer Qassim al-Janabi, was raped and her body set afire.

The carnage first was assumed to be the work of insurgents. That changed in late June when two members of Green's unit told their superiors of suspicions that soldiers were involved in the killings. Now the Army believes Green and four other soldiers are responsible. One of them has confessed and provided information to prosecutors; in testimony at his court-martial, the soldier identified Green as the ringleader.

If the charges are true, the attack would be among the most horrific instances of criminal behavior by American troops in the nearly four-year-old war. It also would represent a worst-case scenario for the military's much-criticized practice of keeping mentally and emotionally unfit personnel in the killing fields of Iraq.

Col. Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, psychiatry counsel to the Army Surgeon General, would not specifically discuss Green when contacted by The AP. She defended the military's policies regarding the treatment of emotionally or psychologically distressed soldiers.

"If unresponsive to treatment and/or a persistent danger to self or others, they will be evacuated," Ritchie told The AP in an e-mail.

The 101st Airborne Division also declined to comment, noting it is an open federal case.

The Army and the Marines, who have the most personnel on the ground in Iraq, have been faulted for the manner in which troops with mental and emotional difficulties are being treated.

Sending troops already in Iraq who have been diagnosed with mental illness back to combat duty - often under medication that has not been prescribed long enough to have provided relief - has been a particular criticism.

Green has been charged with the murders and rape and pleaded not guilty in federal court in Kentucky. He is being tried in federal court because his arrest came after he had been discharged from the Army. Three others face the same charges and will be court-martialed.

From interviews with people who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized by the military to discuss the case, and from viewing the Army's medical and investigative records, the AP also has learned:

- Three months passed without Army doctors and clinicians from the Combat Stress Team having any contact with Green. He was summoned for a second examination on March 20, 2006 - eight days after the killing of the family. Green was diagnosed as having an anti-social personality disorder and declared unfit for service. The process of discharging him began a week later and he was sent home.

- The Army's own investigation of Green's initial treatment, prompted by concerns he and others would use mental health problems as a defense in trial, is highly critical. Among the most salient findings from a July review of Green's treatment: "Although a safety assessment was conducted, there is no safety plan addressing how Soldier (Green) will keep from acting on his homicidal thoughts."

- Lt. Col. Elizabeth Bowler, a psychiatrist and Army reservist from California who took over the Combat Stress Team with Green's unit in January, recommended his discharge after the second examination in March. Yet she wrote a final evaluation that said Green exhibited no traits that would indicate dangerously erratic or homicidal moods, according to documents viewed by The AP.

Green deployed to Iraq in September 2005 from Fort Campbell with a battalion from the 101st Airborne Division's 502nd Infantry Regiment. The unit was charged with security operations and assisting Iraqi army units in the "Triangle of Death."

Eleven days before Green's first visit with the stress team in December 2005, he and five others were manning a checkpoint when an Iraqi civilian approached, according to testimony in military hearings. The civilian was familiar because of his status as a sometimes informant. He greeted the soldiers warmly before pulling a pistol from his belt and shooting two of them at point-blank range.

Green's behavior worsened after that, according to commanders. He was directed to visit doctors a second time. Eight days later, Bowler told commanders that Green was unfit for service, according to documents. The discharge process for Green concluded in May 2006.

The Pentagon issued new guidelines in November that prevent personnel with certain pre-existing mental problems from deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan. Clinicians evaluating whether a soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan is fit for service are now required to review all medical records. Mental illnesses that are not expected to be resolved in one year will be cause for discharge.

The Army's hearings on the family's murder concluded in August. Those who testified put forth this outline of the crime:

The plot to rape and kill was hatched as the soldiers hit golf balls at a checkpoint. They had seen the older daughter on patrols in the area. After drinking whiskey bought from Iraqi policemen, they masked their faces and crept through backyards in afternoon daylight to get to the family's home.

They knew the family kept a gun in one bedroom for protection.

Once in the house, Green herded the father, mother and 5-year-old daughter to another room, closed the door and shot them dead. Green had blood on his clothes and boots when he returned.

Green and at least two others took turns raping the other daughter before killing her with the family's AK-47. They set her body on fire with kerosene dumped from a lamp in the kitchen in an effort to hide evidence.

Steven Green is in custody at an undisclosed location in Kentucky, according to federal law-enforcement officials. Prosecutors have not said if they will seek the death penalty.

Pfc. Jesse V. Spielman, 22, of Chambersburg, Pa.; Sgt. Paul E. Cortez, 24, of Barstow, Calif.; and Pfc. Bryan L. Howard, 23, of Huffman, Texas, have been charged with rape and murder and await courts-martial. They are in custody at Fort Campbell.

Spc. James P. Barker, 24, of Fresno, Calif., pleaded guilty in November as part of an agreement to testify against the others.

Military Contractors,i.e. Mercenaries, Fall Under UCMJ Now!

Well Well Well, looky here, found over at the MoJo blog.
Military Contractors Lose Their "Get Out of Jail" Card

Five years into the war on terror, American military contractors have finally lost some of their immunity from prosecution for dirty deeds done on the federal dime.

They now can be Court Martialed.

This means that if contractors violate the rules of engagement in a warzone or commit crimes during a contingency operation like Iraq, they can now be court-martialed (as in, Corporate Warriors, meet A Few Good Men). On face value, this appears to be a step forward for realistic accountability. Military contractor conduct can now be checked by the military investigation and court system, which unlike civilian courts, is actually ready and able both to understand the peculiarities of life and work in a warzone and kick into action when things go wrong.

The Law Catches Up To Private Militaries, Embeds

The addition of five little words to a massive US legal code that fills entire shelves at law libraries wouldn't normally matter for much. But with this change, contractors' 'get out of jail free' card may have been torn to shreds. Previously, contractors would only fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, better known as the court martial system, if Congress declared war. This is something that has not happened in over 65 years and out of sorts with the most likely operations in the 21st century. The result is that whenever our military officers came across episodes of suspected contractor crimes in missions like Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, or Afghanistan, they had no tools to resolve them. As long as Congress had not formally declared war, civilians -- even those working for the US armed forces, carrying out military missions in a conflict zone -- fell outside their jurisdiction. The military's relationship with the contractor was, well, merely contractual. At most, the local officer in charge could request to the employing firm that the individual be demoted or fired. If he thought a felony occurred, the officer might be able to report them on to civilian authorities.

Actually this is coming about Real Late in this Debacle! As these clowns have been doing as they please, including torture, killings, whatever, their ctions have put Military Personal in Extreme Danger! That danger comes from the Retaliations that Atrosities bring about as well as the Easier Recruitment of others to join in the Insurgency/Guerilla War trying to disingage the Occupiers from their Country!
It also leads to a Much Less Secure 'National Security', for not only this Country but any Considered Friendly Nations of!

Back when the Vietnamese just wanted us Out, today it's a Continuation of the already long running Guerilla War, long before 9/11, that has been waged by the fanatical extreme 'Criminal Terrorist' for a veriaty of reasons but more like because of our Policies, on the Foreign Front, and the Support we have given to so called leaders in the Countries that Suppress their fellow Countries Citizens!

And for every story that has been deemed newsworthy, there are dozens that never see the spotlight. One US army officer recently told me of an incident he witnessed, where a contractor shot a young Iraqi who got too close to his vehicle while in line at the Green Zone entrance. The boy was waiting there to apply for a job. Not merely a tragedy, but one more nail in the coffin for any US effort at winning hearts and minds.

It's bad enough, for the troops, when one of their own Royally Screws Up, but to have High Paid Guns doin the Screwin it's Fanatical!!!

So what happens next? In all likelihood, many firms, who have so far thrived in the unregulated marketplace, will now lobby hard to try to strike down the change. We will perhaps even soon enjoy the sight of CEOs of military firms, preening about their loss of rights and how the new definition of warzone will keep them from rescuing kittens caught in trees.

Take a trip over and read the report, it's worth it.