Click the image to visit TruthToPower.tv and order The Warning on DVD Watch the trailer here
Contribute To OOIBC ▼
This is a non-profit site that requires much time and effort to maintain. Please help us continue the work we do here by donating whatever you can afford, today.
Petition ▼
More than 44,000 people have signed this petition. Click the Badge to see the latest count and sign the petition.
Click Get Badge to embed the Badge on your site.
Formal Petition to Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute any and all government officials who have participated in War Crimes.
Translate ▼
Search OOIBC ▼
Recent Posts ▼
The Myth of AQI Fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq is the last big argument for keeping U.S. troops in the country. But the military´s estimation of the threat is alarmingly wrong. --By Andrew Tilghman
'Terrorism' is simply the response to US terrorism --perpetrated primarily by the CIA and US surrogates. The 'blowback' is the root cause of terrorism, the motivation for it, the fuel that keeps it alive. Fighting a 'war on terrorism' is just plain stupid. Such a war 'causes' terrorism and I've got the stats prove it.
'Terrorism' is a political term applied to anyone who has a different point of view.
Anyone who opposes the criminal interventions of the US is --by Bush's decree --a 'terrorist'! If you merely dissent, you may be defined as a terrorist. The Bush regime is now claiming that he has the authority under the pretext of a phony war to define citizens of other nations as terrorists. He demands of other nations, for example, that they provide his administration with the records of their citizens whenever Bush may 'deem' them guilty of terrorism.
Be warned! If you are but 'deemed' a terrorist, you are deprived of the right to be represented by a lawyer, you don't get to make a phone call, you may not demand a hearing, you are robbed of habeas corpus --a right England demanded of King John and got! [See: How America is snooping on YOU ... and may soon be snooping a whole lot more] William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, stood up in Parliament during the American 'revolution', and uttered these brave words knowing that they would appear in the record, knowing that they would be seen and read by King George III:
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms -- never! never! never!"
The US military are wimps --hiding behind hi-tech gadgetry and robots. Even so --the US 'leadership' is outraged when our criminal methods, oppressions, and various tyrannical methods are met with armed opposition! How bloody stupid are our leaders! How bloody incompetent! How incredibly venal! How traitorous and criminal! Bush has committed capital crimes --primarily in and against Iraq --for which he MUST be arrested, charged, and tried if there is to be any justice whatsoever in this world. I do not merely allege that Bush's polices are counter-productive, I can prove it with the FBI own stats! Terrorism is always worse under GOP regimes. The illegitimate regime of George W. Bush assumed power upon a violation of US Codes having to do with 'seditious treason'.
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. --TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2383, Rebellion or insurrection
Bush's coup was assisted by a Republican gang of 'brownshirts', in this case 'white shirts' who physically attack voter recounters in Florida. The effect of this felonious use of violence stopped the court ordered recount of votes in Florida until a packed Republican court could return Bush v Gore.
These are some of the thugs who staged a riot at the Miami canvassing board and shut down the recount. Most of these thugs are present or past employees of Congressional Republicans. The riot was led by Rep. John Sweeney of upstate NY. All of these thugs - and their Congressional bosses, led by Tom DeLay - should be prosecuted for criminally interfering with a federal election.
No. 1. Tom Pyle, who had worked for Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), went private sector a few months later, getting a job as director of federal affairs for Koch Industries.
No. 2. Garry Malphrus, a former staff director of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on criminal justice, is now deputy director of the White House Domestic Policy Council.
No. 3. Rory Cooper, who was at the National Republican Congressional Committee, later worked at the White House Homeland Security Council and was seen last week working for the Presidential Inaugural Committee.
No. 6. Matt Schlapp, a former House aide and then a Bush campaign aide, has risen to be White House political director.
No. 7. Roger Morse, another House aide, moved on to the law and lobbying firm Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds. "I was also privileged to lead a team of Republicans to Florida to help in the recount fight," he told a legal trade magazine in a 2003 interview.
No. 8. Duane Gibson, an aide on the House Resources Committee, was a solo lobbyist and formerly with the Greenberg Traurig lobby operation. He is now with the Livingston Group as a consultant.
No. 9. Chuck Royal was and still is a legislative assistant to Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a former House member.
No. 10. Layna McConkey Peltier, who had been a Senate and House aide and was at Steelman Health Strategies during the effort, is now at Capital Health Group.
Having stolen two elections, having flouted the Constitution, Bush assumed powers that place him above the law. He has done so upon a series of well-planned, malicious frauds, all of which are cited in justification for his tyrannical usurpation of every right guaranteed individuals in the Bill of Rights. It is circular, delusional logic, symptomatic of psychos! This unprecedented seizure of absolute power upon lies and frauds amounts to high treason. It is tyranny! Some of the crimes Bush has committed subsequent to these various usurpations are punishable by death! Bush, an illegitimate 'ruler', has left the sovereign people of the US no other choice but revolution.
'The tree of Liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.'--Thomas Jefferson
I vote for spilling the blood of tyrants! The blood of true patriots is in short enough supply already! A Federal Grand Jury, perhaps one already convened, should indict George W. Bush for his MANY violations of US Codes, Title 18, Section 2441. That's a CAPITAL CRIME and it's an open shut case against Bush. A fair court upon proven evidence and the rule of law will sentence George W. Bush to death!
(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.--US Codes, TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441, War crimes
Bush will, of course, have no defense but the lies he's told already.
There is probable cause to indict Larry Silverstein, Marvin Bush, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and others inside the Bush administration for mass murder in connection with the so-called 'terrorist attacks' on 911! Conan Doyle's character Sherlock Holmes said: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth!"
Every other explanation but 'controlled demolition' is, rather, easy to eliminate. Many of the alleged hijackers are still alive. Steel has never and will never melt in kerosene fires. There was certainly enough 'airliner' debris to fill up NO more than a couple of wheelbarrows at the Pentagon. No piece of Flight 93 was found at its 'crash site' in PA. This is truly a miracle without precedent. On 911, we are expected to believe, the laws of physics were suspended. In the history of flight, no Pterodactyl has ever crashed that did not leave behind a body, no bird took flight that did not leave behind a frail skeleton to rot, no bi-plane ever crashed that did not leave behind its wreckage, no jet fighter ever crashed at any speed that did not leave behind charred bodies and wreckage! As a reporter, I covered my share of those. I have yet to see a crash that left no wreckage, deaths but yet no bodies! Bush's ludicrous cover story is eliminated! It's a lie and not even a good one. The 911 Commission Report reads like a high school paper, a work of implausible and un-imaginative fiction. What remains is the probable cause that George W. Bush and the cabal of criminals that make up his so-called administration pulled off 911 as a cover for the many crimes of this administration. Who benefited from 911? The most obvious beneficiaries are Bush, who found in 911 an opportunity to become a dicatator; Larry Silverstein who made out like the bandit he is; and a small army of 'short sellers', linked to Buzzy Krongard! They made fortunes short selling airline stocks. Guess which airlines!
The three essential ingredients of a criminal indictment can be proven of an indictable Bush gang --method, motive, and opportunity! The Bush gang had all three.
John McCain announced today that Iraq is approaching normalcy. What era is he living in? What drugs is he on?
McCain gave a relatively optimistic appraisal of the situation in Iraq, saying that the recent reductions in violence have returned the country to something "approaching normal political and economic life for the average Iraqi."
Before the invasion in 2003, the average Iraqi suffered from the sanctions that were imposed on Iraq, but as a rule, they could go through an entire day, a week, a month &mdash sometimes even a year &mdash without having to pick up pieces of dead relatives, neighbours, or friends.
And, in fact, The Australian reports that rocket attacks today on the Green Zone in Baghdad and a U.S. military base in Baghdad killed 3 U.S. soldiers and injured 31. Correct us if we're wrong, but we were under the impression that it is not considered "normal" to have rocket and mortar attacks on the Green Zone.
Does the mainstream media even pick up on this shit? Here's this doddering old fool who can't tell a Sunni from a Shi'a after five fucking years of war. He's a fucking Senator, fer crisake, not some shit-shoveler in the George W. Bush Memorial Sewage Plant of San Francisco (no offense to shit-shovelers anywhere, but it's not in your job description to know the warring parties in wars your government starts).
He's accusing Iran of training al Qaeda in Iraq fighters. That would be a handy-dandy thing to do, given that Iran is Shi'a and aQI is Sunni and the two sects are as close to mortal enemies as it gets in the Middle East. Someone ought to let the old fool know that aQI is most likely getting its money, guns, and training from Sunni Saudi Arabia, home of the hardline fundie Wahabi school of Islamic thought and good buddies of McCain's old friend George Dubya.
Meanwhile, Jason Linkins writes in the Huffington Post that ambulatory slimebag Patrick McHenry (Repulsive-Nauseating Conman), who recently made a trip to Iraq on the taxpayer dime and called a serviceman a "two-bit security guard" as a way of showing his support for the troops, may have endangered U.S. troops. No doubt as a way of showing his support. Very supportive fellow, McHenry.
Pam's House Blend notes that Rep. McHenry supports sleepovers at his house involving studly young NOT-GAY college students involved in some sort of voting scandal. There's also plenty of sleaze involving gay prostitution, which resulted in some sort of love triangle murder in Florida.
This blog actively supports gay, bisexual, transgender, lesbian, and all-around QUEER folk. But we wonder why so many Republicans appear to be gayer than larks, yet actively working against LGBTQ rights, and so deeply closeted they're pooping hangers. C'mon, boys and girls, step out of your closet and fucking admit to being who and what you are. No crime, no sin, no shame. It's natural to love whoever your heart tells you to love.
It's not natural to cement the goddamn closet door shut and hate on everyone who refuses to climb in there with you. But his gayishly gay gayness scandals aside, Patrick McHenry may have done a Very Bad Thing, recently. According to Brandon Friedman of VoteVets:
"Only two days after McHenry promoted a video of himself in the Green Zone describing in detail the effectiveness of the rocket attacks on Easter Sunday," Friedman notes, "the area was hit with a barrage that killed two U.S. soldiers and wounded 17 others." Friedman goes on to assert, "The bottom line is that whoever launched that strike could take the information McHenry provided and use it to kill Americans in the Green Zone."
Friedman is far from alone in his concern:
On Saturday, I communicated with one military officer currently in the Green Zone who stated that this was "undoubtedly a violation of OPSEC." On Sunday evening, I spoke with a senior intelligence official in Washington who seemed dumbfounded by McHenry's remarks. Asked whether he considered this a breach of operations security, the official shouted over the phone at me, "Of course! He's helping to dial them in." He meant the people firing the rockets.
It looks like the Republican definition of "support the troops" is "Encourage the dumb fucks to sign up and put their bodies on the line if Der Leader starts a war. Cut vet benefits; if soldiers get injured in the line of duty, force them to pay back any signup bonuses; give military contracts to your buddies so they get rich giving the troops inferior gear; buy lots of yellow plastic magnets made in China or Kazakhstan; yell loudly anytime anyone points out that you're not really helping the troops at all." Very supportive.
Oh, yeah, and work hard to get some senile warmonger elected even as your own country is falling apart because all the money is being funneled into some tiny poor country that never did anything to you and your'n.
We gotta make sure that John McCain doesn't come with an arm's-length of the Presidency; and we gotta kick out of office all these liars, thugs, crooks, and thieves who purport to support while actively harming the military.
In other exciting news, USA Toady (no typo) is reporting that the number of military recruits requiring "conduct" waivers has tripled in the past four years. Great. Find a felon, sign them up, give them weapons training, teach them might is right. Expose them to ongoing physical and psychological trauma, then bring them home and let them loose on the population.
Oh, yeah, most of these people are guilty of "misdemeanors." That means that they were merely setting markers on the road to more disturbed conduct. So it's OK. Just like Pfc Greene, who raped and murdered Abeer Qasim Hamza al-Janabi, killed her entire family, and set all their bodies on fire to destroy the evidence of his criminal acts.
The 40-year-old son-in-law and his wife were in the process of divorcing when the husband had to travel to the United States for business.
...When the husband refused to stay home, his father-in-law wrote an email to the FBI saying the son-in-law had links to al-Qaeda in Sweden and that he was travelling to the US to meet his contacts.
He provided information on the flight number and date of arrival in the US.
The son-in-law was arrested upon landing in Florida. He was placed in handcuffs, interrogated and placed in a cell for 11 hours before being put on a flight back to Europe, the paper said.
The FBI contacted Swedish intelligence agency Saepo, which discovered that the email tipping off the FBI had been sent from the father-in-law's computer.
The father-in-law has been charged with aggravated libel.
He has admitted sending the email, but said he didn't think "the authorities were so stupid that they would believe anything. But apparently they are."
He said he "couldn't help the US authorities' paranoid reaction".
The son-in-law is lucky he didn't end up at Gitmo for a few years of non-tortuous waterboarding, without habeas rights and awaiting a rigged military tribunal. Which is, according to Amnesty and HRW, why many of the Afghans there are detained - fingered by ill-wishers in return for a hefty US-paid bounty.
If you were one of the Americans waiting for Congress, under Democratic control, to show leadership on the war in Iraq, the message from the Senate is clear: "Nevermind." The same goes for those waiting for lawmakers to fix the damage done to civil liberties by six years of President Bush and a rubber-stamp Republican Congress.
The NYT editors have missed the boat in two places, however. They've nailed the problem with the GOP, but make the I think badly mistaken assumption that the Democratic Leadership is not complicit with Bush's goals, with:
The Democrats don't have, or can't summon, the political strength to make sure Congress does what it is supposed to do: debate profound issues like these and take a stand. The Republicans are simply not interested in a serious discussion and certainly not a vote on anything beyond Mr. Bush's increasingly narrow agenda.
And they do it again in my opinion, with:
Democrats and Republicans who oppose the war have a duty to outline alternatives. Those who call for staying in Iraq have a duty to explain what victory means and how they plan to achieve it. Both sides are shirking an obligation to deal with issues that must be resolved right now, like the crisis involving asylum for Iraqis who helped the American occupation.
They're right that both parties need to be articulating clear alternatives, but they're still stuck in the quicksand of assuming that Iraqis are incompetent children incapable of finding their own path and managing their own affairs to their own satisfaction in their own ways, regardless of what the rest of the world, or the "Washington Consensus", wants Iraqis to do. If Iraqis want help they'll ask for it. It cannot be forced on them, and any attempt to force "help" on them has, is, and will continue to backfire.
If Iraqis have sectarian differences and kill each other in a civil war, it is their civil war, and neither The U.S. nor any other country has any more right to intervene for U.S. benefit than any other more powerful country had the right to intervene in the American Civil War for their benefit.
All that Washington's "help" has ever done for Iraq is make the situation worse. Continually. Never better. Only worse.
Since Bush started a fire that is burning the Iraqi house down the first thing to do is stop throwing fuel into the fire. And since Bush's invasion destroyed the infrastructure of the house before he started the fire and he made no effort to rebuild it, once we stop throwing fuel in and get out of the way before we are thrown out of the way, someone else will rebuild it.
It probably won't look anything like what the "Washington Consensus" would like it to look like when they're done, but too bad.
The vast majority of Iraqis DO NOT want U.S. troops occupying their country.
It is time to recognize that reality, and face up to it.
What will help to begin fixing Iraq is not "doing" something.
What will help to begin fixing Iraq is "not doing" something.
Not funding the occupation any longer and complete and total withdrawal of all U.S. military from the country is what will begin fixing Iraq.
Iraq will be fixed. Eventually. But it will not be republicans or democrats, or even the U.S. that fixes it. It will be, and can only be, Iraqis that fix Iraq.
The U.S. presence in Iraq, and the refusal to leave, is the problem.
I think we finally have a good picture of the Bush DeadEnders.
To see the type of person who still backs him, President Bush need only look in the mirror. The president fits the composite of today's Bush supporter: a conservative, white, Republican man, an evangelical Christian who goes to church regularly.
The only subgroups where a majority of people give Bush the nod are Republicans (67 percent), conservatives (53 percent) and white evangelicals who attend religious services at least once a week (56 percent).
These are the same three subsets of voters who support Bush on Iraq.
White evangelicals as an entire bloc - regardless of how often they report going to church - have been a reliable support group for Bush since he first set foot in the Oval Office. But even their overall approval of the president declined to 44 percent last month from 57 percent in May - a decline driven partly by bad news from the battlefield in Iraq and conservatives' opposition to Bush's ideas on immigration.
No surprises on this list, really; intuitively we already know all this. But it is helpful to have some evidence to bolster our claims.
Playing the part of a dissenting senator can get you a few spins in the network news cycle, but until you put up, you may as well shut up (honestly, how hard is it for a GOP senator to come out against policies of a president whose popularity has fallen to 26%?).
Following the three deadliest months of the war, Democrats are forcing President Bush and Iraqis to finally accept some measure of accountability for this war through the Defense Authorization bill this week. Starting off the debate, Webb will introduce an amendment to the bill that requires active-duty troops to have at least the same amount of time at home as the length of their previous tour overseas.
Why is supporting this amendment such a safe move for the troika? Because it is absolutely the least they can do both to demonstrate real support for our troops in harm's way and stick a finger in the eye of the (mis)administration which has so ill-treated our troops.
No mention of withdrawal timetables. Hell, no mention of even providing adequate body armor and properly armored vehicles for troops on patrol in dangerous forward areas. We're simply talking about a chance for returning troops to have an adequate chance to rest, recuperate and get their personal & family affairs in order before being fed back into the meatgrinder.
If these three GOP senators cannot do at least this much for our fighting men & women, then I sure as hell don't expect to see their fatuous faces on my Sunday talk shows again anytime soon.
Last week, GOP Senators Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and George Voinovich, R-Ohio, said the U.S. should reduce its military presence in Iraq. Sen. John Warner, R-Va., had already said the same prior to that. Now Sen. Pete Domenici has withdrawn his support of President Bush's Iraq war policy and embraced a proposal to bring home most troops by March. They don't want to get caught in the pressure that the White House will mount this September.
I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP support for Bush and Cheney's jobs starts to crumble next, particularly after Olbermann's recent broad-side. It's time to hammer at the cracks developing in Bush and Cheney's armor.
The main reason Iraq is such a mess now is that Bush has put the US military into an impossibly conflicted situation.
They are now fighting to defeat the very people Bush claimed to have invaded to liberate.
The "insurgency" IS Iraq. It is Iraqis.
By arming Sunnis to ostensibly help fight al-Qaeda (who was NOT in Iraq before the invasion and is such a small minority the Iraqis will slit all their throats the moment they are not distracted by throwing the US out) but who will use the help to fight Shias Bush is now taking sides in a civil war with people who composed Saddam's Ba'ath Party, against the very Shia backed puppet government Bush set up in the first place.
As Bill Arnett showed two days ago, the lies get more idiotic as Bush and the GOP (with complicity from the Democratic Leadership now) flail blindly trying to save their own political asses:
With the four-month-old increase in American troops showing only modest success in curbing insurgent attacks, American commanders are turning to another strategy that they acknowledge is fraught with risk: arming Sunni Arab groups that have promised to fight militants linked with Al Qaeda who have been their allies in the past.
11 days later:
The number two US military commander in Iraq on Friday denied that US forces were arming insurgents willing to fight forces of the Al-Qaeda network, but said the military was "reaching out."
"I want to make one thing very clear: we are not arming these groups," Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno told reporters via teleconference from Baghdad.
It was "lost" more than fours years ago.
It was a lost cause the day the invasion began.
It is a lost cause now.
It will be a lost cause until the last US Soldier leaves Iraq.
The only question remaining is how many (besides their own, of course) American and Iraqi lives are the people arguing for continuance of this debacle willing to sacrifice to be able to remain in their denial?
It is US Soldiers and Iraqi civilians who are paying the price with their lives for this idiocy.
Remember that when they come begging for your votes next year, from either side.
The Bush Administration, and Republicans and Democrats in Congress alike, repeat almost daily that they will not defund the troops, with both sides vying for public support with the same bullshit.
It's the biggest load of crap there is.
The Democratic Leadership apparently is afraid of not funding the Iraq occupation either because they are afraid of being attacked by Bush and the GOP for not funding the troops, or because they want to continue the occupation.
The continuous whine that "we don't have the votes" is part of the big lie.
If the Democrats stand up NOW and announce that they will no longer fund the occupation and that there will be no more emergency supplementals introduced when the current one runs out, the situation will become one of NO votes needed to NOT pass a bill. The ball will be in Bush's court.
The Democrats have absolute power in this debate. What good is it and why should voters let them retain it next year if they are too weak kneed to use it to end the Debacle? If they will not, then by default they proclaim their complicity with Bush.
The argument that 'defunding endangers the troops' is utter bullshit and is completely and irrefutably debunked. Let the rethugs try to accuse Democrats of it. Democrats will win that political argument, but ONLY if they have the cohones to do what they know is the right thing.
At the next presidential press conference, I'd suggest question 1-5 be the following: "Are you Mr. President, and Mr. Secretary, prepared to leave troops in Iraq without adequate supplies?"
Watch them squirm, watch them dance. They will not be able to say "yes." This is what the media and the Democrats should have been asking, over and over again, to frame this debate properly.
If the Democrats don't want to do the right thing... it becomes obvious that they want to continue the occupation.
For what? Cheap gasoline? Or the neocon vision of world domination?
What has been needed all along and is needed now is for the Democrats to show that they have some balls and display A Measure of Morality in Congress:
If you could secretly tell a magic genie "Yes" and suffer horribly and die but save the lives of a million people you've never met, would you say No? This one they don't even ask in philosophy school, much less Congress. But let's think about it for a minute. What's the worst fate a Congress Member could face as a result of voting against funding the war? For most it must be the loss of their seat. How horrible is that? Some of these congress members are freshmen, first elected last November campaigning on promises to end the war. Now they're prepared to vote $100 billion for the war in hopes of getting elected again in 2008. What in the hell did they want to get elected for in the first place? What district is going to receive less money if we end the war and redirect our spending to useful projects than if we continue the war but fund special pieces of pork here and there?
While it is important for supporters, activists, and leaders of the peace movement to engage in some thoughtful soul searching over program and strategy, I am concerned that the most urgent activity the peace movement should be organizing is going neglected. We need a massive showing of anti-war sentiment in the fall of 2007, and this can only happen if the major peace organizations launch the initiative now.
An overwhelming majority of the American public wants the war in Iraq ended and the troops brought home now. If anyone believed the Democrats in Congress were going to end the fiasco without massive pressure from the peace movement, that illusion just flew out the window with the Democrats acquiescing in funding the war without even any deadlines for withdrawal. Whether one thinks of it as making more Democratic lawmakers afraid to anger the peace movement, or showing sympathetic Democrats that the peace movement can cover their backs when Republicans try to pin the disaster on any who vote to cut off funding, is of little practical importance. The overwhelming antiwar sentiment that already exists must be mobilized.
It has to be in the fall of 2007 because spring 2008 is too late. First, most Americans understand that every month that passes is more American and Iraqi lives lost for absolutely nothing. Second, the Democrats in Congress will face important choices in September, so that is when the pressure needs to be applied. And third, by spring 2008 too many supporters and activists in the peace movement will be drawn into primary campaigns. Unless we have made ourselves vocal and visible as an oppositional movement, the pressure to subordinate peace politics to the strategies of the candidates will be overwhelming.
Would you support the Congress' setting a binding withdrawal date of March 31, 2008 by announcing that after March 31, 2008 (or an earlier date), it will not fund the Iraq War?
** END THE IRAQ DEBACLE TO AVOID A DEMOCRATIC ELECTORAL DEBACLE IN 2008 **
The entire debate about NOT funding the occupation of Iraq and George W. Bush's Iraq and Mid-East Debacle revolves around one piece of propaganda that has been sold to the public in one of the most heinous aggregations of misperceptions, disinformation, and outright lies ever foisted on a public that cares for the lives of the American troops sent into Iraq, of which there are huge mis-perceptions and an incredible amount of disinformation, i.e. lies, spread by republicans and democrats and trolls.
The Bush Administration, and Republicans and Democrats in Congress alike, repeat almost daily that they will not defund the troops, with both sides vying for public support with the same bullshit.
It's the biggest load of crap there is.
The Democratic Leadership apparently is afraid of not funding the Iraq occupation either because they are afraid of being attacked by Bush and the GOP for not funding the troops, or because they want to continue the occupation.
They know it is a lie when Bush says it.
Yet they turn right around and tell people (repeating the lie) that advocating not funding the occupation is advocating not funding the troops.
Emergency supplemental funding for a war or for an occupation is not for the troops. It never has been for the troops. It will never be for the troops.
NOT passing emergency supplemental funding does not hurt the troops. It never has hurt the troops. It will never hurt the troops.
Not passing emergency supplemental funding is simply NOT FUNDING the occupation. That is all it is.
UPDATE June 12:
DEAN BAKER, Co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research: [h/t to MO Blue]:
"The latest version of the 'hide behind the troops' mode of argument is to claim that Congress lacks the ability to end the war. The story goes that President Bush is commander in chief of the armed forces, and that if he does not want to end the war, then Congress cannot force his hand.According to this argument, if Congress were to use its control of the budget to restrict funding, it would jeopardize our troops stationed in Iraq by denying them the supplies and ammunition needed to defend themselves.
"This argument is garbage. Congress has the authority to require the top military commanders in Iraq to produce a plan for safely withdrawing our troops from the country. It can also require these commanders to give their best estimate of the cost of this plan. It can then appropriate this money, specifying that the funds be used for the withdrawal plan designed by the military."
The situation is process analogous to to a business enterprise that has, for example, 100 employeees to whom they pay salaries and provide food and lodging. The budget for that is something planned for every year. We'll call that the budget for the 'troops'.
One year they decide to take on an extra contract to complete a project in another city and they send those 100 employees (troops) to the new city.
The project will require incurring added costs over and above the budget for the employees (troops), so management arranges a bank loan to pay for the added costs for transportation, materials, overtime, extra fuel required, etc. etc.
They then begin to run into delays, extreme competition from a better suited and skilled company, and start incurring huge cost overruns, which they cover with repeated visits to the bank for more loans.
Eventually the bank says look - this is bankrupting you and placing your employees in danger of being abandonded in the new city if you continue down this path - here is your last loan - it will cover you for 90 days, after which the bank will provide no more money for this project. Your regular budget covers your employment (troop) costs. Bring them home to their original city and continue operating there. Your project in the new city is failing.
None of the bank loans had anything to do with the regular budget for the employees (troops).
On numerous occasions, Congress has exercised its constitutional authority to limit the President’s ability to escalate existing military engagements. Here are just a few examples:
Cambodia – In late December 1970, Congress passes the Supplemental Foreign Assistance Appropriations Act prohibiting the use of funds to finance the introduction of United States ground combat troops into Cambodia or to provide U.S. advisors to or for Cambodian military forces in Cambodia.
Vietnam – In late June 1973, Congress passes the second Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY1973. This legislation contains language cutting off funds for combat activities in Vietnam after August 15, 1973.
Somalia – In November 1993, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act includes a provision that prohibits funding after March 31, 1994 for military operations in Somalia, except for a limited number of military personnel to protect American diplomatic personnel and American citizens, unless further authorized by Congress.
Bosnia – In 1998, Congress passes the Defense Authorization Bill, with a provision that prohibits funding for Bosnia after June 30, 1998, unless the President makes certain assurances.
When President George Bush claims that the money is for the troops, he is quite simply lying. The funding is not for the troops.
When Senator Barack Obama or Senator Carl Levin claims to want to pressure Bush to end the war, while at the same time promising to fund the war forever in the name of funding the troops, we are being told something that cannot possibly make any sense. The funding is not for the troops. It is for the war. You can't end the war while providing it. You can't hurt a troop by denying it.
...the money that would be required to bring our troops safely home is such a small fraction of the Pentagon's budget, or even of the cash that the Pentagon has "misplaced" in Iraq, that there can be no question of ever cutting it off. The Pentagon could fund a withdrawal and never notice the financial expense. So, when we talk about cutting off funding "for the troops," what are we really talking about?
We must be talking about their meals and armor and vehicles. But there are several problems with making that sort of claim. First, by cutting off funding after a certain date and demanding that the troops be brought home before that date, you are not denying them anything they need while they are deployed.
Second, we have never provided them adequate supplies and services, and the Congress Members who have pushed to cut off the war funding are some of the same ones who have pushed hardest to try to change that.
Third, the war funding has nothing to do with changing the level of equipment and services we provide the troops; the big bucks go to mercenaries, not troops; and the really big bucks go to the profiteers providing the worst services for the highest prices.
Fourth, if we start to talk about the need for troops to protect other troops, we get into an inescapable escalation without end.
When the Democrats or anyone else claim that the money is for the troops, they, just like George Bush, are quite simply lying. The funding is not for the troops.
The TROOPS are funded by regular appropriations. DOD budget. Emergency supplemental funding has nothing to do with "funding the troops".
It does buy, among other things such as logistical support from Halliburton, Parsons, and DynCorp, fuel, in theater equipment maintenance, bullets, cluster bombs, etc., etc., IOW all the "stuff" needed to continue the occupation. The troops use that "stuff" in the continuance of that occupation, and to defend themselves and stay alive (as best they can) while continuing that occupation. Defunding the occupation of Iraq and withdrawing or redeploying the troops does not hurt the troops. It helps them to stay alive.
Emergency supplemental funding is only for the occupation. When Bush says differently, or when the Democratic Leadership says differently, or when a troll here says differently.... it is a lie.
The "war" has been funded with emergency supplemental funding for years. There is plenty of money for withdrawing in regular budget without the emergency supplemental the Democrats recently passed.
"Since 9/11, Congress has passed at least one emergency bill to cover war costs, making supplemental spending the method of choice for the majority of funding for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror," Alexander added. "Of the $510 billion spent thus far, $331.8 billion (about 65 percent) has come from supplemental spending legislation. If the so-called "bridge fund" included in the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill is included, the total rises to $401.8 billion. That means nearly 80 percent of all funding for these wars was the result of emergency and supplemental spending, not regular budgetary means."
The total funds requested by the Defense Department for emergency spending is $163.4 billion, including $70 billion already provided as part of DOD's regular fiscal year appropriations plus a new supplemental request of $93.4 billion.
"If enacted, DOD's funding would increase by 40 percent above the previous year and would more than double from the FY2004 funding level," the Congressional Research Service (CRS) report says.
In Newsweek, Jonathan Alter has a long article defending -- as lamentably necessary -- the decision of the Democrats to fund the Iraq war without any limitations. ... Both of the premises which Alter sets forth here are correct: (a) de-funding does not even arguably constitute "endangerment or abandonment of the troops," but (b) "Americans have been convinced that it does." And therein one finds what is the most extraordinary and telling fact of our political landscape. Namely, our Iraq war policy was just determined, in large part if not principally, by a complete myth: that de-funding proposals constitute an abandonment or, more ludicrously still, "endangerment" of the troops.
Emergency Supplementals, besides the things I mentioned above, also pay for:
a U.S. force in Iraq that is effectively double the size that most people are aware of, and a system where national duty is outbid by profits:
Many Americans are under the impression that the US currently has about 145,000 active duty troops on the ground in Iraq. What is seldom mentioned is the fact that there are at least 126,000 private personnel deployed alongside the official armed forces. These private forces effectively double the size of the occupation force, largely without the knowledge of the US taxpayers that foot the bill.
Working for U.S. companies like Blackwater, Triple Canopy and DynCorp and companies from other countries, according to Scahill's investigations:
Some contractors make in a month what many active-duty soldiers make in a year. Indeed, there are private contractors in Iraq making more money than the Secretary of Defense and more than the commanding generals.
Here is a video of Jeremy Scahill's testimony to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense about the impact of private military contractors on the conduct of the Iraq War: The full text of Jeremy Scahill's testimony is in his May 11, 2007 article at The Nation, "Outsourcing the War".
I repeat, Emergency Supplemental Funding is not for the troops. It is only for the occupation. When Bush says differently, or when the Democratic Leadership says differently, or when a troll here says differently.... it is a lie.
The "war" has been funded with emergency supplemental funding for years. There is plenty of money for withdrawing in regular budget without the emergency supplemental the Democrats just passed.
It's time for the Democrats in Congress to stop lying and start being honest with the public.
The lies are killing the sons and daughters of that public.
Congress appropriates funding for the Iraq war much like the Administration prosecutes it: recklessly, and without being honest with the American people.
Once again, funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars--$50 billion in this case--are provided as an `emergency supplemental' in this bill. All told, Congress will have provided the Defense Department with $450 billion of emergency funding for this war.
To treat funding for the Iraq war as an unexpected emergency is a perversion of the term. By way of comparison, the Vietnam War required only a single supplemental, after which it was financed through the regular budget process.
While not an emergency, this funding is provided as such because it is politically expedient. It allows the Administration and the Congress to avoid the budgetary tradeoffs and to hide the full cost of the war. It is part of the Administration's strategy of providing the facts about Iraq on the installment plan.
In April of 2003, the President signed the first Iraq supplemental providing $62.6 billion for the Defense Department. This was after the President's budget director told the New York Times that the war would cost between $50 and $60 billion.
In November of 2003, when the President signed a second supplemental providing $64.9 billion for the Defense Department, the White House termed it a 'one-time, wartime supplemental.' Nine months later Congress provided $25 billion of additional emergency funding.
In May of 2005, the President signed a third supplemental providing $75.7 billion for the Defense Department and told us that democracy was taking root in Iraq. Seven months later, as civil war rocked Iraq, Congress provided an additional $50 billion of emergency funding.
This week, Congress passed another $65.8 billion supplemental. The same day, in a surprise visit to Iraq, the President once again linked the Iraq war and the attacks of September 11th--an assertion that is patently false and that only he and the Vice President appear to still believe.
In this bill, the House will approve another $50 billion more in emergency funding for Iraq to cover operations through the spring of 2007. As was the case with previous Iraq supplementals, these costs will be tacked on to this President's greatest legacy--a massive $300 billion plus deficit. The result is that future generations will be forced to pay the financial costs of the President's failed Iraq policy.
For several years, I have asked the Administration to come forward with 5-year estimates of the war costs so that Congress could get a better sense of how to balance the books. The FY 2005 Defense Appropriations Conference Report included a general provision requiring the Administration to do just that. No such report was ever provided. The President chose to waive the requirement by certifying in writing that providing these cost estimates would harm national security.
The only harm that would come from providing estimates of future war costs would be to the political fortunes of those who insist on funding this war through emergency supplementals instead of being honest with the public about the war's real cost. More than three years into this war it is clear that honesty is too much to expect from this Administration.
The United States maintains it is not building permanent military bases in Iraq or Afghanistan, where the local population distrusts America's long-term intentions.
But for the first time, a major factor in the growth of war spending is the result of a dramatic rise in "investment costs," or spending needed to sustain a long-term deployment of American troops in the two countries, the report said. These include the additional purchases of protective equipment for troops, such as armored Humvees, radios, and night-vision equipment; new tanks and other equipment to replace battered gear from Army and Marine Corps units that have been deployed numerous times in recent years; and growing repair bills for damaged equipment, what the military calls "reset" costs.
So the only way the funding can be said to be "for the troops" is if the intention is to keep them in Iraq for many years.
The Pentagon, which had previously made public its own estimate of operating costs, has not released up-to-date war costs.
The Congressional Research Service report estimates that after Congress approves two pending bills, the total war costs since Sept. 11, 2001, will reach about $509 billion. Of that, $379 billion will cover the cost of operations in Iraq, $97 billion will be the price tag for Afghanistan operations, and $26 billion will have gone to beefed-up security at US military bases around the world. ... Another major war cost is for infrastructure -- bases, landing strips, repair shops -- for the forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. These "operations and maintenance" costs remained steady at about $40 billion per year in 2003, 2004, and 2005, but have spiked to more than $60 billion this year.
Those factors alone, however, are "not enough to explain" the spiraling increase in operating costs, according to the report.
"You would expect [operating costs] to level off if you have the same level of people," said the report's principal author, Amy Belasco, a national defense specialist at the Congressional Research Service. "You shouldn't have as much cost to fix buildings that were presumably repaired when you got there. It's a bit mysterious."
The Pentagon has not provided Congress with a detailed accounting of all the war funds, making it impossible to conduct a full, independent estimate of how much Americans are spending in Iraq and Afghanistan -- or to predict what future costs might be.
PERHAPS no fact is more revealing about Iraq’s history than this: The Iraqis have a word that means to utterly defeat and humiliate someone by dragging his corpse through the streets.
The word is "sahel", and it helps explain much of what I have seen in three and a half years of covering the war. ... Listen to Iraqis engaged in the fight, and you realize they are far from exhausted by the war. Many say this is only the beginning.
'Terrorism' is simply the response to US terrorism --perpetrated primarily by the CIA and US surrogates. The 'blowback' is the root cause of terrorism, the motivation for it, the fuel that keeps it alive. Fighting a 'war on terrorism' is just plain stupid. Such a war 'causes' terrorism and I've got the stats prove it. 
Muhannad Fala'ah /Getty Images
He said he "couldn't help the US authorities' paranoid reaction".
