Don't Buy Stocks Until All US Troops Are Out of Iraq

Crossposted to Godless Liberal Homo.

A lot of financial news and blog articles are speculating on when is a good time to start buying stocks again. One factor they fail to consider is the Iraq War. President Obama's plan to continue the occupation of Iraq with at least 50,000 more US troops is an important consideration, one that should not be overlooked.

The war on Iraq is enormously costly in lives. The over 4,000 US dead are dwarfed by the over 1.3 million Iraqis killed. Another cost is economic. Iraq's economy has been obliterated by this war. The US economy has been severely damaged as well.


The illegal war against the Iraqi people is one of the causes of the financial crises we are facing. Logic insists that stopping the war is a critical step in getting our economy on a productive course. Yet, Obama and the politicians ignore reason in favor of pandering to corporate and wealthy campaign contributors who want to keep making money on the carnage.

Until the last US troops are out of Iraq, it is crazy to buy any stocks. The war's damage on our already precarious economy is reason enough, but there is something else to consider. The refusal of the political establishment to abandon business as usual and end the war shows that they think they can keep getting away with making the same mistakes that got us here.

As long as there are any US troops in Iraq, you can be sure that Obama and the rest of the politicians are not taking our economic situation as seriously as they need to.

There's more: "Don't Buy Stocks Until All US Troops Are Out of Iraq" >>

Does KBR Make Money Off Dead Soldiers?

An Associated Press article came out this morning and I guess it makes an appropriately disgusting Halloween post.

KBR 3Q profit rose 35 pct as revenue climbs
Associated Press 10.31.08

KBR, which provides engineering services to the energy sector and the government, said Friday its third-quarter profit rose 35 percent as a newly-acquired business and work on Gulf of Mexico vessels drove sharp revenue increases.

Net income rose to $85 million, or 51 cents per share, in the three months ended Sept. 30 from $63 million, or 37 cents, a year ago. Income from continuing operations totaled 44 cents per share, including Hurricane Ike-related costs of 4 to 5 cents a share. (click HERE to read the rest of the article)

First, let me clarify, I think it’s great when companies make money. Especially in this day and age. BUT…I don’t feel the “end justfies the means”! With that said, I have a few questions for KBR, the DoD, Senator Dorgan Chairman of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee and Congressman Waxman, Chairman of The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

#1 Under the current LOGCAP III contract, does KBR invoice the DoD for attorney fees incurred while defending themselves in suits filed by former employees and families of dead soldiers and so on?

#2 Under the current LOGCAP III contract, if KBR loses a suit and a settlement is awarded, can KBR invoice the DoD for that settlement?

#3 Under the current LOGCAP III contract, if KBR is allowed to do #1 & #2 above, are they allowed to add their 1% (ie cost plus 1%)?

#4 Under the current LOGCAP III contract, if KBR is allowed to do #1, #2 & #3 above, does the DoD add these invoices in when figuring KBR’s Award Fee amount?

I guess my main question is:

Is KBR Making Money Off Dead Soldiers and Injured and Killed U.S. Citizens?

I was wrong…I have another question. Are my tax dollars paying for KBR’s attorney’s? OMG!! Say it isn’t so!

Somebody set me straight!

Ms Sparky

There's more: "Does KBR Make Money Off Dead Soldiers?" >>

Blue Star Vice Presidential Candidates

(Cross posted from Gold Star Mom Speaks Out)

Dear Governor Palin & Senator Biden-

I know you are busy getting ready for the first and only vice-presidential debate of the 2008 presidential campaign. I'm sure you've both been practicing your debate skills, figuring out what temperament to show, running through the issues in your mind hoping to remember that factoid that will be the perfect comeback, the line that will go viral. I'm sure Gwen Ifil will ask questions about the economy, foreign policy, health care, maybe climate change, maybe energy, maybe choice, maybe event lipsticks or pigs. All those subjects, except pigs & lipstick, are important to let people get to know how you feel about those subjects, and as Vice President, how you would deal with them once in office. I'm guessing January is looming pretty large; the challenges, the opportunities to put your special mark on the fabric of our country. Vice President Palin? Vice President Biden? Just the sound of it is HUGE! Only 46 men in this country have been given that title.

What I really want you to talk about is foreign policy as it relates to the military. When I say military, I mean the troops; you know like Beau and Track and my son Ken, the men (and women) who make up the military. Beau, Track and Ken are our oldest sons, and in my case my only son, my only child.

Sarah, my son Ken, was 18 when he joined the military, just a year younger than Track, so I can relate to what you are going through. Your firstborn, leaving the nest to join the Army. Those are tough days; you worry about how they are doing during boot camp, how they will adapt. Back in 1995, Ken got orders for Bosnia shortly out of boot camp, and now your Track is heading to Iraq, so I really have walked in your shoes. Ken was 24 when he headed for Iraq and I was terrified every single one of those 384 days he was deployed. You cannot imagine how the war will take over your life when your child is on the front lines. That child that grew for 9 months in your womb now belongs to someone else and he's halfway around the world in harms way.

And Joe, your son Captain Beau Biden is being deployed later this week as far as I can tell. I know about operational security, so the date isn't really important, but he will miss sharing the excitement of the final days of this important presidential campaign. I suspect he's been pretty involved in your campaign and all of that will change with this deployment. I'm sure that you have a close relationship with your son as I did; it's just that way with single parent children.At the age of 39, Beau's a bit older than Ken was when he deployed, and as officers, life in Iraq is a little different. Beau leaves a lovely wife and 2 children at home, Natalie, age 4, and Hunter, age 2. They will miss their daddy terribly. 1 year separated from their daddy is a very long time to little ones like your grandchildren, Joe.

Now that I've shown you how this troop thing is personal, and an experience that we all share, you might see how the occupation in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan loom large in the lives of military families. Some may think our children are "deployable assets" and that they belong to the military, and while that is true, they will always be our little boys. Our sons grew up to serve their country, to stand up when called and we are so proud of the men they grew up to be.

Sarah & Joe, today you are Blue Star Families, those with a loved one serving in the military. On May 30, 2004, my son, Lt Ken Ballard was killed in Iraq and I became a Gold Star Mother. It is not a journey that I wish on anyone.

I don't want either of you to wear a black metal bracelet engraved with your child's name, rank, unit, date & place of death and the words OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM. I also don't want you to replace that blue star on your service flag with one of gold; I don't want another parent to receive a Gold Star Banner. I don't want you to know the reality of receiving that one knock on the door that will change your life forever. I really don't want you to know what it feels like to be escorted to the airport by your local police department and when you see that jet pull up to the gate and the doors of the cargo department open up to reveal a coffin that contains the remains of your oldest child, covered with a red, white and blue American flag, you know your child has made his last journey home. I don't want you to listen to the mournful notes as TAPS is played by an Army bugler in honor of your son's life. I don't want you to receive a folded flag from a general with the words "on behalf of a grateful nation...", I don't want you to know the emptiness in your heart knowing you will never feel your child's hug, never hear his laugh and never know what heights he might have attained. I don't wish any of this on anyone. Never. Ever.

Sarah & Joe, you both have a unique position as a military parent that very few people in this country understand; please use that experience and make a commitment to all the troops and their families that your administration will stop the shameless treatment of vets. Vow that war will only be used as a solution of last resort. I urge you both, as military parents, during this vice-presidential debate, to commit to ending the war in Iraq, bring the troops home and take care of them when they get here.

There's more: "Blue Star Vice Presidential Candidates" >>

Afghanistan is Not the "Good War"

Is the war in Afghanistan any more justified than the occupation of Iraq? Not in my opinion. More civilians and soldiers are dying in Afghanistan recently than since the war began. Lately, American politicians are talking of withdrawing troops from Iraq to put them into Afghanistan. This is a bad idea for several reasons, the main one being that force and the use of the military is not the recommended way to fight terrorism. The most recent conclusion on this was reached by a RAND study that found:

"All terrorist groups eventually end. But how do they end? Answers to this question have enormous implications for counterterrorism efforts. The evidence since 1968 indicates that most groups have ended because (1) they joined the political process or (2) local police and intelligence agencies arrested or killed key members. Military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups, and few groups within this time frame achieved victory. This has significant implications for dealing with al Qa’ida and suggests fundamentally rethinking post-September 11 U.S. counterterrorism strategy.

So, increasing the amount of soldiers, death and destruction in Afghanistan is exactly the wrong way to fight the terrorism we supposedly are trying to eliminate. Yet the opposite is happening, and both major parties seem to favor this wrong approach. In addition, there has been a barrage of articles lately explaining how increasing the violence in Afghanistan is wrong and might even make things worse, despite the political and media concensus. The following is from one of the most recent articles, from Anti-war.com:

" . . the Taliban government did not attack the United States. Our old ally, Osama bin Laden, did. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are not the same organization (if one can really call al-Qaeda an "organization"), and no one seems to be listening to the Afghans. We should be.

A recent poll of Afghan sentiment found that, while the majority dislikes the Taliban, 74% want negotiations and 54% would support a coalition government that included the Taliban.

. . . . the Taliban appears to be evolving from a creation of the U.S., Saudi Arabian, and Pakistani intelligence agencies during Afghanistan's war with the Soviet Union, to a polyglot collection of dedicated Islamists to nationalists. Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar told the Agence France Presse early this year, "We're fighting to free our country. We are not a threat to the world."

As our air and ground attacks increase, so do civilian deaths. We are not winning "hearts and minds" as this terrible outcome increases.

"As the United States steps up its air war, civilian casualties have climbed steadily over the past two years. Nearly 700 were killed in the first three months of 2008, a major increase over last year. In a recent incident, 47 members of a wedding party were killed in Helmand Province. In a society where clan, tribe, and blood feuds are a part of daily life, that single act sowed a generation of enmity."

It's hard to see any reason to continue this fiasco when things are just going from bad to worse and there is no progress being made. Let's hope our political candidates don't really mean what they are saying on this subject. To increase something disastrous only increases the disaster.

Read more of the article here.

There's more: "Afghanistan is Not the "Good War"" >>

Bush Prosecution in 30-Seconds

Famed prosecutor Victor Bugliosi sums up his closing arguments to prosecute George Bush for murder in thirty seconds.

The charges: Conspiracy to mislead the nation to war in Iraq. Murder of soldiers who Bush sent to war under false pretenses.

Sources:

DemocracyNow! Citing Citing Iraq War, Renowned Attorney Vincent Bugliosi Seeks “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder””, July 13, 2008.

There's more: "Bush Prosecution in 30-Seconds" >>

Disturbing Trend in Iraq

Photo Journalist Zoriah is not alone:

I am noticing a disturbing trend in Iraq right now, one that I feel pretty sure will prove to be a major mistake in this war and cause a fair amount of grief to the Iraqi people and most likely beyond. The U.S. Military is arming and funding militias and civil military groups across the country. After a discussion with a soldier about the Sons of Iraq, what is now called a "neighborhood guard" by the US military, the soldier said, "We are basically paying these guys off with money and weapons to not kill us."- June 28, 2008

So that's how the surge worked. That and the fact that al Sader's Mahdi Army took a break (and they weren't the only ones who decided to lie low during the surge). In addition, the Sunni Shia ethnic cleansing, and relocation, had played itself out, so the numbers of deaths dropped.

Here's a bit more nuanced take from Nir Rosen, considered by many to be one of the best journalists in Iraq:

Well, the Americans like to think that the reason why the Sunni militiamen, the Sunni resistance, has stopped fighting them is because they’re paying them, because from the American point of view, it was always about money. They never understood the importance of ideology or of occupation or of resistance... I met with many of these people. Nobody joined the resistance for money. They joined because they believed there was an occupation that was threatening their lives or their country or their religion, or they didn’t like the way the new government looked, so they joined the resistance to fight the American occupation, not for money.

And now they joined these Awakening groups, again, not for money, but because they have another interest: “We’re not going to fight the Americans now, we’re going to fight the Iranians [Shia]. Let’s get the Americans off of our back.” In a way, the Sunnis have actually bought the Americans, because now they control territory. The same militiamen who were killing Shias, who were blowing up Americans just a few months ago, who were on the run, now control territory inside Baghdad and elsewhere, and it’s become safe for Sunnis to go to those areas, not only Sunnis from those areas, but even Sunnis who have fled Shia militias in other places can now go there. So you have safe Sunni territories. From there, different Sunni groups can join. They can establish a political movement, which they’re trying to do, and eventually try to retake Baghdad or at least re-fight the civil war.

But the story is even more nuanced, or nefarious, if you look at the role played by General Patraeus over the years.

Sources:

PHOTO Credit: Zoriah Photo Journalist. Commentary:

The above image is of a confiscated weapons cache housed inside of a US/Iraqi army base in Sadr City. Notice that there are no magazines in these weapons. As I was taking these photos, U.S. soldiers filled their pockets with loaded magazines, intending to distribute them to local militias.

Zoriah's Blog entry, IRAQ WAR PHOTOGRAPHER DIARY - MILITIAS, June 26, 2008.

Originally published on GDAEman Blog

There's more: "Disturbing Trend in Iraq" >>

How Bush Started the Iraq War

Most of us believe that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) served as Bush's lynch pin for starting the war with Iraq more than five years ago. But Bush used a different criterion to trigger the war.

The context to Bush's ultimate trigger was that the WMD inspections were going well, unless like Bush you wanted to use WMDs as the excuse for starting a war. 731 inspections between November 2002 and March 2003 had found nothing, despite using intelligence from the US. As an aside, this puts the lie to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's claim that....

We know where they are (Iraq's WMD). They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.

On March 7, 2003, Hans Blix, the UN's chief weapons inspector in Iraq, told the UN Security Council that his inspectors faced "relatively few difficulties," and

at this juncture are able to perform professional, no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance.

Asked how long it would take to address the remaining issues, Blix said it:

will not take years, nor weeks, but months.

Bush's excuse for starting the Iraq war, disarming Saddam Hussein, was seriously threatened. He had to come up with a guarantee to ensure he could have his war. At the 11th hour Bush changed his criterion for triggering a war. On March 17, 2003 Bush gave an ultimatum that he knew Hussein would not accept:

Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict.

There you have it. Bush's final excuse for starting a war of agression was that Hussein and his sons would not leave Iraq upon his demand.

Sources:

1. Interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC News This Week, March 30, 2003.

2. Vincent Buliosi, The Prosecution of George Bush for Murder. See pages 130-135 for more on this.

There's more: "How Bush Started the Iraq War" >>

Pop Obama's Trial Balloon

LibHom recently writes:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Saturday his plan to end the Iraq war was unchanged and he was puzzled by the sharp reaction to his statement this week that he might "refine" his timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat troops.

With the insight of many who have been deflated by the empty words of Democrat candidates, LibHom continues:

Of course, if you have followed past Democratic betrayals, you know that "refine" almost always means "capitulate" when it is uttered by most centrist and conservative Democrats.

Where does that leave us? With advice from LibHom:

Maybe Obama's prior comments were a trial balloon. If so, we need to fight like heck to pop it.

Contact Obama: Let him know there is a large constituency holding his feet to the fire Obama Comment Form Click Here.

There's more: "Pop Obama's Trial Balloon" >>

"For What It's Worth" Department...

After five years of investigations the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on the use and misuse of "intelligence" in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and we have this in the New York Times: Bush Overstated Evidence on Iraq, Senators Report:

The 170-page report accuses Mr. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other top officials of repeatedly overstating the Iraqi threat in the emotional aftermath of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Its findings were endorsed by all eight committee Democrats and two Republicans, Senators Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

In a statement accompanying the report, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is chairman of the intelligence panel, said, “The president and his advisers undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the attacks to use the war against Al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein.”

Hmmm... You'd think they'd have heard of this before. Meanwhile, the Times can't resist a memory trip down Double Talk Lane (bold emphases added, just to make your head spin):

The report on the prewar statements found that on some important issues, most notably on what was believed to be Iraq’s nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs, the public statements from Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and other senior officials were generally “substantiated” by the best estimates at the time from American intelligence agencies. But it found that the administration officials’ statements usually did not reflect the intelligence agencies’ uncertainties about the evidence or the disputes among them.

"Substantiated" public statements that were "overstating the Iraqi threat", not reflecting intelligence agencies' "uncertainties".... I suggest someone send an ambulance over to the Times Building, as someone's head must have exploded writing or editing such unabashed garbage.

While the report, long-delayed for public release, represents another limited hang-out of criminal operations by the United States government around their Iraq operation, perhaps of more significance in its release is some new information about a "rogue intelligence operation" run by then Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen J. Hadley, and Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary to Donald Rumsfeld at the time of the Iraq invasion. The significance of this new revelation lies in the rumors swirling around a possible military attack by the United States and/or Israel against Iran, in addition to Democratic presumptive nominee Barack Obama's statement the other day that he would "everything in my power -- everything" to prevent Iran from trying to gain nuclear weapons (which, by the way, they claim they are not, and for which there is no evidence that they are, per a recent National Intelligence Estimate) (bold emphasis added).

In a separate report released Wednesday, the intelligence committee provided new details about a series of clandestine meetings in Rome and Paris between Pentagon officials and Iranian dissidents in 2001 and 2003. The meetings included discussions about possible covert actions to destabilize the government in Tehran, and were used by the Pentagon officials to glean information about rivalries in Iran and what was thought to be an Iranian “hit” team intending to attack American troops in Afghanistan, the report said.

The nomination of Obama for Democratic Party presidential candidate does represent a milestone in U.S. race relations, and has raised the hopes of millions that true change in America is possible. But thus far it has not changed the calculus of U.S. foreign policy, nor the constitution of the military-industrial complex. In fact, Obama's recent characterization of the Iranian National Guard Quds force, in a speech yesterday to the American-Israeli Public Affairs Council, as "rightly... labeled a terrorist organization", seems to represent a turn-around for the Senator, who specifically opposed such sabre-rattling language when he opposed the Lieberman-Kyl amendment last year. Such political turnabouts are not without significance.

Of course, Obama is not in power yet (presuming he can defeat the sclerotic and Bush-craven GOP candidate John "Uriah Heep" McCain). But besides promising a slow retreat from Iraq and a promise to better utilize diplomacy, it's not clear that Obama differs in any strategic way from general U.S. policies in the Middle East. It must seem to many that anything is better than Bush and Cheney. Millions, faced with a choice between Barry Goldwater and Lyndon Johnson thought the same thing back in 1964, as they cast their ballots to elect JFK's former VP. The result was a little thing called the Vietnam War.

Also posted at Invictus

There's more: ""For What It's Worth" Department..." >>

Bushliburton, Masters of Compartmentalization

Photo: Todd Heisler/The Rocky Mountain News

The image above was originally published in illustration of Jim Sheeler's 2006 Pulitzer Prize winning feature writing about the impact of Iraq war casualties to families, in the Rocky Mountain News. It was republished today by the New York Times to illustrate a review by Janet Maslin of Sheeler's book, "Final Salute - A Story of Unfinished Lives".

In the book review, Maslin describes the circumstances of the moment captured in the photograph:

Among the eloquent Rocky Mountain News photographs included here is a shocking image — by Todd Heisler, now of The New York Times — of commercial airline passengers looking out plane windows at Reno-Tahoe International Airport in Nevada, trying to see what is happening beneath them. Down there, in the cargo hold, a Marine honor guard is preparing to deliver the flag-draped coffin of Second Lt. James J. Cathey to its final resting place.

This image is truly indicative of how George W. Bush and his enablers would have the American public view the reality of the war in Iraq, as an event compartmentalized, below our consciousness, leaving us in the dark about the harsh realities, or at best, wondering what is going on. The aim of Bushliburton is to keep us all fat, happy and dumb, ever consuming their distortions and outright lies, ever consuming more mindless drivel via the media, ever consuming more hard goods to bolster the industrial economy and burning ever more of the finite amount of oil remaining on this planet, while transferring wealth from the many to the few, while transferring wealth and power away from our people and making future generations beholden to those who represent markedly less free and democratic society.

We all have an opportunity between now and next November to stop the destruction of our collective well being and the destruction of human life and destruction of our planet, let's not screw this up.

Cross posted from BFD Blog!

There's more: "Bushliburton, Masters of Compartmentalization" >>

Shrub reaches new level of callousness over Iraq

“I gave up golf to support the troops.” How incredibly tin-eared is that?

It’s no wonder that the Glenn Reynolds, the Mark Hindrakersrockets and other generals of the Fighting 101st Keyboards sit back in the laptops of luxury — they’re taking orders from the top.

What next? Give up mocha lattes at Starbucks? Montecristo cigars? Courvoisier XO?

My heart bleeds, W.

There's more: "Shrub reaches new level of callousness over Iraq" >>

Lawsuit Reveals Massive Suicide Rate Among U.S. Soldiers

Mistah Kurtz -- he dead.

A class action lawsuit filed against the Veterans Administration by Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans United for Truth has reaped an unusual harvest, in the form of an email from Ira Katz, head of mental health at the VA, to Brigadier General Michael J. Kussman, undersecretary for health at the VA. The email, dated last December, threatens to blow the lid off the scandal of insufficient veterans health treatment, and the lies that have kept this scandal from heretofore getting the traction it deserves.

Here's Jason Leopold at Online Journal reporting:

Kussman had inquired about the accuracy of a news report published that month claiming the suicide rate among veterans was 18 per day.

“McClatchy [Newspapers] alleges that 18 veterans kill themselves everyday and this is confirmed by the VA’s own statistics,” Kussman wrote. “Is that true? Sounds awful but if one is considering 24 million veterans.”

In an email response to Kussman, Ira Katz, the head of mental health at the VA, confirmed the statistics and added “VA’s own data demonstrate 4-5 suicides per day among those who receive care from us.”

These statistics are much larger than official Army statistics quoted only a few months ago at CNN, where it was reported that 5 U.S. soldiers attempt suicide every day, not just those receiving VA treatment. Even at that, the figures represented a significant leap in suicide rates among soldiers.

According to Army statistics, the incidence of U.S. Army soldiers attempting suicide or inflicting injuries on themselves has skyrocketed in the nearly five years since the start of the Iraq war.

Last year's 2,100 attempted suicides -- an average of more than 5 per day -- compares with about 350 suicide attempts in 2002, the year before the war in Iraq began, according to the Army....

The Army lists 89 soldier deaths in 2007 as suicides and is investigating 32 more as possible suicides. Suicide rates already were up in 2006 with 102 deaths, compared with 87 in 2005.

But according to internal VA emails, over 6500 veterans per year are killing themselves. And this news follows the revelations in a RAND Corporation report released last week reporting that over 300,000 of soldiers are returning from the so-called war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq with Post-traumatic Stress Disorder and brain injuries. That's over 20% of those deployed with a serious mental illness or nervous system disorder.

Inter Press Service had more to report on the Katz email:

"Shh!" the e-mail begins.

"Our suicide prevention coordinators are identifying about 1,000 suicide attempts per month among the veterans we see in our medical facilities. Is this something we should (carefully) address ourselves in some sort of release before someone stumbles on it?" the e-mail concludes.

According to CBS News, Katz's email was written shortly after the VA provided the network with data showing there were only 790 attempted suicides in all of 2007 -- a fraction of Katz's estimate.

Earlier this month, the city of Dallas, Texas closed its psychiatric unit after the hospital experienced its fourth suicide of the year.

"On Apr. 4, a man fastened a bed sheet to the bottom corner of a door frame, draped a noose over the top, and hanged himself," the Dallas Morning News reported last week. "Before that, a veteran hanged himself on a frame attached to his wheelchair. And in January, two men who met in the psychiatric ward committed suicide in Collin County days after being released."

Clearly, something is very wrong. But this didn't stop the government attorneys in San Francisco for calling for the dismissal of the veterans' lawsuit, claiming, according to a story at the San Jose Mercury News, that the VA has a "world class" health care system, and blaming the crisis on old Vietnam War veterans.

The veterans lawsuit also alleges that many returning soldiers are denied treatment by the VA, and then wait forever on appeal for benefits. From the SJ Mercury News story:

It also takes an average of more than five years for the VA to decide a veteran's appeal of denied coverage, [veterans lawyer Gordon] Erspamer said. In the last six months, 526 vets have died while awaiting word of their appeal within the VA, he noted.

The situation for veterans is tragic, and increasingly, despairing vets, denied treatment, suffering the hell of intrusive memories, depression, and agonizing confusion and surging irritability that is PTSD, or other disorders or injuries, especially brain injuries, increasingly such victims of the insane war drive of Bush and Cheney are killing themselves. And it's getting worse.

This is not a war for democracy. It's a war on democracy, and on the elementary canons of decency and civilized behavior. The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has resulted in 100,000s of dead Iraqis, millions of refugees, a world economy spinning out of control, and now, at home in the U.S., an obscene harvest of horribly wounded soldiers, many of whom are committing suicide in record numbers.

When will it stop? Not until the population of this country, and all countries in the world, demand it stop. The U.S. citizenry, in this case, has a larger responsibility than most, as its government is the largest, richest, and most bellicose in the world. Yet the population is mesmerized by an electoral process that promises very little. It is not surprising that those with any hope and desire for change are flocking in large numbers to Barack Obama, who presents himself as an agent of change. Whether he is or not will be tested soon enough.

The fear in the society is palpable, a large creaking and groaning sound that appears to be the harbinger of a bloated and bankrupt empire lurching towards catastrophe. The leaders have decided upon war. They want to enlarge that war to include Iran, with Hillary Clinton the latest to jump on that bus. Obama, too, says "all options are on the table" when it comes to keeping Iran from having nuclear weapons, mimicking the language of torture president Bush.

According to T.S. Eliot, the world will end not with a bang, but with a whimper. That whimper may be the sound of a hopeless veteran staring at eternity, full of pain and loss, a loaded pistol in one hand, or maybe a bottle of pills. A society that cannot serve the needs of those it sends to fight its dirty and predatory wars is a society that ----------.

I'll let my readers fill in that blank.

(Also posted at Invictus.)

There's more: "Lawsuit Reveals Massive Suicide Rate Among U.S. Soldiers" >>

When The Violence Is Brought To The Children: It Has Gone Too Far

Photo: Joao Silva/NYTimes

As reported in a story by Michael R. Gordon in the New York Times with the headline "Civilians Suffer in Sadr City's Daily Gun Battles"

BAGHDAD — Ayman, bleeding profusely from his arm, was rushed to Company B’s stronghold in Sadr City late Sunday afternoon.

A bullet had carved a bloody groove near his left elbow as he was going to fetch some bread from a market.

Seven children had been struck by a burst of gunfire from militia fighters who have been roaming through the streets near the American positions, his distraught father said.

But Ayman, 11, was one of the lucky ones. Four of the children, his father said, were dead.

With no functioning police force and the streets a battle zone, it could not be determined if the children had been caught in cross-fire or had been deliberately shot at by militia fighters, as Ayman’s father suggested.

Take a long look at this child's face, it could be the face of any child, of any of our own children.

While it is admirable, and no less than humanitarian of U.S. forces to administer to this civilian child's wound, it would not ever have been necessary, had the the Bushliburton administration not invaded Iraq in the first place, or withdrawn our forces years ago.

When will the United States stand down, bring our people home, and no longer be a reason for the suffering in Iraq and at home?

Ayman's blood, as is the blood of countless others is on our hands, our leaders, our government, our people should all be ashamed of ourselves.

When will all honest, moral Americans decide that enough is enough and we begin the process of reacquiring our moral authority?

Cross posted from BFD Blog!

There's more: "When The Violence Is Brought To The Children: It Has Gone Too Far" >>

"Unbelievable" Abuse Reigns in Iraqi Jails

Released yesterday by Wikileaks, and seen for the first time (links within quoted material, and bolded emphases, are added):

Confidential memo from Maj. Gen. Kelly, commander of US forces in western Iraq (MNF-W, or Multi-National Force — West), written in late February 2008. Privately verified by Wikileaks staff and not denied or contradicted by MNF-W when questioned by UPI's national security editor, Shaun Waterman.

Typed up version follows:

MNF-W COMMANDER'S COMMENTS

I spent the entire day inspecting the Fallujah city jail. I found the conditions there to be exactly (unbelivable over crowding, total lack of anything approaching even minimal levels of hygiene for human beings, no food, little water, no ventilation) to those described in the recent (18 February) FOX news artickle [sic] by Michael Totten entitled the "Dungeon of Fallujah". When queried the iraqis and marines present throughout my inspection as to why these conditions existed, three conditions were universaly cited as problems in Fallujah as well as the rest of Anbar. First, there is zero support from the government for any of the jails in Anbar. No funds, food or medical support has been provided from any ministry. Second, the police that run Anbar's jails are the same personnel responsable for investigating crimes. These jailer/investigators are undermanned and more often than not spend most of their time out begging and scavenging for food than investigating crimes. (It is unlikely the prisoners will eat today). Third, Anbar lacks trained Iraqi correctional officers (ICOS) to run the jails in Anbar. The development and employment of trained ICOS would enable the IP to focus on criminal investigation rather then jail supervision. I believe the Iraqi police are doing the best they can, and they literally begged me on humanitarian, moral and religious grounds to help them help the prisoners by somehow moving the government to action.

We need to go to general quarters on this issue right now. There are four areas that MNF-W needs immediate support with to correst these deficiencies. First, GOI must provide funfing support to provide care for Iraqi prisoners in Iraqi custody in Anbar. To state that the current system is broken would erroneously imply that there is a system in place to be broken. Most jails in Anbar have a mixed prisoner population of pre-trial prisoners and post-trial convicted prisoners. The ministry of Justice the latter. Since the Anbar jail population is mixed of interior and the ministry of Justice (MOJ). Second, Anbar needs ICO trainers to establish an ICO course in Anbar to develop and employ that capability province wide. Third, Anbar lacks a director general of MOJ for the province. Anbar needs one appointed and working in Anbar as soon as possible. Fourth, Iraqi security force funds (ISFF) must be made available to upgrade a majority of the correctional facilities within Anbar to comply with basic international standarts of care for prisoners.

One of the main goals of MNF-W is to successfully transition the IP from a security force to a professional law enforcement force. The Iraqi police will ultimately be the ones whose shoulders the burden of winning or losing the fight will be carried. To date, little attention has been paid to the Iraqi corrections system in Anbar and its current discrepancies will prevent the IP from becoming a professional law enforcement force unless immediate and significant support is provided. As I understand it the coalition has absolutely no authority to direct what goes on in these "facilities", and when we have intervened recently in other jails with the same conditions we have been criticized for not making the Iraqis solve their own problems. The conditions in these jails are so bad that I think we need to either take a TF-134 approach and that is to do the right thing in terms of caring for the prisoners even with our own dollars, or release them.

While Bush and his media toadies tout Anbar province as a "success" story for the "surge" and his predatory Iraq occupation in general, the conditions in the city jail speak a far different reality: of an inept, corrupt satrapy of a government, whose imperial masters flatter and support. Leave the jails with starving prisoners, says the "democratic" coalition. "Let them solve their own problems," announce the haughty leaders of the "free" world. In the degenerated world of modern America, freedom means, of course, freedom to starve.

(This is true even back in the "homeland," where it was announced just the other day that 1 in 10 Ohioans rely on inadequately funded food stamps to survive.)

And then U.S. citizens wonder why the "insurgents" continue to attack, why they "hate" us. And the rulers cry, more war!

(H/T to Trudy B. -- Also posted at Invictus)

There's more: ""Unbelievable" Abuse Reigns in Iraqi Jails" >>

Iraq five years on discussed in print

There’s a bevy of new books about Iraq out, and Salon
has a roundup of the best.

Jonathan Steele has the harshest take, in “Defeat: Why America and Britain Lost Iraq.” He says it wasn’t a mishandled occupation, but rather the simple fact of occupation for any length of over a year or so, that doomed the operation. To professional warnings about all this, and Britain’s own colonial history in the country, all that British PM Tony Blair could do was utter his own brand of neoconservatism and say, of Hussein, “But the man’s uniquely evil, isn't he?”

As the Salon review notes, Steele is an award-winning foreign correspondent for the Guardian and has done eight stints in Iraq.

He also bluntly faults American Islamophobia and anti-Arab racism. Neither of those are new to people who have previously read about the brutality of the American occupation, but it’s good to see it spelled out in book-length form.

Of course, no mainstrean American journalist— yes, that’s people like you, Thomas Ricks — has or will have the cojones to report that in depth.

Aram Rostam then gives us a full biography of Ahmed Chalabi, with “The Man Who Pushed America to War: The Extraordinary Life, Adventures and Obsessions of Ahmad Chalabi.”

Other books on the review look at the culture clash between Americans and Iraqis as it plays out, outside the Green Zone, and Christopher Cerf and Victor Navasky give a little quote-based smackdown to all the “experts” who predicted victory oh so long ago.

The review has links to Amazon pages for each of the books.

There's more: "Iraq five years on discussed in print" >>

Bush & the Mathematics of War: 4000, 1 million, 2 million

So passes what the U.S. media brazenly call a milestone: the 4000th dead U.S. soldier in the war against, and occupation of, Iraq. I cannot grieve more than the family and loved ones of each of those 4000. Nor certainly approach the agony and world-hurling destruction of a society where hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million, are dead by airborne bomb, munitions shell, bullet, plague, beheading, chemical attack, human suicide bomb, and all the ways a human being can ponder in rending the body and soul of another human being to his or her final destiny.

The U.S. president, George W. Bush, has "vowed":

...so long as I'm president to make sure that those lives were not lost in vain, that in fact there is an outcome that will merit the sacrifice"...

He, of course, means that the superprofits from exploitation of oil will be assured to the ruling class he serves. That the influence of the American bankers, industrialists, and its military machine, will not be subjected to the imprecations and influence of some smaller, merely nationalist entity, nor to the competitive combines of larger, more powerful nation states, such as France or Germany or China. As the largest child stands on the top of the hill, surveying the carnage of his peers who lie in the dust about him, Bush swears the sacrifice worth it. Except the analogy is flawed, as he is not the bloodied king of the hill, but the thoroughly corrupt leader of a government that lost its way in the labryinth of imperial lust a long time ago.

In American history, one would have to go back to the days of Tom Paine, to find a pen that could write with sufficient disgust, and with honor for the inherent dignity of humankind, of the kind of empire-building and blood-curdling talk of sacrifice of these new monarchs, self-satisfied rulers of America, who send young men and women to fight their greedy and arrogant wars.

Can we possibly suppose that if governments had originated in a right principle, and had not an interest in pursuing a wrong one, the world could have been in the wretched and quarrelsome condition we have seen it? What inducement has the farmer, while following the plough, to lay aside his peaceful pursuit, and go to war with the farmer of another country? or what inducement has the manufacturer? What is dominion to them, or to any class of men in a nation? Does it add an acre to any man's estate, or raise its value? Are not conquest and defeat each of the same price, and taxes the never-failing consequence? — Though this reasoning may be good to a nation, it is not so to a government. War is the Faro-table of governments, and nations the dupes of the game.

And the pawns of war are its refugees. In Iraq, the "success" of Bush's martial "surge" is belied by the attitude of the millions of refugees that previously fled the carnage imposed by the U.S. invasion and the resultant ethnic cleansing, as the U.S. maneuvered between the warring factions of a shattered society.

DAMASCUS, Syria: The much-heralded stream of Iraqi refugees back home to Iraq from Syria has slowed to a trickle, with many fearing that life in their homeland is still too dangerous despite improvements in security....

"To think of returning to Iraq is as bad as thinking of suicide," said Faten al-Samerrai, 42, who has been living in Damascus since 2006 with her husband and five children. "There is no future and no life in Iraq. There is only ruin."

She said life is not perfect in Damascus — but at least it's safe....

"I lost my son and my husband because of America," said Ikhlas al-Duleimi, a 36-year-old Sunni Muslim Iraqi in Syria. She added: "I wish Saddam's awful regime would return."

And so the great sacrifice of Bush comes full circle to the idealization of a tyrant that his own country put into power, deposed, and now restores to martyrdom. And this "noble" cause, this Iraq War of the Republicans and their Democratic Party enablers, claims its 4000th American corpse. The Iraqi bodies are not even counted by Bush and his government. That sacrifice might overwhelm the flimsy temple Bush is building for his unholy war.

Also posted at Invictus

There's more: "Bush & the Mathematics of War: 4000, 1 million, 2 million" >>

Dick Cheney On Iraq War Dead

Crossposted from BFD Blog!

In an exclusive interview with Martha Raddatz on ABC tonight, DeadEye Dick Cheney expounds on the impact of the Iraq war U.S. body count reaching 4,000 yesterday.

Through the use of advanced technology, that could only come to the general public through the proliferation of useful spin off products from the advances in war technology developed by the Bushliburton military industrial complex, we are able to bring to our readers not only DeadEye Dick's words but his concurrent thoughts on the subject:

Illustration: Big Fella

Sometimes when you hear what the arrogant puppet master of Bushliburton says, it is not quite OBVIOUS what he really means.

When November 4, 2008 comes around, it will be up to all of us to make a choice, do we acquiesce to more of the same, a foolhardy and futile expenditure of lives ruined or snuffed out, in pursuit of phantom threats to our homeland, all the while adding to the treasure amassed by the Disaster Capitalism Business Complex, or do we stand up and insist on taking another path, regaining peace and our humanity?

There's more: "Dick Cheney On Iraq War Dead" >>

4000 US Deaths in Iraq

(Cross posted from Gold Star Mom Speaks Out)


In our 6th year of military operations in Iraq, we knew this day would come, we knew this number would come. 4000. Any death from Iraq is unacceptable, but to hear the announcement of the 4000th US death in Iraq on Easter, a day of joyous celebration, is an affront, one of those karmic ironies that should not happen.

This deathwatch started ticking on March 21, 2003 with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 dead American soldiers. Jose Antonio Gutierrez, Kendall Damon Waters-Day, Brian Matthew Kennedy, Ryan Anthony Beaupre, Jay Thomas Aubin, Therrel Shane Childers were the first to die in Iraq. Why was this country not offended by the death of these 6 soldiers, these sons, brothers, fathers, friends? What number of deaths is okay or acceptable? We know 6 was okay. We know that 818, my son, Lt Ken Ballard's number from back in May 2004 was okay. If people don't take to the streets or write their Congressperson, or do something about ending this war and ending these deaths, then we know that 4000 US deaths is also okay. I don't know what number is unacceptable to the citizens of this country, but I do know that any number more than zero is acceptable for a war based on lies. The 44th president will determine what number is unacceptable. If military operations continue for 100 more years, as one candidate has suggested, we can only imagine what that number will be.

Some might wonder if the 4000th death is more notable than the 3999th, Morten Ender, a US Military Academy sociologist who studies the military says "4000 is a good round number people can grab hold of, it reminds us of what's going on with a war that, since the (military's troop) surge, seems to have lost its place in the public mind" .

With the American media and public paying less attention than ever, marking this grievous milestone should put the occupation in Iraq back on the front page for at least one news cycle. It's the least we can do for the military who continue to be in harms way. Regardless of our politics, these men and women are occupying a country in our name. They need to know that they have the support of the people back at home, you know, support the warrior even if you don't support the war. It's a slap in their faces if we don't at least acknowledge their presence and the service to their country. With such a small percentage who do serve in the military, about 1% of the US population, we must remember that they serve.

The fear of any Gold Star family member, who has lost a loved one while serving in the military, is that their loved one will be forgotten. We Gold Star families can and will never forget and neither should our population. If only for this reason, we should mark this sad milestone.

According to USA Today, of the 4000 members of the military, one in six were too young to buy a beer. About two dozen were old enough for an AARP card. Eleven died on Thanksgiving Day, 11 on Christmas, and at least five on their birthdays.

Tonight 160,000 US families marked their Easter Sunday with an empty seat at their table because their loved ones are deployed to Iraq. 8 of those families do not even know that the life that they woke up to this morning is over. One roadside bomb, one IED 6000 miles away took care of their future and in one knock on the door, they will hear the words that every military family fears, "I regret to inform you".

My heart goes out to these families who have joined the ranks of other Gold Star Families. No one wants to be in this club. We can make sure their are no more Gold Star families. What will you do today to stop this occupation?

There's more: "4000 US Deaths in Iraq" >>

Mr.Rumsfeld ‘messy war’ boomerang – Iraq war looting comes home to roost

Donald Rumsfeld’s “things are messy in wartime” comments in 2003, which was made in reference to looting of Iraq’s cultural and historical antiquities, among other things, has now come home to roost.

Some of those same looted antiquities are now funding Iraqi insurgents:

Marine Reserve Col. Matthew Bogdanos claimed that both Sunni insurgents, such as al Qaeda in Iraq, and Shiite militias are receiving funding from the trafficking. …

“Well, (unlike Afghanistan), they don’t have opium in Iraq,” he said. “What they have is an almost limitless supply of is antiquities. And so they're using antiquities.”

So, if you’re out at a war anniversary rally tonight, remember that, beyond all of his other fuckups, Don Rumsfeld has just a little bit more blood on his hands now.

There's more: "Mr.Rumsfeld ‘messy war’ boomerang – Iraq war looting comes home to roost" >>

Hillary a war enabler – former R.I. Senator

So says the only GOP senator to vote against the invasion of Iraq, Lincoln Chafee. Chafee, defeated for re-election by Sheldon Whitehouse in 2006, has a new book out on just that subject.

Titled “Against The Tide: How a Compliant Congress Empowered a Reckless President,” it looks as if it could be a great insider’s tale, depending on just how much Chafee will “dish.” Chafee, now an independent who is backing Barack Obama, calls Hillary Clinton one of the “Democratic Bush enablers”:

“Being wrong about sending Americans to kill and be killed, maim and be maimed, is not like making a punctuation mistake in a highway bill,” Chafee writes. “They argue that the president duped them into war, but getting duped does not exactly recommend their leadership. Helping a rogue president start an unnecessary war should be a career-ending lapse of judgment, in my view.”

Sadly, but truly, Chafee writes that these Democrats put political ambitions ahead of principle in 2002. And now, we’re paying the price.

Of course, the flip side is that somebody could still prosecute them.

But, the flip side to that is, ain’t gonna happen either out of this administration, or out of Clinton, Obama or McCain. Not one of them would pull that trigger.

There's more: "Hillary a war enabler – former R.I. Senator" >>