Geeks Gone Wild!

According to the Oakland Tribune Lab Officials Excited by New H-Bomb Project nuclear weapons designers are in par-tay mode after the announcement of a competition to develop the next generation of H-Bombs.


Frankly I’m not too keen on the idea of "excited" nuclear scientists making bombs.


Oppenheimer, realizing the enormity of the first atomic explosion commented by quoting from the ancient Sanskrit text of the Rig Veda: "I am become death", whilst Einstein whose physics inquiries helped make the bomb possible became an ardent opponent of nuclear weapons.

This time around it seems likely that the new generation of bombs will be celebrated with wet lab-coat contests and cries of "fucking awesome!"

Apparently the plan is to make simpler, more reliable and more adaptable thermonuclear warheads.

I’m no luddite; anything that is simpler, more reliable and adaptable is a good thing in my book....

EXCEPT WHEN IT COMES TO BLOWING UP THE WORLD!

Perhaps I'm over-reacting. Apparently some of the scientists haven't forgotten the words of Spiderman's uncle; "with great power comes great responsibility".
So, should the new, simpler and more reliable H-Bomb somehow fall into the hands of terrorists it will be able to be "remotely destroyed or rendered useless."

The notion that a complete thermonuclear device could be "rendered useless" by any means other than blowing it up is simply idiotic.

For a start the radioactive material still could be used for a dirty bomb (more a psychological weapon than a WMD) and the scrap bomb parts could still be sold to those nations pursuing their own nuclear capabilities for research if not for immediate ‘practical’ application.
Secondly it is clear that terrorists HAVE to be within or close to communications (which means population centers) to organize and to be effective in their tactics (which is to attack highly populated targets).
So the only solution is to remotely detonate the stolen bomb, thereby preventing the terrorists of destroying their intended targets but destroying a whole bunch of surrounding and unintended targets in the process.

Give a bunch of bored teenagers 10 billion dollars and the results are predictable--a maelstrom of promiscuity, vomit, abortions, massive hangovers and a multimillion dollar video market supported by middle-aged men who assume that everyone's daughter but their own is a drunken slut.

Give a bunch of bored hydrogen bomb designers 10 billion dollars and the result is much the same—except that when the bomb designers get to par-tay, there won’t be anyone left the morning after to buy the video of Geeks Gone Wild.

Middle East Road Map—Time To Ask For Directions?

Bush: "The people are demanding honest government. The people want services. They want to be able to raise their children in an environment in which they can get a decent education and they can find health care. It's a wake-up call to the leadership "

No, he wasn’t talking about Americans and the Congress. He was talking about the Palestinians who just voted overwhelmingly for Hamas to form their new government.

Back in 2004 at the RNC Convention in New York Bush said:
"As the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq seize the moment, their example will send a message of hope throughout a vital region. Palestinians will hear the message that democracy and reform are within their reach, and so is peace with our good friend, Israel"

And when he says Israel, he means the country that the newly elected Palestinian Hamas government officially wants to destroy. Neither Bush nor the Israelis will "negotiate with terrorists".

Awkwaaaarrrd!

The Taliban are resurgent in Afghanistan, Iraq is mired in an internecine war and now in Palestine "freedom is on the march" with a vengeance (and a lot of guns).

Call me crazy but this "spreading freedom and democracy in the Middle East" isn’t working out too well. And call me insane but this situation isn’t actually Bush’s fault.

But it is his problem.

The check-engine light on the dashboard of the SUV of U.S. Middle East policy is blinking, the "Road Map" is now stuck to the floor with chewing gum and melted Snickers bars, we aren’t in Kansas anymore and there’s a spooky house up ahead.

Time to smack the kids whining "are we there yet?" and ask for directions.

The Years of Living Dangerously

This year every single congressional seat is up for election or re-election.

With the public expressing significant dissatisfaction with Congress as a whole both incumbents and challengers have plenty to worry about.

The Republicans’ prospects are blighted with a lousy economy, an unpopular war, failed domestic programs, the incompetence of appointees, an arrogant President, the infringement of civil liberties and rampant corruption.

Given such liabilities a dead hamster should be able to win handily against a Republican incumbent, let alone a Democrat. By all rights the Democrats need only relax and watch the Republicans drown in their own crapulence before waltzing back into power.

But that seemed to be the case back in 2004, yet Bush and the Republicans stayed in power!
How, you may ask? Well, I know you know, but I’ll tell you anyway:

Bush and the Republicans owned the mass media thereby controlling public debate and quashing criticism and opposition.
They owned all the chairs and majorities on committees and ignored Democrats, thereby denying Democrats the ability to represent their constituents (approx 50% of the voting public) and denying them the opportunity to write and pass laws.
And finally they owned the organization of elections and the machines used by voters, thereby allowing them to manipulate the election in general and the votes in particular.

Now in 2006 with yet more scandals piling up the White House and the Republicans have even more reason to use the power and tactics that have worked for them in the past.
If the Democrats gain a majority, however slight in just the House of Representatives the Republicans will not just lose their dominance, they risk being investigated, subpoenaed and exposed both individually and collectively.

As politically damaging as the Abramoff scandal appears to be it is but one bone from a single skeleton amongst the many in Republican closets.
Rather than shy away from it the Republicans will actually play the issue for all its worth by declaring themselves "born-again" reformers, not just for individual expediency but because it will distract the voting public from the biggest issue of all—the Republicans' intent to utterly destroy democracy.

Having gained complete power of all "checks and balances" (the Executive, the Congress, the Judiciary and the "Fourth Estate") the Republicans have everything to lose, so they won’t be going down without a vicious and dirty fight.
Beyond the support of the MSM in suppressing opposition, defining the debate and manipulating the issues in the Republicans’ favor, the most vital tool at their disposal to maintain power is their control over the election process and the voting machines.

If the Democrats ignore this fact, against all odds the Republicans will once again steal the elections and seal the fate of democracy once and for all.
It is imperative that in every single speech and public utterance in the upcoming election campaigns Democrats must raise the issue of voting verification and transparency. Indeed the issue has to be raised now and kept in the public arena throughout.

Only by incessant reference to voting verification in every public utterance will the Democrats be able to overcome the MSM’s endemic bias and force it to eventually report on the issue.
Otherwise contrary to all expectations, logic and probability the Republican’s will "miraculously" emerge victorious in the very last election we will ever see.

If that happens be assured that two years later America’s first ever king will be anointed to rule over us all, courtesy of "unitary executive power" supported by a "Republican" court.

The Constitution, the Bill of Rights and democracy itself is in grave danger.
The countdown begins now. This year and the next two years will be critical in determining whether the grand experiment of democracy succeeds or fails. These years are the years of living dangerously.

Bone Me Up, Scotty!

Why does the White House Press Corps even bother?

Scott McClellan by virtue of his employment has to lie, dissemble, defer, deny, obfuscate and generally shovel bullshit every time he stands up in front of the Presidential Seal.
As the press never gets any serious information from Scotty, they should simply stop asking serious questions:


McClellan: "I know there's a lot of interest in the purported bin Laden audiotape that aired on al-Jazeera earlier today. The intelligence community is continuing to analyze the tape to determine its authenticity and if there is any actionable intelligence. If there is any actionable intelligence, we will act on it."

Q: The fact that it is on audiocassette rather than on videotape---what does that suggest to the intelligence community? Has Bin Laden given up on the VHS format? Why isn’t he burning CDs or ripping MP3’s? Surely the supply of audiocassettes is extremely limited these days. Couldn’t the CIA track audiocassette sales in the Pakistan area pretty easily? And does the inferior signal to noise ratio of ferromagnetic tape create problems in authenticating the recording. Was it a blank cassette or was it taped over "Queens Greatest Hits" or something similar?

McClellan: "We continue to act on all fronts to win the war on terrorism, and we will. The President is fully committed to doing everything within his power to prevent attacks and defeat the terrorists. We are taking the fight to the enemy; we are working to advance freedom and democracy, to defeat their evil ideology. We are winning. Clearly, al Qaeda and the terrorists are on the run."

Q: Are you suggesting he might have recorded over Bruce Springsteen’s ‘Born To Run’ or Wings’ ‘Band On The Run’? I'm just trying to read between the lines here.

McClellan: "They're under a lot of pressure."

Q: Billy Joel? The Queen and David Bowie collaboration?

McClellan: "I don't have anything for you on that"

Faceless

I thought long and hard about this post. I WARN YOU, THE NEXT PICTURE MAY (AND SHOULD) TURN YOUR STOMACH


This is the official image of a Marine who died fighting in Iraq. I have blurred his face so that I could use his image to represent the 2200 or so thus far who have died in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It is a classic portrait of a soldier, honored and remembered as disciplined and proud and noble, regardless of "race" or sex.

Over 2200 Americans have died thus far in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The Iraqis have suffered well over ten times that amount as both soldiers and civilians and yet more will die on both sides and especially 'in between'--as the "collateral" damage that occurs when grand politics combine with simple bullets and cheap explosives

For an administration that refuses to allow the flag draped coffins of its "heroes" to be photographed upon their sad but noble homecoming from their service to the great causes the administration espoused, these men and women, these soldiers and their families are faceless.

For an administration that orders men and women to battle, yet rewards those who return from sacrifice to yet more sacrifice--loss of jobs, income, health and health insurance, child care and medical benefits, they are faceless.

Whilst demanding the support of all yet demanding the sacrifice of a few and with the collusion of the mainstream media too embedded in the production or seated too far away to understand the play and recognize the actors, these men and women are faceless.

This is a photograph of a Marine killed in Iraq late 2005, long after the WMD weren't found, long after Hussein was captured, long after Mission Accomplished, long after Rumsfeld said that democracy was "messy".

As I look at this Marine's picture many questions come to mind.

Who is this man? Why did he get his face blown apart? Did he die for his country? Did he die for me? Did he give up his life and his face so that I could be free? Did he die becuse my taxes sent him to a warin which he got his face blown away in a conflict I didn't support? Is it my fault he has no face? Is it his fault for joining the marines? Is it the fault of those who ordered him to war or are we all complicit?

Well one thing is for sure, I'll never know because although I found this image easily enough, I don't know who this soldier is, and I'll never know anything about him because his face and his brains and his thoughts and his life have been blasted to smithetreens because some tiny group of assholes decided it would be a good idea to invade Iraq and a larger bunch of assholes agreed.

Well now it's not just the namby pamby liberal elite who think the Iraq adventure was a bad idea, more and more of it's supporters are turning around. That's great, but too fucking late! Look at this guy! He's dead and he's got no face! Why? WHY?!

As an opponent of this war I owe this Marine and his buddies FUCK ALL! ! He didn't die for ME, he didn't die for my rights and freedoms, the Constitution or the Bill Of Rights, he didn't die for the good old US of A; he died for his buddies, his military and his Commander in Chief. And he got his face blown off in the process.

Excuse me, I'm assuming too much. I don't know this Marine. He may have served despite personal objections. Now he's dead and he doesn't even have a face. His family is entitled to remember him as he was when he was alive and full of promise. I'd prefer to remember him that way too. But though it's more productive to remember how people lived, one shouldn't forget how they died.

No matter the circumstance, no matter how great or mean the context, no one should be faceless.

Body Baggage

Search "body bags" on Google and you might come up with this.Note the tag line--"what will you put in yours?"It's clever, it's sexy and yet it makes me want to vomit.
Clearly I'm not the cynic I thought I was.

Does anyone remember the fuss over the number of body bags ordered for the 1991Gulf War? It was in all the papers.

Both pro- and anti-war citizens alike were alarmed at the number, even though the count represented just 3% of the total number of mobilized US personnel.
Whilst the vast majority of Americans supported kicking Iraq out of Kuwait, even the staunchest were troubled by the fact that the DoD had ordered 16,000 body bags for a force of over 500,000 deployed

But no matter; the Pentagon prepared once again for deaths in the thousands.

Employing the sometimes dubious but sometimes illuminating tool of comparison, the 2003 order of a mean of 9,000 body bags for a force of 140,000 suggests an anticipated "attrition" of not 3% (as in 1991) but 6% of total forces.

This doesn’t mean that the US soldiers in this instance were being regarded more as cannon fodder in 2003 than they were in 1991.
In 1991 over 500,000 US personnel were supported by an additional 160,000 Coalition (and significantly NATO) forces. They faced an Iraqi opposition nearly equal in number. However the Iraqis as a whole were decidedly less equal in training, equipment and logistical support and the wholesale desertion of the Iraqi airforce left the remainder in an untenable position.

In 2003 the forces were again almost equal in manpower but the Iraqis had even less equipment and support. In the Iraqi’s favor however was some knowledge of the forces they would face and particularly that they wouldn’t be fighting on some foreign battlefield but in their own country and for their own land.This is something that any general with a clue factors into his planning.
When attacking someone on their own turf it is important to give the defender a couple of extra aggression and determination points as a rule of thumb, hence the comparative doubling of body bags ordered relative to 1991.Nonetheless the expectation was clearly still in the thousands. What a relief when Baghdad was entered and so few US troops had been killed! Mission accomplished!

So far over 2,200 U.S military have been put into body bags, as have nearly six dozen journalists. Just recently Bush estimated 30,000 Iraqis dead. Bush has no credibility but if one adds "at least" to the claim it’s probably closer to the truth than anything he has ever uttered. I wonder has the excess U.S. inventory of body bags been provided to the Iraqis? Somehow I doubt it (and come to think of it I’m not sure the Iraqis would want to accept them, however practical they might be).

I watched my eldest brother being zipped up into a body bag and it was the first (but not the last) I’d ever seen.I was 15 and he was 24. He died at home from complications of a hole in the heart, not on a battlefield far away serving some great "cause". The last I saw of him was his pale serene face before it was replaced by a black impenetrable shroud sealed by metal teeth. One of the policemen present put a comforting hand on my shoulder as the medics loaded the suddenly anonymous black sack into the ambulance.

He was but one amongst tens of thousands who die every day as a part of the cycle of life over which we have little or no control.
But given the choice would we not all prefer to die individually in peace rather than collectively in the thousands or hundreds of thousands, by war?
And given the choice, wouldn’t we all prefer to die as we had lived, as recognizable individuals rather than as contents of an indistinguishable black bag?

ALITO’S WAY

Throughout his Supreme Court confirmation hearings nominee Judge Alito was asked for his opinions on matters both specific and general. His responses were often as long-winded as the questions and invariably non-substantive.

Two memes ran through the majority of Alito’s responses:
He would pay due respect to relevant Supreme Court precedence in future judgements.
He would look at only the facts of an actual case (nothing hypothetical)

In response to hypothetical cases he refused to be drawn and when asked about apparently inconsistent applications of "principle" in cases he had adjudged he protested that his judgements concerned technical legal issues in each case.

And THAT is problem with Alito; he is a pedant.

By all means the facts and individual merits of a case of ordinary law should be the primary considerations of a judge. But with regard to the constitutionality of a law, the actions taken to execute it and the arguments provided to sustain it or overturn it, surely contemporary social and societal concerns and indeed future public concerns should be included in the Supreme Court’s reckoning?

The Constitution is above all a document of principles which were and still are "activist".

Were it not for "activism" on the part the Supreme Court racial segregation (if not outright slavery) would still exist in the U.S. and everyone not native-born and non-white would still be living in a ghetto, women would have no voice and no property and so on.

I’d argue that a sense of "activism" is precisely what is required of a Supreme Court Justice because the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were themselves the codification of "activism" at the time they were written, and continue to be so today. Surely the function of the Supreme Court is not only to uphold the Constitution but to expand it appropriately in accordance the legislature, but NEVER ever reduce it.

The Democrats pointed to Alito’s judicial record of overwhelmingly siding with authority and/or the administration and tried to paint him as a right-wing Republican ideologue.
The Republicans offered instances where Alito contrarily sided with the individual, thereby refuting the Democrats broad characterization.

Taken as a whole Alito appears philosophically more Republican than Democrat, but not wholly so. If neither his judicial nor his political philosophies place him solidly in either camp, who and what is Judge Alito? Who the hell knows? During the hearings he refused to be drawn into any philosophical argument.

Given the failure of the committee to get Alito to provide any insight of his own philosophies we can only go by his record.
Most of Alito’s rulings favored business and government at the expense of "the little guy" yet a minority of his rulings favored the "little guy" over business and government. He seems to have a prejudice, yet he doesn’t always exercise that prejudice ergo he is not entirely prejudiced, as Democrats would like to believe; but by his record he isn’t entirely Republican either.
Does that make Alito an "independent"? In a way it does. But not so "independent" as to scare the Republicans, nor "independent" enough for the Democrats to accept him.

Much has been made of Alito’s grasp and retention of detail—essential skills for lawyers and judges alike—and during the hearings regarding many and varied cases he demonstrated both.
Strange then that he could not recollect the details behind his CAP membership, nor whether his ultimate recusal from a case was propitiated from a computer glitch or (as he later explained) from the laxity of procedure afforded to the litigant’s self-representation as opposed to the more stringent procedures required of professionals.
Strange also that he could not recollect precisely why he had joined CAP other than to assume the reason involved the banishment of the ROTC from the Princeton Campus when CAP’s overriding concern was that the admittance of women, racial minorities and the physically disabled was detrimental to Princeton’s ethos and reputation.
Only after repeated questioning did he admit that the mention of CAP on his resume when applying for a job in the Reagan Administration was an expedient ploy and thus nothing to do with his professed passion for the rights of the ROTC on the Princeton campus. So he lied under oath in that regard—not a good start for any judge, let alone a Supreme Court nominee.

But the fact that Alito lied under oath is remarkably not the big issue. The big issue is WHY he lied. The reason he lied is because he didn’t want to admit that he included his CAP membership in his resume NOT because it added to his technical and academic qualifications but because it provided a political and philosophical qualification that would give him an advantage in getting the job he desired.

What this relatively small lie and subsequent admission reveal, in combination with his mostly conservative pro-business but occasionally pro-individual judicial record is that Alito’s main concern is not justice, nor the maintenance of the Constitution for the public good but what he is prepared to do to serve his own needs and philosophy.

Alito is a self serving opportunist and politically more "Libertarian" than anything else. He has worked his way diligently to align himself with privilege, money and power and his Supreme Court nomination places him one step away from his personal goal—to join the "club" and be given a lifetime membership of personal status, privilege and power.

Libertarians have no political party of their own but they find common cause with the conservatives rather than liberals.
Alito’s public record demonstrates a Libertarian view- a minimalist law-and-order government presided over by an all-powerful executive that promulgates a pedantic world vies and rewards its supporters handsomely.

Alito is a pedant who uses the inherent pedantry of the legal system to further his own position in society and to satisfy his own ego. He doesn’t give a damn about philosophy, he doesn’t give a damn about political parties per se, he doesn’t gave a damn about the political, social or economic future of this country and he doesn’t give a damn about the intent or application of the Constitution that was designed to serve the public.

If he has an ideology or philosophy, it is anchored in his ego. For these reasons, Alito is unfit to serve as a Supreme Court Justice.

Caring Spy-Kids Key to Capturing Killers

On January 5th President Bush addressed over one hundred College and University Presidents attending a two-day State Department conference.

Demonstrating the usual keen grasp of his audience and their issues he unveiled to them a new proposal to expand the number of foreign languages being taught in public schools—which quite by chance had nothing to do with the conference’s agenda (a discussion of foreign student enrollment and visa issues).


Bush explained his new proposal in language appropriate to his distinguished yet baffled guests:

"In order to convince people we care about them, we've got to understand their culture and show them we care about their culture. You know, when somebody comes to me and speaks Texan, I know they appreciate the Texas culture. When somebody takes time to figure out how to speak Arabic, it means they're interested in somebody else's culture."

Now who would know more about caring for people and understanding other cultures than President Bush? Who the heck doesn’t appreciate Texas? And who the heck doesn’t want to speak Texan for gosh sake? And you just gotta admire anyone who can figure out how to speak Arabic—it involves a lot of phlegm, like French, and when you do figure it out it means you are interested in somebody else’s culture.
For instance, if you were interested in the culture of Texas, well figuring out Arabic would be a good start because Texan and Arabic culture is all about oil and whose God is the One True God (I’ll leave you intellectual types to figure that one out but be careful, it’s a trick question!).

So what’s the title of this multicultural "caring" language program? Why, the "National Security Language Initiative" of course!

F’rinstance let’s say you got a message about an attack being planned on the United States. Well if you cared about something like that, but it was in Arabic you’d want to know what that message meant, wouldn’t you? You‘d want to care about a culture that wanted to attack you because it hated your freedom. So you’d want to recruit (according to Bush); "intelligence officers who, when somebody says something in Arabic or Farsi or Urdu, know what they're talking about."
As opposed to the other type of intelligence officer intercepting Arabic, Farsi or Urdu communications that only speaks Texan—even though they might be doing a heck of a job.

So who will be heading the National Security Language Initiative? Perhaps someone from the State Department or the DHS?
The decision hasn’t been made yet but the big money is on Margaret Spellings who has been doing a heck of a job as Education Secretary—and why not?

Spellings herself said in an interview that efforts to teach such languages as Chinese and Arabic to children as young as five were brand new, adding "We don't know how to do it. This whole notion is in its infancy (sic). But our hope is this is a start, and we can build on it."

So today’s five-year olds will join the ranks of the CIA, the NSA, the DoD and the FBI by 2023; using their ‘caring interest’ in other peoples’ cultures to ensure our continued national security. And god knows we’ll need them, because the evildoers will be training their five year-olds too (oh yes… evildoers have kids too). But even before then we’ll have begun training three-year olds and who knows…maybe even stem cells might one day become intelligence analysts?

By proposing this initiative President Bush has once again shown himself to be a visionary, a man of ideas and a man of action. A man who rises above mundane realities, looks to the horizon and if he squints real hard sees endless, fuzzy possibilities.

Thank you, and May God Be-Less American!

(Thanks to Michael Janofsky NY Times Online, January 6th for the basis of this article).

Entire US Army Shoots Self In Foot

.
This photo from the USMC official website shows how serving soldierss are complete suckers for cute unidentified Iraqi kids who presumably have brothers and fathers ( each household is legally allowed one AK47).

Of course this would be of no interest to a guerrilla army whatsoever, unlike perhaps the photos and information provided in increasingly censored "milblogs"



Here' a link to a semi-thorough article from Newsday, a reputable New York Newspaper. concerning the crackdown on "milbogs".

And here are my musings:

Cindy Sheehan has been accused by various media pundidiots of "giving comfort to our enemies". Various politicians and reporters critical of the invasion of Iraq, its aftermath and its management have been often been accused of treason or at least "aiding and abetting the enemy". And lately some active duty soldiers have suffered the same criticism due to the content of their blogs.
Indeed the military has taken steps to shut down various "milblogs" it deems too detailed for fear that some of the information might be exploited by their military opposition and has insisted that any future blogs be reviewed for content before publication.

Reviewing and restricting the dissemination of information from a battlefront makes a lot of sense, in principle at least.
As a soldier on the front lines the last thing you would want to do is accidentally give the enemy useful intelligence because it could kill you. For the generals and politicians it could mean the difference between victory and defeat, tactically and strategically. For military families it could mean the difference between a joyful or sorrowful homecoming and for the taxpayer funding the war (whether pro or against) it could mean the cessation or continuation of taxation without real representation of hard-earned money that could be used elsewhere.

Here's another official USMC photo which IN NO WAY reveals any clues whatsoever about how an assault team might enter a building or what equipment they might carry.

For example one serving soldier’s blog was shut down and its author demoted because he had described his unit's flight route into Iraq and that information could thus help the enemy shoot down U.S. aircraft. The Army also said that this same soldier shouldn’t have disclosed that the last three bullets he loaded into his weapon's magazine were always tracers, because that could tip an enemy to time an attack just as an American soldier is reloading.

Marine Capt. Don Caetano of Mineola who was stationed in Fallujah where he ran the embedded journalist program and is now a recruiter in Garden City, NY offers this explanation of the increasingly instituted censorship:
"When you put your blog out there, you cannot forget that not only the good guys, but the bad guys are accessing it, especially for Techniques, Tactics and Procedures. If the bad guys take a piece from me, and a piece from you, and a piece from another guy, pretty soon they can gather some pretty good intel."

I have to admit that makes a lot of sense.

Except that Captain Caetano has of course just corroborated the information the Army objected to and negated his own argument for censorship. Thus he himself has "aided and abetted" the enemy—oops!

And here's the link to America's Army that apparently allows only the "good guys" with an internet connection to learn and practice the basics of both standard army and "special-ops" tactics.

But no matter, I’m sure the Army has now eliminated this particular use of tracers in US ammo clips, thereby preventing both the enemy and the US soldier of a clear notification in the middle of a firefight that it’s time to reload.

I’m sure the average soldier’s personal well-being and any mission objective will be henceforth better served by deploying hordes of army desk-jockeys to ensure every combat soldier’s ammo clips are without tracer rounds and instead insisting they quietly count the bullets they fire so that the enemy isn’t tipped-off about the soldier’s potential vulnerability. And I don’t suppose it has ever occurred to the stupid ragheads to designate just one of their group to function as a non-combatant first-hand observer in an attack against US military to better understand their tactics and procedures, rather than shoot first and "Google" later.

Two soldiers specifically have been demoted and fined respectively $1,000 and $1,640 for putting classified information on their blogs. Presumably then "aiding and abetting" or "giving comfort to the enemy" or revealing classified information no longer gets a soldier jailed or shot for treason but just a fine and a demotion; somehow the accusation and the penalty doesn’t quite fit. Perhaps the fact that said soldier might still be "in theater" whilst "security mom's" are beating up army recruiters in shopping malls has something to do with it.

An apparently life or death issue (not to mention the success or failure of a mission) is thus considered to be of national importance yet at the same time relegated to the level of a small-claims court.

The reasons given by Captain Caetano for the censorship of milblogs might actually be as injurious to the US military effort as the milblogs themselves.
His arguments and those of the Pentagon reveal a monolithic approach to the conduct of an "asymmetric" war, in the theater, in the media and at home. It is symptomatic of exactly the hidebound mentality that began the war and continues to mismanage it.
The "intel" provided by such blogs can indeed be used by the opposition as long as the U.S. military itself ignores it ands suppresses it. Information is just information, it’s how information is employed that matters. Rather than learning from those in the middle of the fight, the military (and its "Commander in Chief") would rather devote as much effort to attacking its own as it does to attacking its professed enemy.

There are plenty of good reasons for the military to be concerned about inadvertent release of "intel". But the fact is the US military as a whole is as guilty of providing such "intel" to a far greater degree than any single military blogger, or indeed of all of them. The excuses provided by the likes of Captain Caetano are fine in theory, but clearly lacking in practice. If the US military insists on "gagging" it's soldiers when it clearly can't gag itself, what then can we conclude? Are those in command stupid, incompetent or both?

According to our "Commander in Chief" the "Iraq War" was initiated based upon the "best intelligence we had at the time". That's a lot of crap. The Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld's most constant refrain is "who knowS? You tell me!" Well the milblogs are telling their commanders what's going on and providing the US public who are funding the war with "intel" that above all informs those who are willing to listen and who are truly concerned with the soldiers' welfare as well as the professional and honorable completion of their mission.

It's hard to draw any other conclusion than that the gagging of milblogs is nothing more than an exercise in poltical propaganda which does nothing to serve the soldier, the mission or the nation. The Pentagon itself has done far more to provide the "enemy" with the intel it seeks, and to undermine morale in theater and at home though its incapacity to provide the troops with supplies and listen to their real-time field experience than any milblog ever has.

What's Under The Hat?

(AP Photo)


According to court papers "BlackJack" Abramoff the casino-profit loving Republican lobbyist, by his own admission is guilty (amongst other things) of defrauding his clients to the tune of at least $20 million between "early" 2001 and April 2004.

Recipients of his lobbying largesse are now disassociating themselves from the current and still-brewing scandal by returning the funds or else donating them to charity

Maybe I’m being stupid here, but surely if the money Abramoff provided was a) laundered and b) gained through fraud shouldn’t that money be a) held as evidence and b) returned to those who were defrauded? Therefore shouldn’t the politicians unloading the funds be placing the monies in an escrow account to be held until the conclusion of the criminal investigation rather than being shuffled off to charities? And how can charities accept these transferred funds when their source is clearly suspect?

The Washington Post touches briefly on these issues. Hopefully they will follow up.

Now, according to the above mentioned article: "Abramoff raised more than $100,000 for the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign, making him an honorary Bush "Pioneer." But the campaign is giving up only $6,000, which came directly from Abramoff, his wife and one of the Indian tribes the lobbyist represented. The money will be donated to the American Heart Association."

Remember Abramoff has admitted guilt to defrauding his "clients" ($20 million) between 2001 and 2004. Abramoff "earned" over $11 million from one tribe between 2001 and 2003. Bush received $100,000 from Abramoff for his 2004 re-election campaign, less than 1% of his take from his scam.
Bush is now unloading $6000 of that contribution or 6% of a contribution that came from an illegal source. What are the odds that the $6,000 was lawfully gained when Abramoff had just scammed $11 million? What are the odds that the $100,000 was lawfully Abramoff’s to give? What was Abramoff’s source of income except the $11 million of tribal money---oh yes… the various other millions he has admitted to scamming since 2001? .

Of course Scott McClellan was there to explain it all to the troglodytes:
" If someone thinks that money is coming in with strings attached, it doesn't get in the door."

Well golly-gee Scott ("or should I say Doctor VON Scott!"), if there weren’t any strings attached, why give ANY MONEY AWAY AT ALL?!!! It’s all legit, right?

And of course Abramoff didn’t have any intention of asking favors of Bush because the real power lay with the Congress. Bush owed so many favors to industry and his own party Abramoff didn’t need a direct line to the President. The quid pro quo equation is simple: with Bush playing President Bush he could do what he wants as long as congressional Republicans could do what they wanted, which coincided with what the mega-rich oligarchy wanted which is to live even more fabulous lives.

The Abramoff scandal has yet to play out, but the big issue under the hat is not just the corruption of some politicians, it is the corruption of our whole system of government—what it is really for, who it benefits and what America and democracy are about.
The eventual jailing of Abramoff and any representatives or Senators that might be brought down should not be the end of the story. To be continued….