We're pussycats compared to some foreign leaders. sm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

I've seen a lot of the video clips and pictures also. You know there is so much hoopla about everything in politics, it's really hard for me to believe anything I see much less anything I hear. I think we've sunk so low in our politics that the one who can throw the most mud is the one who will win. I don't care about Obama's association of 40 years ago. I do care about his recent so-called church affiliation. I do not care if Palin fired the guy for not firing her ex-brother-in-law (of course she did). I do care that all she can talk about is how "bad" Obama is and how "saintly" John McCain is. Pull the string and see what Sarah says.

The common sense side of me tells me that most of the garbage we hear from both campaigns is stuff dug up by the other side trying to discredit the other candidate.

A MOST aggravating thing happened this morning.......a REPUBLICAN acquaintance stopped by to see us this morning. The unexpected call was to campaign for John McCain. He got ANGRY when I told him I wasn't voting for either candidate. Pretty much called me a redneck hillbilly for not agreeing with him. LOL

Listening to one of his speeches is a breath of fresh air compared to listening to Bush.....I'm betting O will make less speaking mistakes in his entire presidency than Bush made in any one given month during his.

They are the cleric and they are the ones who rule the country. They rule with an iron fist and by the power of Islam. The president of their country is only a puppet just like in the U.S.

We should NOT get involved unless asked, which probably will not happen. Sure, there are some in this country who thinks we should and it's both sides who have that opinion, not just the pubs. President A will be the winner, you can be sure of that, since they are only doing recounts on certain areas of the country (probably those that voted for President A.

The top CIA counterterrorism officer who tracked Osama bin Laden through the mountains of Afghanistan says the United States could have captured the terrorist leader if President George W. Bush and the American military had devoted the necessary resources to the hunt and capture.

In addition, says Gary Bernsten, a decorated espionage officer, the post-Cold War downturn in recruitment and attention to espionage has left a crippled spy agency that will need a decade or more to build up its clandestine service for the U.S. war on terrorism.

Berntsen led a paramilitary unit code-named Jawbreaker in the war that toppled the Taliban after the September 11 attacks.

He says his Jawbreaker team tracked bin Laden to Afghanistan's Tora Bora region late in 2001 and could have killed or captured the al Qaeda leader there if military officials had agreed to his request for an additional force of about 800 U.S. troops. But the administration was already gearing up for war with Iraq and troops were never sent, allowing bin Laden was able to escape.

His account contradicts public statements by Bush and former Gen. Tommy Franks, who maintained that U.S. officials were never sure bin Laden was at Tora Bora.

Berntsen says CIA Director Porter Goss faces an uphill battle to fill the agency's senior ranks with aggressive, seasoned operatives.

He's probably more aggressive than most of the senior officers in the clandestine service. So I think he's having to pull them along a bit, Berntsen said in an interview.

(Goss) is trying to improve the situation. But it's going to be tough. The rebuilding is going to take years. A decade, at least, he told Reuters late last week.

The CIA, widely criticized for lapses involving prewar Iraq and the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, has seen its clandestine staff dwindle to less than 5,000 employees from a peak of over 7,000, intelligence sources say.

Experts blame a post-Cold War downturn in recruitment for a current lack of seasoned clandestine operatives that has been exacerbated by a rush to lucrative private sector jobs in recent years.

We have a smaller number of really, really aggressive, creative members of our leadership in the senior service, said Berntsen, who recently published a book about his exploits in the war on terrorism, titled Jawbreaker (Crown Publishing).

Former CIA Director George Tenet told the September 11 commission in April 2004 the CIA would need five years to produce a clandestine service fully capable of tackling the terrorism threat.

Goss later said at his September 2004 Senate confirmation hearings that rebuilding the clandestine operation would be a long build-out, a long haul.

President George W. Bush issued an order last year that called for a 50 percent increase in CIA clandestine officers and analysts to be completed as soon as feasible.

The CIA is moving aggressively to rebuild and enhance its capabilities across the board, CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said.

But intelligence sources say the rebuilding process has been complicated by disaffection for Goss' leadership within the clandestine service.

Years of double-digit growth in federal spending on intelligence that followed the September 11 attacks may also be about to end.

John Negroponte, the new U.S. director of national intelligence, has endorsed an intelligence budget for fiscal year 2007 that is relatively flat, with current spending levels believed to total about $44 billion for the 15-agency intelligence community. Fiscal 2007 begins in October.

Berntsen, 48, who also led the CIA Counterterrorism Center's response to the 1998 al Qaeda bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa, sued the CIA in July, accusing the spy agency of trying to stop him from publishing his book.

Gimigliano said the CIA reviewed Bernsten's book before publication only to ensure that it contained no classified information.

In the book, Berntsen says his Jawbreaker team tracked bin Laden to Afghanistan's Tora Bora region late in 2001 and could have killed or captured the al Qaeda leader there if military officials had agreed to his request for an additional force of about 800 U.S. troops.

His account contradicts public statements by Bush and former Gen. Tommy Franks, who maintained that U.S. officials were never sure bin Laden was at Tora Bora.

Right-wing rants that cite email sources are suspect at best. Google any one heading included in yesterday's post and discover links to the "common sense" of the Getting' After Left show and a barrage of right-wing blogs. Surprise, surprise.

Despite being the 3rd largest US city, Chicago's murder rate ranks 20th behind much less populous cities Baltimore MD, Newark NJ, St. Louis MO, Oakland CA, Cincinnati OH, Buffalo NY, Kansas City MO, Miami FL, Pittsburg PA, and Cleveland OH. Guess who is ranked #21 (same general category)? That would be McC's hometown of Phoenix Arizona. Chicago has experienced an overall decline in crime since the 1990s.

You seem to be equating Iraq fatalities to murder. I agree. On that Iraq body count figure, since you are talking civilians in Chicago, it is only fair to include those folks in your first six months of 2008 figure. In 2008, the average daily violent occupation-related loss of life via suicide attacks, vehicle bombs, gunfire and executions is 27 x 182.5 days in first six months = 4,927 + you 221 = 5148. While we are at it, may as well throw out that total civilian body count in Iraq, the very most conservative documented count being 88,373, or World Trade Center x30.

Naturally, no reliable data is available on this claim, it being a subjective pronouncement that seeks to pontificate.

Here we see the smear leap from the Chicago to the state level...an apples to oranges, smoke and mirrors maneuver the GOP attack machine thought they might slip by unattentive readers. OK. Let's go there. As recently as February of this year, we find the following: http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/02/25/daily29.html

Center on Budget and Policy and Priorities: McCain's red state: Arizona Budget Deficit Worst in the Country. Follow link for all the fascinating details.

For starters, state budget deficits are ranked in terms of shortfall percentages.

In the US, 29 states face budget shortfalls totaling 48 billion in 2009. Notice how similar this 29-state total is to the amount in the GOP smear that claimed a $44 BILLION dollar deficit IL pension plan funds. Arizona's shortfall percentage = 17.8%, now in second place behind the nations most populous state, California. Illinois' shortfall percentage = 6.6%, making AZ's budget deficit nearly 3 times that of IL. So, if we hold dems (and by pub logic, O) responsible for Chicago, then who, pray tell is responsible for Arizona, the political culture from which JM comes from?

To suggest that any party's local (especially municipal or county) tax schemes would be reproduced on a national level is downright ridiculous. Tax structures are entirely different and wildly varied from state to state. Speaking of states, I came across this link http://www.fairtaxation.org/facts/sales_tax_rank.php which shows the Arizona sales tax rate ranks higher (#10) at 7.8% than Illinois at 7.6%.

I bit hard to address this second subjective pronouncement that seeks to pontificate. In terms of WHAT exactly is it the worst? They are certainly not an uneducated bunch of folks:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a80Zfbu_.k4g&refer=us University of Chicago has produced 82 Nobel prize winners and 10 Nobel Prize winners in economics, more than any university in the US. The John Bates Clark Medal, bestowed every two years, recognizes the nation's most outstanding economist under 40. U of Chicago has produced more than any other US institution, 6 out of the 31 recipients. Seems like those Chicago economists are sort of, well....exceptional.

I really could go on and on about Chicago's booming economy but I am out of time here. Maybe later then.

Glenn Beck: I Think We Should Destroy Any Country That Has Missile Parades Or Giant Posters Of Their Leaders

The statement was creepy enough but the look of glee on Glenn Beck's face as he joked about destroying Iran, the country whose traditions he didn't like, was extremely troubling for a national news host. By the way, despite his enthusiasm for having other people engage in mass killing, I could not find any evidence that Mr. Destroyer ever put his own flabby fanny on the line for his country.

In a 2/10/09 discussion with author Joel C. Rosenberg, Beck sounded almost giddy as he said, "I think we should destroy any country that has missile parades or giant posters of their leaders. They never turn out like good friends. You know that? And (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) looks a little too spooky."

Rosenberg replied, "I don't want to destroy the country but I would like to remove the leadership."

"I could go either way," Beck said, with all the gravity of someone deciding whether he wanted red or white wine. "How irresponsible!" he joked.

AN AMERICAN FOREIGN LEGION: IS THE US MILITARY NOW AN IMPERIAL POLICE FORCE?

A leaner, meaner, higher tech force - that was what George W. Bush and his Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld promised to transform the American military into. Instead, they came close to turning it into a foreign legion. Foreign as in being constantly deployed overseas on imperial errands; foreign as in being ever more reliant on private military contractors; foreign as in being increasingly segregated from the elites that profit most from its actions, yet serve the least in its ranks.

Now would be a good time for President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to begin to reclaim that military for its proper purpose: to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Now would be a good time to ask exactly why, and for whom, our troops are currently fighting and dying in the urban jungles of Iraq and the hostile hills of Afghanistan.

A few fortnights and forever ago, in the Bush years, our "expeditionary" military came remarkably close to resembling an updated version of the French Foreign Legion in the ways it was conceived and used by those in power - and even, to some extent, in its makeup.

For the metropolitan French elite of an earlier era, the Foreign Legion - best known to Americans from countless old action films - was an assemblage of military adventurers and rootless romantics, volunteers willing to man an army fighting colonial wars in far-flung places. Those wars served the narrow interests of people who weren't particularly concerned about the fate of the legion itself.

It's easy enough to imagine one of them saying, � LA Rumsfeld, "You go to war with the legion you have, not the legion you might want or wish to have." Such a blithe statement would have been uncontroversial back then, since the French Foreign Legion was - well - so foreign. Its members, recruited worldwide, but especially from French colonial possessions, were considered expendable, a fate captured in its grim, sardonic motto: "You joined the Legion to die. The Legion will send you where you can die!"

Looking back on the last eight years, what's remarkable is the degree to which Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration treated the U.S. military in a similarly dismissive manner. Bullying his generals and ignoring their concerns, the Secretary of Defense even dismissed the vulnerability of the troops in Iraq, who, in the early years, motored about in inadequately armored Humvees and other thin-skinned vehicles.

Last year, Vice President DickCheney offered another Legionnaire-worthy version of such dismissiveness. Informed that most Americans no longer supported the war in Iraq, he infamously and succinctly countered, "So?" - as if the U.S. military weren't the American people's instrument, but his own private army, fed and supplied by private contractor KBR, the former Halliburton subsidiary whose former CEO was the very same DickCheney.

Fond of posing in flight suits, leather jackets, and related pseudo-military gear, President Bush might, on the other hand, have seemed overly invested in the military. Certainly, his tough war talk resonated within conservative circles, and he visibly relished speaking before masses of hooah-ing soldiers. Too often, however, Bush simply used them as patriotic props, while his administration did its best to hide their deaths from public view.

In that way, he and his top officials made our troops into foreigners, in part by making their ultimate sacrifice, their deaths, as foreign to us as was humanly possible. Put another way, his administration made the very idea of national "sacrifice" - by anyone but our troops - foreign to most Americans. In response to the 9/11 attacks, Americans were, as the President famously suggested only 16 days after the attacks, to show their grit by visiting Disney World and shopping till they dropped. Military service instills (and thrives on) an ethic of sacrifice that was, for more than seven years, consciously disavowed domestically.

As the Obama administration begins to deploy U.S. troops back to the Iraq or Afghan war zones for their fourth or fifth tours of duty, I remain amazed at the silent complicity of my country. Why have we been so quiet? Is it because the Bush administration was, in fact, successful in sending our military down the path to foreign legion-hood? Is the fate of our troops no longer of much importance to most Americans?

Even the military's recruitment and demographics are increasingly alien to much of the country. Troops are now regularly recruited in "foreign" places like South Central Los Angeles and Appalachia that more affluent Americans wouldn't be caught dead visiting. In some cases, those new recruits are quite literally "foreign" - non-U.S. citizens allowed to seek a fast-track to citizenship by volunteering for frontline, war-zone duty in the U.S. Army or Marines. And when, in these last years, the military has fallen short of its recruitment goals - less likely today thanks to the ongoing economic meltdown - mercenaries have simply been hired at inflated prices from civilian contractors with names like Triple Canopy or Blackwater redolent of foreign adventures.

With respect to demographics, it'll take more than the sons of Joe Biden and Sarah Palin to redress inequities in burden-sharing. With startlingly few exceptions, America's sons and daughters dodging bullets remain the progeny of rural America, of immigrant America, of the working and lower middle classes. As long as our so-called best and brightest continue to be AWOL when it comes to serving among the rank-and-file, count on our foreign adventurism to continue to surge.

Diversity is now our societal byword. But how about more class diversity in our military? How about a combat regiment of rich young volunteers from uptown Manhattan? (After all, some of their great-grandfathers probably fought with New York's famed "Silk Stocking" regiment in World War I.) How about more Ivy League recruits like George H.W. Bush and John F. Kennedy, who respectively piloted a dive bomber and a PT boat in World War II? Heck, why not a few prominent Hollywood actors like Jimmy Stewart, who piloted heavy bombers in the flak-filled skies of Europe in that same war?

Instead of collective patriotic sacrifice, however, it's clear that the military will now be running the equivalent of a poverty and recession "draft" to fill the "all-volunteer" military. Those without jobs or down on their luck in terrible times will have the singular honor of fighting our future wars. Who would deny that drawing such recruits from dead-end situations in the hinterlands or central cities is strikingly Foreign Legion-esque?

Caught in the shock and awe of 9/11, we allowed our military to be transformed into a neocon imperial police force. Now, approaching our eighth year in Afghanistan and sixth year in Iraq, what exactly is that force defending? Before President Obama acts to double the number of American boots-on-the-ground in Afghanistan - before even more of our troops are sucked deeper into yet another quagmire - shouldn't we ask this question with renewed urgency? Shouldn't we wonder just why, despite all the reverent words about "our troops," we really seem to care so little about sending them back into the wilderness again and again?

Where indeed is the outcry?

The French Foreign Legionnaires knew better than to expect such an outcry: The elites for whom they fought didn't give a damn about what happened to them. Our military may not yet be a foreign legion - but don't fool yourself, it's getting there.

--------

William J. Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF), taught for six years at the Air Force Academy. He currently teaches at the Pennsylvania College of Technology. A TomDispatch regular, he is the author of "Hindenburg: Icon of German Militarism" (Potomac Press, 2005), among other works. He may be reached at wastore@pct.edu.

We're pussycats compared to some foreign leaders. sm

Glenn Beck: I Think We Should Destroy Any Country That Has Missile Parades Or Giant Posters Of Their Leaders postCount(&#3916198&#39);

Glenn Beck: I Think We Should Destroy Any Country That Has Missile Parades Or Giant Posters Of Their Leaders