there is another way

they want you to think there are only two choices...

remember when oil was 20 dollars a barrrel?

And Bush's war only cost We the People (the American taxpayers) a billion a week?
Good thing we have soma (24-7 television coverage of a rock concert for dead Diana, and Paris-and-Brittany's latest doin's) to paralyze our brain cells... otherwise... We'd be ticked.

Report: Wars Cost US $12 Billion a Month
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The boost in troop levels in Iraq has increased the cost of war there and in Afghanistan to $12 billion a month, and the total for Iraq alone is nearing a half-trillion dollars, congressional analysts say.

All told, Congress has appropriated $610 billion in war-related money since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror assaults, roughly the same as the war in Vietnam. Iraq alone has cost $450 billion.

The figures come from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which provides research and analysis to lawmakers.

For the 2007 budget year, CRS says, the $166 billion appropriated to the Pentagon represents a 40 percent increase over 2006.

The Vietnam War, after accounting for inflation, cost taxpayers $650 billion, according to separate CRS estimates.

The $12 billion a month "burn rate" includes $10 billion for Iraq and almost $2 billion for Afghanistan, plus other minor costs. That's higher than Pentagon estimates earlier this year of $10 billion a month for both operations. Two years ago, the average monthly cost was about $8 billion.

Among the reasons for the higher costs is the cost of repairing and replacing equipment worn out in harsh conditions or destroyed in combat.

But the estimates call into question the Pentagon's estimate that the increase in troop strength and intensifying pace of operations in Baghdad and Anbar province would cost only $5.6 billion through the end of September.

If Congress approves President Bush's pending request for another $147 billion for the budget year starting Oct. 1, the total bill for the war on terror since Sept. 11 would reach more than three-fourths of a trillion dollars, with appropriations for Iraq reaching $567 billion.

Also, if the increase in war tempo continues beyond September, the Pentagon's request "would presumably be inadequate," CRS said.

The latest estimates come as support for the war in Iraq among Bush's GOP allies in Congress is beginning to erode. Senior Republicans such as Pete Domenici of New Mexico and Richard Lugar of Indiana have called for a shift in strategy in Iraq and a battle over funding the war will resume in September, when Democrats in Congress begin work on a funding bill for the war.

Congress approved $99 billion in war funding in May after a protracted battle and a Bush veto of an earlier measure over Democrats' attempt to set a timeline for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq.

The report faults the Pentagon for using the Iraq war as a pretext for boosting the Pentagon's non-war budget by costs such as procurement, increasing the size of the military and procurement of replacement aircraft as war-related items.

The new estimate comes as the White House and Democrats are fighting over spending bills for next year. That battle is over about $22 billion _ almost the cost of two months' fighting in Iraq.

"Think about what $10 billion a month would mean to protecting Americans from terrorism, improving security at our ports and airports, and increasing border security," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press.

why I love Michael Moore

a hometown boy does good, damn good

How many people can you name in the mainstream media who have been as correct, right, prescient, and humane as Michael Moore?

Keith hits another one out of the park

Laura and Dubya on "Sacrifice"

ANN CURRY: Do you know the American people are suffering… watching [Iraq]?

LAURA BUSH: Oh, I know that very much, and, believe me, no suffers more than their president and I do when we watch this. And certainly the commander-in-chief who has asked our military to go into harm’s way.

AC: What do you think the American people need to know…

LB: Well, I hope they do know the burden of worry that’s on his shoulders every single day for our troops. And I think they do. I think if they don’t, they’re not seeing what the real responsibilities of our president are.

AC: It must be hard for you to watch him in this.

LB: It’s hard. Of course, it’s absolutely hard.

Privatizing the military - a hallmark of a fascist state

Flesh eating zombies protecting the snowflake fetuses

a.k.a. the Republican WarParty.

In the past two weeks TUC Radio has posted two halves of a speech by Chris Hedges, on American Fascism (link), and I listened to the .mp3 yesterday. What he said about Blackwater was particularly chilling.
The Paul Krugman article, For God's Sake, posted on CommonDreams.org (link)reiterates what Hedges is saying, as does David Michael Green's article, Dark of Heartness (link).

Coincidentally, as I was reading responses to a story on Black (Extraordinary Rendition) Sites (link) posted at CommonDreams.org, this following posted comment about the criminal, fascist Bush administration caught my attention... The GOP leadership are "Deep Ecologists"!
It could explain a lot.
(While you're there, read the Scott Ritter article.)
It brought to mind a bumper sticker I saw in the parking lot of Michigan State University that I wish I'd had last fall. It read,

'Soylent Green is People
like Devos is Amway'

The 'survival of the fittest' mentality of the right wingnuttery sometimes makes me wonder why they hate Darwinianism so intensly, but then I remember... oh right, they are in the Wizard of Oz movie. The dutiful munchkins of the GOP flock hate evolution theory, so their satanic Rovian masters twist the propaganda to fit the scenario.

The flesh-eating zombie 30 percent of Americans polled who still back Bush, Cheney and the War Party resemble something out of the Night of the Living Dead.

Okay, I go on. Here's the post I mentioned...

Clark Kent April 17th, 2007 1:57 pm
In a sense they are the deepest of the “Deep Ecologists”. They look at the population explosion problem and, through their actions, imply that the best possible solution at this time is mass murder of Iraqis, New Orleans residents, poor people without health care, underprivileged people who join the U.S. armed services, people who breathe (polluted) air, eat (tainted) food or drink (polluted) water or use (toxic, but approved) chemicals.

Their means are military action, withholding of food, health care and emergency services and neglect (African AIDS being the most obvious example). In every case, the propaganda spin is to “make it look like an accident”.

Their criterion for deciding who should live and who should die is largely based on wealth– rich live, poor die, however there is also a racist component that cannot be ignored.

Obviously, such a program of mass death could not be undertaken in a real democracy, so it has been necessary for them to undermine democracy to achieve their goals.

We can fight them, of course, but until and unless we can show them that humanity is capable of limiting itself to a sustainable population, there will probably be a thriving and passionate group of people who hold their views.

This may seem overly cynical to some, but if you make your judgement based on their actions, not their words, it’s hard to find a better explanation of it all.

Paranoid or Prophet?

So... why DID the FBI have a file-full of his mail?
Project Artichoke?

And it all begs the big question of our day... if they can spy on American citizens, then why can't American citizens read their e-mails, read their mail, listen to their phone calls?

A "handful" of staff in Karl Rove's office destroyed 5,000 pieces of e-mail, thereby breaking the law (don't make me look it up, it's something like the Whitehouse Communications Act)and our representatives still have to wait around for subpenas?

Hey, Senator Pat Leahy, how about dashing off a National Security letter?

It's long, but worth every minute...

deja vu all over again

Sy Hersh, the guy who has always been right in the past. Unless Congress impeaches Bush and Cheney, Iran will be the new Iraq.


And Michael Klare connects all the dots for us...

Tomgram: Michael Klare, Talking Points for the Next War
posted February 25, 2007 on www.tomdispatch.com
a project of the Nation Institute
compiled and edited by Tom Engelhardt

This post can be found at http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=169271

At 10:16 PM on March 19, 2003, after copious military preparations in the Persian Gulf region and beyond, after months of diplomatic maneuvers at the United Nations, after a drumbeat of leaked intelligence warnings and hair-raising statements by top U.S. officials and the President about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and how close Saddam Hussein might be to developing a nuclear weapon, after declaring Saddam's regime a major threat to Americans, after countless insinuations that it was somehow connected to the 9/11 attacks on our country, after endless denials that war with Iraq was necessarily on the administration's agenda, President George W. Bush addressed the nation from the Oval Office. "My fellow citizens," he began, "at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger…"

Almost four years later, all the above elements are again in place, this time in relation to Iran -- with Iranian responsibility for the deaths of Americans in Iraq replacing Iraqi responsibility for the deaths of Americans in New York and Washington. On a careful reading of our President's latest speeches and statements, Michael Klare has noted that an actual list of charges against Iran, a case for war, has already essentially been drawn up, making it easy enough to imagine that at 10:16 PM on some night not so very distant from this one, from that same desk in the Oval Office, the President of the United States might again begin, "My fellow citizens, at this hour…" But read on for yourself. Tom


Bush's Future Iran War Speech
Three Charges in the Case for War
By Michael T. Klare

Sometime this spring or summer, barring an unexpected turnaround by Tehran, President Bush is likely to go on national television and announce that he has ordered American ships and aircraft to strike at military targets inside Iran. We must still sit through several months of soap opera at the United Nations in New York and assorted foreign capitals before this comes to pass, and it is always possible that a diplomatic breakthrough will occur -- let it be so! -- but I am convinced that Bush has already decided an attack is his only option and the rest is a charade he must go through to satisfy his European allies. The proof of this, I believe, lies half-hidden in recent public statements of his, which, if pieced together, provide a casus belli, or formal list of justifications, for going to war.

Three of his statements, in particular, contained the essence of this justification: his January 10 televised speech on his plan for a troop "surge" in Iraq, his State of the Union Address of January 23, and his first televised press conference of the year on February 14. None of these was primarily focused on Iran, but the President used each of them to warn of the extraordinary dangers that country poses to the United States and to hint at severe U.S. reprisals if the Iranians did not desist from "harming U.S. troops." In each, moreover, he laid out various parts of the overall argument he will certainly use to justify an attack on Iran. String these together in one place and you can almost anticipate what Bush's speechwriters will concoct before he addresses the American people from the Oval Office sometime later this year. Think of them as talking points for the next war.

The first of these revealing statements was Bush's January 10th televised address on Iraq. This speech was supposedly intended to rally public and Congressional support behind his plan to send 21,500 additional U.S. troops into the Iraqi capital and al-Anbar Province, the heartland of the Sunni insurgency. But his presentation that night was so uninspired, so lacking in conviction, that -- according to media commentary and polling data -- few, if any, Americans were persuaded by his arguments. Only once that evening did Bush visibly come alive: When he spoke about the threat to Iraq supposedly posed by Iran.

"Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges," he declared, which meant, he assured his audience, addressing the problem of Iran. That country, he asserted, "is providing material support for attacks on American troops." (This support was later identified as advanced improvised explosive devices -- IEDs or roadside bombs -- given to anti-American Shiite militias.) Then followed an unambiguous warning: "We will disrupt the attacks on our forces... And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

Consider this item one in his casus belli: Because Iran is aiding and abetting our enemies in Iraq, we are justified in attacking Iran as a matter of self-defense.

Bush put it this way in an interview with Juan Williams of National Public Radio on January 29: "If Iran escalates its military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly… It makes common sense for the commander-in-chief to say to our troops and the Iraqi people -- and the Iraqi government -- that we will help you defend yourself from people that want to sow discord and harm."

In his January 10 address, the President went on to fill in a second item in any future casus belli: Iran is seeking nuclear weapons in order to dominate the Middle East to the detriment of our friends in the region -- a goal that it simply cannot be allowed to achieve.

In response to such a possibility, the President declared, "We're also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East." These included deploying a second U.S. aircraft carrier battle group to the Gulf region, consisting of the USS John C. Stennis and a flotilla of cruisers, destroyers, and submarines (presumably to provide additional air and missile assets for strikes on Iran), along with additional Patriot anti-missile batteries (presumably to shoot down any Iranian missiles that might be fired in retaliation for an air attack on the country and its nuclear facilities). "And," Bush added, "we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region."

Bush added a third item to the casus belli in his State of the Union Address on January 23. After years of describing Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda as the greatest threats to U.S. interests in the Middle East, he now introduced a new menace: the resurgent Shia branch of Islam led by Iran.

Aside from al-Qaeda and other Sunni extremists, he explained, "it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East." Many of these extremists, he noted, "are known to take direction from the regime in Iran," including the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon.

As if to nail down this point, he offered some hair-raising imagery right out of the Left Behind bestselling book series so beloved of Christian evangelicals and their neoconservative allies: "If American forces step back [from Iraq] before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists backed by Al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill across the country, and in time the entire region could be drawn into the conflict. For America, this is a nightmare scenario. For the enemy, this is the objective."

As refined by Bush speechwriters, this, then, is the third item in his casus belli for attacking Iran: to prevent a "nightmare scenario" in which the Shia leaders of Iran might emerge as the grandmasters of regional instability, using proxies like Hezbollah to imperil Israel and pro-American regimes in Jordan, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia -- with potentially catastrophic consequences for the safety of Middle Eastern oil supplies. You can be sure of what Bush will say to this in his future address: No American president would ever allow such a scenario to come to pass.

Many of these themes were reiterated in the president's White House Valentine's Day press conference. Once again, Iraq was meant to be the main story, but Iran captured all the headlines.

Bush's most widely cited comments on Iran focused on claims of Iranian involvement in the delivery of sophisticated versions of the roadside IEDs that have been responsible for many of the U.S. casualties in recent months. Just a few days earlier, unidentified American military officials in Baghdad had declared that elements of the Iranian military -- specifically, the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards -- were supplying the deadly devices to Shiite militias in Iraq, and that high-ranking Iranian government officials were aware of the deliveries. These claims were contested by other U.S. officials and members of Congress who expressed doubt about the reliability of the evidence and the intelligence work behind it, but Bush evinced no such uncertainty:


"What we do know is that the Quds force was instrumental in providing these deadly IEDs to networks inside of Iraq. We know that. And we also know that the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. That's a known."

What is not known, he continued, is just how high up in the Iranian government went the decision-making that led such IEDs to be delivered to the Shia militias in Iraq. But that doesn't matter, he explained. "What matters is, is that they're there... [W]e know they're there, and we're going to protect our troops." As Commander-in-Chief, he insisted, he would "do what is necessary to protect our soldiers in harm's way."

He then went on to indicate that "the biggest problem I see is the Iranians' desire to have a nuclear weapon." He expressed his wish that this problem can be "dealt with" in a peaceful way -- by the Iranians voluntarily agreeing to cease their program to enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels. But he also made it clear that the onus was purely on Tehran to take the necessary action to avoid unspecified harm: "I would like to be at the -- have been given a chance for us to explain that we have no desire to harm the Iranian people."

No reporters at the press conference asked him to explain this odd twist of phrase, delivered in the past tense, about his regret that he was unable to explain to the Iranian people why he had meant them no harm -- presumably after the fact. However, if you view this as the Bush version of a Freudian slip, one obvious conclusion can be drawn: that the President has already made the decision to begin the countdown for an attack on Iran, and only total capitulation by the Iranians could possibly bring the process to a halt.

Further evidence for this conclusion is provided by Bush's repeated reference to Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. On three separate occasions during the press conference he praised Russia, China, and the "EU3" -- Britain, France, and Germany -- for framing the December 23 Security Council resolution condemning Iran's nuclear activities and imposing economic sanctions on Iran in the context of Chapter 7 -- that is, of "Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression."

This sets the stage for the international community, under UN leadership, to take such steps as may be deemed necessary "to maintain or restore international peace and stability," ranging from mild economic sanctions to full-scale war (steps that are described in Articles 39 to 51). But the December 23 resolution was specifically framed under Article 41, which entails "measures not involving the use of armed force," a stipulation demanded by China and Russia, which have categorically ruled out the use of military force to resolve the nuclear dispute with Iran.

One suspects that President Bush has Chapter 7 on the brain because he now intends to ask for a new resolution under Article 42, which allows the use of military force to restore international peace and stability. But it is nearly inconceivable that Russia and China would approve such a resolution. Such approval would also be tantamount to acknowledging American hegemony worldwide, and this is something they are simply unwilling to do.

So we can expect several months of fruitless diplomacy at the United Nations in which the United States may achieve slightly more severe economic sanctions under Chapter 41 but not approval for military action under Chapter 42. Bush knows that this is the inevitable outcome, and so I am convinced that, in his various speeches and meetings with reporters, he is already preparing the way for a future address to the nation. In it, he will speak somberly of a tireless American effort to secure a meaningful resolution from the United Nations on Iran with real teeth in it and his deep disappointment that no such resolution has been not forthcoming. He will also point out that, despite the heroic efforts of American diplomats as well as military commanders in Iraq, Iran continues to pose a vital and unchecked threat to American security in Iraq, in the region, and even -- via its nuclear program -- in the wider world.

Further diplomacy, he will insist, appears futile and yet Iran must be stopped. Hence, he will say, "I have made the unavoidable decision to eliminate this vital threat through direct military action," and will announce -- in language eerily reminiscent of his address to the nation on March 19, 2003 -- that a massive air offensive against Iran has already been underway for several hours.

Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the defense correspondent of the Nation magazine. He is the author, most recently, of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependence on Imported Petroleum (Owl Books).
Copyright 2007 Michael T. Klare

Reading proof that my Fellow Americans are stupid zombies does not make me feel sanguine

Deaths in Iraq poll (link).
I give up on you all.
Go watch this link. This is Tehran, Iran, the place, the people, you want to "nuke".
To paraphrase JFK, Ich bin ein Tehranian.
Those people are not my enemy.
Why do you want to nuke them?
For God?
For your religion is general?
For GOP politics, advertised on FOX?
For an economic system?
What did an economic system ever do for you?
Or maybe...
For oil?
Not YOUR oil, mind you, but some rich S.O.B.'s oil?
Because the sovereign state of Iran is following the provisions of signed international nuclear treaties (that we don't follow because we are too good or some such thing) to make cheaper energy (because they need electricity) so they can sell their OWN natural resource, oil, at it's high price instead of burning it?
Why do we expect them to do something we wouldn't, as loyal capitalists, do?
I hope they come for your resources some day, my fellow self-righteous a-holes.

Dear Representative Kildee

Dear Representative,

I’m writing you today as your constituent, to urge you to cosponsor the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007 and the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007 , both of which were introduced on Thursday by Representative Jerrod Nadler. These bills would restore the right of habeas corpus to the almost 400 detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and other noncitizens held in U.S. custody without trial. The Restoring the Constitution Act would also undo much of the damage done by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA).

The passage of the MCA was a dark moment in our nation’s history, and some of it most egregious effects are that it:

• Strips detainees of the right to challenge their indefinite detention through a writ of habeas corpus;
• Limits the ability of citizens and noncitizens to rely on the Geneva Conventions to challenge abuses committed by U.S. government officials;
• Allows for evidence obtained through torture and coercion to be used in military commission prosecutions in some instances; and
• Drastically widens the definition of “unlawful enemy combatant,” and, denies noncitizens who are or might be classified as unlawful enemy combatants from having a fair hearing.

These provisions blatantly violate our obligations under domestic and international law and need to be repealed. Please show your support for the rule of law and human rights by co-sponsoring or supporting the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007 and the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007.

Your support is critical to ensure that justice is served for the Guantánamo detainees and, as importantly, for the American public and our respect for the rule of law.

(text from: Center for Constitutional Rights, you can send an e-mail to your Congressional Representative too...
http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/home.asp

Is anyone concerned?

ronnie reagan's chickens

Are the Republican economic chickens coming home to roost?

PERFECT STORM HERE / DOW TUMBLES AS MARGIN DEBT PEAKS
[Authored by Allen L. Roland*]
swiped from the Political Junkie blog
As investing on margin hits an all time high on Wall Street, and housing foreclosures hit record highs ~ all the ingredients for the perfect storm are rapidly falling into place. In 1999, total outstanding household debt was $6.4 trillion. As of the end of the second quarter of 2006 total outstanding household debt was $12.3 trillion ~ the day of reckoning has arrived and the stock market is just beginning to take note.

The amount of margin debt hit a record 285 billion on January on the New York Stock Exchange. The last time margin debt hit this level was at the height of the dot-com boom in March 2000 ~ just ahead of a two year decline in stock prices.

We are at the top of this four year easy money housing inflated Bull market and debt is increasing as the Dow begins to crumble in face of mounting consumer debt and severe poverty.

" Debt is only a problem on the way down " said Alexander Paris, economist and market analyst for Chicago-based Barrington Research." There's alot of margin debt out there, and with the S&P shooting for its ninth-consecutive month up ~ you haven't seen this kind of run since 1926. It's a warning flag”

Against this grim backdrop of wishful thinking, The U.S. stock market plunged [yesterday], wiping out about $600 billion in market value and erasing all of 2007's gains, after a sell off in China spread globally and sparked the biggest rout in four years.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 416.02, or 3.3 percent, to 12,216.24. The S&P 500 retreated 50.33, or 3.5 percent, to 1399.04. The NASDAQ Composite Index dropped 96.66, or 3.9 percent, to 2407.86.

With margin and personal debt so high ~ there is really no foundation to keep this market from free falling to new lows especially with a more than soft housing market, rising foreclosures and durable orders in a marked decline.

All the ingredients of the perfect storm are here but many are already hurting such as 200,000 U.S. veterans who are homeless, including approximately 500-1,000 who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On top of all this, the percentage of poor Americans in severe poverty just reached a 32 year high. The aftermath of this perfect storm ( like New Orleans ) will be a poorer and disenfranchised America ~ the true legacy of the Cheney/Bush administration's reign of economic hubris and military terror where the rich got richer and the poor, frail and elderly got screwed.

__________

*Allen L. Roland served five years as a Navy fighter pilot and ten years as a stockbroker. He has earned a masters degree in psychology and now works as a therapist with an active private counseling practice in the San Francisco Bay Area.

More on Crony Contractor - Part 2

Renmember those old black and white movies when the Nazi were the bad guys? Them days are Gone, baby.

Blackwater brass forms intelligence company
By Bill Sizemore
The Virginian-Pilot
February 21, 2007

Cofer Black, vice chairman of Blackwater USA, announced Tuesday the formation of a new CIA-type private company to provide intelligence services to commercial clients.

The executive roster for the new venture, Total Intelligence Solutions, is loaded with veterans of U.S. intelligence agencies, including two other Blackwater officials.

A spokeswoman for Total Intelligence said there is no corporate affiliation with Blackwater, the Moyock, N.C.-based private military company, but the new firm clearly has a Blackwater stamp.

Among the key personnel and their positions at Total Intelligence, which will be based in Alexandria:


Black, chairman. He joined Blackwater two years ago after three decades in the CIA and State Department. He was director of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center and the State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism, a job with ambassador rank.


Robert Richer, chief executive officer. He is vice president for intelligence at Blackwater and retired from the CIA in November 2005 as associate deputy director for operations.


Enrique "Ric" Prado, chief operating officer. He is vice president of special government programs at Blackwater and a 24-year veteran of the CIA's Directorate of Operations, including 10 years with the agency's paramilitary Special Operations Group. In his last overt job with the CIA, Prado worked under Black as chief of operations for the Counterterrorist Center.

Blackwater's primary specialties are tactical training and security, but it is no stranger to the intelligence world. The 10-year-old company's first security contract, awarded in 2002, was for a classified operation. In his book "Licensed to Kill: Hired Guns in the War on Terror," author Robert Young Pelton identified the company's client as the CIA.

The concept of marketing intelligence services to commercial clients is not new, Pelton said Tuesday, but the new venture represents "a continuing evolution in what Blackwater's doing."

"Total Intel brings the intelligence gathering methodology and analytical skills traditionally honed by CIA operatives directly to the board room," Black said in a statement Tuesday. "With a service like this, CEOs and their security personnel will be able to respond to threats quickly and confidently - whether it's determining which city is safest to open a new plant in or working to keep employees out of harm's way after a terrorist attack."

The statement said the company will operate a "24/7 intelligence fusion and warning center" that will monitor civil unrest, terrorism, economic stability, environmental and health concerns, and information technology security around the world.

Among other top executives of the new company are:
Matthew Devost, president. He is an information security consultant and founding director of the Terrorism Research Center.
Caleb "Cal" Temple, senior vice president for intelligence and analysis. A former FBI intelligence specialist, he was most recently chief of the Office of Intelligence Operations in the Defense Intelligence Agency.

© 2007 HamptonRoads.com/PilotOnline.com

More on Crony Contractor

Dick DeVos' brother-in-law, Eric Prince.

Blackwater Represents the Privatization of Our Military, Accountable to No One.
Bush Has Created a Mercenary Army.

Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army
(Hardcover)
By Jeremy Scahill
BuzzFlash.com's Review

(excerpt) From Nation Books:
Meet Blackwater USA, the powerful private army that the U.S. government has quietly hired to operate in international war zones and on American soil. Its contacts run from deep inside the military and intelligence agencies to the upper echelons of the White House. Blackwater is the elite Praetorian Guard for the “global war on terror,” with its own military base, a fleet of twenty aircraft, and 20,000 soldiers at the ready.
Run by a multimillionaire Christian conservative who bankrolls President Bush and his allies, its forces are capable of overthrowing governments, and yet most people have never heard of Blackwater.
Blackwater is the dark story of the rise of a powerful mercenary army, ranging from the blood-soaked streets of Fallujah to rooftop firefights in Najaf to the hurricane-ravaged US gulf to Washington DC, where Blackwater executives are hailed as new heroes in the war on terror. This is an extraordinary exposé by one of America's most exciting young radical journalists.

“Jeremy Scahill’s exposé of the Blackwater mercenary firm forcefully demonstrates the grave dangers of outsourcing the government’s monopoly on the use of force.” --Joseph Wilson, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq

“Jeremy Scahill skillfully chronicles the birth of America's frightening Praetorian Guard, one that has been unleashed--25,000-strong--in Iraq. These hired guns, with their black uniforms and automatic weapons, appeared on the streets of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. They operate, at home and abroad, beyond the bounds of legal constraints and are controlled by secretive puppet masters, such as Erik Prince, who have close ties to the radical Christian Right. Should our nation enter a period of instability following another terrorist attack on American soil, an economic collapse or a series of environmental disasters the tyranny that groups such as Blackwater impose on others could become the tyranny they impose on us. The rise of this unchecked mercenary force, as Scahill understands, could presage the final stage in the collapse of American democracy.” --Chris Hedges, former New York Times Middle East Bureau Chief

“If the Republicans lose in 2008, they will leave office armed and dangerous. Blackwater is the utterly gripping and explosive story of how the Bush Administration has spent hundreds of millions of public dollars building a parallel corporate army, an army so loyal to far right causes it constitutes nothing less than a Republican Guard. The most important and chilling book about the death throes of U.S. democracy you will read in years and a triumph of investigative reporting.” --Naomi Klein, author No Logo

"Of all the insane Bush privatization efforts, none is more frightening than the corporatizing of military combat forces. Jeremy Scahill admirably exposes a devastating example of this sinister scheme."--Michael Moore, Academy Award Winning Director

This engrossing investigative piece exposing, in shocking detail, a U.S. government-outsourced Frankenstein replete with helicopter gun ships may leave you incredulous. But you better believe it, for it poses a grave and gathering danger to the future of our Republic."--Ray McGovern, CIA veteran and former intelligence briefer for George H. W. Bush

“In this terrifying and thrillingly written book, Jeremy Scahill introduces us to the shape of things to come, and to the kind of people and corporations who are likely to govern our lives if we don't do something about it pretty quickly.” --Arundhati Roy, author The God of Small Things

“Jeremy Scahill's comprehensive research and reporting lifts the veil off the ever-tightening relationship between the federal government and unaccountable private military corporations such as Blackwater USA. . . .” --U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)

Read The Full Review >>>http://www.buzzflash.com/store/reviews/524

Dubya direct quote: Money Trumps Peace

Money Trumps Peace...Sometimes
02/15/2007
Guest ContributionBUZZFLASH
by Cindy Sheehan

It is always painful to watch George stumble his way through press conferences. He can't get through a sentence without at least two-three "uhs," his eyelids flutter up and down in what my daughter Carly calls the "liar's blink." It is painful that a human like that is ostensibly the leader of the free world. There is always a plethora of things that he says, does, or screws up on to write about but this time what caught my attention happened during the Q&A. George was asked if he thought the economic sanctions on Iran would work because so many European nations trade with that country.
He stopped to collect his thoughts with what he thought must've looked like a studied and careful demeanor, but more like someone with a sour tummy, and said: "well, let's put it this way...money trumps peace, sometimes. In other words, commercial interests are very powerful interests throughout the world."
It is always interesting with people who frequently play fast and loose with the truth, such as the liars in BushCo, once in a while if they talk long enough, they tell a truth.

"Money trumps peace" is the fundamental reason for the invasions and subsequent gory and violent occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. In Richard Behan's excellent article "From Iraq to Afghanistan: Connecting the Dots with Oil," he brilliantly follows the history of the oil-money trail in these countries that are 1) rich in oil, and 2) well placed for the transportation and delivery of oil.
Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan, or their leaders or governments had anything to do with 9-11, but they were in the way of oil and other industries that profit from oil, so they had to go. Money trumped peace in those countries and they are destroyed and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Afghanis, and Americans have been slaughtered because they were blocking American imperialistic profiteering.

"Money trumps peace" is the underlying reason for all wars as two-time Congressional Medal of Honor winner and highly decorated Major General Smedley D. Butler wrote in his reflective, prophetic work, "War is a Racket":
WAR is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the very many. Out of war, a few people make huge fortunes.

During the short booklet that every prospective parent, current parent, and every teen should read thoroughly and often, he keeps referring to World War I as the "World War" because he was writing directly after the "Great War" -- the "war to end all wars." There was no World War II...yet.
General Butler was no unwashed, hippie peace-nik. He was a warrior who, as often times happens when men face the horrors of war ("War is hell" -- General Sherman), saw the futility of killing as a diplomatic tool that kills and maims our young people for "the benefit of the very few."

"Money trumps peace" should be the rallying call of all the Democrats and Republicans who are exploiting our tired and wounded soldiers in the field to justify handing BushCo more money to complete his mission of totally decimating the Middle East for the oil companies, construction contractors, and defense industries.
How many times have we heard: "We have to vote for the emergency funding for the troops."
That money is not for the troops, never has been for the troops, and the troops in the field wouldn't need any support if they used the money that was already in the pipeline to bring our soldiers and Marines home from the killing deserts.

I talked to a young lady at a university in Minnesota whose good friend was a Marine in Iraq who just got home and one of the only things that he shared with her was that he had to eat ants. If you don't believe me, just ask Mr. "You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want." Our troops have never been supported in this monstrous mistake of a war and they have never received the tools they need to survive, let alone be successful in their so-called mission.

The money goes to one thousand dollar a day mercenaries -- not our two thousand dollar a month grunts.

"Money trumps peace" when while asking for tens of billions of more dollars for war, George is balancing the budget off of the backs of vets who have served this country honorably by cutting back on VA benefits.

Many times I am asked: "What would you say to Bush if you were to meet with him now?" I think my first question would be: "How the hell do you look at yourself in the mirror?"
How dare he?

"Money trumps peace" is one of the reasons why true peace won't be possible when our country is misgoverned by people who are beholden to and entrenched in the military industrial complex. K-Street palm greasers have an easier passage in the Halls of Congress than do activists with petitions, or a Gold Star Mother wearing a "protest shirt" do.

"Money trumps peace" is the problem when some leaders of Congress, who should be working day and night to bring our troops home to save Iraq and the lives and souls of our brave soldiers and Marines, are out raising money for presidential campaigns that are still a year away.
Sometime between now and the first primaries in 2008, we will be holding vigils for the 4,000th troop killed in Iraq and thousands of Iraqi families will be overcome with grief and pain while the talking head shows are already consumed by election fever.

"Money will always trump peace" unless BushCo are impeached, removed from office, and imprisoned for leading our military like lambs to the slaughter to die for Raytheon, Halliburton, and Blackwater Security.

"Money will always trump peace" until we the people demand that our tax dollars remain in our communities, schools, and families and not directly funneled from the Treasury Department to the Pentagon, so that our children do not have to offer themselves up as these human sacrificial lambs.

Peace can and should trump money, but only if we are willing to stand up and challenge the continuing and immoral perception that "Money trumps peace."

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
Cindy Sheehan is the mother of Spc. Casey Sheehan who was killed in Bush's war of terror on 04/04/04. She is the co-founder and president of Gold Star Families for Peace and the Camp Casey Peace Institute.
She is the author of three books, the most recent is: Peace Mom: A Mother's Journey Through Heartache to Activism.

Dubya calmly lies us another casus belli

We were right from the start.
Will America fall for it again?
When someone acts so subdued as he runs out the lies to begin his new chapter of shock and awe, preemptive slaughter of average people in another part of the world, does it make you confident that he is not a sociopathic mass murderer who might turn on average people in this part of the world if given the perceived impetus?

Get Your War On: Bush Plays Casus Belli Card Against Iran
by Chris Floyd
Published on Lew Rockwell.com
January 15, 2007

That there will be war with Iran is now virtually guaranteed. The Bush Administration set out a clear casus belli over the weekend in two stories – masterworks of warmongering propaganda – appearing in two major bastions of the "liberal media." The argument for this new war – buttressed with "facts" that as usual went unchallenged by the corporate scribes – is actually stronger and cleaner than the collection of conflicting mendacities that led to the invasion of Iraq. It is vain to hope that the Democrats, who have themselves demonized Iran with such ferocity, will stand against the call for the new war when it comes, in the terms now being established by the Administration.

The war drum sounded on Saturday morning in the New York Times – in the person of that ever-reliable conduit of dubious intel, reporter Michael Gordon, who played a key role in disseminating White House falsehoods in the run-up to assault on Iraq, but who, unlike his colleague in collusion, Judith Miller, has paid no professional price for uncritically conveying the lies of war-machinators to the American public. In the course of a report telling us how George W. Bush personally ordered American forces to put the squeeze on "Iranian networks" in Iraq, Gordon and co-writer David Sanger passed along the word from Condi Rice that Iran is directly involved in the "increasing lethality" of insurgent attacks on U.S. soldiers.

This report in the NYT – the agenda-setter for the national corporate media – provides the highest- level "confirmation" of a Friday report by CBS that relayed – again, uncritically – specific numbers of American dead and wounded from what "U.S. military figures" said were Iranian-supplied weapons:

"According to U.S. military figures, 198 American and British soldiers have been killed, and more than 600 wounded by advanced explosive devices manufactured in Iran and smuggled in through the southern marshes and along the Tigris River."

You can't get any plainer than that. According to the Pentagon and the U.S. Secretary of State, Iran has already killed 198 American and British soldiers and wounded more than 600. What president would be denied approval – either beforehand or after the fact – for military action against a country that was actively slaughtering American troops in combat? This goes far beyond the potential "threat" from Saddam Hussein that Bush used to justify the invasion of Iraq. If even the possibility of an attack by an unfriendly country is regarded by the Bush Faction as legitimate grounds for a military assault, how much moreso is the actual killing of Americans by a foreign power?

Make no mistake: this is the marker that has now been put down; this is the card that's been laid on the table. The Bush Administration has openly accused Iran of killing American soldiers in Iraq. Again, this is a charge far more resonant, far more effective as a pretext for war than anything offered during the successful stampede to invade Iraq. Even a president as weakened and isolated as Bush is at the moment would be able to get support for an attack on a state that was "killing our soldiers in the field."

And once again the Bush Faction's masterful use of the corporate media – which many thought had utterly deserted them after the November electoral debacle – is shown in how the two most prominent members of what is laughingly known as "the liberal media" are being used to establish the casus belli against Iran: the New York Times and CBS. Despite their reputations of speaking truth to power – reputations not always (but mostly) undeserved – both media mavens obligingly delivered the Regime's propaganda payload in reports that offer nary a demur or a nano-second of skepticism about the claims being offered.

Yet as Kurt Nimmo reminds us, the "sophisticated improvised explosive devices" that are causing the "increasingly lethality" in Iraq mentioned by Rice are in fact based on Anglo-American technology deployed by the UK security services during its dirty war with the IRA. In the mass infiltration of terrorist cells by the UK "security organs" – so reminiscent of Don Rumsfeld's plan, now implemented, of "fomenting terrorism" by infiltrating American agents into violent groups and goading them into action – the IED technology fell into the IRA's hands, which then provided it to groups around the world. What's more, as Nimmo notes, all of this was reported in October 2005 by the UK's Independent on Sunday, which wrote:

"…soldiers, who were targeted by insurgents as they traveled through [Iraq], died after being attacked with bombs triggered by infra-red beams. The bombs were developed by the IRA using technology passed on by the security services in a botched 'sting' operation more than a decade ago…. This contradicts the British government’s claims that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard is helping Shia insurgents to make the devices.

"The Independent on Sunday can also reveal that the bombs and the firing devices used to kill the soldiers, as well as two private security guards, were initially created by the UK security services as part of a counter-terrorism strategy at the height of the troubles in the early 1990s. According to security sources, the technology for the bombs used in the attacks, which were developed using technology from photographic flash units, was employed by the IRA some 15 years ago after Irish terrorists were given advice by British agents."

Nimmo goes on to note that:

"In fact, the devices were made in America. 'In late 1993 and early 1994, I went to America with officers from MI5, the FRU and RUC special branch. They had already sourced the transmitters and receivers in New York following liaison with their counterparts in the FBI,' Kevin Fulton, who infiltrated the IRA in the Newry area while being handled by the Force Research Unit, told [Ireland's] Sunday Tribune in June, 2002. Fulton’s trip was confirmed by the FBI, according to Matthew Teague, writing for the Atlantic. The Independent on Sunday 'has also spoken to a republican who was a senior IRA member in the early 1990s. He confirmed that Mr. Fulton had introduced the IRA to the new technology and that the IRA shared this with 'like-minded organizations abroad.'"

Now, it may well be that Iran has made a pact with the Sunni insurgents in Iraq to supply them with high-powered IEDs – at the same time that Iranian-backed Shiite parties and militias (a.k.a. the Bush-installed Iraqi government) are carrying out mass ethnic cleansing operations against Sunni strongholds. Maybe the Sunni insurgents promised not to use any of the Iranian weapons against the Shiites who are destroying them. And hey, maybe the Iranian-connected, Shiite-led Iraqi government is fully on board with this deal by its Tehran mentors to supply deadly weapons to the Shiites' deadliest foes in order to kill the Shiites' main protectors, the Americans. This at any rate is the scenario you have to swallow in order to find the Bush Regime's assertions credible. (And in a remarkable and telling instance of projection, the usual unnamed Bush officials also told the credulous clerk Gordon that "Iran is engaged in a policy of 'managed chaos' in Iraq" – a phrase that pretty much sums up the entire four years of the Bush rapine in Iraq.)

In any case, the sophisticated asymmetrical weaponry being used against Americans in Iraq need not have come from Iran; it has been around for a long time, and originated in the heart of the "Coalition" itself: yet another piece of deadly blowback from the dirty wars of the security organs that have done so much to shape the hell that afflicts us all today. But the media amnesia that has already sunk the Independent's revelations full fathom five – and the unquestioning, uncritical retailing of unconfirmed assertions by an Administration of proven liars clearly bent on more war – means we are being plunged blindly once again into monstrous, blood-soaked folly.

Chris Floyd is the author of Empire Burlesque: The Secret History of the Bush Regime.
article at: http://www.lewrockwell.com/floyd/floyd56.html

Food for Thought

Major investment bank issues warning on strike against Iran
01/15/2007
by Michael Roston
Raw Story

Bank sees February or March timeline if Israel strikes

After a month of its being on the web I should be able to post this with no problem. Follow the link to read the original.
We march triumphant over the blood and bones of others and plan our investments, and meanwhile Congress, the only stop to the flood, argues about Nancy Pelosi's airplane priveleges.

Warning that investors might be "in for a shock," a major investment bank has told the financial community that a preemptive strike by Israel with American backing could hit Iran's nuclear program, RAW STORY has learned.

The banking division of ING Group released a memo on Jan. 9 entitled "Attacking Iran: The market impact of a surprise Israeli strike on its nuclear facilities."

ING is a global financial services company of Dutch origin that includes banking, insurance, and other divisions. The report was authored by Charles Robertson, the Chief Economist for Emerging Europe, Middle East, and Africa. He also authored an update in ING's daily update, Prophet, that further underscored the bank's perception of the risks of an attack.

ING's Robertson admitted that an attack on Iran was "high impact, if low probability," but explained some of the reasons why a strike might go forward. The Jan. 9 dispatch, describes Israel as "not prepared to accept the same doctrine of ‘mutually assured destruction’ that kept the peace during the Cold War. Israel is adamant that this is not an option for such a geographically small country....So if Israel is convinced Iran is aiming to develop a nuclear weapon, it must presumably act at some point."

Sketching out the time line for an attack, Robertson says that "we can be fairly sure that if Israel is going to act, it will be keen to do so while Bush and Cheney are in the White House."

Robertson suggests a February-March 2007 timeframe for several reasons. First, there is a comparable situation to Israel's strike on Iraq's nuclear program in 1981, including Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's political troubles within Israel. Second, late February will see Iran's deadline to comply with UN Security Council Resolution 1737, and Israel could use a failure of Iran and the UN to follow through as justification for a strike. Finally, greater US military presence in the region at that time could be seen by Israel as the protection from retaliation that it needs.

In his Jan. 15 update, Robertson points to a political reason that could make the assault more likely – personnel changes in the Bush administration may have sidelined opponents of attacking Iran.

Preisdent Bush recently removed General John Abizaid as commander of US forces in the Middle East and John Negroponte as Director of National Intelligence, both of whom have said attacking Iran is not a priority or the right move at this time. The deployment of Patriot missile batteries, highlighted in President Bush's recent White House speech on America's Iraq policy, also pointed to a need to defend against Iranian missiles.

The ING memo was first sent to RAW STORY as an anonymous tip and confirmed Monday by staff in the bank's emerging markets office, who passed along the Jan. 15 update. The full PDF documents can be downloaded at (the Raw Story link) for the Jan. 9 report, and follow (the Raw Stroy link) for the Jan. 15 update. A screenshot of the first page is provided (on the Raw Story Link).

On Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Al-Arabiya that while his country would hold talks with the United States "under appropriate conditions," the Jerusalem Post reported, but that it "would never conduct similar discussions with Israel, since it didn't recognize the Jewish state's existence."

crony military contractor has six degrees of separation from Michigan

Anyone who hasn't heard the mothers of hirelings of military contractors killed in Iraq had a chance today to hear their testimony before Congress.
How their sons were under equipped and left in harm's way. How does this jibe with no bid and cost plus? PROFIT is JOB ONE!
(Jebsus would be Soo Proud of his little Christian Coalition military profiteers.)


Remember the vision of the burned dragged corpses hanging from the bridge?
Those mothers saw those images too.

Blackwater has a particular reputation that we should note. But Blackwater doesn't only contract in Iraq.
Remember N.O. LA after Katrina? The stadium, the guarded bridges out, the shooting at black "looters" (as opposed to white survivors) carrying loaves of old bread from flooded stores? Blackwater had that lucrative FEMA security contract.

And now Blackwater is contracting outsourcing "police" work in these United States as public police agencies are downsized underfunded and squeezed by Reaganomic politics.

Blackwater should also be of special interest to Michiganders who just voted down Dick DeVos' bid for governorship in 2006, a message in times when the downsizing of Michigan's manufacturing base has caused a crisis.
And Dick sunk a personal fortune into one of the richest races in history for any governorship.
Well, you ask, what is Blackwater's relationship to Michigan? Dick DeVos' wife Betsy, who once ran the Republican Party in Michigan, is Betsy Prince DeVos, her brother Eric Prince is the founder and CEO of Blackwater.

NOTE: I live by coincidence... I just Googled "CEO Eric Prince" to verify my memory, and right on top was this:

Erik Prince, Blackwater War Profiteer, Attacks Iraq for Sale
By Robert Greenwald on the Huffington Post


"Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers" tells the story of Erik Prince and Blackwater, and their consistent profiting from the war. As the film is seen across the United States, it is having a powerful effect on audiences. People are responding strongly to the emotional and gut wrenching story of Prince choosing profit over patriotism as he cuts corners at Blackwater in his relentless pursuit of money.

The film tells the story of two young men who are killed as a result of Blackwater focusing on profits, and their grieving and enraged mothers. These mothers are taking the fight to Blackwater and when they see the film, audiences are also activated to take steps to stop Blackwater.

Sadly, rather than working to help and heal the mothers who have suffered this loss, Prince and his profiteering co-horts, have gone into attack mode. And in this case, ironically so with a company who sent out an email after the '04 election saying, "Bush Wins Four More Years!! Hooyah!" attacking Iraq for Sale for being "election year left wing politics."

This from the man who after interning in the Bush Sr. Whitehouse said, "I saw a lot of things I didn't agree with - homosexual groups being invited in, the budget agreement, the Clean Air Act, those kind of bills." This from a man whose car says "Bush: "Let's Roll" Kerry: "Let's Roll Over." This from a man who, together with his family have given over 2 million dollars to Republican candidates and use their political access to protect Blackwater from scrutiny.

We at Brave New Films are proud to be helping raise the issue of profiteering as the election approaches; it should be an issue we judge our candidates by. Are they protecting us? Are they protecting our tax dollars? The fact that Prince has hired a disrespected PR flack, Mark Corallo, whose claim to fame was defending the disgraced Bob Livingston for cheating on his wife, speaks to the issue of Prince's morality.

Profiteering during a time of war is indeed a serious and important issue. I invite Erik Prince to see the film, to meet with our researchers and to have a full and open discussion about the way he is profiteering.

And for those who would like to see the Prince story and the mansion, purchased from his profiteering, check out this video...

a musical interlude

For all my Patrio-Christo-Fascist friends who think there is Somethin' Basically Wrong with Muslims, especially the camel jockey ragheads sittin' on OUR OILfields, and who along the same Reptilian lines think a budget that feeds Lockheed-martin and Caci and Blackwater and Halliburton and Bechtel, but which takes food and medical care out of the hands of children in the State of Michigan is "compassionate" conservatism... this vid is for you.