New Plans For Iran

Read this New Yorker article from Seymour Hersh.

In a series of public statements in recent months, President Bush and members of his Administration have redefined the war in Iraq, to an increasing degree, as a strategic battle between the United States and Iran. "Shia extremists, backed by Iran, are training Iraqis to carry out attacks on our forces and the Iraqi people," Bush told the national convention of the American Legion in August. "The attacks on our bases and our troops by Iranian-supplied munitions have increased. . . . The Iranian regime must halt these actions. And, until it does, I will take actions necessary to protect our troops." He then concluded, to applause, "I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities."

The President's position, and its corollary-that, if many of America's problems in Iraq are the responsibility of Tehran, then the solution to them is to confront the Iranians-have taken firm hold in the Administration. This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran's known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on "surgical" strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism.

The shift in targeting reflects three developments. First, the President and his senior advisers have concluded that their campaign to convince the American public that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat has failed (unlike a similar campaign before the Iraq war), and that as a result there is not enough popular support for a major bombing campaign. The second development is that the White House has come to terms, in private, with the general consensus of the American intelligence community that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb. And, finally, there has been a growing recognition in Washington and throughout the Middle East that Iran is emerging as the geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq.

Perpetual war for perpetual profit seems to be the goal of this administration. With the rise of private armies, contracted by the United States government and paid for by its citizens, war is ever more likely. The cycle starts with no bid government contracts for these firms who then donate campaign funds to sympathetic lawmakers who in turn provide even more no bid contracts. The problem with all this is that if there is no conflict then there is no contract. War is necessary to continue making a profit. It is that fact that threatens our entire country. It is time to stop the privatization of our armed forces.

War Money Yes, Child's Health Care No

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates is seeking nearly 190 billion dollars to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008, the largest war funding request ever in the six-year-old "war on terror," the Pentagon said Wednesday.

Gates was scheduled to testify later before a Senate committee on the request, which was 42.3 billion dollars greater than the administration's estimate when it presented its 2008 budget request in February.

"This additional 42.3 billion dollars puts us at just under 190 billion dollars for the global war on terror supplemental request for 2008 -- 189.3 billion dollars," said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary.

So $189 Billion dollars for war is necessary but children's health care is not. The House overwhelmingly passed an increase in the State Children's Health Insurance Program but the President has promised a veto.

Democrats clearly believe they have a winning issue with the State Children's Health Insurance Program legislation, so they're pulling out all the props. Yesterday, children were brought to press conferences around Washington. On the heels of a resounding 265-159 approval in the House last night, it was the Senate's chance to turn up the heat on President Bush, who has threatened to veto the $35 billion increase in children's health insurance funding.

This is an example of the President's priorities. There is always enough money for war but never enough to help the citizens of the country who will pay for the war for a generation.

The $189 billion requested is not part of the national deficit. It is done as a supplemental spending bill and is not included in yearly fiscal deficit numbers. When you hear the deficit has fallen remember that not everything is counted. The math is dishonest as is everything associated with this administration.

The American people need to stand up and demand an end to this war and the fiscal ruination that is being slowly perpetrated. Until we fully understand the strangehold of the military industrial complex on our government, we will forever be involved in military conflicts that enrich the few at the expense of many.

This Is How The Republicans Support The Troops

Senate Republicans Block Bill on Iraq Combat Tours Doesn't that title just warm your heart? The Republicans could care less about the troops. What further proof do you need?

Democrats' efforts to challenge President Bush's Iraq policies were dealt a demoralizing blow Wednesday in the Senate after they failed to scrape together enough support to guarantee troops more time at home.

The 56-44 vote _ four short of reaching the 60 needed to advance _ all but assured that Democrats would be unable to muster the support needed to pass tough anti-war legislation by year's end. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., was seen as the Democrats' best shot because of its pro-military premise.

"The idea of winning the war in Iraq is beginning to get a second look," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who led opposition to the bill alongside Sen. John McCain.

Webb's legislation would have required that troops spend as much time at home training with their units as they spend deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Members of the National Guard or Reserve would be guaranteed three years at home before being sent back.

They require 60 votes to stop a filibuster and the Democrats fell four short. One of those siding with the Republicans was Joe Lieberman. The people of Connecticut should be ashamed of themselves that they sent this worthless piece of garbage back to the Senate. Our troops and their families are being destroyed by ever longer tours of duty. This amendment would have allowed them equal time at home. If the Republicans are the party of family values how could they block this legislation?

I have heard the Randi Rhodes of Air America state "If they show you who they are believe them." This is who they are!! Actions speak louder than words. Remember that when you go to vote.

Top General To Urge Iraq Troop Cut

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half, potentially creating a rift with top White House officials and other military commanders over the course of the war.

Administration and military officials say Marine Gen. Peter Pace is likely to convey concerns by the Joint Chiefs that keeping well in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq through 2008 will severely strain the military. This assessment could collide with one being prepared by the U.S. commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, calling for the U.S. to maintain higher troop levels for 2008 and beyond.

Petraeus is expected to support a White House view that the absence of widespread political progress in Iraq requires several more months of the U.S. troop buildup before force levels are decreased to their pre-buildup numbers sometime next year.

Why would this General go against the Bush policy of perpetual war? General Pace understands that this war and its long deployments has stretched the military to a breaking point. He realizes that we could not respond to events in other parts of the world without some drastic changes to the military such as a draft.

I believe that Bush's speech comparing the Wars in Iraq and Vietnam was done to lay the groundwork for a return to the draft. Military leaders must realize that our forces are broken and that we simply can not keep up deployments without a draft.

The issue is that they can not publicly say they support a draft for what that would do to Republicans in 2008. The next president will be left to clean up the mess in Iraq and restore our military. They are hoping the choices that will need to be made will be so unpopular that they would regain the Presidency in 2012. It is a gamble they seem willing to make but one I think they will lose in the end. Americans will understand that it was the ill advised war in Iraq that brought our military to the breaking point and they punish the Republican party for it.

Army Suicides at 26 Year High

Ninety-nine U.S. soldiers killed themselves last year, the highest rate of suicide in the Army in 26 years, a new report says.

More than one out of four soldiers who committed suicide did so while serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, according to a report scheduled to be released Thursday. Iraq was the most common deployment location for U.S. soldiers who either attempted suicide or committed suicide.

The report, which The Associated Press obtained ahead of its public release, said the 99 confirmed suicides among active duty soldiers compared to 88 in 2005 and was the highest raw number since the 102 suicides reported in 1991, the year of the Persian Gulf War, when there were more soldiers on active duty.

This is the result of constant and extended tours. How can anyone think that seeing all the death and destruction that our soldiers see on a daily basis would not have severe psychological consequences?

The psychological welfare of these men were never considered when the President CHOSE war. The treatment of these men is a national disgrace whether it is the lack of body armor or the cuts in veterans funding. How can anyone really say with a straight face that the Republicans support the troops.

Bush War Adviser Says Draft Worth a Look

Well what do you know the Bush administration is talking about bringing back the draft.

Frequent tours for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have stressed the all-volunteer force and made it worth considering a return to a military draft, President Bush's new war adviser said Friday.

``I think it makes sense to certainly consider it,'' Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said in an interview with National Public Radio's ``All Things Considered.''

``And I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table. But ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation's security by one means or another,'' Lute added in his first interview since he was confirmed by the Senate in June.

President Nixon abolished the draft in 1973. Restoring it, Lute said, would be a ``major policy shift'' and Bush has made it clear that he doesn't think it's necessary.

The repeated deployments affect not only the troops but their families, who can influence whether a service member decides to stay in the military, Lute said.

``There's both a personal dimension of this, where this kind of stress plays out across dinner tables and in living room conversations within these families,'' he said. ``And ultimately, the health of the all-volunteer force is going to rest on those sorts of personal family decisions.''

The military conducted a draft during the Civil War and both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. The Selective Service System, re-established in 1980, maintains a registry of 18-year-old men.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., has called for reinstating the draft as a way to end the Iraq war.

Bush picked Lute in mid-May as a deputy national security adviser with responsibility for ensuring efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are coordinated with policymakers in Washington. Lute, an active-duty general, was chosen after several retired generals turned down the job.

I say lets do it but there can be no college deferrals, no marriage deferrals or any other excuses to avoid service.

The first to be drafted should be the Young Republicans who are so supportive of this war yet seem to have so little time to fight it. Next should come the sons of Mitt Romney who also support the war but who Mitt says are doing their patriotic duty by trying to get him elected. At least that is what he says now but we all know multiple choice Mitt will have something new to say when he figures out which way the wind is blowing.

If they do reinstate the draft will they change the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy or will gays finally be allowed to die in a worthless war like everyone else?

Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute didn't just make this statement without thinking. They are laying the groundwork for a return to the draft because they have destroyed our military. If you still feel safer after this disastrous war and the destruction of our military then you are truly living in a fool's paradise and nothing I could say or anyone else could say would change your very warped thinking.

All people who support this war and are under 42 years old should join to help us avoid the draft. Don't worry either if you have been convicted of a crime, that is no longer a reason to disallow your service. With the ever expanding age limit you may soon be able to retire from your present job and join the military. I have a feeling they are already designing the logos for the "Grandpa Brigades".

What A Way To Support The Troops

If you read this and still think that this administration cares for the troops you are either delusional or stupid. You can decide which.

Servicemen and women who made huge sacrifices fighting in the war and now paying yet another price, even after coming home.

One soldier in particular is currently battling against a new "debt of service."

Brian Rodriguez is a fighter, an honorably discharged soldier who'd been deployed in Iraq.

"I was a combat engineer," Rodriguez said. "We deal with land mines, explosives."

He fought for his nation, only to return to his homeland and wage a fresh battle.

Former Army Specialist Rodriguez started getting bills for $700 for lost or damaged government property this summer. Although he was discharged some four years ago, bills recently arrived demanding payment, but giving no details on what or why -- nor do they offer a way to dispute the charges.

"For doing my job you're going to bill me?" Rodriguez said.

And he's not alone. A 2006 government report found more than 1,000 soldiers being billed a total of $1.5 million. And while fighting overseas put their lives on the line, this battle on paper could cost them their future by ruining their credit. Rodriguez will be reported to credit agencies next month.

"It makes a terrible point about the nature of military service today," citizen soldier Tod Ensign said.

Ensign is a veteran's advocate. He says this is all part of the military’s push to be run more like a business.

"They'll just pound him and call him, call his employers, and make his life as miserable as they can until he pays up," Ensign said.

Testimony before Congress detailed in a report found that "although unit commanders and finance offices are authorized to write off debts for lost and damaged equipment ... they have not always done so."

"It happens too often and it's just disgraceful," Sen. Charles Schumer said. "Here are people who are risking their lives for us and they come home and they're being treated as if they're criminals instead of heroes."

Because it's been four years since he left the Middle East, Rodriguez's battalion was dissolved and his commanders are long gone. And despite repeated requests, the Army never could tell us what piece of equipment Rodriguez was billed for, nor would they get rid of the debt.

"I did my time, I served my country and this is the thanks I get," Rodriguez said.

Their suggestion? Call your Congressman. Schumer said he'll reach out to the Army to intervene on Brian's behalf.

I am left speechless after reading this. Disgusting, just plain disgusting.

Army Missed Recruiting Goal Again

Where will the President get new cannon fodder if this continues?

Already stretched thin by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army is having a hard time finding new recruits. ABC News has learned the Army missed its recruiting goal in June for the second month in a row. It's the first time in more than two years that the Army has missed recruiting goals for two consecutive months.

The figures are especially worrisome because the summer is traditionally the peak recruiting season. Army officials are now worried that July and August will be difficult as well, raising the possibility that the Army will miss its annual goal of 80,000 new recruits for fiscal year 2007, which ends on September 30. The Army has missed an annual recruiting goal only twice in the last decade -- in 1999 and 2005.

You need to remember that the services lowered their standards to keep recruitment up. What would the numbers have been like with higher standards? It seems that people are finally realizing that joining the service is not in their best interest. If this continues you will begin to hear talk of a draft returning.

Lift The Ban

U.S. Arming Sunni Insurgents in Iraq

The U.S. military is arming Sunni Insurgents if they promise to fight al Qaeda.

When I first heard this I thought this can't be possible but it is. Have we learned absolutely nothing from our years of arming the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan?

American commanders say they have successfully tested the strategy in Anbar Province west of Baghdad and have held talks with Sunni groups in at least four areas of central and north-central Iraq where the insurgency has been strong. In some cases, the American commanders say, the Sunni groups are suspected of involvement in past attacks on American troops or of having links to such groups. Some of these groups, they say, have been provided, usually through Iraqi military units allied with the Americans, with arms, ammunition, cash, fuel and supplies.

Most of our troops have been killed by Iraqi insurgents. What is to stop them from turning our own weapons on our soldiers. This administration is criminally negligent and should be removed.

Donated Body Armor Goes Unused

Do you still think this administration supports the troops?

Just when you think they can't get any lower!!!

Pentagon Confirms It Sought To Build A 'Gay Bomb'

Read this for some good laughs. Why not just burn the $7.5 million dollars?

The plan for a so-called "love bomb" envisaged an aphrodisiac chemical that would provoke widespread homosexual behaviour among troops, causing what the military called a "distasteful but completely non-lethal" blow to morale.

Is it just me or are Pentagon officials really obsessed with all things Gay?

General Peter Pace Out As Chairman of Joint Chiefs Of Staff

General Pace is out. He is being replaced by Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Friday.

This is the first time in 21 years that both CentCom and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have been headed by Navy men. Does that mean anything for the near future? The Navy would be needed for an invasion of Iran and we recently conducted war games off the coast of Iran using the Navy. Now the two most powerful men in the military are both Navy men. It sure feels like they are gearing up for War with Iran.

Military Pay Increase Opposed By Bush Administration

The White house is trying to kill the Democratic plan to increase military pay 3.5% next year. The White House wants only 3%.

In a letter from the White House Office of Management and Budget to congressional committees overseeing the military, OMB director Rob Portman said Wednesday that the administration "strongly opposes" a Democratic plan to bump up military salaries by 3.5 percent instead of Bush's request for a 3 percent jump.

"The cost of increasing the FY 2008 military pay raise by an additional 0.5 percent is $265 million in FY 2008 and $7.3 billion" if similar raises are enacted over the next five years, Portman's office said in a six-page memo outlining concerns about the defense spending bill that was approved by the House early Friday and will be taken up by the Senate this week

Let me get this straight. The President professes to support the troops yet begrudges them a 2.5% additional pay raise over 5 years then what he proposed. This pay raise could be paid for with three weeks worth of expenditures from the Iraq War. I have an idea, how about we cancel the billions in oil company subsidies and use that to pay for this increase. The military is in Iraq fighting for their interests anyway. It only seems fair. Do you still believe that this President supports the troops? These people are disgusting with no redeeming qualities.