This article is one of the best to date I have read on the current Iraq situation.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...iraq_swindle/5

Some of my favourite bits...

- bush appointed his friends to run the show, including a 24 year old home-schooled kid with no previous experience to run the Iraqi economy, which promptly collapsed

- bush appointed a man with little or no experience to run the Iraqi health care system, and he spent the first few YEARS spending millions putting together an anti-smoking campaign countrywide, neglecting the fact most areas didn't even have hospitals

- They sent all the soldiers to fight, even those who were supposed to be fixing things like humvees. So then when the humvees break down, they can't be fixed, so the standard protocol to keep them out of enemy hands is to destroy them. When any military equiptment breaks, they now just douse it with petrol and burn it in the street, even for minor issues since they have no mechanics on hand in Iraq to fix any equipment.

- Halliburton claims to counter the attacks of insurgents on convoys, they need to keep trucks moving 24/7. So they have dozens of truck convoys moving 24 hours a day, moving nothing - empty payloads, at a cost of millions a day to the tax payers, and costing manys of lives, moving empty tractor trailer trucks in efforts to keep the enemy from stopping the important convoys.

- 16 billion dollars has disappeared so far, and no one can explain where it went. The men in charge who were supposed to be monitoring this when asked by congress answered 'we have no idea' and all still have their jobs

- Even though dozens of fraud cases have come to light, the bush administration refuses to prosecute criminally any of the offenders

- Halliburton needs various people to fill various jobs. They are putting anyone who signs up in those jobs, even if they have no experience. The barracks are filled with men reading books on how to fix things they have never before seen, at a cost of $10,000 a month, which these men are paid. Many have worked for months, without actually doing any work at all.

- Hundreds of contractors have been permanently disabled. Even though the law states they are supposed to receive the same benefits as soldiers in the war zone, the bush administration is fighting this - leaving hundreds of men and women disabled, with no insurance, and they are charged by the military for their hospital costs. They come home and instead of bringing home a large check, they owe hundreds of thousands in bills to the military hospitals.

- Companies stealing equipment, and then selling it back to the military. Some got caught, not one was charged criminally.

- The Army didn't want to give back the money congress appropriated for various projects, so it set up a DUMMY VENDOR, which they called DUMMY VENDOR, and put all the money they couldn't spend in that account - over 360 million. Then, it disappeared and no one in the army can explain where the 360 million went.

- Over half of the weapons bought for the new Iraqi army have gone missing. 50% of all weapons just vanished from storerooms. They are in the process of replacing them all, but have yet to find out where the others went, and have still not made any policy changes, meaning they more than likely will disappear again.

- And one of my personal favourites, Laura Bush was there making a news appearance a while back flaunting the new disease database she thought up to allow Iraqi hospitals to track disease outbreaks. She was on US news talking about this for weeks. Only problem is, the majority of hospitals in Iraq don't have telephones - most areas outside of Baghdad are without. In fact, the main hospital where the database is housed, is itself without phone lines, meaning no one can access this multi million dollar project.

- That is only topped by the fact a company got a contract to install natural gas powered generators at all Iraqi hospitals. Hundreds of millions spent putting in these generators, and no one noticed that no where in Iraq do they have natural gas. The multi-million dollar generators now sit silent, as until someone discovers gas there, and then build a pipelines nationwide throughout the country, there will be nothing to power them.

The writer makes a very good point. With all of these companies making out like bandits, all making record profits in a war that they are losing, failing all benchmarks miserably, what incentive is there for these companies to do good, if they are making record profits when they perform so bad?

Iraqi Translators Finally Get Visas

http://news.**********/s/usnews/iraq...B5vost9VGs0NUE

As many as 2 million Iraqi refugees have fled the violence at home, but the Bush administration has been criticized for allowing very few of them into the United States.

Even Iraqis who had been working for the U.S. military as much-needed translators, and who then found their lives threatened for their work with the Americans, had been largely frozen out.

But for translators at least, the picture is finally beginning to change. In just the past two months, 167 visas have been issued to Iraqi and Afghan translators to come to the United States along with their families, according to a State Department spokesperson. These visas were issued under a new program approved by Congress in June that allows up to 500 visas to be issued this year and in 2008 to Afghan or Iraqi translators who worked for the U.S. military or a U.S. embassy. Family members are eligible to come along with them.

The new program is a response to the heightened risk taken by these translators because of their association with the U.S. government. Many translators in both Iraq and Afghanistan hide their employer's identity from even close relatives for security reasons, and many wear masks when working near their own neighborhoods to avoid being identified. Still, many translators have been threatened, beaten, or murdered after their work was discovered.

To be eligible, translators must have worked for the U.S. government for at least a year. Their application first goes to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office. Once they are approved, translators and their families must travel to a third country, usually Jordan or Syria, for an interview.

Today, an additional 57 translators have been interviewed for visas and are now in the final stages of processing their applications. An additional 122 interviews have been scheduled for other applicants, and nearly 180 other translators have contacted the U.S. government for help in preparing their cases.

Still, these numbers represent a tiny number of the overall refugee population. And despite pledges that the U.S. government would accept as many as 7,000 regular Iraqi refugees, those figures remain very small. As of July 31, only 190 refugees had arrived in the United States.


So 2,000,000 people displaced by the US invasion, and now the US says, ok, we will let in 500. Way to go there.

We have taken in thousands of Iraqis here in Ireland (Afghans too). I see about as many Iraqis in one day as people who live in Iraq.

To have a press release sent out about allowing 500 more in, seems a bit ignorant, considering most of Europe is now feeding, housing, and taking care of the millions America has no time for.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20712196...week/?from=rss

The Petraeus report is out, and Newsweek has a review of it online. Interesting tidbit they point out in that story...

Not surprisingly, Petraeus performed smoothly in his testimony to Congress. But an internal Pentagon report is expected to 'differ substantially' from his recommendations on withdrawal from Iraq, NEWSWEEK has learned.

NEWSWEEK has learned that a separate internal report being prepared by a Pentagon working group will “differ substantially” from Petraeus’s recommendations, according to an official who is privy to the ongoing discussions but would speak about them only on condition of anonymity. An early version of the report, which is currently being drafted and is expected to be completed by the beginning of next year, will “recommend a very rapid reduction in American forces: as much as two-thirds of the existing force very quickly, while keeping the remainder there.” The strategy will involve unwinding the still large U.S. presence in big forward operation bases and putting smaller teams in outposts. “There is interest at senior levels [of the Pentagon] in getting alternative views” to Petraeus, the official said. Among others, Centcom commander Admiral William Fallon is known to want to draw down faster than Petraeus...

So the report he gave congress was inaccurate, and says almost the opposite of what he is reporting to the pentagon. Umm..isn't that lying under oath to congress? Didn't we just see another bush-ite sacked over this? Are they seriously trying it again, already?

Does it bother anyone else that these people lie under oath, to congress, to America?

Well, at least now most Americans are getting used to this sort of treatment...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/...l.iraq.report/

..according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Thursday, 53 percent of people polled said they suspect that the military assessment of the situation will try to make it sound better than it actually is. Forty-three percent said they do trust the report.

It says a lot about a nation when 43% of the people think their government is outright lying to them and say on the record they have no faith in their leaders reports and findings.

War Costing $720 Million Each Day

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092102074.html

CHICAGO, Sept. 21 -- The money spent on one day of the Iraq war could buy homes for almost 6,500 families or health care for 423,529 children, or could outfit 1.27 million homes with renewable electricity, according to the American Friends Service Committee, which displayed those statistics on large banners in cities nationwide Thursday and Friday.

The war is costing $720 million a day or $500,000 a minute, according to the group's analysis of the work of Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard public finance lecturer Linda J. Bilmes.

The estimates made by the group, which opposes the conflict, include not only the immediate costs of war but also ongoing factors such as long-term health care for veterans, interest on debt and replacement of military hardware.

"The wounded are coming home, and many of them have severe brain and spinal injuries, which will require round-the-clock care for the rest of their lives," said Michael McConnell, Great Lakes regional director of the AFSC, a peace group affiliated with the Quaker church.

The $720 million figure breaks down into $280 million a day from Iraq war supplementary funding bills passed by Congress, plus $440 million daily in incurred, but unpaid, long-term costs.

But some supporters of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq say that even if the war is costly, that fact is essentially immaterial.

"Either you think the war in Iraq supports America's national security, or not," said Frederick W. Kagan, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "If you think national security won't be harmed by withdrawing from Iraq, of course you would want to see that money spent elsewhere. I myself think that belief, on a certain level, is absurd, so the question of focusing on how much money we are spending there is irrelevant."

The war's unpaid long-term costs do not include "macro-economic consequences" described by Bilmes and Stiglitz, including higher oil prices, loss of trade because of anti-American sentiments and lost productivity of killed or injured U.S. soldiers.

In 2006, Bilmes, who was an assistant secretary of commerce under President Bill Clinton, and Stiglitz, a former chief economist at the World Bank, placed the total cost of the Iraq war at more than $2.2 trillion, not counting interest. The American Friends group used cost breakdowns and interest projections from the Congressional Budget Office to calculate the daily cost of war emblazoned on the banners flown in Boston, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Chicago and other cities.

The banners show what this could buy in terms of health care, Head Start programs, new elementary schools, free school lunches, renewable energy and hiring new teachers. Protest organizers say they hope to turn more people against the war by laying out its true financial impact.

"I think people are becoming more aware of these guns or butter questions," said Gary Gillespie, director of the group's Baltimore Urban Peace Program, which displayed the banners in the Baltimore suburb of Bel Air on Friday. "But when you talk about $720 million a day, even people who work on this issue are shocked by the number and shocked by what could have been done with that money. War has no return -- you're not producing a product."



$720 million a day on war....but yet the government can't afford to fix up schools, give free college educations to those who qualify, or offer socialised health care.

It shows what the US government holds dear and where they focus their priorities.

Top Democrats propose war surtax

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/...ies&eref=yahoo

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Top House Democrats Tuesday proposed a "war surtax" to pay for the war in Iraq, a plan quickly condemned by Republicans and opposed by the House leadership.

The surtax would be "a percentage of your tax bill," said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey, D-Wisconsin. "And if you don't like the cost, then shut down the war."

The measure -- sponsored by Obey, Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, and Jim McGovern, D-Massachusetts -- would require low- and middle-income taxpayers to add 2 percent to their tax bill, while higher-income taxpayers would add 12 to 15 percent, Obey said.

The House Democratic leadership made it clear Wednesday that they had not signed off on the measure.

In a statement released Tuesday afternoon, House speaker Nancy Pelosi blasted President Bush for not asking Americans to sacrifice and "adding hundreds of billions of dollars in debt for future generations to repay."

But Pelosi said she will not back the measure.

"Some have suggested that shared sacrifice should take the form of a draft; others have suggested a surtax. Those who oppose a tax and the draft also should oppose the president's war," Pelosi said. "Just as I have opposed the war from the outset, I am opposed to a draft and I am opposed to a war surtax."

A spokesman for the House Ways and Means committee, which handles all tax measures, told CNN "there's no expectation that this proposal will come before the committee."

The proposal comes as the Bush administration requested an additional $190 billion for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obey estimated the surtax would annually generate between $140 and $150 billion dollars which is equivalent to the annual cost of the war in Iraq. Video Watch Obey say he will not give the White House a blank check" »

"This is the first time in American history that when a president has taken a country to war and said 'by the way folks, we're going to have to sacrifice and the way to sacrifice is by cutting your taxes.'" Obey said. "It makes no sense."

Speaking at a Capitol Hill press conference, McGovern said families of troops serving in Iraq would be exempt from the surtax, and that the tax was similar to ones imposed during War War II and the Vietnam War.

The Republican leadership was quick to condemn the proposal.

"Raiding every taxpayer's wallet for the purposes of playing politics with our national security amounts to one of the most irresponsible proposals I've seen in a long, long time," House Minority Leader John Boehner said in a statement. "It's time for Democrats to support our troops and the strategy that has led them to make undeniable progress in Iraq."

A Democratic leadership aide dismissed criticism from the GOP, saying, "Republicans are talking about something [surtax proposal] that's never going to see the light of day, but they're doing it at their own peril because the more they talk about the costs of war, the more Americans will listen."
advertisement

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, said he agreed "this generation ought to help pay for" the war but that there was no agreement on backing the bill.

"One of the stories I just read said 'the Democrats propose,'" Hoyer said. "This is a proposal by Mr. Obey. Mr. Murtha and Mr. McGovern. This is not a party proposal."


I think this is a great idea. I mean, if more Americans had to foot the bill, then they wouldn't be so pro-war. Right now, the war is being funded by IOU's - to be paid by the next THREE generations. Sure, the current Americans under bush will not have to pay squat, but you can't borrow money forever and not expect to pay it back.

What is it now? Each American (included children) will have to pay $35,000 in taxes in their lifetime to pay off the current deficit created by the war? The number grows daily. For those who die before paying off their share, thats another share passed on to the next generation...

I had to post this one...

Rice: Kurdish rebels are 'common threat'

http://news.**********/s/ap/20071102...BxaAdUXMis0NUE

First the US labelled the Sunnis as 'terrorists' because they supported Sadaam, then followed by saying the Shia were also 'terrorists' because they support Iran. Now, the last remaining group in Iraq, the Kurds, have been labelled as a terrorist group.

These are the same Kurds America claimed were gassed by Sadaam. Sadaam claimed they were terrorists who tried to kill him, and he acted in self defence. Now, America has adopted the same rhetoric as Sadaam - ironic, eh?

This also means the Kurds, who America has praised time and time again for helping to beat Sadaams forces are now the bad guys.

This also means that every group in Iraq is now designated as a terrorist group by America.

So who exactly are they going to put in power in the government? The Sunnis, who were in power and America rallied against because of their 'crimes against the Kurds? The Shia, who America is against because they align themselves with Iran? Or the Kurds, who America now says are terrorists because Kurdistan, which they are fighting for, lies partly in Iraq and partly in Turkey and they vow to attack Turkey like they did Sadaam/Iraq until they reclaim their lost homeland?

You have to love the fact the bush administration is now using the same arguments Sadaam used for many discussions. Claiming certain (harsh) measures are needed to control the Shia from aligning with Iran and taking over the government, and now branding the Kurds as 'terrorists' and claiming they are free game for the government forces because they are destabilising Iraq.

All those 'crimes' against the 'Iraqi people' which the bush administration used for a precursor to war now are being enacted by the bush administration for the same justifications that Sadaam had used.

Heh - anyone think 'quagmire' is no longer appropriate? ;)

I couldn't decide which topic to put this under, so I decided this might be the most appropriate thread for it...

Study: Veterans more likely to be homeless

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/08/hom...ans/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- More than 25 percent of the homeless population in the United States are military veterans, although they represent 11 percent of the civilian adult population, according to a new report.

On any given night last year, nearly 196,000 veterans slept on the street, in a shelter or in transitional housing, the study by the Homelessness Research Institute found.

That accompanied by the fact last week a report was release that vets are 17x more likely to commit suicide, and with the number coming back from the middle east now and killing themselves, that number is growing.

Of course, this is followed by yet another report this week:

Soldiers find little help getting back to work

http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/lo...5-3135a75e4049

WASHINGTON (AP) - Strained by extended tours in Iraq, growing numbers of military reservists say the government is providing little help to soldiers who are denied their old jobs when they return home, Defense Department data shows.

The Pentagon survey of reservists in 2005-2006, obtained by The Associated Press, details increasing discontent among returning troops in protecting their legal rights after taking leave from work to fight for their country.

It found that 44 percent of the reservists polled said they were dissatisfied with how the Labor Department handled their complaint of employment discrimination based on their military status, up from 27 percent from 2004.

Nearly one-third, or 29 percent, said they had difficulty getting the information they needed from government agencies charged with protecting their rights, while 77 percent reported they didn't even bother trying to get assistance in part because they didn't think it would make a difference.

Legal experts say the findings might represent the tip of the iceberg. Formal complaints to the Labor Department by reservists hit nearly 1,600 in 2005 - the highest number since 1991 - not counting the thousands more cases reported each year to the Pentagon for resolution by mediation.

And a bump in complaints is likely once the Iraq war winds down and more people come home after an extended period in which employers were forced to restructure or hire new workers to cope with those on military leave, they said.

Among the survey's findings:

-About 23 percent of reservists reported they did not return to their old jobs in part because their employer did not give them prompt re-employment or their job situation changed in some way while they were on military leave.

-Twenty-nine percent of those choosing not to seek help to get their job back said it was because it was "not worth the fight." Another 23 percent said they were unsure of how to file a complaint. Others cited a lack of confidence that they could win (14 percent); fear of employer reprisal (13 percent), or other reasons (21 percent).

-Reservists reported receiving an average of 1.8 briefings about their job rights and what government resources were available. This is down slightly from the 2.0 briefings they reported getting in 2004.

"Most of the government investigators are too willing to accept the employer's explanation for a worker's dismissal," said Sam Wright, a former Labor Department attorney who helped write the 1994 discrimination law protecting reservists.

Turns out about one in four coming home from Iraq have no jobs waiting, and from the 'yeah i figured as much' category today, the bush administration is siding with big business on this, keeping away lawsuits and protecting businesses from prosecution while leaving the troops to fend for themselves.

Once again, even in war, you see who the bush administration supports - big business back home over the lives and livelihood of their own military.

Australia's Howard loses parliament seat: opponent

http://news.**********/s/afp/austral...Plbv9i_uCs0NUE

SYDNEY (AFP) - The defeat of Australia's outgoing prime minister John Howard appeared complete Saturday when his opponent claimed victory in the parliamentary seat he held for 33 years.

Howard's conservative government had already been tossed out by voters in elections last Saturday, but counting had continued for his own Sydney seat of Bennelong, which was too close to call.

With the tally of postal and other votes now almost complete, former television journalist Maxine McKew claimed the seat for the centre-left Labor Party led by prime minister-elect Kevin Rudd.

"One week after the polls opened I can now say that in Bennelong we are 2,100 votes ahead, we have 51.25 per cent of the two-party vote, so we are comfortably ahead," McKew told reporters.

"I can formally say that Bennelong is now a Labor seat for the first time."

Howard, who acknowledged he would likely lose the seat but has not formally conceded, now faces the humiliation of being remembered as the first sitting prime minister in 78 years to be ditched by his own parliamentary electorate.

He won the seat in 1974 and the following year was appointed to his first ministerial post at the age of 36.

Howard, 68, became prime minister in 1996 after leading his Liberal-National coalition to victory against the Labor Party.

McKew said she was not disappointed that he had not formally relinquished the seat, noting that "Mr Howard and his family clearly had a huge amount to do this week" as they cleared out of their official residences.

"I would like to acknowledge John Howard's long years of public service," she added. "He gave 30 years to public life and that should be acknowledged."

McKew's win had already been factored into the Labor victory, with Rudd appointing her parliamentary secretary to the prime minister and cabinet when he announced his government line-up Thursday.

Howard's Liberal Party had also moved on, electing former defence minister Brendan Nelson as new leader.

After nearly 12 years in power, Howard was the second-longest serving prime minister in Australia's history.

As his party picks over the bones of its resounding election defeat, several senior members have blamed him for trying to hang on to power for too long.

Howard had resisted pressure to step aside ahead of the election in favour of his long-serving and ambitious treasurer Peter Costello.

"I thought that it would have been helpful for the Liberal Party if we had been able to actually have a transition before the 2007 election," Costello told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Costello, who served as treasurer throughout Howard's four terms in office, said Australians had wanted a fresh face in the prime minister's office -- a desire played on by Labor during its campaign.

"I think we could have neutered that strategy if we had had an opportunity to have an orderly transition in 2007. We didn't, and the rest is history," he said.

Howard had announced that if re-elected he would retire as leader before the end of his three-year term, and several commentators have made the point that he must regret not having stood down while he was still on top.

"He would be feeling the agony of the damned tonight," said former Labor leader Kim Beazley as it became clear that Howard would be ousted.

The outgoing prime minister, who dominated the Australian political scene for so long, has kept a low profile since his defeat, making few public comments and being photographed rarely.


Like blair, howard is now out, and setting new lows for himself and his party. Good to see the people prevailed and set things straight, giving this bastard the send off he deserved. No more first world allies providing any help in Iraq now.

It looks like the bush administration is continuing to play the misinformation game.

U.S. says al Qaeda in Iraq leader not captured

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. military in Iraq denied widespread reports Friday that trumpeted the capture of a top Iraqi insurgent leader.

Skeptical of the reports at first, the U.S. military is now certain that Abu Ayyub al-Masri -- the head of al Qaeda in Iraq -- has not been captured, a senior U.S. military official told CNN.

The reports emerged late Thursday that the elusive militant had been detained in the northern city of Mosul.

That's where U.S. and Iraqi forces have been fighting the predominantly Sunni al Qaeda in Iraq -- which has a strong presence in the city. Mosul has been called the group's last strong urban bastion in Iraq.

The report of his capture was first made by the Iraqi media and then picked up by The Associated Press.

The news spread throughout the country. An imam at a Shiite mosque in Baghdad was heard praising the arrest during his sermon at Friday prayers. Watch more about al-Masri's role with al Qaeda in Iraq Video

But U.S. military and intelligence officials were surprised and skeptical, despite the insistence of Iraqi officials that al-Masri was already in U.S. military custody.

Al-Masri , called "the Egyptian" and also known as Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, took the reins of Iraq's al Qaeda offshoot in June 2006, after a U.S. missile strike killed his predecessor, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Since then, Iraqi officials have reported his death three times, his capture twice and a mortal wounding once.


Every few weeks the US puts out the word it killed this man or captured him. Then, a few days after they retract the statement, on the back page, quietly. Then again a few weeks later they trumpet their success again on the front page of papers across the world, in the news crawl on faux news, and everywhere else for a few days, then again quietly retract the story once it dies down a bit.

I wonder how long under the average American figures out that all the high profile 'terrorists' they keep claiming they are killing/capturing are all just propaganda to keep the right-wing media with something positive to report.