You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Donald Rumsfield’ category.

With just ten minutes left for one Senator to possibly scramble upstairs and cast a vote that would not change the outcome, Chuck Hagel’s secretary of defense nomination was sent to the Floor….

One of the more surprising moments was the very Senatorial response given by Mazie Hirono, the replacement for Dan Inouye, who passed away after the election.

In a brief statement she noted (at exactly the 2:00 mark) that the national security need for an immediate Secretary of Defense was necessary, and to abort the process and begin anew was irresponsible, for with sequestration, budget reductions, downsizing after Afghanistan, re-pivoting to the Pacific, challenges of North Korea, Syria, North Africa, cyber attacks to our data systems, power grid, infrastructure, all requiring immediate attention. Chuck Hagel exemplified himself in war, as a CEO, and in the chambers of the Senate itself. That puts him as equally qualified as anyone else in that room. Simply put, we need someone now, this man is capable, he has my vote.

The New Kaufman?
Courtesy of C Span
I guess she hasn’t learned to be long winded yet.

Which brings up the Republicans… What on earth is wrong with them? Are they nuts?

Every unbiased report confirms they are nuts.

Republican foreign policy is farce, not even worthy of Shakespeare.

So Republicans have decided that Afghanistan doesn’t exist. At last summer’s Republican National Convention, Mitt Romney never mentioned the Afghan War (that was left up to Clint Eastwood).

During Hagel’s seven and a half hours of questioning by the Senate Armed Services Committee last month, the country where 66,000 American troops are still fighting, and dying, was mentioned 27 times. How many mentions did it receive from the Armed Service Committee’s 12 Republican members combined? Four.

Drones, Zero mentions.

Cyber warfare, two came from Committee Republicans..

China, only one mention came from a Senate Republican. (and that occured when Texas Sen. Ted Cruz asked Hagel if he had traveled to China with Chas Freeman, a former American diplomat known for critical views toward, you guessed it, Israel.)

Israel (178 Republican mentions)

America must help Israel prevent the development of Iran’s nuclear weapon. (171 mentions)

The GOP campaign against him has descended even deeper into triviality. Republicans on the Armed Services Committee are now refusing to vote on Hagel’s nomination until he provides evidence that no organization he was affiliated with received foreign funding over the past decade? WTF? Every Republican on that committed gets foreign political funding from AIPAC….

His answer: no.

Republicans stoop even lower.

Republicans are demanding that he prove that no company or non-profit he has been involved in has received any foreign funding either!

Chuck Hagel’s answer? “That information…is legally controlled by the individual entities and not mine to disclose.”

This is “unprecedented,” as well as “ridiculous and outrageous,” especially since there’s zero evidence that Hagel—a decorated Vietnam veteran—has ever subverted the interests of the United States in service of a foreign power.

One senses Chuck Hagel’s ridiculous farcical hearing process, brought to its knees by these Republicans, has not one iota of relevance to Mr. Hagel’s qualifications, and every bit of relevancy to fending off a potential evangelical Tea Party primary challenger chomping for a run against these Republicans in the next election season….

Advertisements

Many of the same players behind the John Kerry Swiftboating  incident, are also behind the attempt to do so to Obama.  However, America is wiser.

The cast:

E. Mark Braden…..  chief counsel for the Republican National Committee. since leaving, he has represented numerous Republican-related political causes….

Michael Smith…..  Republican political consultant, also was involved in group called Making America’s Promise Secure, and Majority America.

Carl Lindner……  backed numerous conservative causes – including the original 2004 “Swift Boat” campaign against John Kerry.

Greener and Hook….. conservative propagandist widely known for sponsoring wacky off beat conservative morons. 

The Trailblazer Group…… founded by the deputy campaign manager of  Palin/McCain, and the Director of Operations for the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa.

The attempt by these high powered Republicans is to protray the Obama campaign as weak  on leaks.   However, truth is Dick Cheney caused more leaks in one month than have occurred over the entire Obama presidency.

Note:  all proper news organizations have disavowed all claims being made in the video, determining it to be…”wishful fiction”……

Many of the areas hit by the storm had also been hit by Irene. In New Jersey’s Hamilton Township, Tom Jacobsen also recalled heavy spring flooding and a particularly heavy winter before that.

“I’m starting to think we really ticked off Mother Nature somehow, because we’ve been getting spanked by her for about a year now,” he said while grabbing some coffee at a convenience store…..

OF COURSE YOU DID, DUMMY. YOU VOTED FOR REPUBLICANS!

Today the jobs bill got sent to the House.

Obama wants taxes on the wealthy, He wants increased taxes on corporate profits to help pay for his jobs bill…

As one reads the bill, one remembers that these same ideas, these same concepts were in last November’s finance bills, which passed the House, and got stalled in the Senate…..
One remembers these same ideas, these same concepts, were in the $4 Trillion Deficit Reduction Act, and all parties were excited that finally something good was coming out of Congress, ….. that is until the Eric Cantor contingent stormed out of the meetings because of higher taxes, and the votes fell short…

Metaphorically speaking it is like Obama (truth) keeps running into a brick wall(stupidity)… and we, keep blaming Obama for not being tough enough….

We should be focused on tearing down that wall…..

‘Tear Down that Wall, Delaware Liberal, Tear Down that Wall..”

Instead, in our frustration (exactly what it is) we blame the very one person on the attack….. ????

I remember a story told here once before, of a charge across “no man’s land” in WWI, where everyone was mowed down except one lucky person… as he stormed the trench, he looked around and noticed he was the only one facing a trench full of weaponry. In disgust, the threw down his weapon and walked away back to his own lines… In the strange code of soldiers honor, no one fired a shot…..

The wall has never been weaker. It is time to chip away at the Republican base, just like we did in 2006… We have facts.. they have Eric Cantor extolling them to remain firm… Our way gets America back on its feet; their way lets them keep their extra 5%. It would be wise to remember, that even Hitler had his dedicated youth during the last days… They have their Young Republicans… blindly following directives that make little if any sense.

Everyone needs to call them on it…

Now is the time to pull out every chart showing that Republicans ruin everything they put their hands on.. Whether it be the United States, the State of Delaware, or Sussex and Kent Counties… Republicans do no good at all..

Which is why they are so well funded….

If you were doing something obscenely illegal, wouldn’t you be paying off the law as well?

So look into yourselves and decide whether you want to be part of the problem… or solution…

The solution is to turn Republicans into a joke. And to do it publicly… The battle is independent voters. And they get hit with shit from both sides… Our shit, simply has to smell a little better….

Focusing on our frustration, only strengthens the other side; that other side which created the deficit, destroyed the global economy, lost 1 out of 10 American jobs, cost you 30% more in insurance premiums, Increased your gas prices 3 times, cost you 60% more for your electrical power, raised the cost of your prescriptions 450%….

Start tearing down the wall………………….

So why and how are Republicans trying to do away with collective bargaining within our educational system?

The “why” I’ll leave alone for now and let others answer. The “how”, is far more interesting….

I will now try to put myself in their shoes and argue like a Republican.

“An honest examination of the facts proves that collective bargaining between the school systems and unions has created a climate of antagonism between those who should be working together to advance a positive agenda for our children and preparing them for a bright future.”

“The process itself is adversarial and confrontational and does not lend itself to cooperation. Due to the mandatory negotiating privilege given to the unions by their State, a school system will often agree to unreasonable demands in a contract simply to prevent an expensive lawsuit. Ultimately, this impacts the taxpayers—the very people whom the teachers, the school board, and the Legislature work for and from whom they expect positive results in the classroom”

“In the poisonous atmosphere that has been created through collective bargaining, do we really have to ask why this nation is ranked so low in education results?”

“I do not want teachers to suffer. I want to reward excellent teachers for doing a great job and producing students who are prepared for the challenges of the 21st century. I believe effective teachers are the greatest resource we have in providing a quality education to our students. Good teachers deserve to be rewarded for their excellence. Unfortunately, collective bargaining preserves the status quo and prevents merit pay for highly effective teachers and teacher bonuses and incentives for those who will rescue a failing school.”

“There are schools that do not collective bargain. These school systems use “collaborative bargaining” where the teacher association representatives sit down with the school board to negotiate. Teachers in those school systems have the ability to directly negotiate their contracts while continuing their ability to remain in an association and attend board meetings.

It should be pointed out that, on average in these systems, teacher pay is increased more rapidly and students achieve at a higher rate.”

“Collaborative bargaining” empowers our teachers and allows the State to bring willing partners to the table to advance the interests of its children. Under collective bargaining, the non-union teachers in are prohibited from taking their concerns directly to the school board. With these current conditions, these non-union teachers must adhere to contract negotiations, whether they like the terms or not. If they want their “voice” heard, their only option is to pay the union so they can go through the union representatives.”

“The truth is that the bill to remove collective bargaining, is a pro-teacher bill that rewards achievement in the classroom and helps promote the best and the brightest in the educational field. By eliminating the collectivist authority of the unions that are trying to dominate the conversation, this bill serves the best interests of students.”

“For years in this great nation, unions have stymied education reforms. If you don’t believe me, just do the research. I recommend you read “Collective Bargaining in Education,” a study by the Harvard Education Press. This is an examination of the history of collective bargaining and how unions motivate their members. For decades, the union has promoted the idea that the “working conditions of our teachers are the learning conditions of our students” while blocking vital reforms and favoring existing arrangements that protect jobs and restrict accountability for student performance and achievement.”

The study “A Better Bargain: Overhauling Teacher Collective Bargaining for the 21st Century” by Frederick M. Hess, American Enterprise Institute, and Martin R. West, the Brookings Institute reveals:
“Collective bargaining contracts are especially problematic on three fronts:

• They restrict efforts to use compensation as a tool to recruit, reward, and retain the most essential and effective leaders.

• They impede attempts to assign or remove teachers on the basis of fit or performance.

• They over-regulate school life with work rules that stifle creative problem solving without demonstrably improving teachers’ ability to serve students.

“Union leaders typically greet this diagnosis with a reflexive refrain: “What is good for teachers is good for students.” While superficially appealing, that sentiment is simply untrue. In fact, the results of the collective bargaining process are too often incompatible with providing a high-quality education for all students.”

“According to Tennessee’s Comptroller’s most recent weighted salary reports, teachers in systems that are not involved in collective bargaining on average make more in salary and benefits than those in systems involved in collective bargaining. Student achievement is higher in non-negotiating systems according to data from Tennessee Department of Education `Report Card’. Statewide average student test scores of non-collective bargaining local school districts top negotiating school districts, according to an analysis done by Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey’s office using the data of the Tennessee Department of Education Report Card.”

Collective bargaining is about what is best for the union and its ability to retain power, not the children. That is the union’s mission and you can hear it for yourself by going to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyGiuoKr-ew&quot; here. Collective bargaining prohibits performance pay for teachers. All teachers are treated the same—the excellent ones are paid the same as the poor performers. In a nation where we try to motivate students to achieve more and aspire to be more, what kind of message does this send?”

“It is fundamentally unfair. Collective bargaining makes it almost impossible to dismiss teachers for poor performance or misconduct, which means less pay and lower benefits for high performing teachers”.

“The good teachers know exactly who is getting the job done and who is not, yet the union blocks the solution and ultimately our children suffer. The union is focused solely on protecting its self-interests, not educating students and this one-size fits all approach denigrates good teachers and good students alike.”

“The sweeping reforms contained in Race to the Top (RTTT) would have never passed if they would have had to occur on the local level through negotiations. Ask yourself, “Why did we have to get the union to sign off on RTTT? Why were they blocking the reforms in the first place?” More alarmingly (and perhaps unsurprisingly) reports are already coming in from school systems that the local unions are throwing up roadblocks to these reforms the State agreed to in order to participate in RTTT.

I hope that all conservative teachers do their research to fully understand what the NEA is all about and that by being a part of that organization and investing your hard earned money, you are promoting their mission. This is a mission that I know the people of Sussex County do not agree with at all.

Here is the NEA’s 2010 legislative program (which is in direct opposition to what conservatives and Republicans believe).

* Mandatory full-day kindergarten attendance for all children, with federal money if the state can’t afford it.
* Substantial increases in federal education funding.
* Repeal of the right-to-work provision of federal labor law.
* A tax-supported, single-payer health care plan for all residents of the U.S., its territories and Puerto Rico.
* Federal funding for the education of illegal aliens.
* Federal programs to teach schoolchildren about different sexual orientations.
* Legislation to prohibit religious organizations that accept federal funding from basing hiring decisions on religion, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, or HIV/AIDS status.
* Affirmative action to redress historical patterns of discrimination.
* Legislation to study possible reparations to African-Americans to address residual effects of slavery.
* Statehood for the District of Columbia.
* Opposition to tuition tax credits, vouchers and parental option or “choice” in education programs.
* Opposition to denying student aid to illegal alien college students.
* Opposition to using draft registration as an eligibility criterion for financial aid.
* Opposition to the testing of teachers as a criterion for job retention, promotion, tenure or salary increases.
* Opposition to legislation that denies illegal aliens’ access to public schools.
* Opposition to designating English as the official language of the United States.
* Opposition to the use of voter ID cards for voting in local, state and national elections.
* Opposition to privatization of Social Security.
* Opposition to any constitutional amendment limiting taxes or the federal budget.

“Finally I want all to keep in mind. Not only do our representatives represent this state’s teachers but they also represent the students, the parents and the taxpayers who grudging give over their hard earned cash, to publicly fund each and every school system…. They have rights too, and one of those rights… is to demand quality education for their children.”

“And the easiest and quickest way to do that, ….. is to reward good teachers and punish bad ones. Collective bargaining currently makes that impossible…”

And there you have it. That is the best case I could come up for busting up the unions and making them powerless to impact anything.
I’ll be back to rebut myself sometime later……..

Chain of events:

1) Someone told Cheney “no” over the Thanksgiving weekend.

When Dick Cheney, the vice-president and leading Iran hawk, was briefed on the about-turn a couple of weeks ago, there was a “pretty vivid exchange” with intelligence officials in the White House, one participant told The New York Times.

According to an intelligence source, Cheney sought to block the NIE’s release, but was overruled.

2) Cheney develops irregular heartbeat.

Cheney, who has a history of heart problems, was discovered to have an irregular heartbeat around 7 a.m. when he was seen by doctors at the White House for a lingering cough from a cold. He remained at work throughout the day, joining President Bush in meetings with Mideast leaders.

3) Cheney in Hospital for day

Vice President Dick Cheney was recovering at home Monday night after being treated for an irregular heart beat, found Monday morning during a checkup for lingering cold symptoms, Cheney’s office said

4) NIE comes out with Iran free of Nuclear weapons.

David Wurmser, Cheney’s former Middle East adviser, charged: “One has to look at the authors of this report to judge how much it can really be banked on.”

The “guilty men” were named as Thomas Fingar, Kenneth Brill and Vann Van Diepen, all now in top US intelligence posts, who had seethed at Bush policies for years and were said to have executed a triumphant revenge.

Yet there was an infusion of new information about Iran that persuaded all 16 American intelligence agencies to back the NIE.

Israeli sources told The Sunday Times that a key part of the jigsaw was supplied by General Ali Reza Asghari, 63, a former Iranian deputy defence minister who is believed to have defected after disappearing from his hotel room in Istanbul in February.

The Iranian regime accused Washington of kidnapping him, but western intelligence sources say he is in America of his own accord. His debriefing was so secretive that information went directly to the director of the CIA, rather than to senior officials. “People who would normally know, and should know, are completely out of the loop,” said one informed source.

American intelligence agencies also received a trove of information last summer, including intercepts of Iranian phone calls by GCHQ, the British listening station, which suggested that Iranian military officials were angered by a decision in late 2003 to halt a project to design nuclear weapons. The suspicion that the revelations might be a complex hoax were discounted.

Yet some American intelligence experts remain baffled by the black and white picture presented by the NIE. Former CIA official Paul Pillar, who helped to compile the 2005 NIE on Iran, believes the difference with the 2007 report has been greatly exaggerated.

“It’s described as a dramatic 180-degree reversal but it’s not. The key ‘pacing element’ about when Iran is going to get a nuclear weapon is the uranium enrichment issue and that hasn’t changed,” he said.

As before, the NIE suggests “with moderate confidence” that the Iranians could be capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon by 2010-2015.

5) There is no credibility behind invading Iran. it is off.

Bottom line, it appears the facts did not change….Just our interpretation of facts based on the evidence….In other words back in 2005 we estimated that Iran could have a crude weapon between 2010-2015. Today we estimate that Iran could have a crude weapon between 2010-2015. The difference is that the evidence that Iran had stopped in 2003, was not deleted by Mr. Cheney….

In other words, we were lied to…..and now we are not.

So who is that hero? Hmmmm……

I disagree with some of those who put down Petraeus as a liar, simply because they fail to agree with his assessment. It may come across to some as funny that I have thought, if not said, some to the same things against which I am now taking issue, and if so, so be it……

What changed?

What happened was this. I became more familiar with what was going on within Iraq. Of course, being of skeptic I tended to look at things hard. Very hard. To my surprise, I found out that I was seeing real signs of hope. This hope was not in the eyes of the politicos; it was the eyes of Iraqis. Since desperate souls grasp any rope tossed to them, I have waited quietly to make sure that these Iraqis were not suffering any type of delusion. I listened to all three reports expecting to see something in them dash my half submerged optimism, upon the reality of Iraqi shores.

I think my conversion may have come about when I was studying the conversion of Al Anbar province. Those Sunnis chose to back us because they like us. Of course it wasn’t much of a contest, considering who their alternative was…..But it may have also come while studying the criticism leveled at us by the British, as they packed up and split. They criticized our arrogance , heavy handedness, and unwillingness to trust: all valid complaints Each of these were addressed under the Petraeus doctrine. After reading the Petraeus Book on the suppression of Insurrections, I realized his tactics were not part of the problem. They were in direct opposition to the problem. I understood what he was trying to accomplish.

What happened under Petraeus, happened not because of the amount of troops we had at our disposal, but because of the way we used them, that made a difference.

The surge may have helped. For before the surge, we, due to our insufficient numbers, acted like Soviets, if I may be blunt. We were there to suppress and pacify. We, with our own patriotic roots, should have been more aware that by taking that stance, we directly increased our own opposition.

Once we added just a few more troops on the ground, we were able to interact with the local population, while still having enough force surrounding us to protect us. Prior to the surge, the problem was that whenever a few shots were fired, we would have to shut down our clinic, and head out across the desert. However with additional troops able to chase the insurgents, the military medical corp could continue to cure the local citizen’s ills. That was the difference. We could finish what we started.

Of course the original problem was created by republicans, Rumsfeld in particular. Had we ramped up enough ground forces from day 1, we never would have needed the surge in the first place. Yes, we know their insurrection began because they believed we wanted their oil. (That republican Cheney messed everything up). But if I understand correctly, we dropped that privatized oil plank as a “no go” and are now supporting the nationalization of oil assets. We are pursuing more of a Biden local strategy, tribal leader by tribal leader, and doing so because of the surge. Paul Bremmer’s national unification strategy was not working.

What I found, in essence, was that everything I said eight months ago that we needed to do in Iraq to win, we were now doing.

Can this late development be twisted to mean I justify this war that was fought on false pretenses? Hell no. It will always stand as a stupid war, instigated by stupid ass republicans. Nothing can ever change that. We could have achieved much better results at far less cost, had we chosen to use other means.

But we didn’t. We went in against all common dignity, history and sense. So since we did, does the resulting mess lie at our doorstep? Does we broke it, mean we own it?

Perhaps. But instead of a “oops, I broke it” moment, it is more of an “Honey, I’m pregnant” moment. Whatever happened way back then, has now changed things permanently.

Of course we can put up our hands and say, “Whoa, that’s your problem bitch…” and walk out the door. Many people do and feel no remorse about doing so. But that is not how I want my America to be perceived. I want My America to be responsible. I want My America to do the right thing. My America will be no punk. My America will be a Dad……….

So emotionally, that is how I have come around about to see how we could win in that barren land. It is nothing new. Biden has pushed it for years.

To win, these things must happen. They are in our control.

Congress must finally stand up to the President. If Iraq can finally realize that America does not equal Bush, that we too think he’s a moron, that we too can admit and correct our mistakes, our relations will improve. If the American Congress ever gets some backbone, and forces upon the president a withdrawal timetable, the Iraqis too will get some backbone and begin controlling their own affairs.

Congress must stand up to the president, and eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy 2%, and invest that money into Iraq’s infrastructure, hiring Iraqis to build their own sewers, roads, and buried electrical conduits. If Congress could do that, then the Iraqis might get some back bone and start controlling their own affairs.

Congress must stand up to the President, and force impeachment if he fails to comply with Congress’s orders. Only then will Iraq realize that America is not over there to conquer, but sincerely is over there to help. If we are decisive over here, they will be decisive over there,……. instead killing time and each other until our next inauguration day.

Congess finds out the dangers faced by our solders

We have heard so often that the surge is working. Perhaps it is working far too well. Four arch-Conservative Congressional delegates flying out of Baghdad, came under fire just as their C130 lifted off from the Baghdad airport. Judging from the depth of the Pentagon’s reaction, it was a close call.

The C-130 cargo aircraft conducted evasive maneuvers after a nighttime takeoff from Baghdad, said Ken Lundberg, spokesman for Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida, who was on the plane.

In addition to Martinez, the plane was carrying fellow Republican Sens. Richard Shelby of Alabama and James Inhofe of Oklahoma, and Alabama Rep. Robert “Bud” Cramer, a Democrat.

With the exception of Cramer the Blue Dog Democrat, all of the three republicans would be considered extremely conservative. Shelby, was the individual responsible for announcing that we had intercepted Osama bin Laden’s phone messages. Inhofe accused the Weather Channel of creating global warming. Martinez was in charge of Bush 2000’s Florida campaign, and we all know what happened there. In 2006, he helped craft the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 that would be referred to by much of his own party, as “amnesty”.

All three of these are extremely conservative; all three are potentially embarrassing to the future Republican party; all three have uttered controversial statements like this one…. by Inhofe:

“I am outraged by the ‘outrage’ over the revelations of abuse at Abu Ghraib”, suggesting that liberals being outraged over Rumsfeld’s abusive tactics, were more of a outrage to American values, than the actual torture practiced on Iraqis by American servicemen.

Each of these Republicans has become and will be a future embarrassment to their party in the upcoming elections. Each of these statements will be pounded over the airwaves with undulating precision.

But if you look beyond the glossed over press reports there seems to be something deeper going on behind this incident. Perhaps it was more than just a close call?

For one, why would the C 130 fired upon as it left Baghdad, just happen to carry three of the most conservative members of Congress? Of course one option, and the first considered, is that it occurred randomly. However two other possibilities that could occur, are 1) either the Iraqi insurgents have remarkable intelligence capabilities, capable of communicating the precise moment the plane lets go its brakes to a position miles away, or……2) it was an inside job.

Was it random? At roughly 150 of these planes flying in and out of Baghdad on a daily basis, the odds at firing on this one randomly selected over the last five years, would be: 1 chance out of 273,750. That would be a 2737.5% chance of not happening. But anything is possible, right?

So let’s examine the logistics behind the alternatives. To fire upon this one plane, the enemy would need to know which plane out of the twenty five lined up on the tarmac awaiting takeoff, contained the conservative legislators. That means the insurgents would have had access to Baghdad military airport, in the heart of the super safe Green Zone.

If the enemy was this intelligent, they should know that killing four congressional legislators would not end the war. It would escalate it further. (To end the war they would need to kill liberals.) They would also know that creating martyrs out of the four most conservative Congressional members, would embolden a 9/11 response across this country. It would rally international support behind the US, now waning worldwide, and create an international environment more hostile to Al Qaeda. The insurgents would be foolish to fire upon that plane.

So who stands to gain if these men were shot down? Obviously those republicans waiting in the wings in their safe red districts, would benefit. So would the RNC. There would be NO chance of a blue taking any of these seats. Obviously the Republican party would be better off by not having their own comment blaming “the Weather Channel for creating global warming”, receiving international airplay. (They are so losing this next election; I hope that Mondale lives long enough to see his dubious record broken.) Obviously the next big republican scandal that will come out of Florida (Martinez), would be nice to nip in the bud. Furthermore anyone having a vendetta against that one single person responsible for leaking that nugget that we were listening to Osama’s phone calls just after 9/11, causing his GPS location to be lost to us forever, would rub their hands with revenge.

These shots fired, based on a cross reference of the press reports description and the Pentagon’s map of Baghdad, originated from an area safe from insurgents, and entrusted to private corporate mercenary services. The location of these shots makes it even more unlikely that an insurgent pulled the trigger. The odds that an operative of Al Qaeda, infiltrated a private security service such as Blackwater, was in real time informed as to when this very plane was taking off, and knew exactly when to pull the trigger seconds before he even saw or heard the plane, all without any experience of ever having done so before at this location…….. are impossible to calculate…………….

If this was an inside job, perhaps instead of an assassination, it was a mere attempt at a scare. They missed on purpose. For by instilling fear in some of the most conservative members of the Congress, one could continue to count firmly on their future loyalty and support.  No doubt as they spoke before their respective branches of Congress, they could then be counted on to convey to others, that the threat was real.

For if on their return, had these four wavered and decided that all future expenditures were nothing but a massive waste of money, that the surge was not working, and that it was time to make a change in Iraq policy, then dreams of all neocons everywhere, would be nothing more than a wisp of gunsmoke……………

But such talk is just “hullabaloo” , really……… it was nothing more than a random event, a one in a 273,750 chance.
defensive actions by a C130 over Baghdad

Those we should really fear

What a difference between Fox News, a stupid ass propaganda machine, and Fox TV. As a “24” buff, I am holding out hope that old adage of “the last is always the best”, holds true again…….. But whereas that television show always illustrates just how easily terrorists can invade our daily lives, the terrorists are always……and the key word is always, controlled by someone within the White House. The enemy turns out to be someone representing corporate America, …our friend……How prophetic…

So in my effort to write a sequel to “24” that mirrors real life, I decided to investigate a company that has shown up on our radar screens almost as frequently as Halliburton: Bechtel. The one good thing about Bechtel is that it is based in San Francisco. ( I did that for my friends on the right…..) Otherwise it seems like it could provide a conduit for a weapon of mass destruction as demonstrated in “24” that could sufficiently to do enough damage to cement martial law and provide Americans with their own version of Fidel Castro. Fortunately ours would talk less.

Perhaps if you knew what I just learned, it would sound a little less far-fetched……

Bechtel participated in the building of Hoover Dam in the 1930s. It has also had involvement in several other high profile construction engineering projects, including the Channel Tunnel, numerous power projects, refineries, and nuclear power plants, BART, Jubail Industrial City and Kingdom Centre and Tower in Saudi Arabia, Hong Kong International Airport, the Big Dig, the rebuilding of the civil infrastructure of Iraq funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the hauling and installing of more than 35,000 trailers and mobile homes for Hurricane Katrina victims in Mississippi.

The company, which guards its privacy religiously, and is closely allied to power, is often the target of accusations by journalists and politicians, in need of a corporation to pick on…..

As of 2001, a darker sinister side of Bechtel has arisen. Recently, the company has come under criticism for the alleged mismanagement of the Big Dig project, its financial links to the bin Laden family, and the manner in which it received Iraqi rebuilding contracts after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Politicians in the United States and in Europe have made accusations of cronyism between the George W. Bush administration and Bechtel. It seems that anywhere in the world one finds a oil, power, or water producing facility, Bechtel is there.

Just how moral and ethical is this corporation?

Recently in Bolivia Bechtel received the rights to provide water to the city Cochabamba, Bolivia’s third largest. Shortly thereafter, water rates in that city went up an average of about 200 percent, an action which resulted in the Cochabamba protests of 2000. Many had to withdraw their children from school and stop using doctors because of higher costs for water. Martial law was declared, and Bolivian police killed at least 6 people and injured over 170 protesters. Amidst Bolivia’s nationwide economic collapse and growing national unrest over the state of the economy, the Bolivian government withdrew the water contract. Bechtel sued the Bolivian government for breaking the contract…….

Back on the home front, in a contract that should have been broken but wasn’t, Bechtel received over 660 million to rebuild Iraq. Most of the Iraqi anger focused on the US today, is a direct result of work that was promised, but never done…..However, they took the money…..

In America at least 7 of its executives have sat in cabinet positions or on governmental blue ribbon panels. These include one secretary of defense and one secretary of state. The company is extremely close to the Saudi Arabian royal family and maintains very close ties to the Bin Laden family.

But the scariest scenario is one of which I was completely unaware until browsing around today. Bechtel is the controlling partner of the Los Alamos Nuclear Weapons center in Bill Richardson’s home state of New Mexico.

It started with political dissatisfaction over the University of California’s opposition to the Iraq war, that led the Department of Energy to open its contract away from the University, to bids from other vendors in 2003. Although the university and the laboratory have had difficult relations many times since their first World War II contract, this was the first time that the university has ever had to compete for management of the laboratory. The University of California decided to create a private company with the Bechtel Corporation, Washington Group International, and the BWX Technologies to bid on the contract to operate the laboratory. The UC/Bechtel lead corporation – Los Alamos National Security, LLC (LANS) – was pitted against a team formed by the University of Texas System partnered with Lockheed-Martin. In December 2005, the Department of Energy announced that LANS had won the next seven-year contract to manage and operate the laboratory.

So on June 1, 2006, the University of California ended its 60 years of direct involvement in operating Los Alamos National Laboratory, and management control of the laboratory was taken over by the Bechtel offshoot. Approximately 95% of the former 10,000 who were not democrats, plus UC employees at Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory were rehired by the Bechtel offshoot, LANS to continue working at the laboratory. Other than the University of California appointing three members to the eleven member board of directors that oversees LANS, the university now has virtually no responsibility or direct control.

University of California policies and regulations that used to apply to UC campuses and its two national laboratories in California (Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore) no longer apply to LANL

Just how secure is Los Alamos? Apparently from the outside it is secure. But from the inside,  a different scenario emerges. Whether at the “Big Dig” site in Boston, or the plains of Iraq, this company is not well know for its strict oversight and reputation for safety. Now, a corporation that is awarded contracts, earning billions wherever massive destruction occurs, is itself in charge of controlling a large amount of America’s uranium inventory. Soon, if it hasn’t started already, trucks are to begin transporting this fissionable material to a different secure location hidden in an undisclosed Nevada desert; how much will you bet that not all of it will reach its destination? With a price over 2 billion dollars an ounce, you think it will all make the journey intact?

I wouldn’t bet on it…..

So it appears that this administration, which is so desperately seeking to hang on, not only to its power, but to its historical place in annuals of time, now, has through it’s close friends in Bechtel, access to very means needed to create its own Reichstag fire, and using that excuse to declare martial law and seize power: this time, unfortunately killing thousands upon thousands of American citizens.

Far fetched? Perhaps….but it is not as far fetched as one would like……..

Possibility of another terrorist attack?

Unconfirmed talk is that international terrorist chatter is as high as it was in August of 01, just before the planes came………Definitely expect an attack within 90 days we are told. Code Red.

Wasn’t it a former Pennsylvanian senator named Santorum who said last week that what ultraconservatives needed to push their agenda forward is another terrorist attack like 9/11? What?

Isn’t that what Mitch McConnell is currently peddling around Congress, this heightened level of chatter? But who is the source? Silence…..Is there any independent confirmation? Silence…… The only answer the public hears is a rumble from the gut of Chertoff. ……..Feed me……

The fear every American has, is not from the random violence of a terrorist, who supposedly will fight the sharks and swim across the ocean to get here, but of our own self-appointed president, declaring martial law, stripping us of our rights, in order to stay in power forever. What better method than to use a massive terrorist attack to push ones agenda…… It worked the last time, right?

This time I am not so sure it would work. If one has an employee who makes the same mistake twice, big time, one fires his ass. A terrorist attack is definitely big time. And whose ass did we entrust the last time to make us safe? And now miraculously those same people are telling us that Al Qaeda is as stronger than it was in the summer of 01?

That doesn’t make me scared. It really pisses me off!  How on earth can the greatest country in the world, be completely powerless to contain Robin Hood and his band of merry men, climbing over moon rocks while carrying a kidney machine? Bottom line is that they can’t…. unless not finding him is being done on purpose.

“What is most troubling is that no one in a position of authority is trying to get to the bottom of this.

If GOP leaders like Dennis Milligan (R-Ark) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa) possess information that could protect the American people from another terrorist attack, the CIA should interrogate them using the techniques our Vice President has approved,” Fetzer observed. “Let’s water-board them and subject them to sexual humiliation. After all, that’s what we are doing to prevent attacks abroad. Why aren’t they being used here? Chertoff appears to be making no effort to get to the bottom of this. Bush can’t claim to be ‘the security president’ if he won’t keep us secure.”How much money have we sunk into Iraq, where according to every nation’s intelligence agencies, there were NO terrorists before we started. How many bridges could we have inspected and repaired in this country if we had used that money less foolishly?……..

If we have an administration that allows us another terrorist attack, this time killing between 30,000 and 300,000, we need to impeach that administration; not give them more power. What the hell have we been spending our children’s money on? and they are telling me that terror is worse now?…. than it was before 9/11?

And they want us to trust who? Should another attack occur, an attack more viscous than 9/11, the ugly truth is that such an attack could only occur because one man fell asleep at the wheel: George W Bush. America will be furious. They will not reward him with powers of tyranny, they will impeach!

Cheney’s diversion in Iraq provided a lull in the war on terrorism. Had we finished Afghanistan first, maybe made a couple or secret raids across the border into Pakistan, there would be no Al Qaeda. But no, we are now being warned of an eminent attack………..

If the unthinkable occurs and we are attacked, America must get it’s own house in order first before striking back. America must replace its 2 leaders with ones who are competent,… so that when our time comes to return the favor to Al Qaeda………we won’t make the same mistake twice………..

Bush can’t claim to be ‘the security president’ if he won’t keep us secure