Iraq War from Inside the Adminstration

The following are quotes from a new book about the Iraq war. Can you guess the author who said the following?

• "Events have showed that our willingness to trust the judgment of Bush and his team was misplaced."
• "History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided — that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder."
• "War should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary."
• "Bush and his advisers knew that the American people would almost certainly not support a war launched primarily for the ambitions purpose of transforming the Middle East. Rather than open this Pandora's Box, the administration chose a different path — not employing out-and-out deception, but shading the truth."
• The author accuses the Bush and his administration of "intentional ignoring of intelligence to the contrary," a "lack of candor underlying the campaign for war," a "lack of inquisitiveness," and being "too stubborn to change and grow."

So, who was this leftist, commie, America-hating, flag-burning, peacenik, elitist, enemy sympathizer? Scott McClellan, a Bush loyalist who worked as his press secretary and followed him from Texas to Washington to be part of his administration. The fallout from this book should be interesting to watch.

The Daily Show: Rob Riggle on Bush's Iraq Strategy

Why is The Daily Show always at its funniest when it's saddest?

$12 Billion a month gets you one heck of a war, these days

Remember the Iraq war? Based on news headlines, you'd think Americans (or at least the U.S. media) has forgotten we're at war.

On top of the fact young Americans are dying and being wounded and the fact many feel the war hasn't made us more safe, there's this: This $%*&@ war is #*&%!+ expensive.

Stop for a moment to consider that our country is facing some of the worst economic news in decades, and then consider this: The war in Iraq is costing the United States $12 billion per month. The way the Bush administration has blundered in the planning and execution of this war will create debts and economic hardships for an entire generation or longer.

At the start of the US-led invasion, Larry Lindsey, then White House economic adviser, estimated that the war in Iraq could cost as much as $200bn. Because of this claim, he was fired from the job by the incredibly arrogant and ignorant Donald Rumsfelt, who had his own estimate of $50 to $60 billion. (I wonder if Donald has ever apologized to Mr. Lindsey?)

The total cost to date is not as easy to estimate as you'd think. The most conservative estimate of the war's cost comes from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, whose estimate through September 30th is $413bn.

But in a new book by Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize winning economist, and Linda Bilmes, a senior official during the Clinton presidency, a much higher number is calculated. Their estimate is higher because it includes the future cost of caring for so many injured soldiers, interest paid on the war debt, macroeconomic costs from higher oil prices, and social costs not paid by the government, including the loss of productive capacity of those killed or wounded and quality of life impairments.

Care to guess what their estimate is of the total cost to the U.S. for the unnecessary war in Iraq? Here's a hint: The name of their book is The Three Trillion Dollar War.

Here are two small facts to put this horrible debacle into perspective:

• The US federal government spent $108m last year on research into autism, a condition affecting one in 150 children. We spend that in 4½ hours in Iraq.
  
  
• The Joint Economic Committee of Congress says the war has so far cost a US family of four $16,900, a bill that could rise to $37,000 by 2017.

Hey, don't blame me. I didn't vote for the Busy/Cheney/Rumsfield disaster!

You can read more about the cost of the war on FT.com.

McCain and Not.Will.I.Am: Parody of "Yes we can"

A week ago I posted an inspiring and artful piece of propoganda called "Yes We Can," which turned a speech by Barack Obama into an uplifting music video. Here is MoveOn.org's funny take on the McCain version. (Never too early to start slinging mud for the general election, I guess.)

Final Blog Entry of Major Andrew Olmsted

Major Andrew Olmsted was a blogger serving in Iraq whose posts can be found on the Rocky Mountain News Site. Sadly, he became a casualty of the war in Iraq this week but because he knew this was a possibility, he had given a final post to a friend to make in the event this happened.

You may find Andrew's last post to be a heartbreaking, funny, and interesting read. It's hard to read it and imagine what it is like to compose something that won't be read unless you die.

This is an entry I would have preferred not to have published, but there are limits to what we can control in life, and apparently I have passed one of those limits... What I don't want this to be is a chance for me, or anyone else, to be maudlin.

I'm dead. That sucks, at least for me and my family and friends. But all the tears in the world aren't going to bring me back, so I would prefer that people remember the good things about me rather than mourning my loss... So if you're up for that, put on a little 80s music (preferably vintage 1980-1984), grab a Coke and have a drink with me. If you have it, throw 'Freedom Isn't Free' from the Team America soundtrack in; if you can't laugh at that song, I think you need to lighten up a little. I'm dead, but if you're reading this, you're not, so take a moment to enjoy that happy fact.

I do ask (not that I'm in a position to enforce this) that no one try to use my death to further their political purposes. I went to Iraq and did what I did for my reasons, not yours. My life isn't a chit to be used to bludgeon people to silence on either side. If you think the U.S. should stay in Iraq, don't drag me into it by claiming that somehow my death demands us staying in Iraq. If you think the U.S. ought to get out tomorrow, don't cite my name as an example of someone's life who was wasted by our mission in Iraq. I have my own opinions about what we should do about Iraq, but since I'm not around to expound on them I'd prefer others not try and use me as some kind of moral capital to support a position I probably didn't support.

Click here to read the entire post.

Bush Ain't Done Yet

He may be a lame duck, but George Bush isn't ceasing his efforts to push his damaging political agenda both here and abroad. Here's the latest:

Susan Orr as Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs
The Bush administration has announced the appointment of staunchly anti-birth control Susan Orr to a leadership role in the Office of Population Affairs. Her responsibilities include U.S. contraception programs. Her past views and statements make her exceedingly unfit for this role.

Here are some gems from Ms. Orr's past:

• Narrowing the definition of child abuse: In 1999, Orr wrote a paper entitled "Child Protection at a Crossroads." In it, she argues for narrowing the definition of child abuse by restricting it to assault and serious neglect, arguing that Child Protective Services are "intruding into too many families' lives unnecessarily." She argued against helping the family "to attempt to repair or heal" and called for the repeal of mandatory reporting requirements that require people who work with children to report suspicions of child abuse.
• Opposing insurers covering contraceptives: In 2000, while working as a policy director at the Family Research Council, she objected to a Washington, D.C., city council bill requiring health insurers to pay for contraceptives. She said, "It's not about choice. It's not about health care. It's about making everyone collaborators with the culture of death."
• Real Women Stay Married: In 2000, Ms. Orr penned an editorial called, "Real Women Stay Married." The article claims that society hasn't been hard enough on women who seek divorce. "Never mind the vow taken before God and witnesses that you would stay through thick and thin. The important thing was self-fulfillment. If your husband wasn't meeting all your needs, it wasn't because you were asking too much." Her article ends, "Only God has the capacity to complete our lives. He should be the third part to any marriage."
• More opposition to birth control: In April 2001, when President Bush proposed ending contraceptive coverage for federal employees, Orr said, "We're quite pleased because fertility is not a disease. It's not a medical necessity that you have it."

Why anyone--even George Bush--would think Orr is an appropriate candidate for a post with important responsibilities pertaining to contraception programs is difficult to fathom. She may have a right to her views, but we as Americans have a right to have someone with an open and objective mind in this position. You can oppose Ms. Orr's appointment by completing this online petition. (Thanks to Laura for the heads up on this one.)

Planning an Iran Invasion?
In a terrifying column published on Halloween weekend, Trudy Rubin, a columnist for the Philadelphia Enquirer, mounts a convincing argument that the Bush Administration hasn't learned a damn thing in Iraq and is planning a war with Iran.

Never mind that Iran isn't the number one threat to America (al-Qaida in Pakistan is) or that our armed forces have been stretched thin trying to survive Bush's current wars. The words and actions of Bush, Cheney, and others in the administration are hinting at an eagerness to invade yet another country!

On Oct. 17, President Bush told the media that the way to avoid ''World War III'' was to prevent Iran ''from having the knowledge needed to make a nuclear weapon.'' What's sadly hilarious about this statement is that some people think WWIII is already underway--a fight between the West (or the US) (or Christianity) and Islam.

It won't matter that our country's intent in Afghanistan and Iraq isn't to combat Islam. If we invade Iran, the suspicions of many in the Middle East will be confirmed: They will believe the US is invading and occupying Muslim countries in an effort to undermine their beliefs and culture. (And if you don't think that belief will fuel support for terrorist organizations, you are either crazy or deluded.)

Few think it is a good idea for Iran to gain nuclear weapons, but our intelligence community believes they are years away. And remember the last time Bush and his cronies convinced us of an imminent nuclear threat? The talk of WMDs, mushroom clouds, and hard (but ultimately discredited) evidence led us to rush into a country that possessed no such weapons, at the cost of 3,838 American lives, 28,124 wounded Americans, and an estimated 38,366 Iraqi civilian deaths.

Read Ms. Rudin's chilling article, and if you wish to help MoveOn.org work to prevent a US war in Iran, you can donate here.

I Survived Blackwater

I guess today's postings are focused on Iraq--this is my third post about the war today.

In recent weeks, I've shared a few items about Blackwater, the private military contractor operating in Iraq. If I seem a bit obsessed, it's because the things I've learned have been shocking and disappointing.

Until a couple weeks ago, I knew of private contractors, but I figured there were a few thousand of them in the country. It turns out, there are more private contractors than there are troops, they operate under a different (and horrible) set of rules, and they've demonstrated reckless regard for the lives of their personnel, the Iraqis, and the cause of U.S. operations in Iraq.

Here's more evidence: Janessa Gans was a U.S. official in Iraq from 2003 to 2005. She wrote an article for the LA Times about Blackwater behavior that is just appalling. While being driven around Baghdad, she witnessed her Blackwater driver crash into a car of civilians that had no way to get out of their way. She has no idea what happened to the innocent people in that car--an older man with a young woman and three terrified children--because Blackwater never stops to find out what harm they've done.

In her words, "As we do the work of bridge building and improving our host citizens' lives, if the people providing our transportation and security are antagonizing, angering and even killing the people we are putatively trying to help, our entire mission is undermined."

Is this Real or Staged?

I check out LiveLeak.com a lot. It's a video Web site that supposedly is dedicated to showing videos other sites won't, although I think that's a lot of hogwash. One thing you will see on LiveLeak is quite a few videos out of Iraq, made by our troops. Is it just me, or do you think the troops should have something better to do when in life-threatening situations than video what's happening?

The Iraq war is, of course, the first war fought since video cameras and camera phones became cheap and ubiquitous. There must be thousands of video cameras in the hands of US military personnel, given the amount of video coming out of Iraq. My question is this: How is the presence of all these cameras impacting the actions of our troops? Might the cameras be sometimes used for less-than-noble purposes, and might they be impacting the safety of the troops and cost of the war?

Take, for example, the video below. You see a GI throw a grenade into a building, but it doesn't go where he expects and both he and the camera man run for their lives.



Perhaps we're so used to seeing fictional war on film and on TV that we don't give this brief video much thought but since this is a real situation, ask yourself what's happening from the perspective of the person shooting the video instead of the subject. Presumably, this is a dangerous situation. Using a grenade has inherent risk and represents deadly force, so if the troops are tossing it into that building, I think it's safe to say that inside are dangerous people who represent a threat and need to be killed or flushed out.

But if that is the case, why is one guy standing there with a camera to his eye? If insurgents might run out to escape the grenade with guns blazing, shouldn't the videographer instead have a gun in his hand, prepared to fight? The way I see it, there's two explanations, neither one of them very palatable:

• Either the camera guy is putting the lives of him and rest of his team in jeopardy because he isn't prepared for the outcome of the grenade going into the building, or
• this whole video is simple staged.

Personally, I think the latter. I just don't think in a dangerous situation that military personnel would be stupid enough to just stand there, unprotected, and risk their lives for the sake of a video. And that means that the people involved with this video are wasting valuable property and risking lives by goofing around with live ammo, just to send a video back home that demonstrates their heroism.

Luckily, this kind of video is the exception and not the rule, but it got me to wondering if video cameras aren't just allowing us to see more of the war, but perhaps may be changing the war itself.

Did the Pentagon Try to Screw Members of the Minnesota National Guard?

Members of the Minnesota National Guard, who had been deployed to Iraq longer than any other ground combat unit, came back home after 22 months expecting to receive their GI benefits. These benefits were denied because the troops' orders had been written for 729 days, and in order to receive the education benefits the troops needed to serve 730 days. Just one day more, and the soldiers would have received $500 to $800 per month to pay for school.

1st Lt. Jon Anderson is going for his master's degree in public administration, and fellow platoon leader, John Hobot, is working toward a degree in law enforcement. Both believe the Pentagon deliberately wrote orders for 729 days instead of 730 to avoid paying the benefit.

The Army is looking into this, but this is the sort of headline that shakes your faith the military is treating its people right. Funny how the White House is so quick to accuse others of not supporting the troops, but those in their administration may be trying to screw a bunch of guys who just want to continue their education after being away from their families, jobs, and schooling for almost two years.

Bush Administration Outsources Losing the War

Remember when the purpose of the Iraq war was to win the "hearts and minds" of Iraqis? Not any more. Now the Bush administration has found a way of outsourcing the job of alienating the citizens of Iraq and losing the war.

Last week, I wrote about how Blackwater, a private security firm used by the State Department, lied to Congress to cover it's ass about a 2004 incident that resulted in the death of four Americans.

Of course, Blackwater has been back in the news recently for a September 16th firefight that left 17 people dead and 24 wounded. If you don't know much about this incident--if you don't know what the U.S. government and U.S. citizens are doing to undermine our credibility (and safety)--then you should read this CNN article.

Some gut-wrenching quotes from the article:

• The guards fired five or six shots in an apparent attempt to scare people away, but one of the rounds struck a car and killed a young man who was sitting next to his mother.
• "I saw parts of the woman's head flying in front of me, blow up and then her entire body was charred."
• "My (nine-year-old) son was sitting behind me. He was shot in the head and his brains were all over the back of the car."
• "Now the Americans have killed him -- why? What did he do? What did I do?"
• About the American security firm: "They became the terrorists, not attacked by the terrorists."

How are you feeling about our efforts to win the Iraqi people? How do you suppose this played on Iraqi TV? Here's how: Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki described the incident as "a crime." How would you feel if a foreign contingent--not even real military people but rent-a-troops--randomly shot up an urban intersection, killing 17 Americans?

As if that isn't disheartening enough, look at the oversight and care the U.S. government gave to this incident: The State Department's initial report of last month's incident was written by a Blackwater contractor!

The U.S. is investigating the September 16th tragedy, but given Blackwater's record I am not at all confident anyone will be held accountable. Yesterday, a Congressional report, issued by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, contended that employees of Blackwater have fired their deadly weapons in 195 incidents in Iraq since 2005, and in 163 of those 195 cases, the Blackwater contractors fired first. More often than not they fired from moving vehicles without ever stopping to check for the dead or wounded. The report also contends that the U.S. State Department has tried to buy off the relatives of those Iraqi civilians killed by Blackwater personnel.

And if you think this is an Iraqi problem and that American contractors who kill innocent Iraqis will face justice, you'd be wrong. L. Paul Bremer's Order 17, issued on June 27, 2004, declared that U.S. private contractors in Iraq are completely immune from Iraqi legal processes and regulations.

There are now more private contractors in Iraq than there are U.S. soldiers. 40 cents out of every U.S. federal dollar spent in Iraq have gone into the pockets of private contractors. And they're completely immune from the consequence of their actions. Does this make you feel as ill at ease as it does me?

We cannot easily wash our hands of this--our freely elected leaders using our tax dollars are not showing wisdom or caution in Iraq. I really hope some good can come out of everything we've done in Iraq, or else the deaths of thousands of Americans (and tens of thousands of Iraqis) will be for nothing. Every time I read an article like this, it just makes me think we're creating another generation of terrorists who will grow up resenting the U.S.--not for the freedoms we have or our way of life--but for specific and heinous misdeeds in their country that went unpunished.

Private Iraq Security Firm Lies to Congress

I know virtually nothing about Blackwater, the private security firm the US uses in Iraq. But based on this one article, I don't like them or trust them.

The firm "delayed and impeded" a congressional probe into the 2004 killings of four of its employees in Falluja, Iraq, the House Oversight Committee said Thursday in a report. Blackwater erroneously claimed documents related to the incident were classified.

And once Congress got the documents, it's easy to see why Blackwater tried to cover its ass. According to Blackwater's own reports on the killings, the men killed in Falluja had been sent into the area without proper crew, equipment or even maps. It sent its team on the mission without properly armored vehicles and machine guns. It also cut the standard mission team by two members, thus depriving them of rear gunners. And on top of all that, Blackwater took on the Falluja mission after being warned that it was too dangerous!

As a result of Blackwater's careless attitude toward the lives of its contractors, Jerry Zovko, Scott Helvenston, Mike Teague and Wesley Batalona were ambushed, dragged from their vehicles and killed on March 31, 2004. The burned and mutilated remains of two of the men were hung from a bridge over the Euphrates River.

But as if acting in careless disregard for the lives of its contractors wasn't enough, and as if lying to Congress to cover its tracks wasn't quite sufficient to spark outrage, Blackwater managed to piss me off with this response to the House report: "What the report fails to acknowledge is that the terrorists determined what happened that fateful day in 2004." Stealing a page from the Bush administration play book, the company that ignored warnings, failed to equip their men, and sent them into very hostile territory to die played the "terrorist" card.

It shouldn't be surprising that this organization tried to spin an unspinnable event. What is suprising is how little we know about Blackwater. According to The Nation (see below), the Bush administration has supplemented the 150,000 troops on the ground with an additional 100,000 private security contractors. Blackwater is among the largest of these, and it is run by a "right wing, Christian, conservative bankroller of President Bush."

And get this--the Bush Administration doesn't include the deaths of private security contractors in the Iraq death count! Even though these are Americans serving in a war zone and conducting military-like services, they don't count. Sadly, over 1,000 of these war contractors have been killed in Iraq. Added to the 3,801 American soldiers killed in Iraq and the 300 troops from other coalition countries, that brings the total deaths for the US and its allies to over 5,000 young men and women.

The things that sadden and surprise me about the Iraq war seem endless. I won't stop being saddened, but perhaps I should stop being surprised.

Youssif's Story Gives Me Hope

Here's a news story that should be the lead on every broadcast in America (if they can wedge it between stories about OJ's arrest and Britney's latest embarrassment.) This is the kind of story that gives me hope.

Youssif is a 5-year-old Iraqi boy who was doused with gas by masked men and set on fire on January 15. His burns were so bad, he had trouble eating. His parents appealed for assistance, and CNN contacted the Children's Burn Foundation.

As Youssif's story began to be shared, a miracle happened. More than 13,000 strangers wrote letters and checks to help this boy they'd never met. One person sent a check for $45,000; another mailed in $10,000. Most were much smaller contributions, less than $100.

A US soldier serving in Iraq wrote, "I thought I was tough. But when I read the story about Youssif, I cried." A young girl sent a note that said, "I feel really bad for what happened" along with a one-dollar bill.

The foundation had estimated it would cost $300,000 to provide Youssif and his family all the costs associated with his surgeries, medical care, living expenses and whatever else they might need. Donations have surpassed that, and Youssif's family has requested the additional money go to aid other burned children.

Young Youssif continues to touch lives. On a trip to the beach in California he saw the ocean for the first time in his life. Nearby, a person with a church outing recognized Youssif and asked the parents if they might pray for Youssif. Spontaneously, dozens of people dropped to their knees on the beach to pray for strength and patience for the boy and his family. His mother was moved to tears, "I was overcome with emotion."

I'm not the praying kind (but I greatly respect those who pray for others), so I'll keep Youssif in my thoughts. He has a long road ahead, having just completed the first of eight surgeries he'll need. I hope he does well and can continue to show the world what happens when people set aside differences and work together.

Send a Rack to Iraq

Here is an idea destined to win over the hearts and minds of conservative Muslims in Iraq. Nothing says "America isn't a cesspool of sin" like a plastic set of boobs that sing when you walk past. You too can "Send a Rack to Iraq."

For just $32.99 you can support the troops--not by asking your representatives in Washington to end the war so that the troops can leave a civil war and return to safety--but by sending them a fake pair of breasts that "move in a rhythmic motion to the song 'Titties & Beer.'" What more could a soldier want--other than some armor plating for their humvees, better vet benefits, or a ticket home?

Thanks to Jean for sharing this.

Obama Girl Throws Support Behind Those Who Serve

Obama Girl has taken a break from promoting her candidate and thrown her support behind the men and women serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. She's joined with Mims and wives and girlfriends of our US Troops to produce a new video, "I like a boy." And if you buy the song, 100% of song proceeds benefit the IAVA--Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Association.

"The Iraq war is largely about oil"

Did you hear about the controversy involving a single line in Alan Greenspan's new book, "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World"? Mr. Greenspan, the leader of the Federal Reserve for almost two decades, levels quite a bit of criticism at George Bush for the government's "out-of-control spending" and for maintaining tax cuts that are "no longer entirely appropriate."

But a single line has really caught the White House off guard. Greenspan writes, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

The White House disputes this, of course, but there is an interesting observation in the movie "No End in Sight," which I saw last night. In March 2003, ORHA, the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance set up by the US Government, sent a memo to US military leaders identifying 16 locations within Iraq that should be secured because they were likely targets to be looted in the lawless days following the end of the war.

More than two weeks after the March memo was sent, ORHA was told it had not even been read. And as a result, 15 of the 16 sites listed in the memo were decimated, including Iraq's national museum where 270,000 artifacts were stolen. This ransacking has been called the greatest loss of cultural heritage since WWII.

The US military argued that it could not tackle looters, but one of ORHA's sixteen sites was protected. It was listed at the bottom of the list. Care to guess what the military found a way to protect? The Oil Ministry.

No End in Sight

I just saw the scariest movie I hope to ever see in my lifetime, and it was not made by Rob Zombie.

If you consider yourself a well-informed American, care about our country's standing in the world, and believe that the U.S. has an obligation to do right here and abroad, then I urge you to see the documentary "No End In Sight" before it leaves your local theaters. Far from being a partisan Michael-Moore-like diatribe, this movie calmly and factually dissects the many mistakes that led to the Iraq quagmire using interviews with those in the know, including many people who were part of the Bush administration or part of the military effort in Iraq.

Not only is the movie sobering and infuriating, so is its box office. Last weekend, millions went to "Halloween," "Superbad," and "Mr. Bean's Holiday". Heck, even "Underdog," "Daddy Day Camp," and "Pirates" in its 16th week outdrew "No End in Sight," which ended in 35th place having drawn only 20,000 people nationwide. It's no wonder our men and women in Iraq think we've forgotten there's a war underway!

If you go to see "No End in Sight," you will walk out of the movie angry, frustrated, and sickened. I know that's not much of a way to "sell" a movie, but we Americans--the people who elected Bush and who pay the estimated $2 billion per week that the war costs--have an obligation to be informed and to critically assess our elected officials.

Unless you are an unusually informed American, "No End in Sight" will come as a maddening revelation. It's not simply that mistakes were made; the remarkable thing about "No End in Sight" is the way in which it coolly and factually demonstrates the unbelievably callous way the Bush administration made decisions and mistakes. The film doesn't leave you surprised at the mistakes but shocked at how easily those mistakes could've been prevented, simply by heeding the concerns of intelligent and seasoned people inside the military and administration.

There are many shocking images in this movie, including the charred body of an American soldier dragged through the street by cheering throngs and a video of an American military contractor indiscriminately shooting at and killing innocent Iraqis for sport or fun. But the images I find hardest to shake are less horrifying but more unforgettable--the haunted expressions on the faces of the people interviewed for "No End in Sight" as they speak about the actions of military leaders and Bush administration officials. So many smart, caring people wanted to make a difference, but were ignored, derided, marginalized, and fired by Bush and company.

I won't spoil the movie, but I'll just say this: If in the future the United States enters a country and topples a government with the goal of winning hearts and minds and spreading democracy, here's a recipe for how to fail:

• Don't plan for what you're going to do after conquering a country. Play it by ear and see how it all works out.
• Replace accomplished and knowledgeable people with cronies and political donors, particularly people with little to no military experience, with no past exposure to reconstruction, and who know little about the country and don't speak the language.
  
• Having defeated the country's military and police forces, abdicate all responsibility for maintaining security in the days following the war, allowing people to loot and destroy the infrastructure, making it impossible to restore peace, power, water, and essential services.
• Disband the army, putting hundreds of thousands of armed men out of work and forcing them to desperate measures to support their families in the terrible post-war economy.
• Ignore the advice of your experienced military personnel and place too few troops in the country in the all-important days following the war. And because you failed to adequately deploy troops, allow those previously mentioned desperate and unemployed military personnel to loot all the ammunition dumps, flooding the country with bombs, grenades, and weapons of all sizes.
• Use Gestapo-like tactics of beating in doors and arresting every young man regardless of guilt or evidence, then send these men to jails with no information provided to families, leaving their spouses and children with even less means to support themselves.
• Finally, wait until all of those actions create a void of leadership and mass of angry citizens focusing their anger on the U.S., and before long you'll be fighting a never-ending insurgency and putting the lives of American troops at risk for little to no hope or benefit.
  

Step by step, the Bush administration snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. It's hard to remember now, but American troops were briefly welcomed as liberators. But once we allowed looting, violence, and graft to take hold, then exacerbated the situation by disbanding the military--a group that compelling evidence shows was willing and able to help restore order--we'd already lost the "peace."

If you've seen "No End in Sight," your comments and observations would be appreciated here! If not, here's the trailer for this remarkable film:

President Bush Lied to US

I've posted about FactCheck.org in the past. If you have not subscribed to their email, you should. Now! The site is a non-partisan fact-checking organization that validates what politicians say, and they always cite objective sources.

Take President Bush's speech to the nation last week. The guy who declared "Mission Accomplished" thousands of lives ago was back, trying to convince Americans to stay the course. Here is what FactCheck.org found about about his statements:

• "36 nations ... have troops on the ground in Iraq"? The State Department--those lying Bush haters--puts the number at 25. (Oops.)
• “Ordinary life” returning to Baghdad? Maybe this is what passes for ordinary in Crawford, TX, but it doesn't in my neck of the woods: Shiite militias are forcing Sunni residents out of mixed neighborhoods into all-Sunni enclaves, and American troops have put up huge, concrete barricades walling neighborhoods off from each other as a way to reduce the violence. Does Bush think this "ordinary" segregation will encourage safety and stability?
  
• "Sectarian killings down"? The number of unidentified bodies found in Baghdad streets in July, while lower than the number found in June, was still 50 percent higher than the 272 bodies found in March, the first month after the troop increase. And get this: When the White House calculates sectarian violence, Iraqis shot in the back of the head count as sectarian victims, but Iraqis shot in the front of the head are considered victims of “crime.” This kind of gaming of numbers on such a deadly serious topic is appalling!
  
• Baqubah in Diyala province "cleared" of insurgents? Just two weeks ago the head of the State Department team in Diyala said the security situation was not stable.
• “The Iraqi Army becoming more capable?” Hmmm, let's check with the Iraqi defense minister to get his thoughts, shall we? He says it’ll be 2012 before the army will be even 60 percent capable of protecting the nation from external threats.

I don't have any answers of what to do in Iraq, but I'm just a dumb citizen. I do know one thing, however: Exaggerating and lying about the situation to the American people is a sure sign the Bush administration has no idea what to do in Iraq, either. And they're paid to know! They're putting American and Iraqi lives at risk--they have an obligation to know!

More Troop Videos from Iraq

I should probably stop watching these sorts of videos. They make me sick. Seeing this guy tell a kid he "smells like ass" just because he's pretty sure the boy doesn't speak English makes me angry. This GI may be right--that child may not speak a word of English--but doesn't he think there's any chance any of the kids he's insulting or encouraging to spout offensive and anti-Iraq slogans might someday learn what an American said and did to them?

This quote sums it up: "First week I felt love coming out of my heart helping these kids. Second week--'get the fuck out of here.' You know what the funniest one? When I come up to them, and they're like smiling and shit--they don't know English right?--so I start cussing them out and saying all this bullshit to them. And they can't understand me, and I say it with a smile and they think I'm like, being nice to them or something."

Then he gets the kids to say, "I am an idiot. We beg too fucking much. Fuck this country."

I can only imagine the frustration our troops face, but if we're going to allow this sort of behavior, then what's our point? Do we really think we can kill every insurgent or terrorist when our very presence there causes more people to join their cause? What ever happened to "winning their hearts and minds"? And after seeing this, are you confident that we'll win over the Iraqis and that future generations will thank us rather than reviling Americans? (Me neither.)

P.S. If you're against the war, have you taken any action to stop it?

We might've stopped the war before it started by not re-electing Bush, or we could've pressed the White House for more patience before marching into the country that was without WMDs and without Al Qaeda. But, since we let that happen, there are things we can still do. For example, Congress is about to get a report on progress in Iraq and will have a chance to begin to force the scaling back of operations--write your congressperson! Or, support organizations such as Moveone.org, which are working to change decisions about Iraq in Washington, D.C.

Point is, your country went to war in Iraq, and if you disagree with it, then complaining and taking no other action is pretty much the same as supporting the war.

More Videos Out of Iraq

Can we please see more videos like this? Unlike some of the offensive and insulting things we've seen posted to LiveLeak out of Iraq, I really enjoy seeing positive and caring relationships and situations between our forces and Iraqis!

Insurgent Man

Clearly, the stress and boredom in Iraq are getting to our men and women. This is one odd video, but I'd much rather our GIs blow of steam this way then taunting or harassing Iraqis (as we've seen in some past videos I've posted.)