The real cost of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq.

What is the cost of the U.S. invasion of Iraq? The cost, which will continue to mount for decades, is staggering, even insane. It wasn't $50 B, as W stated; it's already in the trillions. Here are the numbers from the Washington Post. The reason for the U.S. invasion and occupation? Unknown. The deleterious effect on the soldiers, their families and the U.S. economy? Long term and devastating. For the hawks, it was fun going in with all those fancy weapons blazing, but they are not offering any ideas as far as cleaning up this catastrophic mess. And those hawks have absolutely nothing to offer to the massive number of Iraqi refugees, who have spilled all over the Middle East, placing an enormous burden on Syria and Jordan. And combat is not "over," per the recent lies of the Obama Administration. And the corrupt corporate media is, for the most part, not calling out the Obama Administration for this recent fabrication any more than they confronted the U.S. for the fictitious "reasons" for invading in the first place. The media excels at serving as official stenographer for U.S. politicians whenever the topic is war (and see this piece on a documentary by Phil Donahue, and this article regarding Amy Goodman's views about the additional failures of the media). The corporate media bears thus much of the blame for the bleak economic future of the U.S.

Continue ReadingThe real cost of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Afghanistan and the lack of truth

This presentation by Andrew Napolitano sums it up for me. Shame on the Obama Administration, for carrying on (and furthering) the policies of the Bush Administration. At the minimum, our government should level with us instead of giving us a constant stream of lies and squandering massive amounts of tax dollars that we could be using for energy independence. If the occupation of Afghanistan is such a great idea, let those who support the aggression pay for it. Let them go door to door and beg for the money. Even if every American citizen paid an equal share of this year's $30 Billion funding for the "war" in Afghanistan, every one of America's 300,000,000 citizens would pay $100. Let them go door to door and try to convince Americans to each fork over $100 for this years' Afghanistan war effort. Maybe then the citizens would demand to see progress and to be informed of the alleged objectives of this "war." Actually, if the citizens were told the truth, they'd be told that this war only benefits America's military-industrial complex, and that it's driven by the cognitive fallacy of sunk costs.

Continue ReadingAfghanistan and the lack of truth

“Spin” defined

World English Dictionary defines "spin" thusly:

13.informal to present news or information in a way that creates a favourable impression
President Obama is kind enough to provide us with an example:
President Obama on Monday announced plans to withdraw combat forces in Iraq, providing assurances that an Aug. 31 deadline will be met as the U.S. moves toward a supporting role in the still-fractured and dangerous nation. U.S. forces in Iraq will number 50,000 by the end of the month — a reduction of 94,000 troops since he took office 18 months ago, the president said in remarks to the Disabled American Veterans. The remaining troops will form a transitional force until a final withdrawal from the country is completed by the end of 2011, he said. ... "Make no mistake, our commitment in Iraq is changing — from a military effort led by our troops to a civilian effort led by our diplomats."
Only in the world of "spin" (or Orwell) would 50,000 troops be considered a "civilian effort led by our diplomats".

Continue Reading“Spin” defined

Civilian deaths and bloody hands

I was reading this story about Bradley Manning, alleged whistleblower, and my hypocrisy meter was set off so strongly that I fear it may never work again.

Top Pentagon officials slammed WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange as having "blood ... on his hands" for releasing the sensitive documents, which appeared to include the names of Afghans enlisted as classified U.S. military informants. "Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family," Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen said.
Mr. Assange *might* have blood on his hands, the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family. This, coming from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, leader of the US Military which has been raining death on Afghanistan for almost 9 years now.

Continue ReadingCivilian deaths and bloody hands

Founder of Wikileaks explains why he published secret U.S. documents regarding Afghanisgtan

At Common Dreams, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange explains why he published the confidential U.S. military documents regarding Afghanistan:

These files are the most comprehensive description of a war to be published during the course of a war -- in other words, at a time when they still have a chance of doing some good. They cover more than 90,000 different incidents, together with precise geographical locations. They cover the small and the large. A single body of information, they eclipse all that has been previously said about Afghanistan. They will change our perspective on not only the war in Afghanistan, but on all modern wars . . . This material shines light on the everyday brutality and squalor of war. The archive will change public opinion and it will change the opinion of people in positions of political and diplomatic influence. . . We all only live once. So we are obligated to make good use of the time that we have, and to do something that is meaningful and satisfying. This is something that I find meaningful and satisfying. That is my temperament. I enjoy creating systems on a grand scale, and I enjoy helping people who are vulnerable. And I enjoy crushing bastards. So it is enjoyable work.
Here is the location of the Wikileaks Afghanistan documents. Glenn Greenwald applauds the leak, and condemns the U.S. governments failure to be forthright about the waste of lives and money regarding the U.S. adventure in Afghanistan:
WikiLeaks has yet again proven itself to be one of the most valuable and important organizations in the world. Just as was true for the video of the Apache helicopter attack in Baghdad, there is no valid justification for having kept most of these documents a secret. But that's what our National Security State does reflexively: it hides itself behind an essentially absolute wall of secrecy to ensure that the citizenry remains largely ignorant of what it is really doing. WikiLeaks is one of the few entities successfully blowing holes in at least parts of that wall . . .

Continue ReadingFounder of Wikileaks explains why he published secret U.S. documents regarding Afghanisgtan