U.S. Marine "Murders" a Puppy? Fake or Real?

Many posters on Youtube and various blogs are bringing up the notion that the puppy was already dead and that the whimpering sound was actually edited in after the fact. I won't bother going through the effort to cite exact postings, but there is a minority out there that feels this way. Nonetheless, the Marines in this video should be exposed so the truth can be revealed. In fact, the USMC has launched an investigation:

The person is identified on the video and in subsequent internet postings as a lance corporal stationed at Marine Corps Base Hawaii in Kaneohe.

"This is a shocking and deplorable video that is contrary to the high standards that we set for every Marine," said Maj. Chris Perrine, spokesperson for the Kaneohe base.

The Marine Corps has launched an investigation to determine whether the man on the video is their Marine who returned last October from a 7-month tour of duty in Iraq.

U.S. Marine Murders a Puppy

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

bin Laden determined to strike US

Flashback: Aug. 6, 2001 (H/t to TP)

Six years ago today, President Bush received a classified intelligence briefing that warned bin Laden was determined to strike inside the U.S. Bush was described as being “carefree” on the day he received the briefing at his Crawford ranch in Aug. 2001. Condoleezza Rice later dismissed the urgency of the briefing, claiming it was “not a warning” but rather an “historical memo.”

War costs may top $1 trillion over 10 years

The cost of military operations and diplomatic efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world could top $1 trillion over the next decade, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates provided to the House Budget Committee Tuesday.

The budgetary forecasts hinge largely on the size of the force deployed to Iraq between 2008 and 2017, a matter that Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England told the panel is nearly impossible to predict. "That's a long way in the future" to estimate both costs and force levels, he said.

But CBO officials, at the request of House Budget Chairman John Spratt, D-S.C., estimated that the total costs of operations would range from $924 billion to just over $1 trillion if the size of the deployed force decreases from 210,000 today to 75,000 by 2013.

That compares to a CBO estimate in February of $840 billion total cost. But if the size of the deployed force shrinks to 30,000 troops by 2010, war costs would range from $481 billion to $603 billion between 2008 and 2017, CBO said Tuesday.

Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement

From Global Research

The Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of whoever opposes the US led war.

A presidential Executive Order issued on July 17th, repeals with the stroke of a pen the right to dissent and to oppose the Pentagon's military agenda in Iraq.

The Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of "certain persons" who oppose the US led war in Iraq:

"I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people."

In substance, under this executive order, opposing the war becomes an illegal act.

The Executive Order criminalizes the antiwar movement. It is intended to "blocking property" of US citizens and organizations actively involved in the peace movement. It allows the Department of Defense to interfere in financial affairs and instruct the Treasury to "block the property" and/or confiscate/ freeze the assets of "Certain Persons" involved in antiwar activities. It targets those "Certain Persons" in America, including civil society organizatioins, who oppose the Bush Administration's "peace and stability" program in Iraq, characterized, in plain English, by an illegal occupation and the continued killing of innocent civilians.

The Executive Order also targets those "Certain Persons" who are "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction", or who, again in plain English, are opposed to the confiscation and privatization of Iraq's oil resources, on behalf of the Anglo-American oil giants.

The order is also intended for anybody who opposes Bush's program of "political reform in Iraq", in other words, who questions the legitimacy of an Iraqi "government" installed by the occupation forces.

Moreover, those persons or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), who provide bona fide humanitarian aid to Iraqi civilians, and who are not approved by the US Military or its lackeys in the US sponsored Iraqi puppet government are also liable to have their financial assets confiscated.

The executive order violates the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the US Constitution. It repeals one of the fundamental tenets of US democracy, which is the right to free expression and dissent. The order has not been the object of discussion in the US Congress. Sofar, it has not been addressed by the US antiwar movement, in terms of a formal statement.

Apart from a bland Associated Press wire report, which presents the executive order as "an authority to use financial sanctions", there has been no media coverage or commentary of a presidential decision which strikes at the heart of the US Constitution..

Broader implications

The criminalization of the State is when the sitting President and Vice President use and abuse their authority through executive orders, presidential directives or otherwise to define "who are the criminals" when in fact they they are the criminals.

This latest executive order criminalizes the peace movement. It must be viewed in relation to various pieces of "anti-terrorist" legislation, the gamut of presidential and national security directives, etc., which are ultimately geared towards repealing constitutional government and installing martial law in the event of a "national emergency".

The war criminals in high office are intent upon repressing all forms of dissent which question the legitimacy of the war in Iraq.

The executive order combined with the existing anti-terrorist legislation is eventually intended to be used against the anti-war and civil rights movements. It can be used to seize the assets of antiwar groups in America as well as block the property and activities of non-governmental humanitarian organizations providing relief in Iraq, seizing the assets of alternative media involved in reporting the truth regarding the US-led war, etc.

In May 2007, Bush issued a major presidential National Security Directive (National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive NSPD 51/HSPD 20), which would suspend constitutional government and instate broad dictatorial powers under martial law in the case of a "Catastrophic Emergency" (e.g. Second 9/11 terrorist attack).

On July 11, 2007 the CIA published its "National Intelligence Estimate" which pointed to an imminent Al Qaeda attack on America, a second 9/11 which, according to the terms of NSPD 51, would immediately be followed by the suspension of constitutional government and the instatement of martial law under the authority of the president and the vice-president. (For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky, Bush Directive for a "Catastrophic Emergency" in America: Building a Justification for Waging War on Iran? June 2007)

NSPD 51 grants unprecedented powers to the Presidency and the Department of Homeland Security, overriding the foundations of Constitutional government. It allows the sitting president to declare a “national emergency” without Congressional approval. The implementation of NSPD 51 would lead to the de facto closing down of the Legislature and the militarization of justice and law enforcement.

"The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government...."

Were NSPD 51 to be invoked, Vice President Dick Cheney, who constitutes the real power behind the Executive, would essentially assume de facto dictatorial powers, circumventing both the US Congress and the Judiciary, while continuing to use President George W. Bush as a proxy figurehead.

NSPD 51, while bypassing the Constitution, nonetheless, envisages very precise procedures which guarantee the powers of Vice President Dick Cheney in relation to "Continuity of Goverment" functions under Martial Law:

"This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19), with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions." (NSPD 51, op cit.)

The executive order to confiscate the assets of antiwar/peace activists is broadly consistent with NSPD 51. It could be triggered even in the absence of a "Catastrophic emergency" as envisaged under NSPD 51. It repeals democracy. It goes one step further in "criminalizing" all forms of opposition and dissent. to the US led war and "Homeland Security" agenda.

How to Create an Angry American: Expose the Lies

H/T to Informed Consent:

A clever montage of Bush administration falsehoods and denials regarding the Iraq War, via YouTube:

Draft College Republicans: Generation Chickenhawk

Generation Chickenhawk: Max Blumenthal's Unofficial College Republican Tour.

Powell tried to talk Bush out of war

From Times Online:

The former American secretary of state Colin Powell has revealed that he spent 2½ hours vainly trying to persuade President George W Bush not to invade Iraq and believes today’s conflict cannot be resolved by US forces.

“I tried to avoid this war,” Powell said at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado. “I took him through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers.”

Powell has become increasingly outspoken about the level of violence in Iraq, which he believes is in a state of civil war. “The civil war will ultimately be resolved by a test of arms,” he said. “It’s not going to be pretty to watch, but I don’t know any way to avoid it. It is happening now.”

He added: “It is not a civil war that can be put down or solved by the armed forces of the United States.” All the military could do, Powell suggested, was put “a heavier lid on this pot of boiling sectarian stew”.

The signs are that the views of Powell and other critics of the war are finally being heard in the Pentagon, if not yet in the White House. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, is drawing up plans to reduce troop levels in Iraq in anticipation that General David Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, will not be able to deliver an upbeat progress report in September on the American troop surge.

Blair Announces Removal of 1600 Troops, Bush Adds 1,000 Troops to Surge: Coincidence?

In the wake of the announcement that Great Britain will be withdrawing its almost 7,000 troops from Iraq, Administration officials are claiming this is good news. In fact, according to ABC News (via ThinkProgres), Vice President Cheney "said the move was actually good news and a sign of progress in Iraq.”

According to the plan, "Britain will withdraw around 1,600 troops from Iraq in the coming months and aims to further cut its 7,100-strong contingent by late summer if Iraqi forces can secure the country's south, Prime Minister Tony Blair said Wednesday."

While this is great news, the MSM has glossed over an additional piece of information: that Bush added another 1,000 troops to the surge last Friday.

According to a press release from the DoD:

"This three-month acceleration affects approximately 1,000 service members. U.S force levels in Iraq continue to be conditions-based, and are determined upon the recommendations of military commanders in Iraq and in consultation with the Iraqi government."

Less than a week before Tony Blair announced that close to 1,600 British troops will be making their way home shortly, it seems President Bush has compensated for that difference by adding an additional 1,000 American troops in Iraq.

Since Blair is typically considered Bush's lapdog, it is hard to believe that Bush was not aware of Blair's plans less than a week ago, when the decision to send further US troops into harms way was decided upon.

Stupid People Say Stupid Things

"I'm not sure anything went wrong." - Tony Snow on Iraq.

No additional comments necessary.

Stupid People Say Stupid Things

"By the way, a lot of us are also very concerned about the possibility of a, quote, 'Tet Offensive.' You know, some large-scale tact that could then switch American public opinion the way that the Tet Offensive did." - Senator John McCain discussing public opinion of the war in Iraq.

Switch the American public opinion? To what? 100% opposed? Looks like Bush has been slipping McCain polls from 2003.

Leaked video details friendly fire kill

A leaked cockpit video published Tuesday captures a dramatic exchange between two American pilots whose voices choke up when they learn they have killed a British soldier in Iraq. "I'm going to be sick," one pilot says, later adding "we're in jail, dude."

Part 1


Part 2

Another Bush Lie: Troop Surge To Include Almost Double the 21,500 Promised

When President Bush stood before the American people last month, and promised "A New Way Forward" (Tm) in Iraq, he explained to us that this plan would include 17,500 new troops in the Baghdad area (as well as another 4,000 troops in Anbar province).

Well, once again the President "decided" that he wasn't going to share the entire truth with the American people.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) the escalation of troops will not just include 21,500 of our men and women, but closer to 48,000.

Thus far, the Department of Defense (DoD) has identified only combat units for deployment. However, U.S. military operations also require substantial support forces, including personnel to staff headquarters, serve as military police, and provide communications, contracting, engineering, intelligence, medical, and other services. Over the past few years , DoD’s practice has been to deploy a total of about 9,500 personnel per combat brigade to the Iraq theater, including about 4,000 combat troops and about 5,500 supporting troops.

DoD has not yet indicated which support units will be deployed along with the added combat forces, or how many additional troops will be involved. Army and DoD officials have indicated that it will be both possible and desirable to deploy fewer additional support units than historical practice would indicate. CBO expects that, even if the additional brigades required fewer support units than historical practice suggests, those units would still represent a significant additional number of military personnel.

To reflect some of the uncertainty about the number of support troops, CBO developed its estimates on the basis of two alternative assumptions. In one scenario, CBO assumed that additional support troops would be deployed in the same proportion to combat troops that currently exists in Iraq. That approach would require about 28,000 support troops in addition to the 20,000 combat troops—a total of 48,000. CBO also presents an alternative scenario that would include a smaller number of support personnel—about 3,000 per combat brigade—totaling about 15,000 support personnel and bringing the total additional forces to about 35,000.

It seems the DoD is still determining whether it will send the usual amount of support troops along with the surge, but either way this new plan will either require close to 48,000 troops, or our soldiers in harms way won't have the proper support - once again.

In the same report, the CBO estimates the cost of the troop surge "would range from $9 billion to $13 billion for a four-month deployment and from $20 billion to $27 billion for a 12-month deployment, depending upon the total number of troops deployed and including additional costs that would be incurred during the build-up and ramp-down periods."

So, the President has once again mislead the American public and is planning to send a larger number of troops into battle without the support of the American people or the Congress, at a price tag of about $20 million.

(H/T to Dee, via Myspace)

Iraqi Generals Turn on U.S. Troops?

So much for the Iraqi's greeting us with flowers and candies. According to Faux Noise, two senior Iraqi generals are being questioned in connection with last week's attack in Karbala that left five U.S. soldiers dead. Four of the five U.S. soldiers killed in the attack were found later miles away from the compound and were reportedly killed execution style.

"The military said two of the soldiers were handcuffed together in the back seat of an SUV near the southern Iraqi town of Mahawil. A third dead soldier was on the ground nearby and a fourth died en route to the hospital."

TPT at the United for Peace and Justice March

As I noted earlier in the week, I attended the United for Peace and Justice anti-war demonstration in Washington, DC this weekend. I arrived early to grab my press pass, and at 10 am the crowd was thin, and the mall empty. By 11 am, when the rally was set to begin, the crowd had grown, and kept growing until the march kicked off at 1:30.











The stage was already set up, and showed Americans something they haven’t had too much of a chance to see, thanks to the Bush Administration.



By searching the crowd, you could see that much of the United States was represented on the Mall Saturday.










The list of speakers was vast, and included politicians, protestors, and celebrities alike.

















The most interesting and motivating portion of the rally came when these two speakers shared their views.

For the first time since the war begun, active duty members of the US military joined in protests of the war. Liam Madden, an active duty member of the Navy, joined protestors Saturday:

“I served for 1 year in Iraq. Now I’m home. I’m still serving my country, I’m still serving my brothers and sisters by trying to get them home alive…

Men and women are coming home and they’re pissed off. I listened to the State of the Union Address. In the 50 minutes of rambling, George Bush not once mentioned the word veteran. Not once…

I thought I was going because our country needed defense, and because there was an injustice that needed to be stopped. Instead I was sent to war with no proper planning, no proper training, no proper equipment, and their premise proved fraudulent.

We need to address our elected government, and force them to represent us as a country, and bring the troops home legitimately.”



Raed Jarrar, a half Sunni/half Shia also joined the protest to provide the voice of the Iraqi people:

“The only hope to end the Iraqi violence is to end the occupation now!

I am here today as a half Sunni, half Shiite Iraqi delivering a untied message from the Iraqis, Sunnis and Shia… From all Iraqis: We want our country back! We want the occupation to end now!"



While the overall point of the march and rally was to share with Congress American’s displeasure with the war, each individual at the protest decided to show their opinion in different and expressive ways:

Reminder: George W. Bush is no Lincoln!