The Beginning Of Another Military Cover-Up?
The AP Reports :
"The U.S. military asserted that an American soldier was justified in erasing journalists' footage of the aftermath of a suicide bombing and shooting in Afghanistan last week, saying publication could have compromised a military investigation and led to false public conclusions.
"That is not a reasonable justification for erasing images from our cameras," said AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll in New York. "AP's journalists in Afghanistan are trained, accredited professionals working at an appropriate distance from the bombing scene. In democratic societies, legitimate journalists are allowed to work without having their equipment seized and their images deleted."
Afghan witnesses and gunshot victims said U.S. forces fired on civilians in cars and on foot along at least a six-mile stretch of road from Barikaw following the suicide attack against the Marine convoy. The U.S. military said insurgents also fired on American forces during the attack. One Marine was wounded.
A U.S. soldier deleted the AP journalists' footage that showed a civilian four-wheel drive vehicle in which three Afghans were shot to death about 100 yards from the suicide bombing. The journalists had met requests from the military to not move any closer to the bomb site."
READ FULL STORY
Showing posts with label War On Terror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War On Terror. Show all posts
Thursday, February 15, 2007
War With Iran Imminent, Or A Distracting Red Herring?
CNN: White House Now Blames Briefer For Going Too Far On Iran Intel
Rumors Of War
US Backpedals Accusations Against Iran
CNN: White House Now Blames Briefer For Going Too Far On Iran Intel
Rumors Of War
US Backpedals Accusations Against Iran
Monday, December 04, 2006
Does US Need New Govt. Institution To Combat Terrorism?
Outgoing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently wrote a memo to his comrades in arms in which he pondered the great questions of the War on Terror.
The memo was scattered with questions, but there was a recurring theme that seems to have escaped the media.
Rumsfeld refers to creating new government entities three times in the recently leaked memo, which can be read at USA TODAY.Com.
But in a country already tied down with bureaucracy and poor communication within existing government entities one has to ask if creating a new one is really the answer.
The memo reads as if it were hand crafted for public release, not a secret memo that got "leaked" to the public. Rumsfeld is posing mostly rhetorical questions, posed purposely with the intent of making a point, not asking a question.
So are new government institutions or entities really the answer to Rumsfeld's questions?
As I view it in this case the government is part of the problem. Maybe there are too many entities already operating within it, rather than not enough.
The focus should perhaps be focused on more efficient and intelligent agencies, rather than new agencies. Let these agencies be head by competent individuals, not those who have family or friends in high places.
But in a government already steeped in debt and war whose present government institutions are not entirely efficient it may not be a productive pursue the idea of creating a new government institution.
Outgoing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently wrote a memo to his comrades in arms in which he pondered the great questions of the War on Terror.
The memo was scattered with questions, but there was a recurring theme that seems to have escaped the media.
Rumsfeld refers to creating new government entities three times in the recently leaked memo, which can be read at USA TODAY.Com.
But in a country already tied down with bureaucracy and poor communication within existing government entities one has to ask if creating a new one is really the answer.
The memo reads as if it were hand crafted for public release, not a secret memo that got "leaked" to the public. Rumsfeld is posing mostly rhetorical questions, posed purposely with the intent of making a point, not asking a question.
So are new government institutions or entities really the answer to Rumsfeld's questions?
As I view it in this case the government is part of the problem. Maybe there are too many entities already operating within it, rather than not enough.
The focus should perhaps be focused on more efficient and intelligent agencies, rather than new agencies. Let these agencies be head by competent individuals, not those who have family or friends in high places.
But in a government already steeped in debt and war whose present government institutions are not entirely efficient it may not be a productive pursue the idea of creating a new government institution.
Leaked? Rumsfeld's War-On-Terror Memo
The text below is of a leaked memo written by Donald Rumsfeld regarding the GWOT and was copied by Dreams Of Liberty from USA TODAY, where the memo can also be read.
October 16, 2003
TO: Gen. Dick Myers
Paul Wolfowitz
Gen. Pete Pace
Doug Feith
FROM: Donald Rumsfeld
SUBJECT: Global War on Terrorism
The questions I posed to combatant commanders this week were: Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror? Is DoD changing fast enough to deal with the new 21st century security environment? Can a big institution change fast enough? Is the USG changing fast enough?
DoD has been organized, trained and equipped to fight big armies, navies and air forces. It is not possible to change DoD fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror; an alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution, either within DoD or elsewhere — one that seamlessly focuses the capabilities of several departments and agencies on this key problem.
With respect to global terrorism, the record since Septermber 11th seems to be:
We are having mixed results with Al Qaida, although we have put considerable pressure on them — nonetheless, a great many remain at large.
USG has made reasonable progress in capturing or killing the top 55 Iraqis.
USG has made somewhat slower progress tracking down the Taliban — Omar, Hekmatyar, etc.
With respect to the Ansar Al-Islam, we are just getting started.
Have we fashioned the right mix of rewards, amnesty, protection and confidence in the US?
Does DoD need to think through new ways to organize, train, equip and focus to deal with the global war on terror?
Are the changes we have and are making too modest and incremental? My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves, although we have have made many sensible, logical moves in the right direction, but are they enough?
Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?
Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions.
Do we need a new organization?
How do we stop those who are financing the radical madrassa schools?
Is our current situation such that "the harder we work, the behinder we get"?
It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog.
Does CIA need a new finding?
Should we create a private foundation to entice radical madradssas to a more moderate course?
What else should we be considering?
Please be prepared to discuss this at our meeting on Saturday or Monday.
Thanks.
Source : USA TODAY
*The author of Dreams of Liberty believes the memo was not leaked, but that the Rumsfeld memo was written with the intent of public release as part of the vindication of Rumsfeld following his coming resignation.
The text below is of a leaked memo written by Donald Rumsfeld regarding the GWOT and was copied by Dreams Of Liberty from USA TODAY, where the memo can also be read.
October 16, 2003
TO: Gen. Dick Myers
Paul Wolfowitz
Gen. Pete Pace
Doug Feith
FROM: Donald Rumsfeld
SUBJECT: Global War on Terrorism
The questions I posed to combatant commanders this week were: Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror? Is DoD changing fast enough to deal with the new 21st century security environment? Can a big institution change fast enough? Is the USG changing fast enough?
DoD has been organized, trained and equipped to fight big armies, navies and air forces. It is not possible to change DoD fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror; an alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution, either within DoD or elsewhere — one that seamlessly focuses the capabilities of several departments and agencies on this key problem.
With respect to global terrorism, the record since Septermber 11th seems to be:
We are having mixed results with Al Qaida, although we have put considerable pressure on them — nonetheless, a great many remain at large.
USG has made reasonable progress in capturing or killing the top 55 Iraqis.
USG has made somewhat slower progress tracking down the Taliban — Omar, Hekmatyar, etc.
With respect to the Ansar Al-Islam, we are just getting started.
Have we fashioned the right mix of rewards, amnesty, protection and confidence in the US?
Does DoD need to think through new ways to organize, train, equip and focus to deal with the global war on terror?
Are the changes we have and are making too modest and incremental? My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves, although we have have made many sensible, logical moves in the right direction, but are they enough?
Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?
Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions.
Do we need a new organization?
How do we stop those who are financing the radical madrassa schools?
Is our current situation such that "the harder we work, the behinder we get"?
It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog.
Does CIA need a new finding?
Should we create a private foundation to entice radical madradssas to a more moderate course?
What else should we be considering?
Please be prepared to discuss this at our meeting on Saturday or Monday.
Thanks.
Source : USA TODAY
*The author of Dreams of Liberty believes the memo was not leaked, but that the Rumsfeld memo was written with the intent of public release as part of the vindication of Rumsfeld following his coming resignation.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Democrats Win The House, Rumsfeld Resigns - What's Next For America And Iraq?
The race for Senate is still undetermined but the message was very clear on November 7, America was ready for change.
Many Americans went to the polls with the intent of expressing their discontent with the disconnect that the Republican Party and the Bush Administration has with the American public regarding the Iraq War, the economy and political corruption.
How The Republicans Lost Control
The Republicans spent to much of their time in control being partisan. They spent to much time uniting together behind a failed policy and against Democrats and the American public by accusing them of being unpatriotic for failing to unquestioningly support their questionable agenda. When perhaps it was their agenda that was so utterly inept, not the people who questioned it.
The Republicans spent much of their time in power trying to justify mistakes and various corruptions rather than offering apologetic discourse aimed at correcting errors and promises made to abide by domestic and international laws.
It wasn't just the Iraq war that weighed in on the ousting of the Republican parties stranglehold on the House, there was also corruption so rampant within the Republican party itself that even in districts that in the past have tended to vote strongly Republican voted Democratic yesterday.
There were glitches in yesterdays races but nothing as catastrophic as 2000 and 2004. The control or lack of control over Senate will be determined by the controversial Allen and Webb race in Virginia.
If Democratic candidate Jim Webb wins the Senate will also be in the hands of Democrats, but if Republican George Allen wins the Senate will be split 50/50 with Vice President Dick Cheney as the tie breaking vote when Senate is split, this virtually leaves Republicans still in control of Senate.
President Bush Addresses America, Post Election
The race for Senate is still undetermined but the message was very clear on November 7, America was ready for change.
Many Americans went to the polls with the intent of expressing their discontent with the disconnect that the Republican Party and the Bush Administration has with the American public regarding the Iraq War, the economy and political corruption.
How The Republicans Lost Control
The Republicans spent to much of their time in control being partisan. They spent to much time uniting together behind a failed policy and against Democrats and the American public by accusing them of being unpatriotic for failing to unquestioningly support their questionable agenda. When perhaps it was their agenda that was so utterly inept, not the people who questioned it.
The Republicans spent much of their time in power trying to justify mistakes and various corruptions rather than offering apologetic discourse aimed at correcting errors and promises made to abide by domestic and international laws.
It wasn't just the Iraq war that weighed in on the ousting of the Republican parties stranglehold on the House, there was also corruption so rampant within the Republican party itself that even in districts that in the past have tended to vote strongly Republican voted Democratic yesterday.
There were glitches in yesterdays races but nothing as catastrophic as 2000 and 2004. The control or lack of control over Senate will be determined by the controversial Allen and Webb race in Virginia.
If Democratic candidate Jim Webb wins the Senate will also be in the hands of Democrats, but if Republican George Allen wins the Senate will be split 50/50 with Vice President Dick Cheney as the tie breaking vote when Senate is split, this virtually leaves Republicans still in control of Senate.
President Bush Addresses America, Post Election
The President seemed a little more subdued than usual early this afternoon when he announced that Donald Rumsefeld was resigning.
He seemed less of a partisan warlord and more like a man who's support was crumbling and who's base was dismantling. He also resembled a man who's era was coming to an end, a man who knew his era was coming to an end.
A man who was so ruthlessly partisan when surrounded by and propped up by his base almost seemed apologetic and maybe even humbled by the defeat of the Republicans, whom he was so certain would win.
After all, those Liberals are just a bunch of baby eating, gay loving, terrorist appeasing atheist who enjoy burning the American flag, right? So how could the party of "morals" and "security" lose?
I believe that man, the President, had really believed the Republicans were going to win the elections. He was certain his incessant warnings about terrorist and the clear message of fear and preemption had been fully digested by the people of the United States. I suppose he was wrong.
He did not want to believe the polls which had predicted the massive Republican casualties on November 7, 2006.
So as the Democrats sweep into control of the House, the President will be forced to act along more bipartisan lines and hopefully he may become a better President because of it. One can only hope.
As news of Rumsfeld's resignation spreads so does the speculation. The President had claimed that the resignation of Rumsfeld had already been underway, prior to the elections. I believe that the preparations for the resignation were underway and only to be acted upon if Democrats won in the elections, which they did.
Rumsfeld's replacement is to be Robert Gates, who had involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal.
What's Next?
I went to sleep last night expecting no drastic changes overnight yet Rumsfeld is resigning so I can only be cautiously optimistic.
There will be no massive redeployment of US soldiers from Iraq, but there is hope for change in a new direction with new leadership.
The Democrats may not be able to solve all of the problems we are facing as a result of six years of neoconservative dominion, but at least we can keep the neoconservatives from making things worse and expanding executive powers even more.
And maybe, just maybe President Bush will make a better President when forced to work in cooperation with his political opposites.
But, let's not hope for too much. From Bush or the Democrats.
Summing Up The Elections Of '06 In One Paragraph
The American people were confronted with a choice, stay the course and keep being feed lies and witnessing corruption or make a change and hope the country can get back on the right course. The American people voted for change.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
