Count One

UN torture investigator: Obama has broken International law from rawstory.com

Bear in mind, this is not the opinion of some nobody like myself. The following is the opinion of the United Nation's lead investigator into torture. Therefore, the following can be taken as the comments of an expert.

“Like all other contracting states to the UN convention against torture, the US has committed to conduct criminal investigations of torture and to bring all persons to court against whom there is sound evidence,” Manfred Nowak, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on torture, told Austrian weekly paper Der Standard.

“They are party to the convention and the convention is very, very clear,” Nowak told the paper. “The fact that you carried out an order doesn’t relieve you of your responsibility.”

“In a brief telephone interview with The Associated Press, Manfred Nowak [...] said the United States had committed itself under the U.N. Convention against Torture to make torture a crime and to prosecute those suspected of engaging in it,” reported the San Francisco Chronicle.

So, we now have an expert in a field stating openly that Barrack Obama is in violation of international law. That does not mean he's guilty. But it does mean that in a society that respected laws and the constitution that impeachment hearings into this case should be begun. When you have an international expert stating that the leader of your country is in violation of international law, a lawful society would take steps to correct the problem.

Tour!

Tearing the Whole Building Down: The Dead in Greensboro by Ron Jacobs on Counterpunch.org

Ok, so I'm a Deadhead! Can't wait for them to work their way westward on this tour!

A jam that began with Haynes singing "Caution, Do Not Stop On Tracks" from the Anthem of the Sun album proceeded into a rhythm section performance that had its roots in the place in the human soul that resides somewhere between the Garden of Eden and the future we do not know. That's a mighty big space, but this rhythm crew can fill it like no other. Entwined in the rhythm section's recital were guitar notes that seemed to come from that space Sun Ra called the place. The rhythm section solo came back around with another hippie classic titled "Cosmic Charlie" from the 1969 album Aoxomoa and then bassist Lesh lent his vocals to "New Potato Caboose"--a song that sometimes sounds like it was written by Arnold Schoenberg after he attended a blues club on acid.

So, I'd always picked up some of the deadhead philosophy. When the world gets too crazy, throw a party and dance!

Heartless powers try to tell us what to think
If the spirit's sleeping, then the flesh is ink.
And history's page, it is thusly carved in stone
The future's here, we are it, we are on our own.

If the game is lost then we're all the same
No one left to place or take the blame.
We will leave this place an empty stone
Or this shinning ball of blue we can call our home

So the kids they dance, they shake their bones
And the politicians are throwing stones
Singing ashes,ashes all fall down, ashes,ashes all fall down

-- from "Throwing Stones" by the Grateful Dead

More War.

US Threatens to Invade Eritreaby Jason Ditz on antiwar.com

The Daily Telegraph quotes one source as saying “There are consequences for working with al-Shabaab when President Obama cannot afford to look weak on terrorism.”

Thank Gawd we elected the 'anti-war' candidate in the elections so this era of invasions and wars is over.

Al-Shabaab? This is a threat to the safety and security of American citizens? Hardly. They appear to be a Somali resistence movement. If left alone, it seems rather far-fetched that they would attack Americans in America. Of course, now that we aren't leaving them alone, all of us in America are probably now a bit less safe. At the cost of more billions of dollars and more lives of American soldiers.

Thank Gawd we put the anti-war candidate into the White House.

US as ‘Nation Builder’: Delusions of Omnipotence

US as ‘Nation Builder’: Delusions of Omnipotence
by William Pfaff on antiwar.com
If I judge an article by its ability to make me think, this one gets an "A". Let me just focus on this last bit right at the end.

There is an important book, The Power Problem, just coming out in the United States (Cornell University Press), which puts forth the case that American military power naturally invites excessive or irrelevant use, and that the habits of mind created by military supremacy have caused the United States to be less safe than otherwise, less free, more vulnerable, and less able to do the things that fundamental national security demands.

Its author, Christopher A. Preble, is a former officer in the U.S. Navy and is head of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute. He argues, as many others do, that the United States has a level of military power that it doesn’t need, has limited utility against stateless enemies and insurgents, and causes confusion between military strength and national power, the latter being the ability to actually produce a desired effect. It is a good and lucid book and deserves a wide audience.

I'd take that analysis one step further. Its the very act of creating this concentration of power in the US federal government that has cost us some of our democracy and liberties at home. Think not only of the military power under the control of those who control the US government, but think also of the economic power. If you control the US government, not only do you get to decide whether entire countries get torn apart militarily, but you also get to decide who makes hundreds of billions of dollars in profits. These days, you also get to decide who gets trillions of dollars in 'bailout' money.

Now, ask yourself this question. What do you think that greedy and power-hungry people will do to gain and keep control of that concentration of power? Then ask the appropriate follow-up question. Do you feel that American citizens have put enough effort into making sure that both their election systems are unquestionably honest and that their rights and liberties as American citizens have been protected? Given the sorts of people that such a great concentration of power would attract, have Americans done enough since WWII to protect and defend their democracy and liberties from such people?

Now, add this to Mr. Pfaff's analysis of whether having this level of military power has made us more or less safe as citizens? Are we better off with or without this power?

Thomas Jefferson is known for favoring decentralized power where control of the power stays as close to local communities as possible. The Department of Homeland Security just declared this to be an 'extremist' philosophy.

The report from DHS' Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines right-wing extremism in the U.S. as "divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups) and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely

Note the way that they not only link people who support Mr. Jefferson's philosophy with hate-groups, but that they are considered to be equally extremist by the government. Given that opinion, its no surprise that the US government now regards support for the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution as a sign of extremism. The 10th Amendment is the one that reads ...

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Do we really have a situation where a government regards support for elements of the Constitution, the legal document that defines and legitimizes that government, as an extremist action?

Now, think some more about this great concentration of power we've allowed to be created in the US government.

Help out Cindy!

Hello, I'm still on Cindy Sheehan's email list. Right now, what she is trying to do is to retire the debt she incurred while running against Nancy Pelosi in the last election. If you can help her out, please try to do so.

Dear Friend,

Today, we had a set-back!

Do you want the good news or bad news first?

Here goes:

Good news: we raised 1500.00 since yesterday.

Bad news: Our tax liability has grown by one thousand dollars…the longer we go without paying that the higher it goes.

Debt Still Owed:

11,000 to taxes (Federal and state)
6100.00 PR firm
2400.00 back rent

Now, we owe 19,500.00

To DONATE online

To DONATE by check.

How about a test of your injustice barometer?

Bailout Indignation by Ralph Nader on Nader.org

How about a test of your injustice barometer?

You might think that the reckless, avaricious, giant corporations, having shrunk the economy, cost millions of jobs and then demanded that taxpayers be dunned for years into the future for multi-trillion dollar bailouts, would show contrition, regret, or self-restraint of their power over Washington.

Forget it. They’re baaack! Their greed and power are revving up big time to bring Washington and you the taxpayer, you the parent, you the consumer, you the worker, to your knees.
Here is a sample of the appalling dynamics of corporate greed and continuing over-reach each day in your nation’s capital.

Hey, I'm sure they feel like they bought our government fair and square and can do whatever they want with it. After all, why else would they have pumped all those millions of dollars into the campaign coffers of Obama and the other Democrats?

Someday we'll learn that the politicians we should surely distrust are precisely the ones we see on TV all the time. If you see a politician on the TV, you should know that it took big bags of corporate money to get them there. The politicians on the TV will never be the ones on our side.

Are you for peace? Or are you a Democrat?

With Obama in office, liberals learn to love war. by Justin Raimondo in American Conservative.

The big truth is that the antiwar movement has largely collapsed in the face of Barack Obama’s victory: the massive antiwar marches that were a feature of the Bush years are a thing of the past. Those ostensibly antiwar organizations that did so much to agitate against the Iraq War have now fallen into line behind their commander in chief and are simply awaiting orders.

Are you for peace? Or are you a Democrat? People are going to have to take sides on that question, as it becomes obvious that Obama and the Democrats plan to continue and expand these wars.

At least we will be able to clearly separate those who truly believe in the peace movement from those for whom it was just a campaign prop. And not just on the question of being for or against war? This is rapidly becoming true across a whole range of 'progressive' causes.

The key is not to let the betrayal of the Democrats stop us or even slow us down. We must hold true to what we believe, and let the Democrats walk away if they so desire. They'll quickly realize that they need us to beat the Republicans in elections and will soon be back to lie to us again before 2010.

Obama's raids and Obama's camps

Snatch-and-Jail Justice? by Dave Lindorff on CounterPunch.org

Now things are much worse. Lawyers who have tried to defend some of the victims of INS roundups report that many detainees are subjected to what can only be termed torture—things like having themselves slammed into walls or pushed down stairs while arms and legs are manacled, having their teeth smashed out, being left outside in cold rain or blazing sun, kept from sleeping for days at a time. Sound like Guantanamo or Bagram? In fact, there is little difference.

and ...

Not so surprisingly, an appalling one in 10 Hispanic Americans reported in 2007 that they had been stopped by law enforcement and asked to prove that they were citizens or were in this country legally.

Ahem. Those kinds of numbers are the description of a police state, folks.

There is a simple solution to this problem. It’s in the Constitution, actually. It is the Bill of Rights protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures (Fourth Amendment), and against arrest “without due process of law” (the Fifth Amendment), as well as the right to “a speedy and public trial” and to “assisstance of counsel” (The Sixth Amendment).

How long do we go into Obama's term before these actions become Obama's actions? He could stop it simply by picking up the phone and telling a cabinet secretary that it ends now.

Democrats Letting Net Neutrality Die

Democrats Letting Net Neutrality Die by Jason Miller at WebProNews.com

The Democrat rope-a-dope strategy of the last few years is coming back around to kill Net Neutrality. The initial plan was simply to let Republicans have enough rope to hang themselves. Congressional Democrats ignored calls for investigations and impeachment of members of the Bush Administration because doing so allowed them to drop all blame square on their opponents’ shoulders for everything without putting themselves under undue scrutiny. A few years of doing absolutely nothing was tantamount to lying low while Republicans destroyed themselves so Democrats could take over…and continue to do nothing.

and ...

You might have also noticed, like we have, that while anything the RIAA and the MPAA want goes right through Congress like crap through a goose, network neutrality legislation (wanted by the people who currently have no money) languishes and dies in committee.

Gee, what a shock. A bunch of Democrats, with big bags of corporate money in their accounts, favor corporations over citizens. What a surprise.

Add to this the data point from a week or so ago about how the "Employee Free Choice Act" is dying a similar death in the Democratic Congress. This is today's Democratic party. They use issues like this during the campaigns to help win elections, but then don't follow through once elected.

History from the Memory Hole

1976: Ford Gives Permission to Sell Nuclear Technology to Iran from HistoryCommons.org

President Gerald R. Ford signs a presidential directive giving the Iranian government the opportunity to purchase a US-built nuclear reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. Iran, with support from the US, wants to develop a massive nuclear energy industry that has complete “nuclear fuel cycle” capability so fissile materials can be supplied self-sustaining basis. US companies, chief among them Westinghouse, stands to make $6.4 billion from the sale of six to eight nuclear reactors and parts. The shah has argued that Iran needs a nuclear energy program in order to meet Iran’s growing energy demand. Iran is known to have massive oil and gas reserves, but the shah considers these finite reserves too valuable to be spent satisfying daily energy needs. In a 1975 strategy paper, the Ford administration supported this view saying that “introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran’s economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals.” Top officials in the Ford administration—including Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Chief of Staff Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz, who is responsible for nonproliferation issues at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency—are strong supporters of Iran’s ambitions. Kissinger will tell the Washington Post 30 years later that the Ford administration was not concerned about the possibility of Iran using the facilities to produce nuclear weapons. “I don’t think the issue of proliferation came up,” he says. But Charles Naas, deputy US ambassador to Iran at this time, will tell the Post that nuclear experts had serious concerns about potential proliferation. Naas will explain that the administration was attracted to the nuclear deal “terms of commerce” and interested in maintaining good relations with the shah.

The article cites this link to the Washington Post.

Note, these guys wanted to give Iran not just a commercial nuclear reactor, but a full reprocessing facility for them to extract plutonium from spent reactor fuel rods.

And I love the bit about how the Ford Administration supported the Iranian idea that their 'oil and gas' reserves should be preserved. These days, you hear the right-wingers constantly ridicule the idea that Iran would want nuclear power reactors because they 'sit on a sea of oil'. Sometimes its fun to watch the same people switch sides on the same issue ... and do it with straight face.

I'd forgotten Paul Wolfowitz was in charge of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Wow! That's like making John Dillinger the agent in charge of preventing bank robberies.

Gen. Odierno: US May Ignore Iraq Deadline Because of al-Qaeda

Gen. Odierno: US May Ignore Iraq Deadline Because of al-Qaeda on antiwar.com

In yet another sign that the Obama Administration’s “pullout” timeline for Iraq is not set in stone, General Ray Odierno told The Times today that US combat troops may remain in Iraq’s cities beyond the June 30 deadline mandated by the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). He pointed to increased trouble from al-Qaeda as the justification.

I keep saying the Obama plan for Iraq is identical to the Bush plan. Bush always promised a withdrawal sometime off in the future. Under Bush, we were told that we had to have all these troops there, but only until some 'milestone' came along. Elections, constitution, parliment ... the milestone kept changing, but the message was always the same. Keep the troops there now, but we'll withdraw in a year or so.

That's exactly the 'plan' Obama announced. That we have to keep all of these troops there until the national elections occurred. But, then we'll start to withdraw.

Except now, with the ink not even dry on the plan Obama announced a month or so ago, we are already being told that maybe the withdrawal can't happen as announced because of 'increased Al-Qaida activity'.

I'm thousands of miles away, but here's what I think I know from reading about the recent increase in violence in Iraq. The US had created a false peace in Iraq by paying some 100,000 Sunni fighters a monthly salary not to fight the US or the government. That program is ending. The announced plan was that the Iraqi government would take over paying these fighters, mostly by bringing them into the army.

Naturally, the Shiite government isn't real thrilled about paying for a hundred thousand armed men from their Sunni rivals. So, the number of of Sunni fighters who are still getting paid not to fight is much less than announced. This is causing tensions. A couple of weeks ago, the Shiite government started arresting the leaders of Sunni fighters. The Sunnis naturally fought back against the government forces. In the midst of this, someone started setting off bombs in the Shiite neighborhoods again.

So, the US basically bought a period of peace by buying off the Sunni fighters. Now the US is ending that program. Not at all surprisingly, the violence is returning. Yet, this is presented to the American people as 'increased Al-Qaida activity'. And, it shouldn't be a surprise at all that this is now presented to the American people as the reason that we can't even have the limited, partial withdrawal from Iraq.

And note, even though we are now starting to be told that we can't withdraw from Iraq, the plans for the escalation in Afghanistan and Pakistan continue. The idea that this was a 'redeployment' from 'the wrong war' to 'the right war' disappears. But, the escalation of Obama's war in Afghanistan and Pakistan continues.

If you liked the Bush wars, you gonna love the bigger, better, expanded Obama wars.

And, we are going to be about $2 TRILLION in debt for just this year alone. The last estimate I saw was $1.8 TRILLION, and that number keeps rising with each new estimate. So, here's where we get the bill for the bigger, better, expanded Obama wars.

Obama Seeks $83.4 Billion for Iraq, Afghan Wars

President Barack Obama will seek $83.4 billion in additional “emergency” funding for the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which if approved would bring the 2009 funding to around $150 billion and the overall costs of the two wars to nearly $1 trillion.

...

The request is in addition to the $534 billion military budget the administration unveiled earlier in the week. That budget was for fiscal 2010, and was an increase over 2009.

That's another $83 billion for just the rest of this year (until Oct 1 I believe). That's on top of the money that the Democratic congress had already approved last year for the wars in 2009.

It is simple. We can not afford these wars. We have to come home NOW!

Imagine, just for a moment, an $83 billion dollar program pumping money directly to homeowners. But no, we can't have that. Instead, we have to use it to go kill people on the other side of the world.

Nigerian bribes

Swiss hold '$150m Nigeria bribes' from BBCNews

Hello, I'm a Swiss banker. We are holding $150 million dollars that was used by the American firm Haliburton to bribe some of our Nigeria customers. We are determined to return this money to the American people. As such, we've randomly selected your email address as the recipient of $1 million dollars.

To deliver this money to you, we need to collect some information from you. Your name and contact information, your social security number, and the number of the bank account where you would like the money deposited. To verify your identity, we would also need all your other bank account numbers, all PINS and secret codes to access those accounts, and also all of your credit card numbers.

When we receive this information, we will happily deposit $1 million of this Nigerian bribe money into your accounts.

Obama doesn't want Iran attack "before they are ready to have that actually happen."

Obama Team Debates Stance on Israeli Attack Threat by Gareth Porter and Jim Lobe of Inter Press Service via antiwar.com

Both Gary Samore, the new White House coordinator on weapons of mass destruction, and Ashton Carter, now under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, expressed support for a diplomatic strategy of exploiting the Israeli military threat to Iran at a forum at Harvard University’s Kennedy School last September.

Referring to negotiating with Iran on the nuclear issue, Samore said, "My view is that, unless it’s backed up by a very strong bashing alternative, it probably won’t be successful."

Samore called the threat of such an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites "a good diplomatic instrument" for the United States. Carter, who is also a non-proliferation specialist, referred to making the Iranians "wonder whether the Israelis are going to do something" as "not an unreasonable game to play."

But Samore also acknowledged that such a strategy could be dangerous. "[W]e have to be careful when we use that instrument," he said, "that the Israelis don’t see that as a green light to go ahead and strike… before we’re ready to have that actually happen."

Take very careful note of that last sentence ... "before we’re ready to have that actually happen." It reveals that all of the talk of 'diplomacy' is a smoke screen. Just like with Bush. Oh, the smoke is of a different color and smell from Bush's smoke. Obama's smoke doesn't seem quite so irritating to those on the left as Bush's smoke. But its all still just smoke.

Obama and the Democrats support a military attack on Iranian nuclear sites. There only concern is that it happens when they are 'ready to have that actually happen'.

That's the Democrats idea of an 'anti-war' candidate. Remember, Obama was the alternative the Democrats gave to voters as opposed to Hillary's call to 'obliterate' Iran back in the primaries.

An attack on Iran would start a war. The militarists fantasize about the Iranian people supporting us after such an attack. That would literally be the same thing as thinking the American people would long to return to the King of England after he burned Washington in the War of 1812. It is roughly the same amount of years since the revolution in each case.

An attack on Iran's nuclear sites would spread radioactive contamination around the bombed site. Some of these sites are in populated areas. Most of the Muslim world already knows we poison people with radioactivity using our depleted uranium weapons. This would only inflame these passions. And don't think the rest of the world won't still blame us even if the planes have Israeli markings and are flown by Israeli pilots.

Remember, there is no proof that Iran is trying to build a bomb. There is no proof that they have ever enriched fuel beyond reactor-grade levels. Anyone sensible is saying that it is years before Iran could have a bomb.

Yet, we have a Democratic administration that wants an attack on Iran, with the only condition that it occurs when they "are ready to have that actually happen."

This is the Democrats idea of an 'anti-war' candidate. This is the Democrats idea of 'peace'. And people wonder why I'm not a Democrat?

Too much

Sometimes there's just too much to blog about ....


Obama Administration quietly expands Bush's legal defense of wiretapping program by John Bryne on RawStory.com

Obama Praises Iraq War: 'Extraordinary Achievement' on Antiwar.com

‘Progressive’ Warmongers: Liberals rally 'round Obama's war by Justin Raimondo on Antiwar.com

Meet the New Escalators by Norman Solomon on Counterpunch.org

Obama's neoliberals by Jeremy Schahill via Socialist Worker

Card Check on the Ropes by Adam Turl on Counterpunch.org

Who's the Boss? by Uri Avnery on Counterpunch.org

The Tooth Fairy and the Defense Budget by Winston Wheeler on Counterpunch.org


With watchdogs like this... by Nicole Colson in Socialist Worker

Bank-owning life insurers eligible for US bailout: Treasury from AFP via RawStory

Fusion center declares nation's oldest universities possible terror threat by Stephen Webster on RawStory

and, for all us former viewers of Battlestar Gallatica ....

Killer Robots—What Could Go Wrong? by Matthew Yglesias on American Conservative

China vs USA

China vs USA

Cyber-skirmish at the top of the world by Peter Lee in Asia Times

Landline, cell and Internet services in Tibetan areas were interrupted during the period of unrest. When the Chinese government became aware that Tibetan dissidents were using the video-sharing website YouTube as a text-free method to communicate, it shut it down. When image-sharing website Flickr emerged as a potential source of visual information, it was blocked. Tibetan radio broadcasts by Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Asia (RFA) and Voice of Tibet were jammed. A campaign against satellite dishes was intensified to limit the audience of VOA's direct-to-dish Tibet TV service. In order to cut off cell-phone based talk, text, and images, China r

Well, thank gawd we live in a free country where that can't happen here.

Should Obama Control the Internet? in Mother Jones

Should President Obama have the power to shut down domestic Internet traffic during a state of emergency?

Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) think so. On Wednesday they introduced a bill to establish the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor—an arm of the executive branch that would have vast power to monitor and control Internet traffic to protect against threats to critical cyber infrastructure. That broad power is rattling some civil libertarians.

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any "critical" information network "in the interest of national security." The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president.

The bill does not only add to the power of the president. It also grants the Secretary of Commerce "access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws.

Just because Obama used to say the word 'change' in every sentence, that doesn't always mean its 'change' for the good.

Mind Managers

Reflections on a Largely Forgotten Book: Herbert Schiller's The Mind Managers (1973) by Paul Street on ZNet.

There's a huge amount of useful information in this piece, and on a topic that I like to think and write about. That is the media manipulation of the psyche of the American public. I'm partly linking to this just so I can easily find this article again. :)

Just a short taste of what you'll see if you follow this link ....

Together these authors and books show how and why domestic U.S. democracy is undermined by concentrated corporate control of the means of communication and culture. As McChesney explained more than a decade ago, meaningful participatory democracy requires three interrelated things to be in place: (1) rough equality in wealth, income, and property ownership, since large class and socioeconomic disparities undercut the ability of citizens to act as equals and confer disproportionate political, policy, and cultural influence on those with superior resources; (2) a sense of community between individuals - a sense that each individual's well-being is positively connected to the common good, since a democratic political culture cannot take root in a society whose members are simply out to serve their own selfish interests; (3) an effective system of communications that accurately informs and engages the citizenry, encouraging their intelligent participation in political life. The need for accurate, un-biased information is especially urgent for viable democracy in a large and complex modern society like the United States, where the scope and scale of political and societal affairs is so vast and multifaceted as to be beyond immediate observation (McChesney 1997, 5-6)

These three critical prerequisites for meaningful participatory democracy are intimately interrelated with each other, McChesney noted. A society in which wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small elite will see its economic masters work to sustain and eternalize inequality through control of the communications system (media). The masters will own a disproportionate share of that media. They will insist upon a media that filters, shapes, "spins," and otherwise distorts information and shapes popular perceptions and values in ways consistent with continued ruling-class domination. That media system (whose ownership and control becomes ever more concentrated under capitalism) will privilege selfish and authoritarian values over positive notions of the common good and social justice.

Colony

Petraeus: Military Reserves 'Right of Last Resort' for Threats Inside Pakistan from FoxNews

I found this through Progressive Review, which had it listed under the headline "PETRAEUS CLAIMS U.S. COLONIAL POWERS OVER PAKISTAN". Pretty accurate description.

What struck me was this paragraph.

The Pakistanis have expressed frustration over unmanned U.S. drone strikes to take out terrorist targets inside their border.

But Petraeus said the U.S. is mindful of perceptions in the region.

"It's hugely important that we be seen as good neighbors, as friends, certainly fierce warriors who will go after the enemy and stay after them -- but also as individuals who try to avoid civilian casualties whenever possible and are seen again as supporting the people and trying to help them achieve a better life," Petraeus said, specifically referring to the fight on the Afghan side of the border.

And on the Pakistan side of the border? I take it we are NOT interested in being seen as 'supporting the people and trying to help them achieve a better life?'

Actually, I don' think the US ever has been. In Pakistan, the US has supported a long line of military dictators, interspersed by a few stretches of corrupt but US-compliant civilian rule. We don't exactly have a long track record of 'supporting the people and trying to help them achieve a better life', now do we?

Afghanistan Was Never the “Good War”

Afghanistan Was Never the “Good War” by Bill Fletcher Jr, Blackcommentator.com via World Can't Wait.

Sometimes I feel like I am reliving the era of President Lyndon B. Johnson. The era of 'guns and butter,' as they called it. At the same time that Johnson was launching his 'War on Poverty' he was escalating the US war against the people of Vietnam and Laos, as well as carrying out the
criminal invasion of the Dominican Republic (1965). Not only did these interventions (and others!) isolate the USA and set back the efforts of these various countries at self- determination, but they wrecked the US economy, siphoning off badly needed resources.

And, the one point he never quite touches in this article ..... Why on earth are we fighting in Afghanistan? What in Afghanistan is worth having human beings die? At least in Iraq, I could sorta understand the sort of evil, 'today-we-conquer-the-world', James Bond villan sort of thinking that said it was worth killing hundreds of thousands of people by attacking Iraq to gain control of the oil. But, Afghanistan?

Unannounced

Obama makes unannounced visit to Iraq by Reuters via Anti-war.com.

First, I'll believe we've actually made 'progress' in Iraq when a President can make an 'announced' visit. The fact that our great leaders have to sneak in and out of the country, even with their massive security details that can otherwise hold back tens of thousands of evil protesters, does not leave one impressed by the level of security in Iraq.

Then there's this lead to the Reuters piece ...

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama made an unannounced visit to Baghdad Tuesday, marking a new chapter in his strategy to wind down the unpopular war in Iraq and shift the United States' military focus to Afghanistan.

Really? How on earth does this mark 'a new chapter' in his winding down the war?

What's hilarious is watching Obama do exactly the same thing Bush used to do, but now its trumpeted as a 'new strategy' to wind down the war.

This is true not only for these furtive trips to Iraq for photo opportunities, but for the policy in general. Remember, it was always Bush's announced policy that the full level of troops would only stay in Iraq for six months to a year, and then start to withdraw. The catch was, we never got to the withdrawal part. There would always be some new reason why the withdrawal couldn't begin, and the troops would have to stay another six months to a year before the withdrawal can begin.

Obama's big new strategy for 'winding down the war in Iraq' is to keep the current levels of troops for the next year, and then start a slow withdrawal that will take two more years after that. Sound familiar?

What's hilarious is watching Obama do exactly the same thing Bush used to do, but now its trumpeted as a 'new strategy' to wind down the war.

Change

A Coffin, a Flag, a Photograph by the NY Times.

Yes, the advent of the Obama Administration has brought great changes to America. Now, in a dramatic step, coffins of the people who die in our wars can once again be photographed. Ah yes, the world is indeed a different place.

The bad news is that there are still plane loads of coffins arriving back in the country. Real change of course would be to end these wars, and thus end the opportunity to photograph coffins at all.

See also Media Can Now Cover Coffins Coming Home -- But What About the OTHER Missing War Photos? by Greg Mitchell at Editor and Publisher magazine.

For whatever reason, the media in the U.S., in the weeks and then years after that rarely showed the full face of war, despite the brave and remarkable efforts, and wishes, of countless press photographers and cameramen. Bloody scenes, featuring Americans, almost never made the U.S. media, while being widely shown abroad, and on the Web. When they did appear, protests from the government or readers seemed to set the media off this path. Dead Iraqis got more play, but not nearly to the extent called for.