Why Are We Back In Iraq?

For the past couple of days, the Providence Journal has covered a massive federal immigration agent raid at Michael Bianco Inc., a textile plant in New Bedford, MA that had $170 million in contracts to make clothing for the US military. The raid by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents netted 327 illegal immigrants, and they also arrested members of Bianco's management and charged them with conspiring to hire illegal immigrants.

But I thought the most appalling aspect of the story were the working conditions in the textile plant (link is registration-restricted):

The affidavits allege that [plant owner] Insolia, 50, of Pembroke, Mass., “intentionally seeks out illegal aliens because they are more desperate to find employment and are thus more likely to endure severe workplace conditions he has imposed.” Those conditions allegedly include “docking of pay by 15 minutes for every minute an employee is late; fining employees $20 for spending more than 2 minutes in the restroom and firing for a subsequent infraction; providing one roll of toilet paper per restroom stall per day, typically resulting in the absence of toilet paper after only 40 minutes per day; fining employees $20 for leaving (the) work area before break bell sounds; and fining employees $20 for talking while working and firing for a subsequent infraction.”

Despite the chilly temperatures we're currently enduring here in southern New England, those conditions sound quite sweatshop-like to me.

No matter who is working the job, nobody should be working in sweatshop-like conditions on American soil. The Department of Defense, though, doesn't share my belief. I came to this conclusion after seeing this paragraph buried deep in the Projo's follow-up article to yesterday's raid:

According to a spokesman for the U.S. Army Soldiers System Center in Natick, Mass., a representative from the Department of Defense has an “on-site” office at the plant, where he is charged with inspecting all of the gear that is shipped to the military.

So a textile plant that hires over 300 illegal immigrants, which is blatantly illegal, expressly for the purpose of enforcing working conditions on them, conditions which are also blatantly illegal, had a representative from the Department of Defense -- the federal government -- on premise some of the time to inspecting clothing from the plant.

From what I gather, this representative from the military had absolutely no problem with the working conditions of Bianco, Inc. Which is rather ironic, given that he represents an entity which supposedly fights for freedom in the homeland.

# posted by tas : 3/08/2007 07:37:00 AM

While I was psyched to see Martin Scorsese win best director finally on Sunday night, I was kind of disappointed that "The Queen" lost out on best film. Being a huge fan of the original Hong Kong film "Infernal Affairs," it's hard to measure the film without thinking about all the wonderful things that got cut out.

But Stephen Frears "The Queen" really knocked me out, especially the foreshadowing of what would later happen to the film's "hero," the newly elected Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Apologies to all of my readers, but it's really tough for me to blog here since I'm working nearly 24-7 at Raw Story now as Managing Editor. So busy, that it's tough for me to even find the time to link to the articles I've written there, and the ones by our other talented writers, as well.

But here's a link to my Oscar article, Orchestra drowns out Gore's 'announcement' at Oscars:

Pressed by Best Actor nominee Leonardo DiCaprio to announce something important at the 79th Academy Awards on Sunday night, former Vice President Al Gore - an Oscar nominee himself for his hit global warming documentary - took a little too long to get to the 'kicker,' so the orchestra drowned him out.

Gore appeared as a special guest of DiCaprio's, who told the crowd that the Oscars had turned green, as he used the occasion to call on the US government to introduce legislation that would enforce a reduction of carbon emissions.

Read the rest at Raw.

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 2/26/2007 12:24:00 AM

Twice today, President Bush said something bizarre at his press conference, yet not when reporter (not even yesterday's Snow battler, CNN's Ed Henry) called him on it.

"General Pace says that these bombs found in Iraq do not by themselves implicate Iran," one reporter said at the conference. "What makes you so certain that the highest levels of Tehran's government is responsible?"

Bush responded, "Mm. Let me -- the -- what we do know is that the Qods Force was instrumental in providing these deadly IEDs to networks inside of Iraq. That -- we know that. And we also know that the Qods Force is a part of the Iranian government."

"That's a known," Bush continued. "What we don't know is whether or not the head leaders of Iran ordered the Qods Force to do what they did."

The president added, "But here's my point: either they knew or didn't know, and what matters is is that they're there. What's worse -- that the government knew or that the government didn't know?"

"I'd like to follow on Iran," another reporter said later. "Critics say that you are using the same quality of intelligence about Iran that you used to make the case for war in Iraq, specifically about WMD that turned out to be wrong, and that you are doing that to make a case for war against Iran. Is that the case?"

Bush answered this question almost identically, "I can say with certainty that the Qods Force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided these sophisticated IEDs that have harmed our troops. And I'd like to repeat, I do not know whether or not the Qods Force was ordered from the top echelons of government. But my point is, what's worse, them ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering it and it's happening? And so we will continue to protect our troops."

How could it possibly not be worse if the orders came from the top? And how could no White House reporter throw that talking point back?

In what scenario would a rogue element in the government be worse than a nation's leaders approving what most other countries would consider an act of war?

Who would argue that if the president were behind the leaking of a CIA operative's name then it would be a lot worse than if White House officials did it on their own initiative? Evidently, Bush wouldn't argue with that logic, since he later ducked questions about whether or not he authorized Administration officials to leak Valerie Plame's name.

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 2/14/2007 01:27:00 PM

Sean Harder, reporting for Georgia's Savannah Morning News, reveals that 143 or more US troops deployed to Iraq from Fort Stewart last month missed their final combat exercise, and one eighteen-year-old soldier is already dead:

Last week, one of those soldiers - Pvt. Matthew T. Zeimer, 18 - was the first from the brigade to be killed when he was hit by enemy fire in Ramadi, the stronghold of Iraq's Sunni insurgency.

Zeimer arrived at Fort Stewart on Dec. 18 after basic training and deployed to Iraq just a few weeks later. He missed the brigade's intensive four-week mission rehearsal in October when more than 1,300 trainers and Iraqi role-players came to the post as part of the most realistic training program the Army offers for Iraq operations.

The fact some of the brigade's 4,000 soldiers missed that training raises questions about how well the Army is preparing troops for war in the face of accelerated and repeat deployments.

Zeimer did attend Individual Replacement Training, a 10-day course that trains soldiers in weapons use, Iraqi cultural awareness, rules of war, first-aid, navigation and dealing with media.

Individual Replacement Training or I.R.T. is exactly what it sounds like: a theater-specific course for fresh troops (or returning troops) to prepare them so that they can replace troops already deployed.

A Google search reveals that the length of I.R.T. varies from base to base, ranging from seven to ten days total (and if you followed that link, you'd also probably be wondering like me, why it is that Googling "individual replacement training" returns such a small amount of results, considering we've been at war for six years).

"Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of the 3rd Division, acknowledged the pace of deployments means some soldiers 'show up later than you'd like,'" Harder reports. "He said IRT, however, gives troops all the war-fighting skills they need."

Perhaps Zeimer didn't need the "most realistic training program." Perhaps he had all the training he needed. Perhaps the time spent in I.R.T. learning how to "deal[ing] with the media" helped hone his war-fighting skills more than "realistic training" would have.

I've never gone through the training and can barely find any information on the specifics of the exercises or procedures, so I have no way of knowing enough to say that it's ridiculous that an eighteen-year-old could learn all he needs to know to fight in a war in only ten days.

But I can ask one question, at least.

Why the hell aren't Iraqi troops and police getting swift I.R.T. so we can pull our brothers and sisters out of Iraq sometime fucking soon?

While I have no idea if ten days is enough, I'm damn sure that going on four years should be long enough to make some sort of significant progress. I mean it's not like Bernard Kerik spent enough time over there to fuck things up like the Oklahoma hacks who ran FEMA for Bush.

But, according to this McClatchy Newspapers article, written by Tom Lasseter, "[m]any of the Iraqi forces whom the U.S. is counting on to defeat Sunni Muslim insurgents, disarm Shiite Muslim gunmen and assume responsibility for keeping the peace have been infiltrated by sectarian militias and are plagued by incompetence and corruption."

"Two weeks with American units that patrolled with Iraqi forces in west and east Baghdad found that Iraqi officers sold new uniforms meant for their troops, and that their soldiers wore plastic shower sandals while manning checkpoints, abused prisoners and solicited bribes to free suspects they'd captured," Lasseter reports (and make sure you follow the link to read about the "pornography on a cell phone" incident).

Lasseter writes that because of the poor state of Iraq's fighting forces a "U.S. withdrawal almost certainly would mean even more widespread carnage," (which his editor should have told him was at least arguable) then adds that "[c]ontinuing to prop up the Iraqi forces, however, almost certainly would lead to more American casualties, but not necessarily to victory," which is why escalation is not much of a strategy.

"Iraqi troops are 'immeasurably' better than they were, and they continue 'to gain in both confidence and in capability,' U.S. Army Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said Monday," Lasseter continues. "Although the U.S. has spent $15.4 billion since 2003 to train and equip Iraqi forces, Caldwell conceded that the country's military and security forces still have 'deficiencies in both leadership and logistics, and have yet to win the trust of Iraq's ethnic and sectarian communities.'"

Mindboggling.

$15.4 billion spent over the last four years, and hardly anything to show for it but 3,115 dead Americans.

In all seriousness, I doubt it would take much more than an hour of I.R.T. to prepare the next Administration in 2008 more than the half-ass squad that sold us this pile of shit in the first place (unfortunately, I have to put "us" because even though plenty of us knew better, we didn't have any say in the matter, and our cries of Caveat Emptor went unheard).

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 2/09/2007 03:13:00 AM

Wow.

I believe Prince just gave the greatest performance I have ever seen in my life, live or on television.

That was completely unexpected.

Prince's new song "Guitar" can be downloaded for free at his website, and I'm sure video of his Super Bowl performance with rain falling, pigeons soaring, purple lights glowing, marching band performing, and lots of gyrating will be all over YouTube in about twenty minutes or so.

Update

Whoops. Not for free, at the purple one's site. It'll cost you $1.99.

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 2/04/2007 08:21:00 PM

Sorry, I've been kind of busy:

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 2/03/2007 10:29:00 PM

Big story at Raw Story today.

Larisa Alexandrovna (who - if you somehow don't know - broke the story that former CIA agent Valerie Plame had been working on Iran WMD when she was outed by Bush Administration officials) and Muriel Kane (one of the best damn researchers on the planet) have a story called A hidden history: Administration's move towards Iran strike dates back six years which accompanies a Buildup to Iran timeline.

Here's a short excerpt from the first Raw Story Investigates project:

The escalation of US military planning on Iran is only the latest chess move in a six-year push within the Bush Administration to attack Iran, a RAW STORY investigation has found.

While Iran was named a part of President George W. Bush’s “axis of evil” in 2002, efforts to ignite a confrontation with Iran date back long before the post-9/11 war on terror. Presently, the Administration is trumpeting claims that Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon than the CIA’s own analysis shows and positing Iranian influence in Iraq’s insurgency, but efforts to destabilize Iran have been conducted covertly for years, often using members of Congress or non-government actors in a way reminiscent of the 1980s Iran-Contra scandal.

When we got the first transcript of Bush's State of the Union address at Raw Story the other day, the first thing I did was search for the number of times Iran was used.

Markos Kaminis wrote at the Wall Street blog SeekingAlpha:

What we believe will garner investors' attention is Iran, unless President Bush has learned from his now infamous mention of the "Axis of Evil" in that speech we will never forget, post 9/11. I think the president may avoid alerting Iran of its potentially impending fate, considering our second air craft carrier fleet has yet to reach the Persian Gulf. However, if he does mention Iran, I believe you can expect a volatile market on Wednesday and sharply rising oil prices. I strongly believe this president considers confronting Iran during his tenure, just keeping his word. And if he's going to start that fire, he would probably prefer to finish it before he leaves office. That's why I strongly believe the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities and whatever havoc that may follow will happen in 2007. I believe that any indication of that in his speech, or any "Axis" level speak will be enough to concern oil traders, and drive the return of normal negative correlation between equities and energy.

The answer was five; which worried me, as does this:

Edwards: 'Iran must know world won't back down':

In a speech at a conference in Herzliya, Israel, former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) took aim at Iran, warning that the "world won't back down." The 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, who recently launched a new presidential campaign, also said that Israel should be allowed to join NATO.

Although Edwards has criticized the war in Iraq, and has urged bringing the troops home, the former senator firmly declared that "all options must remain on the table," in regards to dealing with Iran, whose nuclear ambition "threatens the security of Israel and the entire world."

"Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons," Edwards said. "For years, the US hasn’t done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran. As my country stayed on the sidelines, these problems got worse."

Edwards continued, "To a large extent, the US abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans. This was a mistake. The Iranian president’s statements such as his description of the Holocaust as a myth and his goals to wipe Israel off the map indicate that Iran is serious about its threats."

The last line by Edwards is interesting.

What do you call it when in the same sentence you blast someone for myth-making you help spread a myth of your own?

Hint: think Alanis song...

While Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad certainly has said a lot of messed up stuff he never used the word map when he referred to wiping away the Zionist regime...and that's regime as opposed to country.

Here's a link if you happen to be a curious Edwards staffer: And it was easily Googlable, dude.

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 1/25/2007 09:40:00 PM

Rich Little won't be mentioning Iraq or ratings when he addresses the White House Correspondents' Dinner April 21.

Little said organizers of the event made it clear they don't want a repeat of last year's controversial appearance by Stephen Colbert, whose searing satire of President Bush and the White House press corps fell flat and apparently touched too many nerves.

"They got a lot of letters," Little said Tuesday. "I won't even mention the word 'Iraq.'"

Moments after the ceremony, Bush saw Wallis. He bounded over and grabbed the cheeks of his face, one in each hand, and squeezed. ''Jim, how ya doin', how ya doin'!'' he exclaimed. Wallis was taken aback. Bush excitedly said that his massage therapist had given him Wallis's book, ''Faith Works.'' His joy at seeing Wallis, as Wallis and others remember it, was palpable -- a president, wrestling with faith and its role at a time of peril, seeing that rare bird: an independent counselor. Wallis recalls telling Bush he was doing fine, '''but in the State of the Union address a few days before, you said that unless we devote all our energies, our focus, our resources on this war on terrorism, we're going to lose.' I said, 'Mr. President, if we don't devote our energy, our focus and our time on also overcoming global poverty and desperation, we will lose not only the war on poverty, but we'll lose the war on terrorism.'''

Bush replied that that was why America needed the leadership of Wallis and other members of the clergy.

''No, Mr. President,'' Wallis says he told Bush, ''We need your leadership on this question, and all of us will then commit to support you. Unless we drain the swamp of injustice in which the mosquitoes of terrorism breed, we'll never defeat the threat of terrorism.''

Bush looked quizzically at the minister, Wallis recalls. They never spoke again after that.

"George Bush came up to me and said, 'Why are you going to show us that commie movie?'" Tsurumi recalled. "I laughed because I thought he was kidding, but he wasn't. After we viewed the film, I called on him to discuss the Depression and how he thought it affected people. [Bush] said, 'Look, people are poor because they are lazy.' A number of students pounced on him and demanded that he support his statement with facts and statistics. He quickly backed down because he could not sustain his broadside."

# posted by Michael Hussey : 1/19/2007 12:56:00 AM

Cheney on domestic spying by the Pentagon and CIA: 'There's nothing wrong with it or illegal'

Convicted Watergate 'plumber' claims LBJ may have had JFK assassinated

DNC slams McCain for 'pandering to far right' on MLK day; Wesley Clark also attended Alabama governor's inauguration

Democratic presidential candidate Kucinich warns, 'If Bush attacks Iran, all bets are off'

'My name's Dr. Multimillionaire and I kicked your ass,' Rep. tells Rove

Newsweek: O.J. book 'claims' that 'Charlie' told Simpson to stop killings

Major investment bank issues warning on strike against Iran

Gates: 'Iranians are acting in a very negative way...we're going to be there for a long time'

Finally, here's why, from now on - except for lazy link round-ups - I'll most probably be blogging even less than I have been, since I started working at Raw Story over a year-and-a-half-ago: Why hasn't Brynaert's blog been updated?.

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 1/16/2007 03:22:00 AM

Press 'swarm' as Pentagon leadership, protester 'enjoy' chat

Leaked remarks: Kennedy to say Senate not told about Iraq rules of engagement

Over 1,000 protesters spell out 'IMPEACH!' on beach in Pelosi's district

Paper: 'Blood and oil; How the West will make a killing on Iraqi oil riches'

Video: Fox crew 'bashes' Boxer for 'childless Condi slur:' White House spokesman later calls senator 'tacky'

DeLay's editor once married to Ex-Majority Leader's former spokesman, speechwriter

Pelosi: Bush's 'surges' didn't work twice before, why do it now again?

'Coalition of the Willing' allies at odds on surge; Blair says 'no'

Iranian TV claims Iraq rushed Saddam's execution to thwart alleged US escape plan

Dean: 'Sorry, Bloomberg,' Democrats choose Denver for 2008 national convention

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 1/13/2007 03:31:00 AM

Mr Bush said there would be violence in Iraq "for many years" and that US troops would only be able to withdraw as local forces gained competence.

"These decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground in Iraq and the good judgement of our commanders, not by artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington," he said.

Mr Bush said victory would come "when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their own citizens, and when Iraq is not a safe-haven for terrorists to plot new attacks on our nation".

This was a partial redefinition of what victory might be, and potentially highly significant, our correspondent says.

Mr Bush also openly acknowledged that there had been "some setbacks in standing up a capable Iraqi security force, and their performance is still uneven in some areas".

But Iraqi forces were regaining control of the country and training programmes had been improved, he said.

Withdrawing US troops before they had accomplished their mission would send the wrong message to the insurgents, Mr Bush added.

"America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your commander-in-chief," he said.

The BBC article I quoted from also notes that in November, 2005, we had more than 155,000 troops in Iraq. Today, before Bush's surge, we have 132,000 troops. So Bush is pushing the troop levels upto a number that wasn't enough less than two years ago, so I can't fathom why it would be enough now. And besides his speech from 2005, Bush has been harping about improving Iraq's military since the 2004 election. More than two years on Bush is still talking about improving Iraq's military as being a key for victory. When is somebody in the White House Press Corps going to develop the testicular fortitude the ask Tony Snow, "Uh, how come we keep hearing this again and again? Why hasn't the Iraqi military made progress? What is Bush's plan to build the Iraq military?"

I'd surely love to hear an answer to that last question.

# posted by tas : 1/11/2007 01:58:00 PM

From Drudge blamed Dems for 'day off for football' but '100 hours' agenda delay said to be due to GOP request:

Contrary to an Internet report, Republicans in the House of Representatives appear to have asked for a day off less than one week into the 110th Congress, RAW STORY has learned. The Democratic leadership consented, and no action is scheduled on the House floor today.

Congress will not meet today to begin the official "100 hours" agenda of the Democratic Members due to a request put in to the Democratic Leadership by Rep. John Boehner, the Republican Minority Leader in the House of Representatives.

"Mr. Boehner made this request, and in the interest of comity, Democrats granted it," a senior Democratic aide told RAW STORY.

Late Sunday afternoon, news portal operator Matt Drudge displayed a large banner headline on his Website set in capital letters which claimed, "DEM VOW ALREADY BROKEN: HOUSE SETS 4-DAY WORK WEEK." Drudge accused the Democrats of shutting down the House because of the College Football National Championship being played tonight between top teams Ohio State University and the University of Florida in Arizona.

....

But Hoyer's office didn't agree with Drudge's characterization of his pledge to clean up Congress's act in the 110th. "Mr. Hoyer made it clear from the beginning that not every week would be a five-day work week and Congress was never scheduled to be voting today," Stacey Bernards, Press Secretary in Hoyer's office, told RAW STORY.

"This week the House will vote to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations, raise the minimum wage, lower drug prices for seniors and expand stem cell research," Bernards added. "I believe most Americans would agree that is a full week of work."

Despite RAW STORY's Michael Roston's best efforts, "Multiple phone calls and e-mails to Rep. Boehner's office by RAW STORY to confirm whether or not the House Minority Leader had asked for the day off were not returned."

Hours after our report, CNN later reported that Boehner went to Glendale, Arizona to see his team get crushed by #2 Florida Monday night 41-7.

Kevin Smith, spokesman for Minority Leader Boehner confirmed Rep. Boehner would be attending the NCAA championship game, 'He will be in Arizona rooting on his home-state Buckeyes, and back to work on Tuesday," CNN reported. "Smith confirms Boehner is paying his own way for travel and tickets."

I love the way CNN frames this:

But it is not just Republican lawmakers who will be in Glendale Monday night. Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, D-Ohio, will also attend the game. Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Florida, whose Gainesville district includes the University of Florida, will be in Arizona cheering on the Gators. Rep. Dave Hobson, R-Ohio, Rep. Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio, and Rep Paul Gillmor, R- Ohio, are also traveling to Glendale to cheer on the Buckeyes.

How many Democrats did CNN mention? Try "mostly Republicans" or "CNN could only confirm one Democrat but the GOP would have a whole cheerleading squad."

Is Glenn Beck editing for CNN now, also?

Brave and intrepid Beck watcher Chris Achorn directed me to some words from the CNN gabber who recently suggested that were a hurricane to hit the city he works in and lives near, it "might not be bad":

Last month, the new House majority leader, Steny Hoyer, caused a lot of controversy on Capitol Hill when he announced that the new Congress would be working for five whole days every week. I know. I know. Insane. That`s what I thought.

He said to reporters, quote, "I have bad news for you. Those trips you had planned in January, forget about them. We`ll be working almost every day in January, starting with the 4th."

Well, wow. I guess "almost" was the key word there, because the real story is the House already has taken a day off. That`s right. After thousands of grueling seconds spent shaking hands last week, taking photos, and hardly voting on anything, the House reportedly is taking the day off - - I am not kidding you -- for the college football national championship game. Yes. Yes.

But I'll agree with this Beck passage (and said something similiar to Roston when I first read Drudge's "flash"):

Now, please don`t burden yourself, you know, bringing up meaningless points like, "Gee, Glenn, no company in the world lets employees take the day off for a football game," or, you know, "Well, the game doesn`t even start until 8:15 tonight. What do they need the whole day off for?"

But it wasn't just CNN and Drudge slanting this as a Democratic flip-flip. Minutes after CNN's article hit the Web I heard an MSNBC commentator frame it in exactly the same manner.

And check out the Grey Lady's blog:

But the House work won’t begin until Tuesday. The House is not in session Monday; with the official explanation being that freshmen lawmakers need time to return from a retreat in Williamsburg. The unofficial explanation is that some lawmakers also wanted to take in the Ohio State – Florida championship game in Arizona.

The fact that Democrats are taking off the first Monday they are in charge drew a protest from Representative Tom Price, Republican of Georgia, who accused Democrats of delay of game, considering they made a big show of pledging to work five-day weeks. “Telling the American people one thing in front of the television cameras and then backpedaling less than one week into the 110th Congress is a symptom of a greater problem,” said Mr. Price, who apparently has designated himself Republican in charge of keeping track of broken Democratic pledges about how they operate the House.

Maybe Congressman Price is just upset because he couldn't score a ticket to see Georgia beat Virginia Tech in the Chick-fil-A Bowl on the last Saturday of 2006.

One final question: Has anyone at CNN, MSNBC or The New York Times ever listened to George Carlin?

If they had, then they'd probably know full well the difference between football and baseball, and would be able to tell which political party would be more interested in a pigskin championship:

Baseball is a 19th century pastoral game.

Football is a 20th century new world order paramilitary power struggle

....

In football, the object is for the quarterback, sometimes called the field general, to be on target with his aerial assault, riddling the defense by hitting his receivers with deadly accuracy in spite of the blitz, even if he has to use the shotgun. With short bullet passes and long bombs, he marches into enemy territory, balancing this aerial assault with a sustained ground attack which may consist of power plays designed to punch holes in the forward wall of the enemy's defensive line.

In baseball, the object is to get home . . . safe.

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 1/09/2007 02:22:00 AM

The Pentagon declared a war on the holiday season.

At CNN's Website, four "highlights" are singled out and boxed above the Associated Press story, "Army asks dead to sign up for another hitch," but, for some reason, the almost-impossible-to-believe second sentence didn't make the cut:

The Army said Friday it would apologize to the families of about 275 officers killed or wounded in action who were mistakenly sent letters urging them to return to active duty.

The letters were sent a few days after Christmas to more than 5,100 Army officers who had recently left the service. Included were letters to about 75 officers killed in action and about 200 wounded in action.

"Army personnel officials are contacting those officers' families now to personally apologize for erroneously sending the letters," the Army said in a brief news release issued Friday night.

"The letters were sent a few days after Christmas to more than 5,100 Army officers who had recently left the service."

Why couldn't the Pentagon wait at least seven days before contacting 5,100 brave men and women who already honorably served their country in order to ask them to do it again again?

There are two agains in that last sentence, because pretty much from the day you sign up with the U.S. Military, you're asked over and over again to commit to even more years before your contract terminates (and thanks to the Army bunglers I couldn't end this sentence with "or you do").

It seems to me that 5,100 retired military officers are owed, at the very least, written apologies, since our government constantly assures us that - despite the Global War on Terror and talks of surge and rumours of Iran - there is no chance for a civilian draft, meaning that there should be no reason for heroes to have their holiday seasons spoiled (even if the only "holidays" observed by those veterans are the first and last days of the year).

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 1/05/2007 10:16:00 PM

From Raw Story:

Earlier today, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), a likely 2008 presidential candidate, declared that he is willing to pay any political price for his fervant support of an escalation of US troops in Iraq, even if it's a "misjudgement."

....

"Well, as you know, I harbor ambitions for the presidency, but there's nothing more important than our nation's security," McCain responded. "I have to do what I believe is right and what I know is right."

"And if I pay a price for that and it's a misjudgment, that's a price I'd willingly pay," McCain added.

Former Democratic North Carolina Senator John Edwards, who announced his second presidential run last week, gave McCain's stance on Iraq a new nickname.

"It would be an enormous mistake to adopt the McCain doctrine and escalate the war," Edwards said, adding that the senator was "dead wrong."

Read the rest at RAW.

I completely disagree with McCain's stance, and I honestly can't for a second understand why any thinking person would believe that sending less than 50,000 troops to Iraq could do anything but make things worse over there. Over 50,000 and I could at least recognize a strategy - one I wouldn't agree with - but a speculated 10 to 30,000 means absolutely nothing. Other than going door to door and treating every Iraqi like an insurgent, what the fuck do some politicians think more troops could possibly do in Iraq. Besides, there's more than enough troops already there to participate in counter-insurgency operations or train Iraqi soldiers or whatever the fuck people think will help "win" this war...but they're too busy guarding the real reason we're there and won't be leaving anytime soon (and you're a fool if you believe anyone you saw on television today who talked about "new directions" but pretend that Americans "get up and go" with nothing but air in their tanks).

Like most pre-2004, liberal McCain-likers-if-not-lovers, I kind of feel personally offended at many of the Arizona Senator's actions, moves, and statements the last few years. Offended because it's the same old shit that happens with every single politician no matter where they seem to be running: the closer they get to the prize, the further they go to the right. Offended because it's hard to respect a person that you feel deserves tremendous respect when they get so they don't seem to even respect what they have done to earn such respect in the first place.

But you know what?

Regardless of whether or not you think McCain is a scumbag for wooing a crowd that would prefer to burn him at the stake. Regardless of whether or not you think McCain is a scumbag for caving in on his principled stand against torture. Regardless of whether or not you think McCain is an idiot for kissing the ass of an unpopular lame duck when he'd get far more support if he hopped back on the straight talk express.

You have to at least recognize the fact that one price this Senator may potentially pay would cost far more than lost votes.

I agree that the McCain doctrine is "dead wrong" but at least this man doesn't think that wars should be fought only by other people's sons and daughters.

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 1/05/2007 12:43:00 AM

From my Raw Story article, 'Not everybody [in Hollywood] loves [conservative] Patricia':

The conservative politics – contrarian to Hollywood – of former Everybody Loves Raymond star Patricia Heaton are discussed in a New York Times article published on New Year's Eve.

Jesse Green reports that Heaton and her late co-star Peter Boyle, who portrayed her father-in-law on the popular sitcom, often "passed much of their downtime jousting about politics."

"More conservative than he, she would call him a 'pinko flag-burning Commie," Green writes. "He would counter, 'So tell me about this Christian God of yours.' Feeling unarmed for such battles, Ray Romano, the show’s star, said he usually hustled off 'to see what the new doughnut was at the craft table.'"

Note to readers: Sorry, if I teased you with the more regular blogging the last week, but I'm real busy again at RS, so unless guest bloggers check in, there might not be much new here this week.

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 1/03/2007 04:40:00 PM

Days away from the Times Square celebrations, Justin Rood at TPMmuckraker (via a reader's tip) finds the best quote of the year.

Move over Will Rogers. Move over Winston Churchill. Move over Sylvester Stallone.

Homeland Security Adviser Fran Townsend, former Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Combating Terrorism, issues a platitude-for-the-ages that future losers and Chicago Cubs fans can embrace for eternity:

"Well, I'm not sure -- it's a success that hasn't occurred yet," said Townsend. "I don't know that I view that as a failure."

Go to Muckraker to find out what "success that hasn't occurred yet" Townsend is babbling about.

Few more good links:

Larisa Alexandrovna at Juan Cole's Informed Comment on the insanity surrounding "Stop or Saddam Hussein Will Be Hung As Early As Fill In The Blank."

Spiderman debates George Bush on the "government’s secret detention program."

The Next Hurrah's emptywheel aka Marcy Wheeler has a "spooky cover" for her forthcoming book on the scary stuff done to spooks called "Anatomy of Deceit."

Some recent articles I had at Raw Story:

CNN: Is GOP Rep. 'fueling' Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories? which sports a David Edwards video.

Novak: McCain's 'aggressive surge' stance backfiring which Mike Sheehan assisted on.

Novak: Conservatives may resign from board if DeLay hired as lobbyist; Obama running in 2008 (with thanks to Mike Rogers).

GOP Senator 'glad' Muslim Rep. will swear allegiance to Koran.

Bush Sr. jokes about Britney's 'underwear' in sitdown with actor Clooney.

Morgan Stanley charged with using '9/11 smokescreen' to hide e-mails.

David Duke calls Wolf Blitzer Israeli agent; Bloggers slam CNN 'stunt'.

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 12/29/2006 04:22:00 PM

Perhaps The New York Times entered into some sort of secret agreement with the Bush Administration that it hasn't disclosed when it published the redacted Op-Ed written by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann on a news dump Friday just before Christmas when most people wouldn't be reading the news.

Why else would they publish crap like this?

Not that "Iran Is Seeking More Influence in Afghanistan" written by David Rohde, with contributions by Michael Slackman and Michael Moss, is that bad of an article. It's just that it completely ignores much of the unretracted information in the op-ed printed a few days ago, along with the citations which led to all that was censored, which would have added a whole other level to this story.

Has the Times agreed to ignore all evidence that the Bush Administration ignored all Iranian GWOT efforts and pushed them away, helping to create the mess that was once considered a success but most everyone ignores (starts with an "A" and a big reason for the "mess" starts with a "P") these days?

Simply speaking, as bad as it is in Iraq, the problems are mostly internal (at least after you subtract oil from the equation...which no one in power speaks realistically about anyway), and it is not the threat to the world that the re-Talibanization of Afghanistan may one day become (special thanks to our "allies" in Pakistan who need to do a helluva lot more than build a fence).

(I would like to interject that I am one of those rare animals who do not believe the invasion of Afghanistan was any more warranted than Iraq. I firmly believe that more "justice" could have been achieved by working longer on the diplomatic ends. But while the pre-2001 Taliban had aims only on Afghanistan, I fear that the present and seemingly future version has become something far worse now.

But the problems in Afghanistan are more important than any other place in the world, primarily because neighboring Pakistan not only has nuclear weapons, it has also sold them to who-knows-how-many rogue nations and/or terror groups.)

The new Times article even includes a quote from someone whose public words the retracted words only echoed. As Leverett and Mann noted in their preface, "These passages go into aspects of American-Iranian relations during the Bush administration’s first term that have been publicly discussed by....and a former special envoy to Afghanistan, James Dobbins."

This is all there is in the new Times article that relates to the redacted op-ed:

When the Taliban were ousted in 2001, Iran promised to help stabilize Afghanistan. In Germany that December, it was Iranian diplomats who stepped in to save foundering talks to form a new Afghan government, persuading the Northern Alliance to accept the agreement. Soon after, Iran pledged $560 million in aid and loans to Afghanistan over five years, a “startling” amount for a nonindustrialized nation, according to James Dobbins, the senior American envoy to Afghanistan at the time.

A week later, President Bush situated Iran on the “axis of evil.” But even as they assailed that characterization, Mr. Dobbins said, Iranian officials privately offered to train Afghan soldiers. The Bush administration rejected the offer.

Poor Rohde, Slackman and Moss might have had to ignore stuff that Dobbins wrote in the 2004 Washinton Post Op-Ed cited as a source by Leverett and Mann called "Time to deal with Iran" like this:

...Secretary of State Colin L. Powell sent personal letters of thanks to every foreign minister represented at the Bonn conference except the one whose envoy may have been the most helpful, the Iranian. Dialogue with Iranian representatives was confined over the next year to infrequent, low-level and inconclusive exchanges, which, shortly after U.S. forces entered Baghdad, were suspended altogether.

Of course, even as Iranian diplomats and military officers were supporting U.S. efforts to install and sustain a successor government to the Taliban, other Iranians with official connections were, and are, rendering support to radical Palestinian groups such as the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas). It was this Iranian support of terrorism directed against Israel, along with the Iranian nuclear program and the refusal of Iran to turn over senior al Qaeda operatives in its custody, that caused Washington to limit and eventually curtail dialogue with Tehran on Afghanistan and Iraq.

I included the second Dobbins paragraph to show how weird it is that the Times ignored that, as well. I guess the Times didn't want to touch the "refusal" part, because the record shows that much of that was just propaganda. The Bush Administration fouled up, no doubt. There seemed to be more offers of cooperation than harboring, and, in the end, "our leaders" allowed some very fucking dangerous people to return to their first "successful" GWOT project, Afghanistan.

(Juan Cole has an interesting theory regarding how neocons derailed Iranian attempts at reconcilitation, but no American mainstream journalist would dare to follow-up since....well, you'll see if you take a peek....hat tip to reader Tom at Brad DeLong's crib)

Reading Rohde, Slackman and Moss is like pretending Leverett and Mann never happened. Speaking of which...

How much do you want to bet that Leverett was probably not able to help contribute to this article in any way whatsoever by the censors?

But why did that stop Rohde, Slackman and Moss?

Why did this article strangely ignore the circumstances of the editorial that they fought to publish but then dumped on the Friday before Christmas?

And why the hell couldn't the Times even add Leverett and Mann as a related link on the bottom of the page?

Courageous stand, my ass. This smells. Somebody call the public editor and get us some answers.

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 12/28/2006 02:49:00 AM

ABC's The Blotter has a poorly written and edited article about a New York Times journalist allegedly beaten by Pakistani agents:

New York Times correspondent Carlotta Gall tells ABC News she was assaulted by plain-clothed government security agents while reporting in Quetta, a Pakistani city near the Afghan frontier where NATO suspects the Taliban hides its shadow government.

Akhtar Soomro, a freelance Pakistani photographer working with Gall, was detained for five-and-a-half hours. According to Gall, the agents broke down the door to her hotel room, after she refused to let them enter, and began to seize her notebooks and laptop. When she tried to stop them, she says one of the men punched her twice in the face and head.

"I fell backwards onto a coffee table smashing the crockery," she recalled in a written account of the incident. "I have heavy bruising on my arms, on my temple and my cheekbone, and swelling on my left eye and a sprained knee."

Gall says the agents accused her and Soomro of trying to meet the Taliban. They identified themselves as working for Pakistan's Special Branch, an undercover police department, but Gall said other local reporters identified them as employees from one of the country's two powerful spy agencies: Inter-Services Intelligence or Military Intelligence.

Somehow, ABC left the "when" out of their story, but the Committee to Protect Journalists notes that it occurred on December 19.

From a Los Angeles Times report published two days after Gall's alleged assault:

Pakistan's security branches demonstrate far more efficiency in keeping track of Western outsiders, including foreign journalists, whose movements in and around Quetta are closely monitored.

New York Times reporter Carlotta Gall was questioned this week by Pakistani security agents who forced their way into her Quetta hotel room and at one point struck her in the face, she said. Gall's notes and laptop were seized but later returned. The U.S. Embassy in Islamabad said it was looking into the incident.

Here's an excerpt from one of Gall's most recent Times articles on the Taliban in Pakistan:

Islamic militants are using a recent peace deal with the government to consolidate their hold in northern Pakistan, vastly expanding their training of suicide bombers and other recruits and fortifying alliances with Al Qaeda and foreign fighters, diplomats and intelligence officials from several nations say. The result, they say, is virtually a Taliban mini-state.

The militants, the officials say, are openly flouting the terms of the September accord in North Waziristan, under which they agreed to end cross-border help for the Taliban insurgency that revived in Afghanistan with new force this year.

The area is becoming a magnet for an influx of foreign fighters, who not only challenge government authority in the area, but are even wresting control from local tribes and spreading their influence to neighboring areas, according to several American and NATO officials and Pakistani and Afghan intelligence officials.

This year more than 100 local leaders, government sympathizers or accused "American spies" have been killed, several of them in beheadings, as the militants have used a reign of terror to impose what President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan calls a creeping "Talibanization." Last year, at least 100 others were also killed.

But, evidently, some American conservatives don't care about the Talibanization of Pakistan, and would prefer Western journalists to stay the fuck out of Dodge and keep their freaking traps shut, as shown by some repulsive comments left at ABC's The Blotter.

Here's some of the heartless, misinformed and callow samples left there:

Dan Pearl was not beheaded by Paki special agents. This NYT stringer should watch her neck. I wonder if the NYT is holding back on this for a reason we can only guess, such as the Eason Jordan rule? Posted by: daveinboca | Dec 26, 2006 1:45:24 PM

"Investigative journalists" are becoming an endangered species. If they were, in fact, getting ready to meet with the Taliban they should have been arrested. Just stick to reporting the news instead of creating a news event. You might live longer. Posted by: John Wilkins | Dec 26, 2006 1:48:35 PM

When will you liberals finally figure out that the Muslims want to kill you? Posted by: XXX | Dec 26, 2006 1:48:55 PM

Let's see: - You are in a foreign country. - You refuse to allow the government agents, police, etc. into your hotel room. You refuse to surrender documents that are requested by these government agents. - You act like you are above the law. And now you are looking for sympathy because they were doing their job. You were lucky to teeth left to talk with and unbroken fingers with which to write this dribble. So solly! Posted by: Jack Morris | Dec 26, 2006 1:51:19 PM

Serves her right for trying to meet with a sworn enemy of America. When will the NYT finally admit their treason? Posted by: John Burgeson | Dec 26, 2006 2:05:49 PM

Glad to hear the Pakistani secret police are doing their jobs in silencing the Taliban and Al Queda propoganda arm AKA New York Times. Nice job guys, keep up the good work. Crack some more skulls at the NYT. Posted by: Tim Mills | Dec 26, 2006 2:22:00 PM

There's plenty more, but you get the idea.

Back to Why Are We Back In Iraq? homepage

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 12/26/2006 03:48:00 PM

From my latest Raw Story article, Novak: Conservatives may resign from board if DeLay hired as lobbyist; Obama running in 2008:

In a Christmas Eve column for the Chicago Sun-Times, conservative columnist Robert Novak claims he has heard of potential resignations of Board members at the American Conservative Union, should former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) be hired as a lobbyist for the organization.

DeLay told the The New York Times just last week that he would be announcing some new "career moves" soon, but said that the "one career that he was not considering" would be lobbying.

Two former aides to the Texas Congressman "have pleaded guilty to corruption charges involving the lobbyist Jack Abramoff," Philip Shenon wrote for The Times. "Federal prosecutors have never directly suggested that Mr. DeLay was in their sights in the Abramoff investigation, though friends have said Mr. Abramoff’s guilty plea last January prompted Mr. DeLay’s resignation from Congress."

....

DeLay's last "career move" was to enter the blogosphere, setting up shop on the Internet at TomDeLay.com. The same web address that used to host the former Congressman's campaign site has been transformed into the home for "Tom DeLay’s Grassroots Action and Information Network."

....

RAW STORY reported on DeLay's blogging efforts on December 10 (Former Rep. DeLay, indicted on state campaign finance charges, begins new 'career' as blogger). MNBC's Keith Olbermann later mocked DeLay for using "ghost bloggers" to produce posts.

Although DeLay's blog traffic received an early boost after RAW STORY - and liberal blogs such as Crooks and Liars and Think Progress - first reported on the site, a search at Alexa's traffic rankings reveals that the "surge" ended over a week before Christmas.

Full article at Raw Story. It's worth the trip to see the Alexa traffic ranking chart showing DeLay's traffic "surge" and plummet, and don't miss Novak's far-fetched "scoop" that security fears based on Senator Obama's race were what turned Barack into Hamlet and made his wife the opposite of Lady Macbeth.

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 12/26/2006 12:42:00 AM

From my Raw Story article, The redacted Iran op-ed revealed:

The New York Times has taken the unusual step of publishing an op-ed in which parts of the contents have been "redacted" or blacked out by government censors, who believe that its contents would reveal "sensitive" information that the White House wants to withold. Below is RAW STORY's best informed guess at what might hide behind the redactions.

In addition to the redacted op-ed, the Times published an explanatory note from its authors, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann. Leverett served in the Bush National Security Council under Condoleezza Rice, and is now affiliated with the Washington, DC-based Brookings Institution. Hillary Mann is an ex-foreign service officer who participated in US dialogue with Iran from 2001 to 2003.

Leverett and Mann made available a set of publicly-available sources of information which they had "provided...to the board to demonstrate that all of the material the White House objected to is already in the public domain." However, as they noted, "to make sense of much of our Op-Ed article, readers will have to read the citations for themselves."

RAW STORY has examined these sources and has attempted to connect the previously published materials to the redacted paragraphs in the op-ed. What the information reveals is a series of events in which US-Iran dialogue broke down. In the aftermath of 9/11, the cooperative spirit around the world sparked by America's victimhood encouraged Iran to collaborate with the United States in its effort to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan. But the goodwill that might have been sustained by those early negotiations was undermined by a series of disputes between the US and Iran.

Read the entire article, bannered as "Raw Story decodes censored Iran op-ed" at this link.

One tiny redaction I didn't touch on was the last redaction in the op-ed:

Our experience dealing with xxxx xxxx Iranian diplomats over Afghanistan and in more recent private conversations in Europe and elsewhere convince us that Iran will not go down such a dead-end road again. Iran will not help the United States in Iraq because it wants to avoid chaos there; Tehran is well positioned to defend its interests in Iraq unilaterally as America flounders. Similarly, Iran will not accept strategically meaningful limits on its nuclear capabilities for a package of economic and technological goodies.

My best "informed guess" would be that the words "U.S. and" were redacted. My second best "informed guess" would be that the words were "U.K. and."

(Special thanks to Raw Story's Michael Roston for shaping my scribblings into something cohesive.)

Update

Brad DeLong offers a "Guess at the Unredacted Leverett-Mann Op-Ed," by going the extra route and inserting lines Madlibs-style. His second "unredacted" paragraph (beginning with "In December 2001..." regarding Hekmatyar), in particular, looks perfect, and I think he's right about "European and" (rather than my "U.S. and" or "U.K. and" stabs) as the final redaction.

And thanks again to Michael Roston for e-mailing me a link to another take by Arms Control Wonk (the link to the post doesn't seem to be working, so here's a link to the entire blog).

And here's a link to another Raw Story article which "flashbacks" to Larisa Alexandrovna's work on Mujaheddin-e-Khalq (the terrorist group which may have had all references to from the draft of the Leverett-Mann op-ed completely removed).

Update #2

At the community website, Reddit, a user named "smacfarl" offers what he calls a "laughable crude attempt to supply context to the redaction based on the Raw Story selections."

I'd say he's being a little hard on himself, because he makes some nice choices (especially in the paragraph which he begins with "Richard Armitage accused...").

One thing that strikes me is that by redacting two words in one of the paragraphs, the Bush Administration may have accidently confirmed something that they seemed to be very worried of drawing attention to.

From Leverett-Mann's second redacted paragraph:

In December 2001, xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx x Tehran to keep Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the brutal pro-Al Qaeda warlord, from returning to Afghanistan to lead jihadist resistance there. xxxxx xxxxxxx so long as the Bush administration did not criticize it for harboring terrorists. ....

I'd say the censors screwed up by leaving the word "Tehran" in the first sentence, because knowing that it's pretty simple to assume that the next sentence almost definitely appears to be "Iran agreed" or some variation (Brad DeLong, smacfarl both "agreed" on that redaction while Dr. Jeffrey Lewis went with "Tehran agreed").

In other words, the White House did more than redact something already available in the "public domain," they basically confirmed that Iran had been keeping a "brutal pro-Al Qaeda warlord" from leaving to Afghanistan since December of 2001, who had reportedly threatened against a U.S. invasion of Afghanistan only one week after the September 11 attacks. Hekmatyar allegedly believed Osama bin Laden's first reported denial of involvement, and told the BBC that "if Afghanistan is attacked by America, then our nation has no other choice but to defend their country... The whole of our nation will stand against the attack on their country and... we will go and join our nation."

But after President Bush accused it of "export[ing] terror" as a member of the "axis of evil" in his January 29, 2002 State of the Union address, Iran either embarked on a series of actions in an attempt to patch things up or decided to toss a monkey wrench in the American-led efforts to stabilize the Afghanistan government.

Soon afterward, on February 10, 2002, Iran shut down Hekmatyar's Hezb-i-Islami offices, and on February 26, 2002, the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) reported that Hekmatyar left Tehran, at the same time Afghan leader Hamid Karzai was visiting Iran (he'd reportedly been officially asked to leave on the eve of Karzai's arrival on the 24th for his three day visit).

Hekmatyar reportedly went to Afghanistan (or perhaps somewhere to some pro-militant part of Pakistan nearby), then a few weeks later, surprisingly backed Karzai's government on March 11, 2002, through a spokesman. The Hezb-i-Islami Party's deputy leader Qutbuddin Hilal told the press, at a conference held in Pakistan, that the former Afghan premier had been misquoted before, and that he "wanted to show to the world by leaving Iran that he was not the reason for strains in relations between Iran and the US."

But two months later, on May 6, 2002, the United States, reportedly on President Bush's direct orders, attempted to assassinate Hekmatyar with a "Hellfire anti-tank missile...fired by a CIA Predator drone," because, according to an unnamed American official quoted in the New York Times, "We had information that he was planning attacks on American and coalition forces, on the interim government, and on Karzai himself."

Later that year, on September 5, 2002, Karzai narrowly escaped an attempt on his own life, and Afghanistan's foreign minister, Abdullah Abdullah, blamed "al-Qaida, groups associated to al-Qaida remnants of the Taliban, and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar."

But it wasn't until February 19, 2003, nearly a year after Hekmatyar had left Iran, that the State Department designated him as a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist," in a press statement released by Richard Boucher:

The U.S. Government has information indicating that Gulbuddin Hekmatyar has participated in and supported terrorist acts committed by al-Qa’ida and the Taliban. Because of his terrorist activity, the United States is designating Hekmatyar as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist under the authority of Executive Order 13224. At the same time, the United States will request that the UN 1267 Sanctions Committee include Hekmatyar on its consolidated list of entities and individuals associated with Usama bin Laden, al-Qa’ida, and the Taliban, which would obligate all Member States to impose sanctions, including assets freezes, under UN Security Council Resolutions 1267, 1390, and 1455.

A few weeks ago, in a tape acquired by the A.P., Hekmatyar was quoted as predicting "that U.S. troops would be forced out of Afghanistan like the Soviets before them" and "tout[ing] the Republican defeat in the U.S. midterm elections as a victory for Islamic militants."

"It seems that every bullet that mujahedeen had fired toward the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan has turned into a vote against Bush," Hekmatyar said.

Hekmatyar appears to be some sort of "flip-flopper," because in 2004 he supposedly supported the Bush-Cheney ticket, according to a Pak Tribune article:

Fugitive leader and one of the most wanted militant commanders Gulbuddin Hekmatyar said he would be pleased with President George W. Bush again winning presidential election to see how 'more stupidly' the US government will run the affairs in more five years.

In a statement titled 'Joint Message of Afghan and Iraqi Mujahideen,' Hekmatyar said let the White House be ruled another term by the Republicans to win more 'bad name for the US' in the world due to their failed policies.

"It is a good way to rid the world of the menace of US to continue the failed war policy. For this, US really need such a stupid and arrogant president (like Bush), a vice President like Cheney and a defence secretary like Rumsfeld to make a team of war," said the statement obtained by Pajhwok Afghan News.

....

He added the Bush-led war-loving team in the White House was not harmful for the Mujahideen if not beneficial, either. "To be honest, we and every opponent of US would be grieved if any team wiser than the Bush's come to the White House. All those who want to get rid of US's evils should encourage people to vote for the Republicans."

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 12/22/2006 04:05:00 PM

Is this guy clueless or what?

The wisdom of former NBC News cue card reader Tom Brokaw, as reported in the Philadelphia Inquirer the other day:

There are very good jobs American kids don't want to take - $15- to $16-an-hour summer construction jobs I would have killed for in high school. They don't want to work that hard or do grunt work. They want computer work.

Perhaps Brokaw should start his own temp agency so he can match up the youth of America with these imaginary jobs.

Unless you're in a union, you don't get anything close to that kind of money. Believe me, over the years, I've done my share of break-your-back spring, summer, fall and winter construction work, in places ranging from upstate New York to Bumfuck, Florida, and most of the time those jobs paid minimum fucking wage.

Tom Brokaw is a dirty, reprehensible, stone cold fucking liar for claiming that undocumented or even documented construction workers make that kind of money, without belonging to a union.

The fact of the matter is that most jobs for unskilled workers in this country pay little more than pennies over the minimum wage, and dirtbags like Brokaw who know nothing about the real world are the ones that keep America's workers in the third world.

Update

As Alfdom correctly notes in the column, Brokaw is referring to workers in the resort areas of Vail and Aspen, Colorado, as reported by The Aspen Times in December of 2005:

While the battle over immigration rages in Colorado and beyond, Glenwood Springs contractor Mark Gould looks at his largely Hispanic workforce and states a simple fact: He couldn't make it without them.

While teens fresh out of high school disdain the ditch-digging work that's the backbone of Gould's excavating business, Hispanic immigrants line up for the $14-an-hour jobs.

"The young American male doesn't want to work that hard," Gould said. "We raised our children in this electronic world. They say, 'I should be able to make a living ... with a computer, not cleaning toilets.'"

....

Hispanic workers at Gould Construction are not paid less than their Anglo counterparts, Gould said. He pays laborers $14 an hour but maintains that is not a living wage for a single person.

On Monday, New York's Daily News reviewed Brokaw's special:

Trino, one of several brothers living in the house, works for Gould Construction Co., one of the area firms struggling to find workers willing to dig ditches and perform other menial, physically rigorous jobs. Trino has the documents required by law that are necessary to land the job - a Social Security card, a driver's license - but they're forged.

Yet he's a willing and reliable worker, who are in short supply around the Colorado boom towns, with their privileged youth and high aspirations.

"Americans don't want this work," says one of the Gould bosses, a white American who himself worked his way up the ranks from digging ditches.

Even still, my opinion remains unchanged about Brokaw.

One fucking contractor is paying that rate, and it's big enough news that Brokaw did a report on that same contractor one year later.

Hell, even the contractor knows that that money won't go very far in today's economy, as Tas brought up in the comments.

And I'm gonna assume without even doing the research that the "privileged youth" whom belong to upper class families that live in Mexico's resort areas aren't clamoring for summer construction jobs either.

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 12/21/2006 12:32:00 PM