.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Uncommonly Sensible

Keeping the "anal" in analytical... (While trying to remain civilized)

My Photo
Name:
Location: United States

Friday, May 27, 2005

In Memoriam...


From the battle of Lexington and Concord more than 200 years ago to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East today, the members of the United States military have served this nation with honor, integrity and pride. Through their efforts and sacrifice, they have fought for and preserved the principles that are the cornerstone of our way of life.

In May 1868, as the United States was healing from the ravages of the Civil War, General John Logan, national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, issued General Order No. 11, proclaiming Memorial Day as a time to remember the fallen as follows:

“…gather around their sacred remains and garland the passionless mounds above them with choicest flowers of springtime…let us in this solemn presence renew our pledges to aid and assist those whom they have left among us as sacred charges upon the nation’s gratitude, - the soldier’s and sailor’s widow and orphan.”

This Monday, as we observe Memorial Day, we remember the more than one million servicemen and servicewomen who have given their lives to preserve our freedom, and salute the loved ones they have left behind. We also honor the prisoners of war, those missing in action, our veterans, and the men and women on the battlefield and in the command centers of today who are prepared to pay the ultimate price to ensure that we are kept safe. As you enjoy the three-day holiday with family and friends, I encourage you to take some time during The National Moment of Remembrance at 3 p.m. to reflect on the many sacrifices so many have made, and continue to make, on our behalf.

40 Comments:

Blogger mig said...

This year we are having a 'Healing Field' at the battleship. I am looking forward to it. The kids will participate with thier Scout troops. We are lucky to have groups that will still honor the flag and the military.

May 27, 2005 7:04 AM  
Blogger camojack said...

mig:
By "the battleship", I presume you are referring to the North Carolina

Anyway, as long as there's an American Legion, there'll be a group that honors the flag and the military. I'm a Legionnaire myself...

May 27, 2005 7:24 AM  
Blogger Pat'sRick© said...

Say, I wonder if we can start a new "Veterans against..." group?
I had a thought, but let it escape. Such is life.

May 27, 2005 10:16 AM  
Blogger Pat'sRick© said...

Hannity is raising money for the children of those slain in Iraq.

May 27, 2005 10:19 AM  
Blogger camojack said...

Pat'sRick:
Say, I wonder if we can start a new "Veterans against..." group? I had a thought, but let it escape. Such is life.


We veterans are against a lot of things, but somehow we tend to focus on the positive instead.

May 27, 2005 2:05 PM  
Blogger joker said...

How about "Veterans against depleted uranium"?

Like this:

Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) will sponsor its annual Memorial Day event at 11 AM, Monday May 30 at the corner of Wacker and Wabash, Chicago IL. They will release their new report, "From Vietnam to Iraq: Ignoring the Veteran Healthcare Crises."

Speakers will include Dave Curry, VVAW National Staff and the author of the report, Barry Romo, a VVAW National Coordinator, Charles Anderson, member of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), Pat Vogel of Military Families Speak Out, and Jackson Potter, Chicago Public Schools high school teacher who is attempting to offer his students a different perspective than they receive from military recruiters and the ROTC. An Englewood student is also scheduled to speak. Potter's class was shown on a PBS Newshour story on May 13, 2005 as they listened to Romo speak about his experiences in the military.

Curry's report, produced by VVAW and co-sponsored by IVAW, will recommend (among other matters):

1) Iraq veterans have been exposed to dangerous levels of depleted uranium by the U.S. military. The United States must immediately cease production of depleted-uranium weapons and stop their use in overseas military efforts. Like Agent Orange -- used by the military during the Vietnam War which caused serious physical damage to U.S. soldiers -- the short-term military gains made with depleted uranium can cause long-term and possibly life-threatening mental and physical repercussions.

May 28, 2005 6:12 AM  
Blogger Hawkeye® said...

I'm against war too, in general. But as you know, sometimes there are worse things than war... Like tyranny and oppression. Like rebellion and anarchy. Like fascism and communism. Like expansionist aggression.

God Bless our military, their families, our veterans, and those who have sacrificed themselves in the name of freedom.

May 28, 2005 10:53 AM  
Blogger hooey said...

I would of thought you would be all over the Senat compromise.

May 28, 2005 3:48 PM  
Blogger 'da Bunny said...

May God bless all of those who have served, are serving, and will serve to protect us and defend our freedoms. And may we also remember this..."they also serve, those who stand and wait."

Have a blessed Memorial Day, everyone!

May 28, 2005 4:42 PM  
Blogger camojack said...

Hawkeye® & 'da Bunny:
God bless those who serve and have served, indeed. And an excellent Memorial Day Weekend to all...

May 29, 2005 2:07 AM  
Blogger hooey said...

eleventeenth

May 29, 2005 10:07 AM  
Blogger Kajun said...

joker:

In case you weren't joking, I have checked large amounts of depleted uranium for residual radiation (with a giger counter) and found it to produce no more radiation than the concrete it was lying on.

Depleted uranium is used as counter weights in large aircraft controls.

If you're so worried about it, better not fly commercial...and also hope no planes pass overhead while you're outstanding in your field.

May 30, 2005 2:03 PM  
Blogger camojack said...

Death of a Marine
-Jeff Jacoby

May 31, 2005 12:59 AM  
Blogger Beerme said...

Joker,

Drop the emotion. There is no danger in depleted uranium weapons. I love how you folks throw around "facts" and just expect people to believe them. Then you base new assertions of government misconduct on those erroneous "facts" you threw out before.
Agent Orange is far from being considered the cause of widespread physical ailments you people want to promote. The science doesn't show it. Of course emotion-led policies can be based upon any cockamamie idea.

Aren't you sad, Joker, that JFKerry didn't carry this country to victory in the election? I mean, we could all be kicking back and collecting some sort of check from the government for some sort of slight we might have been subjected to. Oh, but where would the money come from?

May 31, 2005 6:56 AM  
Blogger joker said...

Washington, DC - Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA), a medical doctor, on May 17 introduced legislation with 21 original co-sponsors in the House of Representatives that calls for medical and scientific studies on the health and environmental impacts from the U.S. Military's use of depleted uranium (DU) munitions in combat zones, including Iraq. The McDermott bill also calls for cleanup and mitigation of sites in the U.S. contaminated by DU.

"The need is urgent and imperative for full, fair and impartial studies," McDermott said. "We may be endangering the health and lives of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians. All we've gotten so far from the Pentagon are assurances. We need facts backed by science. We don't have that today."

Because of its density, the military uses DU as a protective shield around tanks, and in munitions like armor piercing bullets and tank shells. DU tends to spontaneously ignite upon impact, disintegrating into a micro-fine residue that hangs suspended in the air where it can be inhaled and falls to the ground to leach into the soil.

DU is a by-product of the uranium enrichment process; it is chemically toxic. and DU has low-level radioactivity. About 300 metric tons of DU munitions were fired during the first Gulf War, and about half that amount has been used to date in the Iraq War.

"I've been concerned about DU since veterans of the first Gulf War began to experience unexplained illnesses, commonly called 'Gulf War Syndrome' that remain mysterious," McDermott said.

McDermott added that there are reports from Iraqi doctors and others today of seemingly unexplained serious illnesses including higher rates of cancer and leukemia, and even birth defects.

"We pretended there was no problem with Agent Orange after Vietnam and later the Pentagon recanted, after untold suffering by veterans. I want to know scientifically if DU poses serious dangers to our soldiers and Iraqi civilians."

May 31, 2005 1:20 PM  
Blogger joker said...

"I'm horrified. The people out there – the Iraqis, the media and the troops – risk the most appalling ill health. And the radiation from depleted uranium can travel literally anywhere. It’s going to destroy the lives of thousands of children, all over the world. We all know how far radiation can travel. Radiation from Chernobyl reached Wales and in Britain you sometimes get red dust from the Sahara on your car."

The speaker is not some alarmist doom-sayer. He is Dr Chris Busby, the British radiation expert, Fellow of the University of Liverpool in the Faculty of Medicine and UK representative on the European Committee on Radiation Risk, talking about the best kept secret of this war: the fact that, by illegally using hundreds of tons of depleted uranium (DU) against Iraq, Britain and America have gravely endangered not only the Iraqis but the whole world. For these weapons have released deadly, carcinogenic and mutagenic, radioactive particles in such abundance that – whipped up by sandstorms and carried on trade winds – there is no corner of the globe they cannot penetrate – including Britain. For the wind has no boundaries and time is on their side: the radioactivity persists for over 4,500,000,000 years and can cause cancer, leukaemia, brain damage, kidney failure, and extreme birth defects – killing millions of every age for centuries to come. A crime against humanity which may, in the eyes of historians, rank with the worst atrocities of all time.

These weapons have released deadly, carcinogenic and mutagenic, radioactive particles in such abundance that there is no corner of the globe they cannot penetrate – including Britain.

Yet, officially, no crime has been committed. For this story is a dirty story in which the facts have been concealed from those who needed them most. It is also a story we need to know if the people of Iraq are to get the medical care they desperately need, and if our troops, returning from Iraq, are not to suffer as terribly as the veterans of other conflicts in which depleted uranium was used."

May 31, 2005 1:26 PM  
Blogger joker said...

"In 1996 and 1997 UN Human Rights Tribunals condemned DU weapons for illegally breaking the Geneva Convention and classed them as ‘weapons of mass destruction’ ‘incompatible with international humanitarian and human rights law’. Since then, following leukaemia in European peacekeeping troops in the Balkans and Afghanistan (where DU was also used), the EU has twice called for DU weapons to be banned.


Yet, far from banning DU, America and Britain stepped up their denials of the harm from this radioactive dust as more and more troops from the first Gulf war and from action and peacekeeping in the Balkan and Afghanistan have become seriously ill. This is no coincidence. In 1997, while citing experiments, by others, in which 84 percent of dogs exposed to inhaled uranium died of cancer of the lungs, Dr Asaf Durakovic, then Professor of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine at Georgetown University in Washington was quoted as saying, ‘The [US government’s] Veteran Administration asked me to lie about the risks of incorporating depleted uranium in the human body.’ He concluded, ‘uranium… does cause cancer, uranium does cause mutation, and uranium does kill. If we continue with the irresponsible contamination of the biosphere, and denial of the fact that human life is endangered by the deadly isotope uranium, then we are doing disservice to ourselves, disservice to the truth, disservice to God and to all generations who follow.’ Not what the authorities wanted to hear and his research was suddenly blocked.

During 12 years of ever-growing British whitewash the authorities have abolished military hospitals, where there could have been specialized research on the effects of DU and where expertise in treating DU victims could have built up. And, not content with the insult of suggesting the gravely disabling symptoms of Gulf veterans are imaginary they have refused full pensions to many. For, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the current House of Commons briefing paper on DU hazards says ‘it is judged that any radiation effects from …possible exposures are extremely unlikely to be a contributory factor to the illnesses currently being experienced by some Gulf war veterans.’

Note how over a quarter of a million sick and dying US and UK vets are called ‘some’."

May 31, 2005 1:31 PM  
Blogger joker said...

Beerme says:
There is no danger in depleted uranium weapons. I love how you folks throw around "facts" and just expect people to believe them. Then you base new assertions of government misconduct on those erroneous "facts" you threw out before.
Agent Orange is far from being considered the cause of widespread physical ailments you people want to promote. The science doesn't show it.


Could you quote me your sources please? I don't see a single source in what you wrote -- just an opinion.

May 31, 2005 1:36 PM  
Blogger joker said...

And don't bother quoting me the Pentagon.

May 31, 2005 2:08 PM  
Blogger joker said...

PS: I couldn't give a sh*t about John Kerry. He might have been the lesser of two evils, that's about all.

May 31, 2005 2:10 PM  
Blogger hooey said...

Joker. It's all Republican't here. You sould log on to my blog and hang out with other progressives. http://educationalvignette.blogspot.com/

May 31, 2005 6:53 PM  
Blogger joker said...

You know what, Howie? I will.

Nobody here wants even a semi-serious discussion. It's way too silly to say "his sources are questionable" when the information is available all over the world -- in a gazillion places.

Heads in the sand.

May 31, 2005 7:05 PM  
Blogger Beerme said...

Well, I'm sorry but I'm going to have to shoot you.
Oh alright.
What a senseless waste of human life!

(No, not you Howie!)

June 01, 2005 10:39 AM  
Blogger Beerme said...

I guess the quoting of a Congressman, who BTW cites the imaginary GWS and Agent Orange as some of his proof of danger from DU (the logical fallacy I alluded to in my above "opinion"), is a source?
Where are the statistical studies that prove the danger?

How can I cite the non-existence of a provable link between a vague miasma of illnesses and DU? I can't prove that the link doesn't exist. The burden of proof in the argument is upon you.

Look, there may be dangers inherent in using DU, but going off half-cocked about the dangers and relying upon emotional diatribes against a cold-hearted, impersonal government which preys upon the troops, without any solid statistical evidence is irresponsible. The villains in these types of cases are always the government or a large corporation (especially appealing are pharmaceutical corporations). Vague and disparate illnesses are touted as proof of some link between something these villains do and the poor sheeple who suffer. Agent Orange, Gulf War Syndrome (Hey, I thought it was supposed to be the oil fires that caused that one), silicone breast implants, and now Depleted Uranium have this in common: there is no statistically significant evidence to support a link between the product/action and the illnesses reputed to having been caused by said product/action.

June 01, 2005 10:54 AM  
Blogger joker said...

The congressman said "We pretended there was no problem with Agent Orange after Vietnam, and later the Pentagon recanted".

He was not citing Agent Orange as 'proof of danger from DU'. He was talking about Pentagon duplicity. The language is by no means hard to understand.

I also quoted Dr Chris Busby, the British radiation expert, and 1996 and 1997 UN Human Rights Tribunals, both of which you choose to ignore.

"Where are the statistical studies that prove the danger?"

Did you even read what I posted?

"on May 17 introduced legislation with 21 original co-sponsors in the House of Representatives that calls for medical and scientific studies on the health and environmental impacts from the U.S. Military's use of depleted uranium (DU) munitions in combat zones, including Iraq."

I presume you are happy to see this call, and that you will give it your full support.

Don't waste your breath. I won't be back. This place sickens me.

June 01, 2005 1:03 PM  
Blogger camojack said...

OK, since my "friend" joker, who is sickened by my blog yet keeps returning, (out of what? Morbid curiosity?) has expressed concern regarding depleted uranium...perhaps he might be interested in what the U.N.'s World Health Organization has to say about it: Depleted uranium

There's certainly no conservative, Republican or right wing agenda there...

June 02, 2005 3:51 AM  
Blogger JannyMae said...

Joker = Typical closed-minded "progressive."

Oh, yes, he'll fit right in with Howie--don't bother me with any facts, I'm perfectly happy with my DU talking points.

God bless our veterans and our troops!

June 03, 2005 9:54 PM  
Blogger JannyMae said...

Hmm. After reading the comments on the other thread, I suspect that, "Joker," might be, "N," or, "Nora," who has posted on Howie's blog. Not that it much matters if she/he is truly feeling, "soiled," and won't come back here. Why? Because he/she can't pawn off questionable sources on us as gospel?

June 03, 2005 10:00 PM  
Blogger camojack said...

JannyMae:
It's that whole "discernment" concept; some have it, some don't...the latter are led around by whatever theory is popular with the gloom & doom crowd.

As for me, I'll rely on my native wit, just like always...

June 04, 2005 12:30 AM  
Blogger JannyMae said...

Excellent points, Camojack. There is certainly discernment lacking in a lot of folks these days.

June 06, 2005 1:10 AM  
Blogger camojack said...

JannyMae:
Discernment has been lacking in a large sector of the populace for some time.

Fortunately, with the advent of the Internet, less people are allowing themselves to be duped by the "mainstream" media; unfortunately, a large number of them still do.

Of course the "hate America" crowd, be they foreign or domestic, will still continue doing what the do best...hating America.

Father, forgive them, they know not what they're doing...

June 06, 2005 4:02 AM  
Blogger truth_is_freedom said...

Diana Sevanian

Exerpt:

"Senior statesman Conyers feels the mainstream media have ignored the story [Downing Street memo] and helped let the president off the hook.

Why this reticence in reporting? After all, the “liberal” media is considered by many to be a mongrel that’ll bite any bone if it makes the administration look bad.

I know some folks are saying, “They’re not writing about it because it is a non-issue. We are in a war now. That’s what matters.”

Others, like McClellan, will just deny its validity.

But I believe this paucity of front-page attention is more complex. Possibly some journalists are so burned up with — or burned out by — this historic debacle that they’ve chosen to stay mum and see what unfolds. Perhaps they feel there’s too much fresh residue from the Newsweek and Dan Rather incidents to stick their necks out.

Maybe a pervasive numbness has enveloped many of us. Each day the horrific news from Iraq, as well as the White House PR spin on it, give people more reason to feel sick, worried, mad, misguided and hopeless.

It could also be that some people who have voiced their concerns over this cursed Pandora’s Box and the fact that we have no exit strategy from it — just a new generation of dying soldiers and hemorrhaging pockets — are weary from speaking out and being excoriated. After all, when they do voice their opinions, the “real” patriots of this nation viciously label them cowardly, liberal, un-American, gun-absconding, fetus-killing, commie-wacko traitors who deserve to be deported.

Speaking of communism, or totalitarianism or socialism, or any “ism” that strays from what this nation’s founding government was supposed to be about, how far off are we from being under what many would consider an aberrant regime if we cannot depend on straight answers from the top?"

--

"Democrats are not the only folks fired up over this situation. Republicans are coming forward, too. Count in Paul Craig Roberts, a conservative Republican and syndicated columnist.

A Hoover Institution senior fellow and former Reagan Administration economic policy cabinet member, Roberts says, “George W. Bush and his gang of neocon warmongers have destroyed America’s reputation.”


In his recent column, “A Reputation in Tatters,” Roberts writes that our dismal standing will likely prevail unless drastic measures are taken — including the same penalty served on our former commander-in-chief.

“As intent as Republicans were to impeach President Clinton for lying about a sexual affair, they have a blind eye for President Bush’s far more serious lies. Bush’s lies have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people, injured and maimed tens of thousands more, devastated a country, destroyed America’s reputation, caused one billion Muslims to hate America, ruined our alliances with Europe, created a police state at home, and squandered $300 billion dollars and counting,” he said.

June 06, 2005 6:00 AM  
Blogger camojack said...

Anonymous/Mack/MK77/Joker/truth_is_freedom:
Why don't you just stay with one blog "handle"?

Bush lied...about what?

Documentation, not opinion.

Facts, not rhetoric.

Did he say Saddam had WMD's?

Well...he did at one time; perhaps they're buried?!
(It's a bloody big sandbox over there, lad...)

It isn't as though he didn't have over a year to do it.

Of course the "hate America" crowd, be they foreign or domestic, will still continue doing what they do best...hating America.

And it is not just a recent development:
1. Iran hostage situation.
2. First WTC bombing attempt.
3. Embassies bombed by bin Laden.
4. USS Cole bombed in Yemen.
5. 9-11-01.
6. Et cetera.

How much more were we supposed to take?

Oh, and please don't bother trying to sing that sorry, old ditty that Saddam didn't support terrorism; I sincerely DO NOT CARE if you want to say he wasn't tied directly to such and so event. He used WMD's on his own and other people. He gave sanctuary to terrorists, allowed them to train in Iraq and paid suicide bombers families. He fired on our planes patrolling under U.N. resolution(s). He actually declared war on the U.S. You say we have our heads in the sand. You, sir, are a waste of effort.

Get a freakin' grip...
(On reality, bloke)

June 06, 2005 7:36 AM  
Blogger truth_is_freedom said...

you think I'm somebody else

June 06, 2005 8:54 AM  
Blogger truth_is_freedom said...

It was a huge air
assault: Approximately 100
US and British planes flew
from Kuwait into Iraqi
airspace. At least seven
types of aircraft were part
of this massive operation,
including US F-15 Strike
Eagles and Royal Air Force
Tornado ground-attack
planes. They dropped
precision-guided munitions
on Saddam Hussein's major
western air-defense
facility, clearing the
path for Special Forces
helicopters that lay in
wait in Jordan. Earlier
attacks had been carried
out against Iraqi command
and control centers, radar
detection systems,
Revolutionary Guard units,
communication centers and
mobile air-defense systems.
The Pentagon's goal was
clear: Destroy Iraq's
ability to resist. This
was war.

But there was a catch:
The war hadn't started yet,
at least not officially.
This was September 2002 -
a month before Congress
had voted to give President
Bush the authority he used
to invade Iraq, two months
before the United Nations
brought the matter to a
vote and more than six
months before "shock and
awe" officially began.

At the time, the Bush
Administration publicly
played down the extent of
the air strikes, claiming
the United States was just
defending the so-called
no-fly zones. But new
information that has come
out in response to the
Downing Street memo reveals
that, by this time, the
war was already a foregone
conclusion and attacks
were no less than the
undeclared beginning of
the invasion of Iraq.

The Sunday Times of
London recently reported
on new evidence showing
that "The RAF and US
aircraft doubled the rate
at which they were
dropping bombs on Iraq in
2002 in an attempt to
provoke Saddam Hussein
into giving the allies an
excuse for war." The paper
cites newly released
statistics from the British
Defense Ministry showing
that "the Allies dropped
twice as many bombs on Iraq
in the second half of 2002
as they did during the
whole of 2001" and that
"a full air offensive" was
under way months before
the invasion had
officially begun.

The implications of
this information for US
lawmakers are profound.
It was already well known
in Washington and
international diplomatic
circles that the real aim
of the US attacks in the
no-fly zones was not to
protect Shiites and Kurds.
But the new disclosures
prove that while Congress
debated whether to grant
Bush the authority to go
to war, while Hans Blix
had his UN weapons-
inspection teams
scrutinizing Iraq and
while international
diplomats scurried to
broker an eleventh-hour
peace deal, the Bush
Administration was already
in full combat mode - not
just building the dossier
of manipulated intelligence,
as the Downing Street memo
demonstrated, but acting
on it by beginning the war
itself. And according to
the Sunday Times article,
the Administration even
hoped the attacks would
push Saddam into a response
that could be used to
justify a war the
Administration was
struggling to sell.

On the eve of the
official invasion, on
March 8, 2003, Bush said
in his national radio
address: "We are doing
everything we can to avoid
war in Iraq. But if Saddam
Hussein does not disarm
peacefully, he will be
disarmed by force." Bush
said this after nearly a
year of systematic,
aggressive bombings of
Iraq, during which Iraq
was already being disarmed
by force, in preparation
for the invasion to come.
By the Pentagon's own
admission, it carried out
seventy-eight individual,
offensive airstrikes
against Iraq in 2002 alone.

"It reminded me of a
boxing match in which one
of the boxers is told not
to move while the other
is allowed to punch and
only stop when he is
convinced that he has
weakened his opponent to
the point where he is
defeated before the fight
begins," says former UN
Assistant Secretary General
Hans Von Sponeck, a
thirty-year career
diplomat who was the top
UN official in Iraq from
1998 to 2000. During both
the Clinton and Bush
administrations, Washington
has consistently and
falsely claimed these
attacks were mandated by
UN Resolution 688, passed
after the Gulf War, which
called for an end to the
Iraqi government's
repression in the Kurdish
north and the Shiite south.
Von Sponeck dismissed this
justification as a "total
misnomer." In an interview
with The Nation, Von
Sponeck said that the new
information "belatedly
confirms" what he has long
argued: "The no-fly zones
had little to do with
protecting ethnic and
religious groups from
Saddam Hussein's
brutality" but were in
fact an "illegal
establishment...for
bilateral interests of
the US and the UK."

These attacks were
barely covered in the
press and Von Sponeck
says that as far back as
1999, the United States
and Britain pressured
the UN not to call
attention to them. During
his time in Iraq, Von
Sponeck began documenting
each of the airstrikes,
showing "regular attacks
on civilian installations
including food warehouses,
residences, mosques, roads
and people." These reports,
he said, were "welcomed"
by Secretary General Kofi
Annan, but "the US and UK
governments strongly
objected to this reporting."
Von Sponeck says that he
was pressured to end the
practice, with a senior
British diplomat telling him,
"All you are doing is
putting a UN stamp of
approval on Iraqi propaganda."
But Von Sponeck continued
documenting the damage and
visited many attack sites.
In 1999 alone, he confirmed
the death of 144 civilians
and more than 400 wounded
by the US/UK bombings.

After September 11,
there was a major change
in attitude within the
Bush Administration
toward the attacks. Gone
was any pretext that they
were about protecting
Shiites and Kurds - this
was a plan to systematically
degrade Iraq's ability to
defend itself from a
foreign attack: bombing
Iraq's air defenses,
striking command facilities,
destroying communication
and radar infrastructure.
As an Associated Press
report noted in November
2002, "Those costly,
hard-to-repair facilities
are essential to Iraq's
air defense."

Rear Admiral David
Gove, former deputy
director of global
operations for the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, said on
November 20, 2002, that
US and British pilots were
"essentially flying combat
missions." On October 3,
2002, the New York Times
reported that US pilots
were using southern Iraq
for "practice runs, mock
strikes and real attacks"
against a variety of
targets. But the full
significance of this
dramatic change in policy
toward Iraq only became
clear last month, with the
release of the Downing
Street memo. In it,
British Defense Secretary
Geoff Hoon is reported to
have said in 2002, after
meeting with US officials,
that "the US had already
begun 'spikes of activity'
to put pressure on the
regime," a reference to
the stepped-up airstrikes.
Now the Sunday Times of
London has revealed that
these spikes "had become
a full air offensive" -
in other words, a war.

Michigan Democratic
Representative John
Conyers has called the
latest revelations about
these attacks "the smoking
bullet in the smoking gun,"
irrefutable proof that
President Bush misled
Congress before the vote
on Iraq. When Bush asked
Congress to authorize the
use of force in Iraq, he
also said he would use it
only as a last resort,
after all other avenues
had been exhausted. But
the Downing Street memo
reveals that the
Administration had already
decided to topple Saddam
by force and was
manipulating intelligence
to justify the decision.
That information puts the
increase in unprovoked
air attacks in the year
prior to the war in an
entirely new light: The
Bush Administration was
not only determined to
wage war on Iraq,
regardless of the evidence;
it had already started that
war months before it was
put to a vote in Congress.

It only takes one
member of Congress to
begin an impeachment
process, and Conyers is
said to be considering
the option. The process
would certainly be revealing.
Congress could subpoena
Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld, Gen. Richard
Myers, Gen.Tommy Franks
and all of the military
commanders and pilots
involved with the no-fly
zone bombings going back
into the late 1990s. What
were their orders, both
given and received? In
those answers might lie
a case for impeachment.

But another question
looms, particularly for
Democrats who voted for
the war and now say they
were misled: Why weren't
these unprovoked and
unauthorized attacks
investigated when they
were happening, when it
might have had a real
impact on the
Administration's drive to
war? Perhaps that's why
the growing grassroots
campaign to use the
Downing Street memo to
impeach Bush can't get a
hearing on Capitol Hill.
A real probing of this
"smoking gun" would not
be uncomfortable only for
Republicans. The truth is
that Bush, like President
Bill Clinton before him,
oversaw the longest
sustained bombing campaign
since Vietnam against a
sovereign country with no
international or US
mandate. That gun is
probably too hot for
either party to touch.

http://tinyurl.com/amul5

June 06, 2005 9:06 AM  
Blogger camojack said...

truth_is_freedom said:
you think I'm somebody else


Cute...

June 06, 2005 3:47 PM  
Blogger camojack said...

Downing Street memo

Spare me. Key excerpt:

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair
When the document was published, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair denied that anything in the memo demonstrated misconduct and said that it added little to what was already known about how British policy on Iraq developed.

June 06, 2005 3:50 PM  
Blogger truth_is_freedom said...

That's an almighty answer.
Considering I posted about waging war on Iraq in September 2002. And US policy.

"British Defense Secretary
Geoff Hoon is reported to
have said in 2002, after
meeting with US officials,
that "the US had already
begun 'spikes of activity'
to put pressure on the
regime," a reference to
the stepped-up airstrikes.

Now the Sunday Times of
London has revealed that
these spikes "had become
a full air offensive" -
in other words, a war."

June 06, 2005 5:39 PM  
Blogger truth_is_freedom said...

What's this place for?
The blind leading the blind?

June 06, 2005 5:41 PM  
Blogger camojack said...

truth_is_freedom said (among other things):
"Perhaps that's why the growing grassroots campaign to use the Downing Street memo to impeach Bush can't get a hearing on Capitol Hill."


Followed by:
"That's an almighty answer. Considering I posted about waging war on Iraq in September 2002. And US policy."

Get your propaganda straight there, "truth".

As I've said before, anyone with a computer and a connection to the Internet can find things to copy & paste in support of their position(s), no matter how far-fetched they may be. One needs to be discerning to separate the "wheat from the chaff".

I think I'll do a post one of these days on some of the extreme positions to be found "out there"...

June 06, 2005 9:53 PM  

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Free Site Counters
hit Counter