Rumsfeld’s revenge.
Rumsfeld’s revenge.
A story in tomorrow’s Washington Post reports that early in 2004, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld became angry that the Pentagon was losing control over reconstruction efforts in Iraq. In return, he refused to provide military security for diplomats, forcing the State Department to rush to Blackwater:
The next year, as the United States prepared to return sovereignty to the Iraqis and the State Department began planning an embassy in Baghdad, Rumsfeld lost a bid to retain control over the full U.S. effort, including billions of dollars in reconstruction funds. A new executive order, signed in January 2004, gave State authority over all but military operations. Rumsfeld’s revenge, at least in the view of many State officials, was to withdraw all but minimal assistance for diplomatic security.
“It was the view of Donald Rumsfeld and [then-Deputy Defense Secretary] Paul Wolfowitz that this wasn’t their problem,” said a former senior State Department official. Meetings to negotiate an official memorandum of understanding between State and Defense during the spring of 2004 broke up in shouting matches over issues such as their respective levels of patriotism and whether the military would provide mortuary services for slain diplomats. [...]
State chose the most expedient solution: Take over the Pentagon’s personal security contract with Blackwater and extend it for a year.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Their Petulance and pride trumped patriotism.
October 20th, 2007 at 11:51 pmThe little boys never grew up -- arrested development -- they are still playing with their G.I. Joes except this time the soldiers are real.
AHhh, and so we get to see the internal HATE of America. The internal self conflict. This is EXACTLY the hate that is inside George Bush. He hates his father and mother, but yet knows one is supposed to love their father and mother. Ohhh the conflict between Condi and Rummie has just layer upon layer of Freudian constructs.
It is going to only get worse, before it gets better.
October 21st, 2007 at 12:09 amThese childish monsters are sociopathic mass murderers, throwing tantrums and threatening people with their lives, all in the name of their bruised, shriveled egos.
Welcome to Jerry Springer's Defense Department. Just add Giuliani in drag, bush'll bring the nazis...
October 21st, 2007 at 12:16 amThey're all children. Every last one of 'em.
October 21st, 2007 at 12:25 amAmerica is being run into the ground by a pack of bitter old retreaded Nixon flunkies who glommed onto a wet-brained legacy as a figurehead to manipulate and who would put a goofy, Alfred E. Neumanesque smile on while they shove their fascistic agenda down the worlds throat.
Thanks asswipes...thanks alot.
-GSD
October 21st, 2007 at 12:33 amApparently, these hoes were so busy trying to get bigger piece of the pie and have invested their resources(individual) in doing so. Each one of these Neo-jackasses involved were fighting among themselves. This actually jeopardized the stability of Iraq and any success that might have been possible in the beginning of this war totally avoiding this quagmire. A friggin' RAT RACE.
October 21st, 2007 at 12:33 amAnd yet the Dems refuse to do anything about it. These NeoCons are obviously insane, but the Dems are enabling them. The Dem's refuse to stand up for the Constitution. The NeoCons are simply crazy, the Dems are spineless, and knowingly refuse to stand up for the people.
October 21st, 2007 at 12:37 amJunior high school students are more mature than dumbsfeld and his vengeful cohorts. Charges of treason would not be inappropriate.
October 21st, 2007 at 12:50 amTypical behavior by Rumsfeld. "If you're going to cut me out of my chance at the money trough and power, then you die."
Where's the shock and outrage from the right on this one? Oh, that's right. They'll be pissed that we, the people, have gotten another look behind the curtain of The Great Oz.
How unpatriotic of the Washington Post. Don't they want us to win? [/snark]
October 21st, 2007 at 1:11 amWouldn't the DoD have been providing security for the State Dept because the Congress said they should? I was under the impression that the Congress determines what the military is and is not allowed to do. If so, then under whose authority did Rumsfeld decide to not follow the laws prescribed by Congress?
October 21st, 2007 at 1:48 amI'd be amazed and disgusted by the mortal damage caused by this gamesmanship - Plame, Blackwater, you name it - but it's almost impossible to be amazed and disgusted any further. Atrocity Fatigue, I've got it bad. And will any indictments and/or impeachments come out of this? Of course not.
October 21st, 2007 at 2:40 am> under whose authority did Rumsfeld decide to not follow the laws prescribed by Congress? --Wayne A. Schneider
This administration (dictatorship) does not see itself as bound by mere laws. Whatever the Prez and his minions do is automatically legal. AG-designate Mukasey has said as much, and the Dems will confirm him anyway. I suspect that Dem 'leaders' have been unresistant to the whims of Dubya's Gang because they fear being Wellstoned. Such assassinations will of course be 'legal' as authorized by the Prez.
October 21st, 2007 at 2:52 amThese aren't diplomats, they are all war-mongers; to Hell with their security.
∞
October 21st, 2007 at 2:58 amIsn't Erik Prince lying when he says that Blackwater thugs pay state and federal taxes? I have read before that contractors in Iraq are not subject to U.S. taxes.
October 21st, 2007 at 3:41 amThe Bush administration has taken the word "incompetence" to a whole new depth.
This is how they chose to undertake -and plan to win- the single most important mission they imposed on themselves: With internal bickering and petty jealousies.
It's no wonder everything they touch turns to rubbish.
October 21st, 2007 at 4:33 amMaybe that's why the trolls are so rabid in their support for Pres Bush: Given the overall lack of qualifications in the people serving in this administration, I wouldn't be surprised if these trolls think they too, one day, can grow up to be like uncle Rumsfeld, or uncle Cheney.
After so many months of reading their tripe here on ThinkProgress, I'd say these trolls are way on their way of being about as unable, unethical, and morally bankrupt as anyone in this White House. Perfect material for a future Republican presidential candidate. Or secretary of state, at the very least.
October 21st, 2007 at 4:34 amHeckuva job, Rummy!!
October 21st, 2007 at 4:39 amSo to review...
Rumsfeld CAUSED the problem that led to the necessity for billions to flow to Blackwater.
Is anyone asking the obvious question?
What was Rumsfeld's cut of the Backwater contract that his actions forced the State Department to sign?
The recent revelation that Rumsfeld actually threatened to fire any General who continued to work on the planning for the aftermath of the invasion (“The future Of Iraq Projectâ€) makes total sense when you consider that the actual goal of Donald Rumsfeld was to “AVOID WINNING.â€
THE FUTURE OF IRAQ PROJECT:
Washington, DC, September 1, 2006 - The National Security Archive is today posting State Department documents from 2002 tracing the inception of the "Future of Iraq Project," alongside the final, mammoth 13-volume study, previously obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. "The Future of Iraq Project" was one of the most comprehensive U.S. government planning efforts for raising that country out of the ashes of combat and establishing a functioning democracy. The new materials complement previous postings on the Archive's site relating to the United States' complex relationship with Iraq during the years leading up to the 2003 invasion:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB198/index.htm
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Future_of_Iraq_Project
RUMSFELD HAD THIS ADVICE, AND NOT ONLY CHOSE TO IGNORE IT, BUT THREATENED TO FIRE ANYONE WHO CONTINUE TO WORK ON IT IN THE LEAD UP THE WAR.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_09/009469.php
Our troops, and the citizens of Iraq, are dying needlessly as the direct result of a dishonest strategy, intentionally designed to result in quagmire. They got the best advice the State Department had to offer, then intentionally chose to do EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE in order to guarantee failure, which in their view, meant success.
The Rumsfeld / Bush / Cheney plan from the outset, contrary to ALL LOGIC, was to both allow for the complete destruction of this civil society AND to stay there with troops in place forever.
IMPEACHABLE LIES REVEALED:
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's newly-issued chapters showed that top Administration officials, including the President, Vice President, then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, repeatedly misrepresented intelligence community findings, to support the Iraq invasion with lies that Iraq was tied to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks, and had advanced WMD programs.
October 21st, 2007 at 6:04 amRUMSFELD’S EVIL REVEALED…
HOW RUMSFELD STEAMROLLED THE STATE DEPARTMENT IN ORDER TO ENSURE THE UTTER DESTRUCTION OF IRAQ AND THE QUAGMIRE – WHICH WAS ALWAYS HIS GOAL:
INTERVIEW WITH RICHARD HAASS
ADVISOR TO COLIN POWELL ON IRAQ WAR PLANNING
Q.
Why did we go to war?
A.
I think the first thing to say about this war is that it was an elective war. It was a war of choice. We didn't have to go to war against Iraq; certainly not when we did, certainly not how we did it. It wasn't as though the Iraqis were poised to suddenly do something or break out. So the decision to go to war -- which obviously was the president's decision -- like everything else about this war, was an elective decision.
Q.
Did we do enough to plan for the postwar?
Q.
Is it fair to say that the Pentagon were too optimistic about the postwar situation?
A.
I’ll let you make the judgment and characterizations. I would just simply say that the aftermath has proven to be far more expensive in every sense of the word, in terms of human expense, in terms of the financial expense. I think in part, it was based upon some planning assumptions. I think part also, what made it a lot more difficult was in the immediate aftermath of the war, the degree of looting that took place. Looting doesn't really capture the degree of physical destruction that took place. [It] meant that the job suddenly grew in magnitude and some precious time was lost. So the entire undertaking became far more demanding because of what happened in the initial days and weeks afterwards. …
The question that I think is legitimate to ask is, should we have had more forces ready to deal with the so-called peace stabilization side of things? Should we perhaps have been more sober in our expectations of how the Iraqis would react once the thumb of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen was lifted? So one can argue that the coalition forces at that point, there simply weren't enough of them and they weren't involved enough to deal with it. Or to put it another way, there was too long of a lag between war fighting and then dealing with the war's aftermath.
Q.
Your view on that would be that we didn't have enough troops on the ground.
A.
In part number, in part mission; we were slow to transition from war fighting to dealing with the afterward. That either would have argued for additional forces or a more rapid transition from one mission to another. Though to be fair, it was a difficult call to make -- how fast to make that transition -- because you still had the reality or the possibility of residual resistance from the Iraqis.
Q.
You were making recommendations about the postwar period while you were in the State Department. You made recommendations to Secretary Powell. What were your recommendations as to what that situation was going to look at and what it was going to require?
A.
I'm not going to go into every detail of what sort of advice or recommendations I made. What I simply did was look at the history of these situations, really going back to Germany and Japan and looking back over the more than one dozen experiences the United States had had since the German and Japanese occupations after World War II and ask questions. What it was we could likely expect? What is it we needed to be prepared for?
My view was that we should be thinking very large; that we were talking about a situation that would be very demanding; that we should try to use local forces as much as possible; that while we should dismantle the upper level of those, say, who had been involved in the Ba'ath Party, we should try to take advantage of the lion's share of the army and police.
Interestingly enough, after World War II, the initial thinking about de-Nazification was to get rid of lots of people. But very quickly on, the United States and others realized that we really needed to work with the existing German forces and only get rid of the top level. So that was a lesson that I thought we should apply here.
But essentially, also I was arguing that we should make this as international as possible. There was no reason to hoard this to ourselves in some "victor gets the spoils" mentality, but rather that we should see this as something to be shared with others -- for two reasons.
ACTUALLY THERE WAS ONE REASON…THE PERSONAL GREED OF THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE.
“We did not want this to drain the human and financial resources of the United States.â€
YOU FAILED – IT DID.
Q.
When did you hear Chalabi being flown into Nasiriyah?
A.
Pretty much when everybody else heard about it. When it became public. …
Q.
But you're in charge of policy, I mean, you're at a high level. Presumably, you would have known.
A.
I learn never to use the word "presumably" when it comes to government. All I can tell you is, I didn't know about it in advance, and I don't know who of my colleagues might have known about it. … I don't know that anyone knew about it in advance. All I can say is, in my own view, such initiatives were and are unwise, because they're an attempt to get too involved in the internal politics of Iraq. I just don't think that's the sort of thing that's wise or sustainable.
Q.
I spoke to General Garner. He told me that he was instructed by Secretary Rumsfeld to shelve the “Future of Iraq Project.â€
A.
I can't speak to that. I don't know what sort of instructions or communications went on within the Pentagon. I would just simply hope it's not true, because I thought a lot of good work went into that project.
Q.
That's what he said. He said that he looked at the papers. He talked to the some of the people in the State Department. He thought it was good work. He wanted to use the work. But then he was instructed not to. Does that surprise you?
A.
Yes.
RUMSFELD & CHENEY TOOK THE BONE-HEADED INITIATIVE TO FLY IN CHALABI ON THEIR OWN, AND IN SO DOING, DESTROYED US CREDIBILITY WITHIN IRAQ.
HERE IS A POLICY EXPERT WHO FORMULATED POLICY FOR COLIN POWELL. HIS ADVICE WAS
A. TO KEEP THE POLICE AND MILITARY IN PLACE TO ENSURE LAW AND ORDER.
B. TO ALLOW THE IRAQIS TO DETERMINE THEIR OWN FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND ELECT THEIR OWN LEADERS WITH NO OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE.
C. TO BRING IN THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FOREIGN PARTNERS TO SHARE IN THE JOB OF SECURING THE COUNTRY, AND IN SO DOING, TO SHARE IN THE “SPOILS OF WAR.â€
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/interviews/haass.html
The War in Iraq is about “SUCCESSFUL FAILURE.â€
In the words on Chalabi: “We are heroes in error.â€
Dead soldiers and civilians are of virtually no consequence to Rumsfeld and the rest of the criminals in charge. Picture a chessboard, and we are all merely pawns.
THE FAILURE IN IRAQ IS THE DIRECT RESULT OF THE PERSONAL HUBRIS AND GREED OF RUMSFELD, CHENEY AND BUSH ON BEHALF OF THEIR GLOBALIST OVERLORDS.
Your leadership does not represent your interests.
IMPEACH.
October 21st, 2007 at 6:06 amHow did Rumsfeld get Tommy Franks to go along with his plans to foment chaos in Iraq? He gave his wife access to government owned executive jets so she and her girlfriends could fly up to New York from Florida for weekend shopping trips - on YOUR DIME.
Once he had this leverage over Franks - he could force him to do anything he wanted. It's commonly known as bribery, which enables blackmail - both of which are ILLEGAL - and equate to treason during a time of war where troops lives are at stake.
Franks was forever in defense of Rumsfeld and his decisions. Here's why:
What possible motive might Tommy Franks have to rush to Rumsfeld’s defense? Can you say Quid Pro Quo?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/franks.wife/
2/5/2003
Sources have told CNN that Franks, the man who would lead U.S. forces in the event of a military strike on Iraq, faces several allegations -- including one that he allowed his wife, Cathy, to be present during discussions of highly classified material.
The sources also said questions have been raised about whether Franks properly repaid the U.S. government for his wife's travel on military aircraft.
Franks, the head of U.S. Central Command, has been under investigation for weeks by the Pentagon inspector general's office.
"I am aware of the investigation and am cooperating with it," Franks said in a brief written statement. "It would not be appropriate to comment on the investigation until it is complete."
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld -- who would decide what, if any, disciplinary action Franks would face if any wrongdoing is found -- has taken the unusual step of expressing support for the general before the investigation was completed.
BRIBERY enables BLACKMAIL
See Congress for more examples.
October 21st, 2007 at 6:16 amNo one even MENTIONS the biggest NeoCON (Israeli) criminal to have jumped the Rumsfeld ship...
JUST ONE DAY PRIOR TO 9/11:
Missing Trillions
Rumsfeld Buries Admission of Missing Trillions in 9/10/01 Press Conference
On September 10, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference to disclose that over $2,000,000,000,000 in Pentagon funds could not be accounted for. Rumsfeld stated: "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions."
Such a disclosure normally would have sparked a huge scandal. However, the commencement of the attack on New York City and Washington in the morning would assure that the story remained buried. To the trillions already missing from the coffers, an obedient Congress terrorized by anthrax attacks would add billions more in appropriations to fight the "War on Terror."
The Comptroller of the Pentagon at the time of the attack was Dov Zakheim, who was appointed in May of 2001. Before becoming the Pentagon's money-manager, he was an executive at System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor specializing in electronic warfare technologies including remote-controlled aircraft systems. Zakheim is a member of the Project for a New American Century and participated in the creation of its 2000 position paper Rebuilding America's Defenses which called for "a New Pearl Harbor."
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/trillions.html
Dov Zakheim actually stole $7 TRILLION from you (enough to implement a military coup) - and the media will NOT discuss it.
That's because the money was sent to Israel - and Israel controls the media.
The timing of Rumsfeld's announcement to acknowledge the missing trillions was selected by on Karl Rove.
This leads a thinking mind to conclude that Rove and Rumsfeld BOTH had FOREKNOWLEDGE of 9/11 -
unless of course you wish to chalk yet another example of 9/11 foreknowledge up to
"COINCIDENCE THEORY"
Zakheim quietly resigned to the low profile confines of Booz Allen. They are likely planning a monument to him in Tel Aviv.
Zakheim did 9/11 - with Cheney and Mossad.
October 21st, 2007 at 6:18 amOne of Rumsfeld's top defense contractors prior to 9/11 was Raytheon:
http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/raytheon-connection-to-9-11...
Americans (too many) do not know that Raytheon executives were killed on 9-11, or at least wound up permanently missing, which may be a more accurate way of saying it. It is who wound up missing that is most interesting.
This is an excerpt of the email we received and is information that we knew as of the issuance of the flight manifests for all four of the planes allegedly involved in 9-11:
Subject: Raytheon and 9/11
OK, I'm not gonna say anything here, except to let you read the evidence and then you can tell me what you think. (These are people who supposedly died on 9/11.) Mike
Raytheon and 9/11
2001-09-11 Stanley Hall Raytheon Director of Electronic warfare program management. Raytheon did the retrofit of the A-3 that hit the Pentagon, where Bush claimed Flight 77 hit it. Disappeared on American airlines Flight 77, the one that supposedly hit the Pentagon but did not.
2001-09-11 Peter Gay Raytheon VP of Electronic Systems on special assignment at the El Segundo, CA division office where the Global Hawk UAV remote control system is made. Raytheon did the retrofit of the A-3 that hit the Pentagon, where Bush claimed Flight 77 hit it. Disappeared on American airlines Flight 11, the one that supposedly hit the North World Trade Tower I.
2001-09-11 Kenneth Waldie Raytheon Senior Quality Control for Electronic Systems. Raytheon did the retrofit of the A-3 that hit the Pentagon, where Bush claimed Flight 77 hit it. Disappeared on American airlines Flight 11, the one that supposedly hit the North World Trade Tower I.
2001-09-11 David Kovalcin Raytheon Senior Mechanical Engineer for Electronic Systems. Raytheon did the retrofit of the A-3 that hit the Pentagon, where Bush claimed Flight 77 hit it. Disappeared on American airlines Flight 11, the one that supposedly hit the North World Trade Tower I.
2001-09-11 Herbert Homer Raytheon Corporate Executive working with the Department of Defense. Raytheon did the retrofit of the A-3 that hit the Pentagon, where Bush claimed Flight 77 hit it. Disappeared on United airlines Flight 175, the one that supposedly hit the South World Trade Tower II.
These are not only the type of people but they are the people that would be assigned to UAV type projects involving Mode 4 and Mode 5 upgrades. Why would they be in Boston and those planes coming from that direction and from north of Manhattan Island?
That 16 foot tunnel through three rings of the Pentagon is only made by a directional blast weapon. Rumsfeld has even slipped up and mentioned the missile that hit the Pentagon.
Some have seen the Pentagon parking lot camera video and the white trail of smoke. Jets do now leave white trails of smoke at sea level, but Thiokol powered AGMs do, at all attitudes.
A Real 9-11 Commission should have certain Hughes and Raytheon parties summoned for questioning.
Seated behind Mohammad Atta on 9/11 was an Israeli Mossad agent, Daniel Lewin.
WHAT ARE THE ODDS?
STOP.
THINK.
Atta was sitting in seat 8D. In front of him were the two brothers, Wael and Walid Al-Shihri. Behind him was his comrade in his final days, 'Abd Al-'Aziz Al-'Omari. To Al-'Omari's left was the Israeli Mossad agent, Daniel Lewin, and right behind him, the man who would kill him, Sattam Al-Suqami.
In those exact moments, a group of Mossad agents were waiting in Manhattan for the first plane. They had surveillance and filming equipment with them. Meanwhile, F-15 planes were on high alert in Otis air base, 150 miles away, not knowing in which direction to fly.
It is noteworthy that in those moments, the Mossad agents here, according to eye-witnesses, were dancing and cheering in front of the WTC. The Israelis were arrested in New York. Later, they were moved to Washington, and from there to Israel, and the report was quickly suppressed.
5 EMPLOYEES OF RAYTHEON WITH EXPERTISE IN UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE SYSTEMS DIED ON THREE SEPARATE FLIGHTS ON 9/11
http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/raytheon-connection-to-9-11...
WHAT ARE THE ODDS?
STOP.
THINK.
Raytheon is missing at least one if not two A-3 Skywarriors from its inventory.
Ask them where they went.
October 21st, 2007 at 6:23 amOK I'll be the one...
Speaking for myself and maybe others,
October 21st, 2007 at 6:36 ambrevity is appreciated. The enthusiasm is great, but if I wanted to read a book.. No offense, just a suggestion/plea!
T H E
S M O K I N G
G U N
O F
9 / 1 1
I S R A E L I
A G E N T
D O V
Z A K H E I M
W O R K E D
F O R
R U M S F E L D
Following Zakheim and Pentagon trillions to Israel and 9-11
Jul 31, 2006
Think of this as part two of Recherche du trillions perdu, my Online Journal article on Dov Zakheim, former Bush appointee as Pentagon Comptroller from May 4, 2001 to March 10, 2004. At that time he was unable to explain the disappearance of $1 trillion dollars. Actually, nearly three years earlier, Donald Rumsfeld announced on September 10, 2001 that an audit discovered $2.3 trillion was also missing from the Pentagon books. That story, as I mentioned, was buried under 9-11s rubble. The two sums disappeared on Zakheims watch.
Yet on May 6, 2004, Zakheim took a lucrative position at Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the most prestigious strategy consulting firms in the world. One of its clients then was Blessed Relief, a charity said to be a front for Osama bin Laden. Booz, Allen & Hamilton then also worked closely with DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is the research arm of the Department of Defense. So the dark card was shifted to another part of the deck.
Zakheim was/is a dual Israeli/American citizen and an ordained rabbi and had been tracking the halls of US government for 25 years, casting defense policy and influence on Presidents Reagan, Clinton, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. He is, as I described him earlier, the bionic Zionist. In fact, Judicial Inc points out that most of Israel's armaments were gotten thanks to him. Squads of US F-16 and F-15 were classified military surplus and sold to Israel at a fraction of their value.
in 2001 Dov was CEO of SPS International, part of System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor majoring in electronic warfare technologies, including remote-controlled aircraft systems, and the notorious Flight Termination System (FTS) technology that could hijack even a hijacked plane and land or crash it wherever.
Wikipedia points out that Zakheim is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and in 2000 a co-author of the Project for the New American Century's position paper.
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1047.shtml
Dov Zakheim and the 9/11 Conspiracy
Dov and the World Trade Center
Perhaps not coincidentally in May 2001, when Dov served at the Pentagon, it was an SPS (his firm's) subsidiary, Tridata Corporation, that oversaw the investigation of the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. This would have given them intimate knowledge of the security systems and structural blueprints of the World Trade Center. From the '90s through 2001, WTC Security was handled by Securacom, a Kuwait-American firm, on whose board Marvin Bush, the president's brother, sat. After 9/11, Securacom was let go, changed its name to Stratosec, and was delisted from the Stock Exchange in 2002.
C O I N C I D E N C E ? ? ?
October 21st, 2007 at 6:39 amTR:
I appreciate your sentiment - and will conclude this session, exposing the truth of the coup - for the time being. I hope that you have found some evidence that you had not previously known of in the postings above.
If you'd like to learn more about the coup, it's co-conspirators, their real motives and the aftermath, go here:
http://plungerspeaks.blogspot.com
October 21st, 2007 at 6:43 amBy the way, whatever happened to all these neocon war-mongers? The only one left in the White House is Cheney and his sphere of influence seems to be getting smaller. With all of rats jumping ship, how much damage can one man (and a small army of Regent grads) do?
October 21st, 2007 at 7:38 amWhy are we still there in Iraq, if:
Saddam and his government are no longer there
October 21st, 2007 at 7:42 amNo WMDS were found
Claims made that Al-Qaeda is cippled ! (although by best estimate,they represent no more than 5% of totaL fighters in IRAQ)
No gains to consumers in oil prices made from this war...Barrel reached over $90.00 .
It was around $20.00-$22.00 when the war began.
There is nobody we are talking to end this war in Iraq from the Iraqi's insurgents' side.
The Iraqi government is so weak that they cannot afford to see us leave When the end of the tunnel can be seen...?!!
By the way, whatever happened to all these neocon war-mongers? The only one left in the White House is Cheney and his sphere of influence seems to be getting smaller. With all of rats jumping ship, how much damage can one man (and a small army of Regent grads) do?
Comment by Above the Clouds — October 21, 2007 @ 7:38 am
You mean aside from stealing five or six nukes from the US arsenal and sending them over to the middle east to take out Syria and Iran? Not much:
The flight officer at Minot AFB knew he had just released a flight with live nukes. The flight officer at Barksdale AFB knew he was in receipt of a flight live nukes. What happened next?
A two star general responsible for the AF region got a phone call. This "general" arranged for two "unnamed" officers to "report" the incident to Gannett and we are off to the races.
Keep in mind the next step. The Military Times cannot print ANYTHING without it being vetted by an officer. Either a full colonel or a brigadier. With a review of this post you will find that no fewer than four generals were involved in the order to get the missiles mounted on the B52 and no fewer than three in ANNOUNCING the event to the world.
This is mutiny. This is brass against brass. The senior officer who vetted the story for release knew he was "covered" by still higher ups [...] The Military Times, a division of Gannett media group, was ORDERED to release the story of the B-52 Nukes. Somebody from Washington DC with many stars gave that order. Somebody with so much juice that they knew they would survive.
The cabal is not popular with the US military. I will suggest that this is hope and that hope is good. The US military are what stand between us and martial law. Every officer signs his commission with the statement to uphold the US constitution. What if most of them do?
http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/
WMR has learned from military sources on both sides of the Atlantic that there was a definite connection between Israel's OPERATION ORCHARD and BENT SPEAR involving the B-52 that flew the six nuclear-armed cruise missiles from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale. There is also a connection between these two events as the Pentagon's highly-classified PROJECT CHECKMATE, a compartmented U.S. Air Force program that has been working on an attack plan for Iran since June 2007, around the same time that Cheney was working on the joint Israeli-U.S. attack scenario on Iran.
Command and control breakdowns involving U.S. nuclear weapons are unprecedented, except for that fact that the U.S. military is now waging an internal war against neo-cons who are embedded in the U.S. government and military chain of command who are intent on using nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive war with Iran.
CHECKMATE and OPERATION ORCHARD would have provided the cover for a pre-emptive U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran had it not been for BENT SPEAR involving the B-52. In on the plan to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran involving nuclear weapons were, according to our sources, Cheney, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley; members of the CHECKMATE team at the Pentagon, who have close connections to Israeli intelligence and pro-Israeli think tanks in Washington, including the Hudson Institute; British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, a political adviser to Tony Blair prior to becoming a Member of Parliament; Israeli political leaders like Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu; and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, who did his part last week to ratchet up tensions with Iran by suggesting that war with Iran was a probability. Kouchner retracted his statement after the U.S. plans for Iran were delayed.
http://winterparking.blogspot.com/2007/10/wayne-madsen-report-air-force-refused.html
October 21st, 2007 at 7:42 amCheney, Rumsfeld, and the neocons are doing all this for oil and power? It appears to be working so well all the "loyal" neocon supporters have slithered away into dark shadows hiding away from the glare of truth. Cheney should have known better that when he put Rumsfeld "in charge" of anything that failure was an inevitability (just ask Gerald Ford's legacy). Or maybe that was the "plan" all along . . .
October 21st, 2007 at 7:54 amThanks plunger.
My blog's where I do my 'extended' commenting. That way I can link to it when necessary.
Have a good one.
October 21st, 2007 at 8:07 amThe loose nuke coverup:
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,153761,00.html?wh=wh
October 21st, 2007 at 8:28 amHi TR:
Actually the link I posted to http://www.plungerspeaks.blogspot.com is not in reality, my blog.
It was created by someone else, who apparently was so taken by my postings (such as those above), he took it upon himself to create that page - compile what he felt was a "best of Plunger" representative sample, and post everything that's on it.
It's not my blog. I wouldn't even be able to post to it - and he hasn't updated it since he created it over a year ago. I was very surprised when he contacted me to let me see the results of his handy work.
Check out his blog at:
http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/
He's posted some exceptional stuff there recently. A very hard working patriot.
October 21st, 2007 at 8:36 amRummy's stature isn't the only thing about him that's small.
October 21st, 2007 at 8:43 amThanks, Plunger! You've given us much to think about on this Sunday morning and it is ALL so very much appreciated. Do you still have your blogspot? As always, you are the most informative blogger on TP and provide links to each premise which is duly noted and appreciated. And, as always, you provide a nugget of insight which many of us may miss along the way.....one more "dot" to connect in the pursuit of the entire snapshot of 'Truth'.
October 21st, 2007 at 9:18 amTRDaggett: Just checked your blog and it looks like the work of a true patriot. I'm off for the day but will read your posts soon. It's all about getting to the truth of how this administration was enabled to become an "Imperial Presidency", what they knew and when and how their diabolical plan was hatched and expedited. The Truth is emerging, now fast and furious, in it's rush to justice. And, as evidenced by some of the aspects which you and Plunger have identified, this is just the beginning of an avalanche of information, facts, and truth which will boggle the mind and sour the stomachs of all americans when it becomes mainstream. Keep up the great, patriot work!
October 21st, 2007 at 9:24 amOur REAL soldiers should be escorting diplomats.
October 21st, 2007 at 9:25 amThe blood of innocent Iraqis is on the hands of diplomats who use Blackwater. To a man.
P.S. And, it goes without saying: The Truth will set you free! Regardless of how unsavory, necrotic, and distasteful the Truth actually is, it is the ONLY thing which will liberate us as americans.
October 21st, 2007 at 9:26 amIt was very wise of George Washington to limit himself to two terms. America should never again elect any family dynasty. It always comes with nepotism, incompetence and corruption.
October 21st, 2007 at 9:54 am"Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks
You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy....
.....
Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could"
Bob Dylan
October 21st, 2007 at 10:55 amComment by TCDon — October 21, 2007 @ 10:02 am
You cannot comment on the actual article and subject of the thread, but you can post a "Clinton too" post.
figures......
Typical limitation to troll intellegence.
October 21st, 2007 at 10:56 amThey’re all children. Every last one of ‘em.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — October 21, 2007 @ 12:25 am
Ralph, you almost had it right. They're "evil children." Every last one of 'em.
October 21st, 2007 at 10:56 amGenerals gathered in their masses,
just like witches at black masses.
Evil minds that plot destruction,
sorcerers of death's construction.
In the fields the bodies burning,
as the war machine keeps turning.
Death and hatred to mankind,
poisoning their brainwashed minds.
Oh lord, yeah!
Politicians hide themselves away.
They only started the war.
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor, yeah.
Time will tell on their power minds,
making war just for fun.
Treating people just like pawns in chess,
wait till their judgement day comes, yeah.
Now in darkness world stops turning,
October 21st, 2007 at 10:58 amashes where the bodies burning.
No more War Pigs have the power,
Hand of God has struck the hour.
Day of judgement, God is calling,
on their knees the war pigs crawling.
Begging mercies for their sins,
Satan, laughing, spreads his wings.
Oh lord, yeah!
--Black Sabbath, War Pigs
Rep. Diane Watson has stated ON TAPE, on Oct. 14th 2007, Pelosi’s real reasons for not pressing forward on impeachment! She says they (the other democrats in the House) have the evidence to support impeachment and the desire to do so, but that their “leader†has a different plan!
“Now, our leader has looked at this issue, and her strategy is, our speaker, is be sure we take the White House and that we win 60 (more) seatsâ€
At best this is the politicizing of the impeachment proceedings and at worst it is her own desire to remain Speaker of the House! As our soldiers place their very lives on the line in an illegal war, and as this administration beats the drums for another war with Syria or Iran, Pelosi is content to let it all happen, so they can regain control of the House in 2008 and she can retain the Speakership!
Watch for yourself and please get the video out to as many people as possible. Pelosi must be removed!
watch it HERE!
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2007/10/21/watson-lays-out-pelosis-reason-to-suppress-impeachment/
October 21st, 2007 at 11:01 amPelosi must be removed!
Comment by willyloman — October 21, 2007 @ 11:01 am
Ya think?
I agree totally, the Dems need to oust Pelosi and vote for someone that puts Country and Contitution before Party, to the Speaker Seat.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:06 amSame sh!t the Republicans are guilty of and why this country is in the Sh!tter now.
Plunger & willyloman, Thank you both for your post's this gloomy Sunday morning.....While my brain is exploding with all the info and link's I will take an asprin and read on.....The best discription of my feeling's to your post's are to say a huge WOW! and again thank you....Blessings...P.S. good to see someone else is getting "it" about Palosi.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:13 amRumsfeld's Revenge. It sounds like a case of fascist diarrhea.
-GSD
October 21st, 2007 at 11:42 amDo you apply this to the Clintons as well?
Comment by TCDon — October 21, 2007 @ 10:02 am
Abso-friggin'-lutely. Would YOU apply such a sentiment to the Bushes? Or would you vote for Jeb Bush if he were the primary-winning candidate in 2008? I myself want no political dynasties (That goes for the families such as Bush, Clinton, or the Kennedy family, among others).
I also want a limited number of terms for Congress Critters. None of this lifelong D.C. politician crap. You want to stay a politician, go back to your home state and rejoin your state political scene. Career politicians on the Hill are far too susceptible to bribery, blackmail, and so on.
I wouldn't mind seeing an expanded Supreme Court if they insist on lifetime appointments, else give them a term measured in years, not a lifetime.
I REALLY want journalists to be required to rotate in and out of our nation's capitol. The longer they stay, the longer they become corrupted by becoming too friendly, too socially involved with people whom their job requires they be CONFRONTATIONAL with. If you are invited to parties and social events by politicians, slowly but surely, you become vested in maintaining those connections. They become more important than investigative journalism, because these journalists somehow think that this connection gives them an inside source of information, when in reality simply taking the word of a politician in such a manner is in fact a source of DISINFORMATION. I want investigative, hard-hitting, QUESTIONING journalists. Not the crap we deal with today on the Hill.
Finally, I want all the money coming from lobbies to be outlawed. A lobby should be required by law to use political capital for influence, measured strictly in the numbers of voters they represent. Economic capital is not, not, not a legitimate voice. It certainly destroy representative taxation, if our representatives collect tax money from We the People to enact legislation that comes from, and benefits primarily the interests of the elite, who can afford to pay (alot) more to garner such influence. It is the purest definition of corruption, allowing money to change hands in such a manner.
Clinton is my last choice among the current crop of Democratic contenders (Kucinich is the first, Edwards is second, Obama is third in my book). But if it comes down to a choice between Hillary and one of the leading Republicans, especially someone like Guiliani, the nod still must go to Hillary, unfortunately.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:44 amwell, this is a bit of a surprise... i had thought, all this time, that rummy was behind the privatization of this war... including the security of diplomats...
and in a way he was, i suppose...
but, this still leaves a very unattractive picture of these people
October 21st, 2007 at 11:59 amwho have been playaing with lives... too, too many lives...
a game...
.
I hate these idiots.
October 21st, 2007 at 12:13 pmMaybe that’s why the trolls are so rabid in their support for Pres Bush: Given the overall lack of qualifications in the people serving in this administration, I wouldn’t be surprised if these trolls think they too, one day, can grow up to be like uncle Rumsfeld, or uncle Cheney.
After so many months of reading their tripe here on ThinkProgress, I’d say these trolls are way on their way of being about as unable, unethical, and morally bankrupt as anyone in this White House. Perfect material for a future Republican presidential candidate. Or secretary of state, at the very least.
Comment by Gregor Samsa
Just remember, the more idiots cling to a sinking ship, the faster it goes down.
October 21st, 2007 at 2:16 pmWhat sickens me most is that the Democrats have forgotten one of the more biting of Ben Franklin's sayings - "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
October 21st, 2007 at 4:23 pmPelosi MUST be replaced in order for the Constitution of this country to prevail. She's clearly putting partisan politics (gaining the white house in 08) over maintaining the constitution and rule of law in this country.
If she can't see the forest for the trees then the Dems need someone less myopic.
After all, this country and it's constitution could be totally destroyed by the time the 08 elections roll around so there will be nothing left to "take in 08". In order to save face internationally, this country needs to put up or shut up. If it's a democracy, then there should be no argument regarding impeachment.
First things first, Pelosi.
October 21st, 2007 at 4:45 pmClearly the Dems are very narrow in their mindset if they cannot see that most of their investigations and woes could be corrected via impeachment - making GWB even more of a lameduck so the whistleblowers will feel free to provide the testimony.
How can they be so stupid?
October 21st, 2007 at 4:46 pmRumsfeld is a PHUCKING war criminal!!!! 'Nough said!!!!!!!!!!!!!
October 21st, 2007 at 5:32 pmSO IS CHENEY!!!!
October 21st, 2007 at 5:33 pmAND GW BOTCH!!!!
October 21st, 2007 at 5:34 pmThis sounds like the loose cannon Armitage; the same Armitage that first leaked Valerie Wilson's name to Bob Novak. By this time Powell was just going through the motions until early 2005 retirement. Still, though, it reflects on the ineffectiveness of Colin Powell as Secretary of State.
October 21st, 2007 at 5:51 pmI wonder if whatever new company takes over for Blackwater isn't going to be given the same rules of engagement. It comes down to leadership, and if the company tolerates 'cowboys' I don't see much changing.
As with the regular military there are a range of personality types in the private security companies, and although most are 'type-A's that doesn't mean they're 'bad apples', it's all in what's tolerated, how they're vetted, and how they're managed/led.
I get the impression that Blackwater was given a long leash for reasons unknown to me, but the result is increased lack of trust in ALL American forces, increased tensions, a certain amount of resentment by our own military troops, and generally making a bad situation worse. It has also enabled any 'bad apples' to flourish, and instead of weeding them out they're protected.
But I'm sure Rummy would have a funny quip to explain the whole thing and try to make the questioner feel bad about bringing it up, as usual. Remember, like Bush and Cheney he's never wrong.
Why does almost everything our "leaders" have done over the past seven years seem to fly in the face of logic and decency?
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:07 am