A Message to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney From a Dying Veteran

22 comments

Posted on 19th March 2013 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , , ,

To: George W. Bush and Dick Cheney

From: Tomas Young

I write this letter on the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War on behalf of my fellow Iraq War veterans. I write this letter on behalf of the 4,488 soldiers and Marines who died in Iraq. I write this letter on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of veterans who have been wounded and on behalf of those whose wounds, physical and psychological, have destroyed their lives. I am one of those gravely wounded. I was paralyzed in an insurgent ambush in 2004 in Sadr City. My life is coming to an end. I am living under hospice care.

I write this letter on behalf of husbands and wives who have lost spouses, on behalf of children who have lost a parent, on behalf of the fathers and mothers who have lost sons and daughters and on behalf of those who care for the many thousands of my fellow veterans who have brain injuries. I write this letter on behalf of those veterans whose trauma and self-revulsion for what they have witnessed, endured and done in Iraq have led to suicide and on behalf of the active-duty soldiers and Marines who commit, on average, a suicide a day. I write this letter on behalf of the some 1 million Iraqi dead and on behalf of the countless Iraqi wounded. I write this letter on behalf of us all—the human detritus your war has left behind, those who will spend their lives in unending pain and grief.

I write this letter, my last letter, to you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. I write not because I think you grasp the terrible human and moral consequences of your lies, manipulation and thirst for wealth and power. I write this letter because, before my own death, I want to make it clear that I, and hundreds of thousands of my fellow veterans, along with millions of my fellow citizens, along with hundreds of millions more in Iraq and the Middle East, know fully who you are and what you have done. You may evade justice but in our eyes you are each guilty of egregious war crimes, of plunder and, finally, of murder, including the murder of thousands of young Americans—my fellow veterans—whose future you stole.

Your positions of authority, your millions of dollars of personal wealth, your public relations consultants, your privilege and your power cannot mask the hollowness of your character. You sent us to fight and die in Iraq after you, Mr. Cheney, dodged the draft in Vietnam, and you, Mr. Bush, went AWOL from your National Guard unit. Your cowardice and selfishness were established decades ago. You were not willing to risk yourselves for our nation but you sent hundreds of thousands of young men and women to be sacrificed in a senseless war with no more thought than it takes to put out the garbage.

I joined the Army two days after the 9/11 attacks. I joined the Army because our country had been attacked. I wanted to strike back at those who had killed some 3,000 of my fellow citizens. I did not join the Army to go to Iraq, a country that had no part in the September 2001 attacks and did not pose a threat to its neighbors, much less to the United States. I did not join the Army to “liberate” Iraqis or to shut down mythical weapons-of-mass-destruction facilities or to implant what you cynically called “democracy” in Baghdad and the Middle East. I did not join the Army to rebuild Iraq, which at the time you told us could be paid for by Iraq’s oil revenues. Instead, this war has cost the United States over $3 trillion. I especially did not join the Army to carry out pre-emptive war. Pre-emptive war is illegal under international law. And as a soldier in Iraq I was, I now know, abetting your idiocy and your crimes. The Iraq War is the largest strategic blunder in U.S. history. It obliterated the balance of power in the Middle East. It installed a corrupt and brutal pro-Iranian government in Baghdad, one cemented in power through the use of torture, death squads and terror. And it has left Iran as the dominant force in the region. On every level—moral, strategic, military and economic—Iraq was a failure. And it was you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, who started this war. It is you who should pay the consequences.

I would not be writing this letter if I had been wounded fighting in Afghanistan against those forces that carried out the attacks of 9/11. Had I been wounded there I would still be miserable because of my physical deterioration and imminent death, but I would at least have the comfort of knowing that my injuries were a consequence of my own decision to defend the country I love. I would not have to lie in my bed, my body filled with painkillers, my life ebbing away, and deal with the fact that hundreds of thousands of human beings, including children, including myself, were sacrificed by you for little more than the greed of oil companies, for your alliance with the oil sheiks in Saudi Arabia, and your insane visions of empire.

I have, like many other disabled veterans, suffered from the inadequate and often inept care provided by the Veterans Administration. I have, like many other disabled veterans, come to realize that our mental and physical wounds are of no interest to you, perhaps of no interest to any politician. We were used. We were betrayed. And we have been abandoned. You, Mr. Bush, make much pretense of being a Christian. But isn’t lying a sin? Isn’t murder a sin? Aren’t theft and selfish ambition sins? I am not a Christian. But I believe in the Christian ideal. I believe that what you do to the least of your brothers you finally do to yourself, to your own soul.

My day of reckoning is upon me. Yours will come. I hope you will be put on trial. But mostly I hope, for your sakes, that you find the moral courage to face what you have done to me and to many, many others who deserved to live. I hope that before your time on earth ends, as mine is now ending, you will find the strength of character to stand before the American public and the world, and in particular the Iraqi people, and beg for forgiveness.

OOPS THEY DID IT AGAIN

20 comments

Posted on 2nd March 2013 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , , ,

Isn’t it precious that the apology comes from NATO. What a crock of shit. Every country with any brains pulled out of Afghanistan years ago. The U.S. Military killed two 7 year old boys because they looked like insurgents. What does an insurgent look like? Get prepared for this storyline. You will be seeing stories about mistaken drone attacks in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas in the next few years. Just an honest mistake. I wonder how many new terrorists we created by killing two little boys?

NATO says its troops shot dead two Afghan boys

(Reuters) – NATO said on Saturday its forces had accidentally shot dead two Afghan boys, in the latest of a series of reports of civilian deaths at the hands of international troops.

The shooting in the southern province of Uruzgan could further strain the relationship between the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who has demanded U.S. special forces leave another province over allegations of torture.

The two boys were shot dead when they were mistaken for insurgents during an operation in northwest Uruzgan on February 28, ISAF commander, U.S. General Joseph Dunford, said in a statement.

“I offer my personal apology and condolences to the family of the boys who were killed,” Dunford said.

“The boys were killed when Coalition forces fired at what they thought were insurgent forces,” he said, adding that a team of Afghan and ISAF investigators visited the village on Saturday and met local leaders.

The area, Lowar-e-Dowahom, was often patrolled by international troops, a spokesman for provincial governor Amir Mohammad Akhundzada said.

“They saw two young children who were apparently listening to a radio and they shot them – it is not yet clear why,” the spokesman said.

Australian forces deployed in Uruzgan said earlier there had been an “operational incident” in the province’s northwest but gave no details except that no soldiers were harmed.

On February 13 a NATO air strike requested by Afghan forces killed 10 people – including five children and four women – in the eastern province of Kunar, prompting Karzai to ban his troops from requesting foreign air strikes.

Two weeks later he halted all special forces operations in the central province of Wardak after a series of allegations involving U.S. special forces soldiers and Afghan men said to be working with them.

(Reporting by Mirwais Harooni, Ismail Sameem and Dylan Welch; Editing by Andrew Roche)

BLACK PEOPLE & GUN CONTROL

68 comments

Posted on 25th February 2013 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , , , ,

Some interesting facts in this article by a black woman about gun control and black people.  There are 5 times as many white people in this country as black people. From the U.S. Census Bureau there are approximately 80 million white households and 15 million black households. According to the article 42% of white households and 16% of black households own a gun. That means there are 33.6 million white households with a gun and 2.4 million black households with a gun. That means there are 14 times as many white households than black households with a gun. The article also states that blacks are 6 times more likely die by homicide and 8 times more likely to commit a homicide than white people, even though they are only one-fifth of the total white population. Obama’s efforts to disarm white people will not reduce the number of black homicides. It will just increase the number of white people susceptible to crime and the DHS.

Obama should be focused on why black people murder each other at such an alarming rate. But that isn’t his agenda. He doesn’t want to fix the real problems in this country because it’s the liberal do-gooder entitlement policies that have created the urban kill zones. It’s the liberals who are responsible for the thousands of black people murdered every year by other black people.  

Preserve gun rights, save black rights

Sunday, February 24,2013

My organization, CURE — the Center for Urban Renewal and Education — recently sponsored a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington to bring attention to the importance of rigorously defending the right of all Americans, guaranteed under the Second Amendment of our Constitution, to own a gun.

Our event provided a forum for black leaders — from the world of politics and public policy in Washington, from the business community, from academia, and from the clergy — to express their deep concern about current efforts to limit our God-given and constitutional individual right of self-defense.

Why would an organization like CURE, whose mission focuses on the relevance of American values of faith and freedom to minorities, be so concerned about guns?

Because, as conservative black Americans, we know that the soul of America is kept alive with the free flow of the oxygen of freedom. And we know that when that flow is interrupted in any way, the group that suffers first and most are blacks.

New gun control initiatives coming from our president and from Democrats in Congress to respond to a highly publicized tragedy by wanting to expand the power of government and limit the freedom of citizens comes as no surprise.

There is no problem facing America today that liberals do not believe should be solved by more government and less freedom. And liberals are consistent and predictable in their indifference to facts and experience that show whenever they do succeed in growing government and limiting freedom, they make matters worse, not better.

A substantial body of research already shows that gun controls empower criminals and weaken law-abiding citizens.

As John Lott, former chief economist of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “With just a single exception, the attack in Tucson last year, every public shooting in the U.S. in which three or more people have been killed since at least 1950 has occurred in a place where people are not allowed to carry their own firearms.”

Regarding black reality, blacks are the least armed, least protected and defended, and the most assaulted citizens in our country.

According to a recent Pew Research Center survey, 42 percent of whites and 16 percent of blacks say that they have a pistol or rifle at home.

And, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, for the period 1980 to 2008, “Blacks were six times more likely than whites to be homicide victims and eight times more likely to commit a homicide.”

Law-abiding black citizens live under siege in crime-ridden urban centers. Somehow, they are supposed to buy the logic that they’ll be better off if more power is given to those in law enforcement (who already are charged with maintaining order, but don’t), while freedoms are stripped from those who obey the law.

In a Pew Research Center survey in 2009, 46 percent of whites compared to 24 percent of blacks said they had a “great deal” of confidence in their local police to enforce the law.

Can anyone whom God has blessed with a brain actually think that universal background checks will keep guns out of the hands of gang thugs? Or that these same checks, in which some past legal infraction might nullify a gun application, will not result in even fewer urban law-abiding blacks obtaining a weapon for protection?

Perhaps even worse than another make-pretend big-government “answer” that not only will not solve a problem but will make it worse: Gun control initiatives mask the issues that really need attention.

Those include: a culture that devalues personal responsibility, that fosters government dependence, that trashes traditional understanding of sex, marriage and family, and that bans these traditional values from our public schools and our public life.

Americans of all backgrounds must fight yet another misguided liberal attempt to undermine our personal freedom and sap the vitality of our nation.

Star Parker is an author and president of CURE, Center for Urban Renewal and Education.

AND THE U.S. MURDER CAPITAL IN 2012 IS …….

44 comments

Posted on 6th January 2013 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , , , , ,

And the winner is DETROIT. Cogratulations murder city USA.

Chicago actually won the award for most murders, but to be fair you have to take into account the total population. Liberal douchebags like Barry Ritholtz have their panties in a knot because the U.S. murder rate per 100,000 people is 4.8. They claim that is too high and we need gun control to reduce it. The rate in Detroit was 58.1, edging out the beautiful metropolis of New Orleans. 

Their false storyline is blown out of the water by the little chart I’ve created from the data in the story. Everyone of these cities is run by Democrats. They’ve created welfare state shitholes. Drugs, unemployment, high taxes, welfare dependency, educational failure, and strong gun control laws are the common theme in these Democrat strongholds.

These nine cities account for 5.9% of the U.S. population and 20.7% of all the murders in the country. I’m sure MSNBC will be doing a story on where the vast majority of homicides in this country occur. Instead of banning guns, maybe we should ban black men from having children out of wedlock and not honoring their fatherly obligation. Maybe we should ban public schools that graduate morons who can’t spell CAT into society. Maybe we should ban Democrat politicians who have ruined our cities. 

I only listed some of our largest cities, but our friends in Camden NJ were off the freaking charts. There are only 77,000 people living in Camden and they committed 67 murders in 2012. For the math challenged, this equals 87 murders per 100,000 people. OUCH!!!

Barack Obama received more than 90% of the votes in the City of Camden.

City Murders Population Per 100,000
Chicago 506 2,700,000
18.7
NYC 414 8,100,000 5.1
Detroit 411 707,000 58.1
Phila 331 1,540,000 21.5
St. Louis 113 318,000 35.5
Cleveland 97 394,000 24.6
New Orleans 193 361,000 53.5
Wash DC 88 618,000 14.2
Los Angeles 294 3,800,000 7.7
 Totals 2,447 18,538,000 13.2
% of Total 20.7% 5.9%

Homicides in troubled Detroit up 9 percent in 2012: officials

The Detroit city skyline is seen behind the Ambassador Bridge, an international border-crossing linking Windsor, Ontario with Detroit, along the Detroit River in Detroit, Michigan July 21, 2012. REUTERS/Rebecca Cook

(Reuters) – The bad news continues for the financially troubled city of Detroit, where the number of homicides jumped 9 percent last year, according to data released on Thursday.

Detroit’s total of 411 homicides, up from 377 the previous year, includes 386 criminal homicides and 25 “justifiable homicides” that included 3 shootings by police, according to numbers released by the city.

The number of criminal homicides was up from 344 in 2011 – an increase of 12 percent. The total in 2010 was 308.

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder late last month appointed a financial review team for Detroit, the latest development in a process that could lead the city to file for the biggest-ever U.S. municipal bankruptcy. The city has been hit by a steep population decline and years of budget deficits.

Cities across the country are releasing their 2012 crime statistics. In some cases, such as New York City, where the murder rate dropped to an apparent record low, the totals have been cause for celebration. In others, such as Chicago, where the number of murders topped 500 for the first time in four years, it has been a source of shame.

Chicago gained international attention last year for its increased rate of murders, mostly shootings. Its total for 2012 was 506, up nearly 17 percent from 433 in 2011.

But Detroit’s numbers are higher proportionally — Detroit has a population of 706,585 according to the 2011 U.S. Census estimate, while Chicago’s population is almost four times that size at about 2.7 million.

The total in Detroit works out to one homicide per 1,719 people, compared with 1 in 5,336 people in Chicago.

In a statement, Detroit Mayor Dave Bing said the release of the statistics “reminds us of the senselessness of crime and violence in our community; the challenges facing our police force; and the need to improve conflict resolution and other anti-crime initiatives.”

Another Great Lakes city where homicides spiked last year was Cleveland, Ohio, which had 97 murders, up from 74 in 2011 and 84 in 2010. With a population of 393,816, that works out to 1 murder for every 4,060 people.

“I attribute it to young men with low IQs carrying big guns. It is just the reality of it,” said Cleveland Councilman Michael P. Polensek.

Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy and other officials have blamed the homicide surge in the Windy City on a splintering of the city’s traditional gangs and the rise of new factions vying for control of the its south and west sides. He also noted that the city has a proliferation of illegal firearms, especially compared with New York or Los Angeles.

New York reported 414 murders as of December 28, although it has more than three times the population of Chicago. New York’s murder rate amounts to one killing per 19,915 people. Los Angeles police reported 294 murders through December 22, 2012, up from 291 in the same period of 2011, in a population of almost 3.8 million.

John Hagedorn, an associate professor of criminal justice at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said that unlike the 1990s, when there was a “real gang war” going on, violence in Chicago is more spontaneous and uncontrollable by gang leaders, community workers or police officers.

“The root of violence in Chicago today is in the desperate conditions in the black community and alienation of black youth, not some gang war that could be ended by suppression or negotiation,” Hagedorn said.

In other cities, Philadelphia police reported 331 homicides in 2012, up from 324 in 2011, in a population of almost 1.54 million. That amounts to 1 in 4,642.

St. Louis recorded 113 murders in 2012, the same as in 2011, for a population of 318,069, or one murder per 2,815 people. This was well below the average of 141 murders for the previous five years, said St. Louis Police Captain Michael Sack.

“We’re trending in the right direction,” Sack said. But he added that it was difficult to pinpoint a reason. He noted that the department has been engaging in “hot spot policing” to target areas where violent crime occurs.

New Orleans reported 193 murders in 2012, a small drop from 199 in 2011, according to the New Orleans Police Department. New Orleans has a population of 360,740, which puts its murder rate at 1 per 1,869 residents.

Washington, D.C. reported 88 murders in 2012, the lowest total since 1961, according to D.C. police. The population is 617,996, putting the murder rate at one for every 7,023 people.

(Reporting by Mary Wisniewski and James Kelleher in Chicago, Tim Bross in St. Louis, Ian Simpson in Washington, D.C., and Kim Palmer in Cleveland; Editing by Dan Grebler)

Why Did CIA Director Petraeus Suddenly Resign … And Why Was the U.S. Ambassador to Libya Murdered?

17 comments

Posted on 11th November 2012 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , , , , ,

Submitted by George Washington on 11/10/2012 15:27 -0500

The Deeper Questions Behind the Ambassador’s Murder … and the CIA Boss’ Sudden Resignation

While the GOP is attacking (and Dems defending) the Obama administration in connection with the murder of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, there is a deeper story.

Sure, it is stunning that the State Department never requested backup or that people such as Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer allege that President Obama personally watched in real time the attacks as they occurred via video feeds from drones flying over the Benghazi consulate.

But these claims only can be assessed – and the whole confusing mess only makes sense – if the deeper underlying story is first exposed.

Many Syrian Terrorists Come from Libya

The U.S. supported opposition which overthrew Libya’s Gadaffi was largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists.

According to a 2007 report by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center’s center, the Libyan city of Benghazi was one of Al Qaeda’s main headquarters – and bases for sending Al Qaeda fighters into Iraq – prior to the overthrow of Gaddafi: WestPoint 1 LibyaAQvsAS Why Did CIA Director Petraeus Suddenly Resign ... And Why Was the U.S. Ambassador to Libya Murdered? Al Qaeda is now largely in control of Libya.  Indeed, Al Qaeda flags were flown over the Benghazi courthouse once Gaddafi was toppled.

(Incidentally, Gaddafi was on the verge of invading Benghazi in 2011, 4 years after the West Point report cited Benghazi as a hotbed of Al Qaeda terrorists. Gaddafi claimed – rightly it turns out – that Benghazi was an Al Qaeda stronghold and a main source of the Libyan rebellion.  But NATO planes stopped him, and protected Benghazi.)

CNN, the Telegraph,  the Washington Times, and many other mainstream sources confirm that Al Qaeda terrorists from Libya have since flooded into Syria to fight the Assad regime.

Mainstream sources also confirm that the Syrian opposition is largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists.  See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

The U.S. has been arming the Syrian opposition since 2006. The post-Gaddafi Libyan government is also itself a top funder and arms supplier of the Syrian opposition.

The Real Story At Benghazi

This brings us to the murder of ambassador Stevens and the sudden resignation of CIA boss David Petraeus.

The Wall Street Journal, Telegraph and other sources confirm that the US consulate in Benghazi was mainly being used for a secret CIA operation.

They say that the State Department presence in Benghazi “provided diplomatic cover” for the previously hidden CIA mission.

Reuters notes that the CIA mission involved finding and repurchasing heavy weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals.

Business Insider reports that Stevens may have been linked with Syrian terrorists:

There’s growing evidence that U.S. agents—particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens—were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.

 

In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group—a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens’ life.

 

In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, “met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey” in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria.

 

Last month The Times of London reported that a Libyan ship “carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey.” The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades.

 

***

 

Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.

 

The ship’s captain was ”a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support,” which was presumably established by the new government.

 

That means that Ambassador Stevens had only one person—Belhadj—between himself and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria.

 

Furthermore, we know that jihadists are the best fighters in the Syrian opposition, but where did they come from?

 

Last week The Telegraph reported that a FSA commander called them “Libyans” when he explained that the FSA doesn’t “want these extremist people here.”

 

And if the new Libyan government was sending seasoned Islamic fighters and 400 tons of heavy weapons to Syria through a port in southern Turkey—a deal brokered by Stevens’ primary Libyan contact during the Libyan revolution—then the governments of Turkey and the U.S. surely knew about it.

 

Furthermore there was a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles from the U.S. consulate, used as “a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles” … and that its security features “were more advanced than those at rented villa where Stevens died.”

And we know that the CIA has been funneling weapons to the rebels in southern Turkey. The question is whether the CIA has been involved in handing out the heavy weapons from Libya.

In other words, ambassador Stevens may have been a key player in deploying Libyan terrorists and arms to fight the Syrian government.

Other sources also claim that the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was mainly being used as a CIA operation to ship fighters and arms to Syria.

Many have speculated that – if normal security measures weren’t taken to protect the Benghazi consulate or to rescue ambassador Stevens – it was  because the CIA was trying to keep an extremely low profile to protect its cover of being a normal State Department operation.

Why Did CIA Chief David Petraeus Suddenly Resign?

CIA boss David Petraeus suddenly resigned, admitting to an affair.  This could be the real explanation, given that affairs of high-level intelligence chiefs could compromise national security.

But the timing of Petraeus’ resignation becomes more interesting once one learns that that he was scheduled to testify under oath next week before power House and Senate committees regarding the Benghazi consulate.

Many speculate that it wasn’t an affair – but the desire to avoid testifying on Benghazi – which was the real reason for Petraeus’ sudden resignation.

The Big Picture

Whatever the scope of the CIA’s operation in Benghazi – and whatever the real reason for the resignation of the CIA chief – the key is our historical and ongoing foreign policy.

For decades, the U.S. has backed terrorists for geopolitical ends.

The U.S. government has been consistently planning regime change in Syria and Libya for 20 years, and dreamed of regime change – using false flag terror – for 50 years.

Obama has simply re-packaged Bush and the Neocons’ “war on terror” as a series of humanitarian wars.

And the U.S. and its allies will do anything to topple Iran … and is systematically attempting to pull the legs out from Iran’s allies as a way to isolate and weaken that country.

Americans should ask ourselves if that’s what we want …