100 Years, Part II

-

PNAC.jpg
The debate over McCain’s 100 years comment is still pinging around in my brain. Here is my first interpretation of McCain’s intended meaning when I wrote earlier this week:

More important is what McCain actually did mean: that the U.S. should maintain a military presence in Iraq not only as long as it takes to end hostilities, but long after hostilities have ended. Iraq will not be anything like Japan, Germany or South Korea in the foreseeable future. Given the events of the past five years, the Iraqi population simply will not tolerate a permanent U.S. military presence, especially if large-scale violence has ended. McCain is seeing things through a 20th century prism that minimizes the costs and sometimes destabilizing effects of projecting U.S. military power around the world.

I’ll now go a step farther and make a connection I should have made earlier: McCain is trying to rescue the neoconservative project. He is still clinging to the idea — despite all evidence to the contrary — that U.S. military force can fundamentally transform Iraq and the Middle East.
If Democrats and moderate Republicans try to loop these comments into the tactical-level redeployment debate — tempting as that may be, since it’s become a politically safe space — they would be backing down from a hugely important ideological confrontation. Clinton, Obama and their allies need to take this argument at face value and shoot it down. Otherwise, McCain just might be able to bring neoconservatism back from the dead.
— Scott Paul

Comments

46 comments on “100 Years, Part II

  1. David says:

    Good point, POA.

    Reply

  2. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Personally, I like the fact that this kotzabasis jackass posts here, and I wish he would post more often. His fanatical delusions and obscene dishonesty is glaringly indicative of the depth of depravity that currently has the helm of our ship of state. Kotzabasis speaks to the very heart of what Dick Cheney and Company stand for and believe in. And frankly, that should scare the shit out of any patriotic American.
    Thanks for reminding us, Kotzabasis.

    Reply

  3. David says:

    The saddest thing about your comment, kotzabasis, is that you apparently believe what you posted. Unfortunately, it is not a harmless belief. In fact, it is a formula for catastrophe.

    Reply

  4. Kathleen says:

    Speaking of misnomers, what is realistic about projecting one’s paranoid delusions onto others to justify casting the first stone?

    Reply

  5. TonyForesta says:

    Who or what exactly is this “implacable enemy” or “irreconcilable foe”, kotzabasis? Iraqi’s, Iranian, al Quaida, evildoers? It is your camp, and the fascists in the Bush government that brute “ABSTRACTION” as fact, not ours. People who think like you are either directly profiting from warmaking or advancing warmaking, or blinded by oldworld nationalism and the fascist ideologies of American exceptionalism, or more accurately, supremist America. Massive miliatry forces and the huge logistics forces supporting the military forces are necessary only if the end is OCCUPATION, colonization, imperialism, tyranny!
    Your camp has elevated a bunch a perverted primitive malignant cavemen into an existential enemy threatening to destroy the world. This babel is your conjuring, and your unholy parables, and your FALSE blandishments, and your disinformation, and your patent LIES. Al Quaida is no threat to America, unless our idiot incompetent, or complicit leaders close their eyes to dire warnings, and stupidly or intentionally allow a few cells funded by Saudi Arabia to (say for example, commandeer commercial aircraft with box cutters and fly them into iconic American buildings). Your camp conjured and invented this phantasmagoria and fairytale. Your camp brutes the neverendingwar fictions and myths. And your camp BENEFITS from proselytiziing and prosecuting the hegelian dynamic of neverendingwar your camp concocted. WE DON’T BELIEVE A WORD YOU SAY. Your camp has absolutely ZERO credibility. You exist in an echoe chamber patting each other on the back for battles never fought, and glories never won.
    The brains and heart of Al Quaida is safe in the untamed netherreaches of Waziristan and the rugged redoubts bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan, while your camp is wasting oceans of blood, treasure, lost credibility, and time fighting the wrong muslims in Iraq. Your camp profits wantonly from this wayward misadventure, and so the real socalled enemy is largely ignored.
    Defeating our enemies will require are repudiation of the insane idea of invading foriegn nations with hundreds of thousand of troops, roaming that nations streets like legionares, slaughtering that nations innocent people, marauding that nations resources, erecting and imposing a puppet government upon the people of the nation, dictating the kind of government, society, and economy the people must choose, and profiteering wantonly in and from the perfidious process. What your camp describes FALSELY as liberation or democratizing is in truth and fact imperialism and TYRANNY.
    Defeating our enemies will also require a change of stategy and tactics toward police and covert actions. Whenever rangers or marines are required to secure a specific site, or attack as specific enemy, – fly them in, let them loose, and fly them out. Forget about occupations. Forget about militarily imposed democratizations. Hunting, capturing, and killing will require intelligence, and covert or special ops (ninja’s, secret squirrels, Task Force 146 types) and other assets that look like, speak like, act like, and smell like our enemies, who will infiltrate regions, areas, camps, and cells, target threats, foes, systems, and networks, and destroy them. Every tool in the American hypersuperior warmaking shed can, and will be applied when necessary, – but NOT, NEVER, as an occupation force.
    America can never win the hearts and minds of the people the ME, or any region by occupying their lands and imposing American dictates on their people by military force.
    Socalled realists, are experts at the black arts of disinformation. While you can paint lipstick on the pig that defines your ideologies and policies and call them by pretty names like “realists”, you only fool yourselves, – the rest of know you are at heart FASCISTS, supremist tyrants, and wanton profiteers.

    Reply

  6. kotzabasis says:

    Neoconservatives versus Liberals is a misnomer. Realists versus Dreamers would be more apt. The U.S. is confronting a determined implacable enemy in Iraq and in the Middle East over whom only military might can succeed followed by the transformation of the region.
    Scott Paul considers this idea as bankrupt, since to him there is ample “evidence to the contrary”. But he does not spell out the content of this “evidence” precisely because he knows that the latter is an ABSTRACTION and does not exist. The historical evidence is that the engagement with an irreconcilable foe can only be decided on the field of battle.

    Reply

  7. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Here we have a politician, at the state Senate level in Arizona, showing the courage, the common sense, and the patriotism that is so sorely lacking in these complicit and criminal candidates vying for the Oval Office. Smothering us in useless irrelevant banter and bicker, Hillary, McCain, and Obama refuse to address or consider the epic crimes that have been committed against the world community by the Bush Administration, that have resulted in the deaths of over one million human beings, and promise to deliver a decade more of death and carnage.
    Thank you, Senator Karen S. Johnson, for your patriotism, and your courage.
    http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0503johnson03.html
    We deserve the full truth about 9/11
    Tale of Building 7’s collapse suggests official complicity, persistent obstruction
    May. 3, 2008 12:00 AM
    Regarding “Drinking the 9/11 Kool-Aid” (Editorial, April 24):
    After three government investigations and more than six years, we still don’t have answers on 9/11.
    Why, for example, did Building 7 collapse? It wasn’t hit by a plane, as the towers were. The 9/11 Commission Report completely ignores Building 7. The Federal Emergency Management Agency report discounts fire as a cause and concludes that the reasons for the collapse of Building 7 are unknown and require further research. But when FEMA issued this report, it already cleared the site and disposed of the dust and steel (evidence from a crime scene), thus possibly committing a felony and complicating any “further research.”
    The National Institute of Standards and Technology, a federal agency, which evaluated the collapse of the towers, has yet to issue its report on Building 7. “We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building 7,” said the acting director of their Building and Fire Research Lab.
    Yet a number of private-sector engineers, architects, and demolition experts have not had that problem. They think Building 7 came down by controlled demolition. The building collapsed suddenly, straight down, at nearly free-fall speed. People heard the explosions, and saw the squibs and the characteristic billowing clouds of pulverized concrete so unique to demolitions. There is no reason to think that Building 7 came down for any other reason than explosive demolition.
    And speaking of pulverized concrete, fire does not pulverize concrete. Even the collapse of one floor upon another wouldn’t pulverize concrete the way the Twin Towers disintegrated.
    Think back to that day: Those towers didn’t just fall down. If they had, we would have had huge chunks of concrete breaking apart and falling into a massive pile of rubble. The buildings likely would have toppled erratically sideways and left a much larger pile of debris.
    But that’s not what we witnessed. The towers didn’t collapse – they disintegrated.
    We watched them explode into dust, not knowing exactly what we were seeing. Very little intact concrete was found in the rubble. The sheer energy required to pulverize that much concrete into dust can only come from an explosive process.
    Reputable scientists, engineers, architects and firemen with no political angle dispute the 9/11 Commission report and say that the evidence indicates the Twin Towers and Building 7 came down due to controlled-demolition explosions. Tests corroborate the presence of thermite, an explosive used in building demolitions, at the site of the Twin Towers and Building 7.
    Thermite also explains the pools of molten steel in the basement, which no one has been able to otherwise explain and which the National Institute of Standards and Technology simply denies. Why is the government refusing to even consider demolition as a possibility? What are they afraid of?
    Time magazine reported in September 2006 that 36 percent of Americans believe the government was complicit in 9/11. A Zogby poll reported that 51 percent of Americans want Congress to investigate 9/11 further.
    Even the co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission are upset with the commission report. They have accused the CIA and the military of “obstructing” the investigation. Former Commissioner Max Cleland resigned, stating that the Commission was “compromised.” Former FBI Director Louis Freeh has criticized the report for its inaccuracies and unanswered questions.
    The events of 9/11 have never been properly investigated. It’s about time they were.
    The writer, a Republican from Mesa, represents District 18 in the Arizona Senate.

    Reply

  8. Viztor says:

    If McCain had won the election of 1968, we might be out of Vietnam in sixty more years.

    Reply

  9. TonyForesta says:

    Anyone looking beyond the gospel according to fox, and the other “message-force multipliers” in the MSM parroting the patholgical lies of the fascists in the Bush government is forced to recognize and further analyse a festering litany of deceptions, abuses, failures, crimes, financial malfeasance, wanton profiteering, perversions and betrayals of the Constitution and America’s core principles, and TREASONS or some combination thereof on the part of the fascists in the Bush government.
    Yet we play this silly charade, and pretend that our leaders are worthy of the respect, goodfaith, goodwill, and trust of the American people, and deserving as high officers in the government of some unspoken measure of decorum, comity, and polity afforded to dignitaries, diplomats, and royals. It is a lie.
    The complicit parrots in the MSM obediently dress the kabuki set of American politics in nationalist iconography and frame the socalled leaders in glowing language sprinkled with patriotic platitudes against perception management engineered backdrops.
    We swim and an ocean of lies.
    Our leaders are pathological liars artfully preaching one policy, insidiously practicing another. Fictions, falsehoods, deceptions, disinformation, and PATENT LIES are hoisted to the highest heavens and glorified as holy parables, and godz will, and truth, – while truth and facts, questions, dissent, and opposition are cloaked, dismissed, silenced, slimed, and relegated to the realms of conspiracy theory, and concertedly removed from the public sphere.
    Up is down, day is night, wrong is right, fictions and lies are framed and pimped as truth, – while truth and facts are cloaked, dismissed, and slimed as the conspiratorial ramblings of lunatics. Cowards, draftdodging chickenhawks, reprobates, idiots, criminals, profiteers, and FASCISTS are blandished as bold and decisive patriots who talk to god, – while decorated combat veterens and true heroes, brilliant scientists, every voice of dissent or opposition, and all peacemakers are dismissed and conspiratorial lunatics, or ruthlessly slimed as unpatriotic antiAmerikans giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
    All lies, smothered in lies, bruted by pathological liars.
    America is operating in the most murky purtid chambers of the darkside.
    Perhaps this nation never attained our lofty goals or never truly honored our grand principles, and maybe there always existed some kind of genetic flaw in the American system, but where before, the leadership and the people always look to the Constitution and the rule of law for remedy and clarity, – now there is a lethal cancer operating in our government that has wildly metastizied under the perfidious dictatorial, tyrannical, lawless reign of the fascists in the Bush government.
    America under the fascists in the Bush government has shapeshifted into the great satan. America and Americans (once the envy of nations) is now loathed on streets and corners worldwide and with good reason.
    IMPEACHMENT is the only possible remedy and hope for restoring equilibrium, the Constitution, and the rule of law to the conduct of our government.
    Quit pretending. Amerika under the fascists in the Bush government is a criminal organization, bruting pathological lies, marauding the peoples treasure, spilling oceans of innocent blood, besmearching, dishonoring, and betraying the people, perverting the rule of law and America’s core principle, profiteering wantonly in and from the perfidious process, and mangling, dismembering, and reengineering the Constitution.
    “Deliver us from evil!”
    IMPEACHMENT is the only hope for America.

    Reply

  10. PissedOffAmerican says:

    14 Structural Engineers Now Publicly Challenge Government’s Explanation for Destruction of the World Trade Center
    A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition (see also this)
    Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)
    Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says:
    “Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition”
    Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes:
    “Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash – twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust.”
    Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out:
    “WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?”
    Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia, argues:
    “In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!”
    Mills M. Kay Mackey, structural engineer, of Denver, Colorado, points out:
    “The force from the jets and the burning fuel could not have been sufficient to make the building collapse. Why doesn’t the media mention that the 11th floor was completely immolated on February 13th, 1975? It had the weight of nearly 100 stories on top of it but it did not collapse?”
    Haluk Akol, Structural Engineer and architect (ret.)
    Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this)
    Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin
    Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)
    Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer
    William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College
    Postscript: Since writing this list, I have found other structural engineers who challenge the government’s version of 9/11. I’m not going to constantly update the title from “14” to a higher number.
    For example:
    David Scott, Structural Engineer, of Scotland, argues:
    “Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode . . . .”
    Nathan Lomba, Structural Engineer, of Eureka, California, states
    “I began having doubts about, so called, official explanations for the collapse of the WTC towers soon after the explanations surfaced. The gnawing question that lingers in my mind is: How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective. “If” you accept the argument that fire protection covering was damaged to such an extent that structural members in the vicinity of the aircraft impacts were exposed to abnormally high temperatures, and “if” you accept the argument that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the structural framing, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature of the failures.
    Neither of the official precipitating sources for the collapses, namely the burning aircraft, were centered within the floor plan of either tower; both aircraft were off-center when they finally came to rest within the respective buildings. This means that, given the foregoing assumptions, heating and weakening of the structural framing would have been constrained to the immediate vicinity of the burning aircraft. Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames—just as the handle on a frying pan doesn’t get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness.
    Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, “if” the structure in the vicinity of either burning aircraft started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side—much like the topping of a tall redwood tree—not a concentric, vertical collapse.
    For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse of the WTC towers out of hand. Subsequent evidence supporting controlled, explosive demolition of the two buildings are more in keeping with the observed collapse modalities and only serve to validate my initial misgivings as to the causes for the structural failures.”
    Edward E. Knesl, civil and structural engineer, of Phoenix, Arizona, writes:
    ” We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor bellow.
    We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.
    The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn’t know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from ?”
    David Topete, civil and structural engineer, San Francisco, California
    There are many other structural engineers who have questioned the government’s account in private. We support them and wish them courage to discuss these vital issues publicly.

    Reply

  11. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “That task has been left to the pseudo-scientists at Popular Mechanics and the History Channel”
    Such a reference is not complete without mentioning that Chertoff’s cousin compiled the information for the Popular Mechanics’ piece. That fact alone should send up warning flags in the minds of any reasonably intelligent person trying to wade through the oceans of unbelievable horseshit we have been fed about crime of bringing down the World Trade Center.

    Reply

  12. sdemetri says:

    Many surprises are surfacing through FOIA requests, and court
    documents relating directly and indirectly to the attacks.
    The Oral Histories collected in Oct 2001 through Jan 2002 by
    the NYC Fire Department and released in 2005 to the New York
    Times through a FOIA request show someone, “an engineering
    type” from Guiliani’s admin, Office of Building Management I
    believe, within half an hour after the second plane hit telling fire
    officials the buildings were likely to come down. This in direct
    contradiction to the years of experience the fire chiefs relied on
    in sending their men into the towers. One chief, who died in the
    collapse, is reported to have said when he was told so early in
    the day, literally within the hour after the first strike, the
    buildings were going to collapse, “who the f**k told you that?”
    Total collapse was the last thing on any of their minds.
    The USGS, Worcester Polytechnic Institute and RJ Lee studies,
    found evidence of temperatures in excess of 2700C, vaporized
    lead, steel, alumino-silicates. The USGS study found spheres of
    molybdenum requiring temperatures of about 2726C. Steel
    melts at 1500C. Yet NIST has refused to examine how such
    extreme temperatures can be explained. That task has been left
    to the pseudo-scientists at Popular Mechanics and the History
    Channel.
    The science is revealing, and information is coming out poking
    swiss cheese like holes in the official conspiracy theory. Swiss
    cheese like holes, btw, the size of silver dollars, are what WPI
    found in inch thick steel flanges, with edges that thinned to
    paper thickness. Unexplained, unacknowledged, unreported by
    the official NIST study, or the 9/11 Commission. Same for
    building 7. Nary a word in the commission report on 7.
    No firings, no reprimands, no accountability for the most
    significant criminal conspiracy and largest security failure on our
    soil in our history. Perhaps the coup has already taken place.
    (Sorry, that just keeps slipping out.)

    Reply

  13. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Government Refuses to Consider Cause of 47 story World Trade Center skyscraper Building 7 Demolition
    http://libertyforlife.com/eye-openers/911/wtc7demolition.htm

    Reply

  14. PissedOffAmerican says:

    It is truly gratifying to know that the scientific community, (operating under the radar of our irresponsible and governmentally manipulated Fourth Estate), is working diligently to find the true causes of the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building Number Seven.
    It is surreal that a nation of people, in a so-called democracy, would accept the fact that their government has been completely unable to explain to the American public what caused the collapse of building number seven….
    A 47 STORY MONSTER THAT COLLAPSED IN ITS OWN FOOTPRINT IN LESS THAN SEVEN SECONDS, HAVING SUFFERED NO SERIOUS DAMAGE FROM THE IMPACT OF THE TWO AIRCRAFT, OR FROM THE COLLAPSE OF THE TWO TOWERS.
    Only by careful scientific examination will the truth about 9/11 be found. And obviously, such truth must be sought under the radar of our complicit and treasonous Fourth Estate, that has shown itself to be no more honest, or separate from its governmental masters, than the old Soviet TASS agency.
    Jones is an American hero, and a true patriot. And he is not the only one. There is a growing number of members of the scientific community, having emerged from the shock of 9/11, that are awakening to the scientific implausability of the official explanation behind 9/11, and are diligently working to find and expose the truth.
    In addition, many political leaders, worldwide, are now questioning the official version of what occurred on 9/11, with some going so far as to call for internationally monitored investigations.
    There has been a crime, and a subsequent cover-up, of unprecedented preportions committed against the world community by the Bush Administration and its shadowy and evil co-conspirators. Common sense demands the rejection of this fantastic scenerio fabricated by our government to explain the events of 9/11/01. It is far past time we came out of our shock, and stopped mumbling that “it can’t happen here”. It HAS happened here, and it will happen again unless we demand the truth, and accountability.
    http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695275973,00.html
    9/11 theorist not curtailing his research
    By Tad Walch
    Deseret News
    Published: Saturday, May 3, 2008
    Sixteen months ago, Brigham Young University and Steven Jones parted ways, but he said this week he isn’t bitter about the academic divorce.
    He certainly hasn’t curtailed his volatile research on the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
    (Yes, three towers fell, not just two. If you didn’t know that, Jones is particularly interested in reaching you with his message that some other group, in addition to al-Qaida, likely contributed to the collapses.)
    In fact, Jones is the lead author of a paper on the collapses published April 18 in a civil engineering journal.
    The journal article does not list his past tie to BYU, and that’s a big Mission Accomplished for university leaders, who felt they acted to protect BYU’s reputation when they worked out a retirement package with Jones and he left at the end of 2006.
    But Jones is sharing a cramped BYU office with some professors. He also does research in a BYU lab as an outside user with a student who works with him.
    Most importantly, he is preparing several more papers that, if they pass peer review and are published, will give him the peace of mind that his case reached the public.
    Jones was energized in November when he and others received a response from the national lab charged by Congress to determine why and how the towers collapsed. The letter contained the following phrase: “We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.”
    “That,” Jones said, “really was progress. It made me believe we could talk with them.”
    It is striking. After producing a 10,000-page report, the National Institute of Standards and Technology can’t explain the collapse. And on its Web site, NIST clearly states that nowhere in its report did it say that steel in the Twin Towers melted due to fires. In fact, the fires reached only 1,000 degrees Celsius. Steel melts at 1,500 degrees Celsius.
    Meanwhile, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has said that its best hypothesis for the fall of the third tower, WTC 7 — diesel fuel stored in the building caused fires that collapsed the building — has a “low probability” of being correct.
    At the time of his separation with BYU, which he admitted was painful, Jones found himself burned by his association with a loose confederation of 9/11 truth-seekers, some of them clearly kooky conspiracy theorists, and by some of his own statements.
    Now, he and a number of scientific colleagues are taking a more cautious, mainstream approach.
    His new peer-reviewed paper in the Open Civil Engineering Journal doesn’t rip NIST or FEMA or the government. It does just the opposite. It lays out 14 points of agreement Jones and his colleagues have with the official government reports.
    “We’re getting to a higher level of discussion with this paper,” Jones said.
    The open paper can be found for free on the Web at http://www.bentham.org.
    So what does Jones think happened?
    Jones wants NIST to look at new evidence he found in Ground Zero dust samples since leaving BYU. The dust is full of iron-rich spheres and red-gray chips with the chemical signatures of high-tech cutter-charge explosives that he said could explain the collapsed towers. The spheres come from molten metal that Jones said could be caused by cutter charges.
    “It’s like when you spray water into the air, you get droplets,” Jones said. “These spheres are evidence of extremely high temperatures beyond what the fires could have reached.”
    He’s offered samples to NIST and invited NIST to visit one of his group’s labs. A NIST spokesman has said that would be a waste of taxpayer dollars, though Jones said the cost would be less than $5,000.
    Jones is cautious with money himself. He and his wife are selling off their real-estate investments to make ends meet, but he said they are comfortable and about to move to Sanpete County.
    “I haven’t profited a penny off this,” he said. “I don’t want to, and I’ve been careful not to. I’m concerned about the country, and I’m worried the truth is being covered up here.”
    He’s careful not to speculate about a cover-up, though he said the growing dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq has made many more people receptive to his research.
    Would it really hurt the people at NIST to talk to him once?

    Reply

  15. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Then again, maybe the fact that a black man like Obama has made it this far in the election farces is a small sign of some kind of revolt in the country”
    Naaaah, it just shows that we are still being hoodwinked by shallow rhetoric and shameless posturing. They just packaged it in a different color wrapper.

    Reply

  16. Carroll says:

    Neat poem from ringtone.com
    Too bad it’s not true and happening right now. Then again, maybe the fact that a black man like Obama has made it this far in the election farces is a small sign of some kind of revolt in the country.
    Democracy
    It’s coming through a hole in the air,
    from those nights in Tiananmen Square.
    It’s coming from the feel
    that this ain’t exactly real,
    or it’s real, but it ain’t exactly there.
    From the wars against disorder,
    from the sirens night and day,
    from the fires of the homeless,
    from the ashes of the gay:
    Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
    It’s coming through a crack in the wall;
    on a visionary flood of alcohol;
    from the staggering account
    of the Sermon on the Mount
    which I don’t pretend to understand at all.
    It’s coming from the silence
    on the dock of the bay,
    from the brave, the bold, the battered
    heart of Chevrolet:
    Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
    It’s coming from the sorrow in the street,
    the holy places where the races meet;
    from the homicidal bitchin’
    that goes down in every kitchen
    to determine who will serve and who will eat.
    From the wells of disappointment
    where the women kneel to pray
    for the grace of God in the desert here
    and the desert far away:
    Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
    Sail on, sail on
    O mighty Ship of State!
    To the Shores of Need
    Past the Reefs of Greed
    Through the Squalls of Hate
    Sail on, sail on, sail on, sail on.
    It’s coming to America first,
    the cradle of the best and of the worst.
    It’s here they got the range
    and the machinery for change
    and it’s here they got the spiritual thirst.
    It’s here the family’s broken
    and it’s here the lonely say
    that the heart has got to open
    in a fundamental way:
    Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
    It’s coming from the women and the men.
    O baby, we’ll be making love again.
    We’ll be going down so deep
    the river’s going to weep,
    and the mountain’s going to shout Amen!
    It’s coming like the tidal flood
    beneath the lunar sway,
    imperial, mysterious,
    in amorous array:
    Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
    Sail on, sail on …
    I’m sentimental, if you know what I mean
    I love the country but I can’t stand the scene.
    And I’m neither left or right
    I’m just staying home tonight,
    getting lost in that hopeless little screen.
    But I’m stubborn as those garbage bags
    that Time cannot decay,
    I’m junk but I’m still holding up
    this little wild bouquet:
    Democracy is coming to the U.S.A

    Reply

  17. sdemetri says:

    I am not so sure the neocon agenda has failed spectacularly. We
    are poised to gain nuclear supremacy by the long range radar
    and missile defense systems planned for Poland, the Czech
    Republic, and the components in Japan, It appears plans to
    dominate space are not falling short as the satellite successfully
    shot out of the sky demonstrated at least a capability equal to
    that of China’s. Spending has certainly not diminished.
    These bullet points in the PNAC report appear to be if not
    partially satisfied, at least on track. A “revolution in military
    affairs” has certainly happened. A “catastrophic, and catalyzing
    event” predicted in the 2000 PNAC report did jump start many
    of the changes. Another catastrophic, and catalyzing event
    would galvanize the public for a new round of measures,
    precisely what former Assisitant Sec of the Treasury Paul Craig
    Roberts has been on about for months now. If McCain cannot
    steal this election, will this effort be abandoned? Is Clinton
    sufficiently on board to avoid an outright coup? Oh, that’s right.
    That sort of thing can’t happen here.

    Reply

  18. digdug says:

    Steve is right in this. Open and direct confrontation of the
    neocon agenda is extremely important. And extremely winnable.
    The neoconservative movement has proven itself intellectually
    dishonest. It is fundamentally incapable of admitting to facts
    that are blatant and obvious to everyone else, and of objective
    analysis of the failings of its own agenda.
    The neocons enjoyed almost unprecendented power in enacting
    their agenda during the Bush II administration. And this agenda
    failed spectacularly from the very first step, yet none have
    admitted to it. Nor have any admitted to their culpability in one
    of the greatest, if not the greatest, foreign policy blunders in
    our nation’s history.
    The neoconservative movement is intellectually bankrupt.

    Reply

  19. questions says:

    @Don Bacon
    Your Chalmers Johnson quotation is apt! But he also notes (I don’t have my copy of Blowback handy to quote from) that U.S. bases are utterly ruinous for the local population — from rape to pollution to misuse of land, the bases create huge amounts of bad feeling. I’m not sure why so many of us think we’re beloved given the amount of destruction we cause. There’s probably something in DSM whatever number they’re up to — IV?

    Reply

  20. TonyForesta says:

    A vote for McCain is a vote for the unabated perpetuation of the exact same predations, tyranny, financial malfeasance, wanton profiteering, supremist policies, and PNAC piped dreams proselytized, advanced, and prosecuted by the fascists in the Bush government.
    The Bush governments bloody, costly, noendinsight misadventure in Iraq is all about the oil!!! Ask Greenspan. Marauding Iraq’s oil was
    The American people are witness to an Hegelian dynamic conjured, and ruthlessly prosecuted by the fascists in the Bush government. Follow the money, and then question who exactly benefits?
    Oil has already or will soon peak. Emerging economies of China, India, the other secondworld regions and blocks wildly increase demand on a diminishing, costly, finite commodity. Obviously price is certain to move in an steep upward trajectory until some alternative replaces oil as the dependent source energy, materials, and energy futures markets. The oil, energy, and energy services sectors and the select cronies, klans, cabal, kingdoms, and oligarchs controlling those companies and nations are reaping obscene, “outrageous fortunes”. The people everywhere are paying the terrible price in blood and treasure.
    From the first devious days of the reign of king george, long before the horrorshow and PearlHaborlikeevent of 9/11 – marauding Iraq’s oil was been a primary focus. O’Neal exposed this horrorshow fact in 2002. Anyone who imagined the illegal and immoral predation, tyranny, slaughtering of innocents, marauding of oil, and wanton profiteering in Iraq was about WMD, or Liberating Iraqi’s, or regime change, or democratization of the ME, or godz command, or whatever blandishment du jour the fascists in the Bush government bruted over time – is delusional, – or complicit. Iraq was, is, and always will be a crime scene wherein the fascists in the Bush government concocted the means to maraud Iraq’s oil, erect a puppet government in Iraq beholden to the fascists in the Bush government exclusively, and profiteering wantonly, coming and going from every unholy facet and the perfidious process of the nightmare in Iraq.
    The fascists in the Bush government have conducted information warfare on the American people. All our leaders left are right are responsible, and culpable for allowing the Bush government to brute propaganda, disinformation, and the sliming and/or dissmissing of dissent, or opposition, or any questioning of the governments policies on, and repeatedly LIE to the American people on a daily basis. Every single individual in the Bush government is a pathological liar, and all the socalled leaders left and right who fail to challenge the pathological lies, are aiding and abetting the pathological liars.
    Dear leaders recent blandishments on the economy are a clear candid example of a fascist in the Bush government pathologically lying to the American people with regard to the realities of the economic crisis the fascist in the Bush government created, and working class and poor Americans must pay for and endure.
    We’ve never had a 9/11 investigation.
    There are far more questions than answers regarding the mass murder and mayhem of 9/11, and the only real certainty is that – the Bush governments parables and narrative are full of holes, cloaked in the darkness of states secrets, and patently false.
    Iran won Iraq. America is now forced to hedge Iranian dominance in the region by building 14 permanent bases, and planning for a neverending occupation of Iraq.
    It’s all about the oil.
    Every individual in the Bush government, and all those who aid and abet them – are pathological liars.
    “Deliver us from evil!”

    Reply

  21. sdemetri says:

    The picture posted at the top is equal to a thousand words, from
    McCain or anyone chiming in. The PNAC report, Rebuilding
    America’s Defenses, establishes four core missions for US
    military forces, one of which being “perform the ‘constabulary’
    duties associated with shaping the security environment in
    critical regions…”
    This is further defined as:
    CONSTABULARY DUTIES. Third, the Pentagon must retain forces
    to preserve the current peace in ways that fall short of
    conduction major theater campaigns. A decade’s
    experience and the policies of two administrations have shown
    that such forces must be expanded to meet the needs of the
    new, long-term NATO mission in the Balkans, the
    continuing no-fly-zone and other missions in Southwest Asia,
    and other presence missions in vital regions of East Asia. These
    duties are today’s most frequent missions, requiring forces
    configured for combat but capable of long-term, independent
    constabulary operations.
    Configured for combat, but capable of long term operations, a
    deterrent for “petty tyrants” who wish to “defy American
    interests and ideals.” I guess at least some petty tyrants, such as
    US-backed Karimov in Uzbekistan, have little to worry about so
    long as they play along. Any others who defy American interests
    and ideals automatically fall under this category of petty tyrant,
    and are in need of policing.
    The New American Century is one of a revolution in military
    affairs, technical superiority on the ground, in space, in multiple
    theaters, unchallenged, long term, requiring increased force
    allocations, spending, and resources. The new Pearl Harbor of
    September 11, 2001 kick started the effort into high gear, and
    at least to my untrained eye, has continued unabated since
    (though not without its missteps and fumblings.) Dems and
    Repubs seem to be behind some form or other of the basic
    outline, having accepted the premise of the September 11
    attacks were a surprise attack, and our reaction to them was in
    fact a just and reasonable response. But the facts remain that
    they were hardly a surprise (there were far too many specific
    forewarnings), and our response in so many ways has hardly
    been just and reasonable whether on the domestic front or
    elsewhere.

    Reply

  22. PissedOffAmerican says:

    How true, this prologue from “WhatReallyHappened”….
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/
    Cage Match: Criminal Complicity on the Campaign Trail
    Anyone who actually believed in democracy and the rule of law — anyone who actually believed that the constitutional republic of the United States was worth preserving and strengthening — anyone who had even a vestigial sense of morality or the most flickering commitment to the idea of justice — would already be calling for the prosecution of Bush and his minions for these capital crimes. This goes double for anyone in public life, holding public office, with a national platform to speak from, and institutional tools at their disposal for investigating these crimes.
    So where are these voices in the citadel of power calling for justice to be done? They are silent. In both houses of Congress, in both major parties, they are silent. On the campaign trail, preening before the public as wise and virtuous leaders worthy to lead a nation, they are silent.

    Reply

  23. PissedOffAmerican says:

    May 3, 2008
    Lieberman’s Tough Questions
    by Gordon Prather
    While you’re anxiously awaiting a determination by the neo-crazies as to whether the Bush-Cheney White House must launch yet another war of aggression in the Middle East to remove a “threat” to our Major Non-NATO Ally, Israel, or whether launching that war can be safely left to the Whoever-Lieberman White House, you might reflect upon the Senate hearings Lieberman chaired last month, featuring charts purporting to show the “horrific effects of a small nuclear device detonating near the White House.”
    Quoth the Senator representing Wherever;
    “The scenarios we discuss today are so hard for us to contemplate and so emotionally traumatic that it is tempting to push them aside. However, now is the time to have this difficult conversation, to ask the tough questions, then to get answers.”
    Why is “now” the time? Because, by consensus, the risk of such an attack is far, far greater than it was when Bush-Cheney and the neo-crazies took possession of the White House.
    Of course, the risk today might not be much less if Gore-Lieberman and the neo-crazies had taken possession of the White House in 2001. After all, the successful al-Qaeda second attempt to bring down the World Trade Center Towers would have taken place on September 11, 2001 no matter who was in the White House.
    Furthermore, after 9/11, the neo-crazies – many lifelong left-leaning Democrats, who had a lot of power in the Clinton-Gore administration – might have had even more power in a Gore-Lieberman administration.
    Don’t forget that it was the Clinton-Gore White House that in 1998 defied the UN Security Council – ignored the definitive reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Saddam Hussein’s illicit uranium-enrichment program had been utterly destroyed in 1991 and that subsequent exhaustive go-anywhere see-anything interview-anyone IAEA inspections had resulted in “no indication” that any attempts had been made to revive it – and launched Operation Desert Fox, a thinly disguised attempt to effect “regime change” in Iraq from 20,000 feet.
    So, perhaps while Gore and the eco-wackos busied themselves attempting to prevent “Global Warming” – a bigger threat to us than Terrorism, according to Al Gore – the neo-crazies (in league with Human-Rights activists, End-of-Timers, radical feminists, inside-the-Beltway think-tanks, the military-industrial-media complex and The Best Congress Money Can Buy) might have had a free hand to implement the Wolfowitz Doctrine.
    And after 9/11, a Gore-Lieberman White House might have even more quickly focused on Iran, Iraq and Syria than did Bush-Cheney. With basically the same crazy people in charge, bent upon establishing an American Hegemony, the threat to our Homeland, today, from Iran, Iraq and Syria might not be much different. That is to say, nonexistent.
    True, perhaps Gore-Lieberman might not have provoked the North Koreans into withdrawing from the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and into developing their very own stockpile of Plutonium-239 based nuclear weapons.
    But that gets us back to Lieberman’s hearings on the consequences of an attack on the White House lawn by terrorists, significantly armed with a Uranium-235 – not a Plutonium-239 – based nuke, somewhat similar to the one we dropped on Hiroshima.
    According to one of the “experts” called by Lieberman, a 10-kiloton nuclear device, which could be delivered in a van, “could kill about 100,000 people,” “destroy almost all buildings within a half-mile radius” and – are you ready for this – “shatter windows” as far away as Union Station!
    Did the Bush-Cheney White House defy the UN Security Council – ignoring the IAEA’s definitive reports that Saddam Hussein’s illicit uranium-enrichment program had been utterly destroyed in 1991 and that years of exhaustive go-anywhere see-anything interview-anyone inspections had resulted in “no indication” that any attempts had been made to revive it – launch a 2-3 trillion-dollar war of aggression against Saddam, costing the lives of thousands of our soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, in order to prevent Saddam from potentially eventually producing a Uranium-235 based nuke, giving it to terrorists, to be delivered by van to the White House lawn and detonated, killing all the people standing around on the Mall, and shattering windows as far away as Union Station?
    (Presumably, according to Lieberman’s “expert,” the terrorist attack would not shatter windows on Capitol Hill, which is about the same distance from the White House.)
    But what about Hiroshima?
    Well, in the first place, that Uranium-235 based nuke was detonated over Hiroshima – which, unlike Washington DC had very few reinforced concrete buildings – at the optimal height to produce optimal blast damage on the ground and to start fires amongst the largely flimsily-constructed buildings, flattened or left standing.
    The vast majority of those killed at Hiroshima were killed outright, by blast, or died within a few days of acute burns, resulting from prompt thermal radiation and the ensuing fires.
    But, how about radiation exposure? Prompt radiation would be less on the Mall, but the radioactive cloud would be worse inside the Beltway than at Hiroshima, because the Uranium-235 based nuke would be detonated by terrorists on the ground.
    However, the results of a 60-year long-term U.S.-Japanese epidemiological study of about 87,000 survivors who had been within 10 kilometers of “ground zero” at Hiroshima and had received significant radiation exposure, were that about 700 of them eventually died as result of prompt and “fallout” radiation they received.
    87 died of leukemia;
    440 died of tumors;
    250 died of radiation-induced heart attacks.
    30 fetuses developed mental disabilities after they were born.
    Why haven’t these results – and results of similar studies conducted in the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident in 1986 – been more widely publicized?
    Because both the neo-crazies and the anti-nuclear-everything eco-wackos want you soccer-moms to stay scared to death that somehow the Iranians (and perhaps the Syrians) could somehow – without the IAEA being any the wiser – produce tens of kilograms of almost pure Plutonium-239 or Uranium-235 in their IAEA safeguarded facilities and somehow – without the IAEA being any the wiser – produce relatively crude nuclear weapons with it?
    So, here’s a Tough Question. Is it okay by you if the neo-crazies decide the Bush-Cheney White House “must” launch yet another war of aggression in the Middle East to remove a “threat” from Iran/Syria to our Major Non-NATO Ally, Israel, or would you rather leave the launching of that war to the Whoever-Lieberman White House?

    Reply

  24. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Dramatic photographs of Hussein’s dust-covered body being pulled out of the rubble of his home appeared on front pages and TV news reports around the world.”
    “Winning the hearts and minds”, ala the United States.

    Reply

  25. Carroll says:

    A neo is a neo is a neo.
    Excute them all and Burn Washington to the Ground.
    They are using “democracy” as a tool for their criminal agendas.
    Just kill all the freak sob’s and be done with it.
    http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=4775808&page=1
    Iraq Boy’s Family Describes Fatal Blast
    Parents Tell ABC News About the US Bombing that Killed Their 2-Year-Old Boy
    By MARCUS BARAM
    May 2, 2008
    Just like any other day, the Hussein family was getting ready for lunch at their home in Baghdad, Iraq, when the house suddenly shook and the brick walls came down around them.
    Two-year-old Ali Hussein is pulled from the rubble of his family’s home in the Shiite stronghold of Sadr City in Baghdad, Iraq, April 29, 2008.
    (Karim Kadim/AP Photo)
    That was the dramatic account told to ABC News by the parents of 2-year-old Ali Hussein, the Iraqi boy killed during a fierce battle in Sadr City Tuesday.
    Dramatic photographs of Hussein’s dust-covered body being pulled out of the rubble of his home appeared on front pages and TV news reports around the world.
    When a U.S. patrol in the Shiite militia stronghold was fired on by a dozen fighters, American forces fired 200-pound guided rockets that devastated at least three buildings in the district.
    The U.S. military said 28 militiamen were killed. Local hospital officials said dozens of civilians were killed or wounded

    Reply

  26. Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi says:

    By all justified reasons,one may argue that Mr McCain’s philosophy of resurrecting the dying or the failed Iraq policy or the necocons-sponsored advocacy for redeployment of the US military troops in Iraq, would or may not get the endorsement of sane and the prudent Republicans.

    Reply

  27. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Unfortunately, when considered without the last vestiges of trust we naively maintain for our “elected” officials, our longterm and considerable presence in Iraq is virtually guaranteed, no matter what these slimey lying posturing candidates say from the stump.
    The huge resources we are funneling into permanent bases in Iraq, repleat with PXs, fast food chains, recreational facilities, etc, are evidence enough what our government intends. An eternal presence is NOT the result of unforeseen circumstances and an unexpected difficulty in sercuring a stable Iraq. Our long term presence was the plan all along, despite all this horseshit we have been fed by the media and our politicians on both sides of the aisle. How many times do these bastards have to stand on the stump and promise us one thing, only to deliver something entirely different, before we finally conclude that our so-called “representative government” is a concept long ago discarded by Washington and its self serving treasonous elite?
    Watching the shameless fawning many of you exhibit over one or the other of these candidates is completely inexplicable to me. Are you fuckin’ daft? Do you really buy into this bullshit? Do you really think someone makes it to the Presidential race by being honest, uncorruptable, and respectful of the people’s welfare, needs, or wishes?
    Bottom line, no matter which of these three get in, we are in Iraq for good, you better learn to speak spanish, and they are going to continue to wave the terrorist boogie men over our heads in order to justify their own quest for power and wealth.
    Five years ago, I was fond of saying that we were at a crossroads, that we were losing our so called “democracy”. I was wrong. We had already lost it. “By the people, for the people” is a myth, a slogan. And the so called “two parties” is just as big a sham, an illusion designed to keep us divided, bickering, and ineffective. We mean no more to these bastards in Washington than the million Iraqis they’ve murdered these past five years. And this Obama/Hillary/McCain cartoon is just same-o same-o. May the slimiest lyin’est criminal win. And, he, or she, will.

    Reply

  28. Don Bacon says:

    Chalmers Johnson: “And to many South Koreans, the long American presence in their country is a reminder of tacit U.S. support for a series of ruthless despots. “South Korea between ’61 and ’89 was ruled by some of the worst military dictators created during the Cold War. Finally the Koreans got rid of them and have quite a healthy democracy now. But all the credit goes to the Koreans — there is a terrible tendency for Americans to mislead themselves about the good things they have done in East Asia.”
    On the Japanese island of Okinawa — where most of the Americans have been based since World War II — countless rapes and other crimes committed by U.S. troops have embittered the populace.
    “The hatred of the U.S. in Okinawa is palpable,” ” –Chalmers Johnson, president of California’s Japan Policy Research Institute.

    Reply

  29. JohnH says:

    “keep a base there … not as some kind of transformative force, but instead as a military outpost.” Kind of like having Homeland Security in your bedroom, eh jhgjhgjhg? Just makes you feel warm and fuzzy all over, knowing that you’re protected from the bogeyman.

    Reply

  30. Tom McCullough says:

    So what I don’t understand is this: if we would never accept a
    foreign military base on US soil, why should any country want a US
    base on their soil? Anybody…Buehler…?

    Reply

  31. Don Bacon says:

    POA’s point is well taken. What I generally do initially is poke in some data to all fields with a bogus Captcha then go back to the home page, and when I then return I do it thoroughly and it works.
    (DON’T follow the directions and use the Back button.)
    That was until today, when there was a delay built in and everything stalls. Then it may go through or it might not, and you might get one posting, two, or (like JohnH) four. Call it Captcha roulette.

    Reply

  32. Don Bacon says:

    jhgjhgjhg,
    re: “as a military outpost” that has “nothing to do with transforming” a host country society
    The US now has over 700 “military outposts” in 130 countries, and now the US Navy has a “sea-basing” concept which is involves warships floating around the coastlines of other countries. The newest one is the new 4th Fleet which will float around Latin America.
    Your point, which was McCain’s point, is that Iraq will just be one more country with US military bases, like Kuwait, for example. But there are some problems. First, the US has promoted democracy in Iraq and the Iraqis, according to the polls, don’t want the US military there. It’s for good reason — the US military has brutalized the Iraqi people including random killing, imprisonment and torture. They don’t like that, and so the majority of Iraqis support the killing of US troops. Muqtada al Sadr, the most popular Iraqi nationalist, particularly doesn’t want US troops in Iraq.
    Secondly, even in repressive ME Arab regimes, like Saudi Arabia, the US military is unwanted, and had to leave Saudi Arabia. Arabs and Muslims the world over generally hate the US now.
    Thirdly, US bases are not put there for nothing. They are there to apply pressure, even if it’s subtle, that the US is THE world power and means business. It does affect politics, and it’s meant to. Otherwise why do it? Pour money down a rathole for no reason? The US has maintained US troops in Korea and Japan for no other reason other than keep these countries in the US political orbit, which does affect their societies.
    As to Dems vs. Repubs, they’re both equally bad in this regard. True conservatives, currently with no power, would reduce US overseas commitments, which would be good.

    Reply

  33. ... says:

    i get a kick out of seeing hillary driving around in a big suv for the gas holiday ad.. recent stats show americans are switching to small compact cars in big numbers.. that must suck for the big american automakers who have always lived by the motto ‘bigger is better’… that might be true with regard to brains, but it doesn’t apply to gas guzzling autos for anyone with a brain…

    Reply

  34. ... says:

    quote from mccain today >>“My friends, I will have an energy policy which will eliminate our dependence on oil from Middle East that will then prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.”<<
    the war is/was about oil and mccain just said it today.. one has to appreciate his candor…

    Reply

  35. Roger says:

    It’s all about oil. Democrats and Republicans alike love their big
    SUVs and MUMMERs. And if we don’t keep our grubby hands on all
    those oil spigots, we are going to find ourselves back to riding
    donkeys. No, we’ll fight to death to continue driving our gas
    guzzlers until every last drop of oil has been dumped into the
    atmosphere. But not to worry folks, China and India and all the
    other oil-sucking countries have ecstatically proclaimed their
    unanimous approval for compassionate Americans to continue
    burning a disproportionate amount of the world’s dwindling oil
    supply. Wake up America, before you know it, you’ll be joining
    Cuba in driving oxen across your ethanol-producing cornfields.
    http://pdf.wri.org/wr2000_agroecosystems_cuba.pdf And as I’ve
    said before, those who were dancing in Titanic’s ballroom reached
    bottom only seconds behind those who were shoveling coal into its
    boilers.

    Reply

  36. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “He was simply saying that he’d keep a base there when hostilities are over, not as some kind of transformative force, but instead as a military outpost”
    Yeah right, that would explain the gargantuan embassy, and the number of huge PERMANENT bases we are building there.
    Or is it your contention we are simply going to give them to the Iranians when they move in to fill the void our exit would create?

    Reply

  37. PissedOffAmerican says:

    This “CAPTCHA” bullshit is ridiculous.
    Steve, haven’t enough people complained yet about how much of a pain in the ass this NON-FUNCTIONAL security protocol is? I realize that the comment section is not your motivation or your interest in your blog efforts. But good God, man, whoever designed this site revamp really stuck it to your commentors by incorporating this Captcha horseshit. And not being able to store our monickers and email addresses makes it a double paiun in the ass.
    Can’t you just ask the guy to fix it?

    Reply

  38. jhgjhgjhg says:

    What evidence do you have that McCain has this desire? My interpretation of the comment was quite different: He was simply saying that he’d keep a base there when hostilities are over, not as some kind of transformative force, but instead as a military outpost. This would make sense given that he compared an Iraq base to one in Japan and South Korea–and both of our bases there have nothing to do with transforming Japanese or Korean society. This would be nothing remarkable; we have bases all over the world that serve no sinister purpose. I feel like you’re characterizing his position in the worst possible light simply because you want the Democrats to win.

    Reply

  39. David says:

    Don Bacon raises an extremely important point. Meanwhile, I agree fully with Scott Paul on what needs to happen.

    Reply

  40. David says:

    Don Bacon raises an extremely important point. Meanwhile, I agree fully with Scott Paul on what needs to happen.

    Reply

  41. Don Bacon says:

    Senator McCain particularly made a comparison to South Korea, where the US maintains over 30,000 troops fifty plus years after hostilities. BUT the US is still in a state of war in Korea, with no end in sight, and the US commands the Republic of Korea military. I believe (but don’t have evidence) that the ROK has requested a US military withdrawal and control of its own troops but has been refused. Obviously a peace could have been arranged by now if the US desired it, with Uncle Sam’s deep pockets.
    Endless war, with concomitant military occupations, suits the US in Korea and obviously suits it in Iraq as well. It’s not strictly a neocon strategy. It’s nothing new. The US also has over 30,000 troops in Japan and over 70,000 in Germany, with over 10,000 in Italy and the UK (each).

    Reply

  42. Don Bacon says:

    Senator McCain particularly made a comparison to South Korea, where the US maintains over 30,000 troops fifty plus years after hostilities. BUT the US is still in a state of war in Korea, with no end in sight, and the US commands the Republic of Korea military. I believe (but don’t have evidence) that the ROK has requested a US military withdrawal and control of its own troops but has been refused. Obviously a peace could have been arranged by now if the US desired it, with Uncle Sam’s deep pockets.
    Endless war, with concomitant military occupations, suits the US in Korea and obviously suits it in Iraq as well. It’s not strictly a neocon strategy. It’s nothing new. The US also has over 30,000 troops in Japan and over 70,000 in Germany, with over 10,000 in Italy and the UK (each).

    Reply

  43. JohnH says:

    It’s not just McCain. Large segments of the Democratic Party have no quarrel with the notion of occupying Iraq indefinitely.
    How else can you explain that they don’t demand an exit strategy (even a long term one) or any credible idea of an end game? No, they’re all in it together, some happy to continue the mission, others advocating tactical redeployments designed to get them through the next election.
    So it’s not just McCain who needs to be called to account, it’s also the pro-war Democrats. (But try to get any of that onto Pentagon-managed, network “news.”)

    Reply

  44. JohnH says:

    It’s not just McCain. Large segments of the Democratic Party have no quarrel with the notion of occupying Iraq indefinitely.
    How else can you explain that they don’t demand an exit strategy (even a long term one) or any credible idea of an end game? No, they’re all in it together, some happy to continue the mission, others advocating tactical redeployments designed to get them through the next election.
    So it’s not just McCain who needs to be called to account, it’s also the pro-war Democrats. (But try to get any of that onto Pentagon-managed, network “news.”)

    Reply

  45. JohnH says:

    It’s not just McCain. Large segments of the Democratic Party have no quarrel with the notion of occupying Iraq indefinitely.
    How else can you explain that they don’t demand an exit strategy (even a long term one) or any credible idea of an end game? No, they’re all in it together, some happy to continue the mission, others advocating tactical redeployments designed to get them through the next election.
    So it’s not just McCain who needs to be called to account, it’s also the pro-war Democrats. (But try to get any of that onto Pentagon-managed, network “news.”)

    Reply

  46. JohnH says:

    It’s not just McCain. Large segments of the Democratic Party have no quarrel with the notion of occupying Iraq indefinitely.
    How else can you explain that they don’t demand an exit strategy (even a long term one) or any credible idea of an end game? No, they’re all in it together, some happy to continue the mission, others advocating tactical redeployments designed to get them through the next election.
    So it’s not just McCain who needs to be called to account, it’s also the pro-war Democrats. (But try to get any of that onto Pentagon-managed, network “news.”)

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *