Iraq Revisited

[CptSternn]

Crisis looms for Iraqi refugees: Amnesty

http://news.**********/s/nm/20070416...aJlSxeyDfMWM0F

GENEVA (Reuters) - A new humanitarian crisis looms in the Middle East unless Western powers take urgent measures to assist four million Iraqis uprooted by conflict, Amnesty International warned on Monday.

The London-based human rights group called on the United States, the
European Union and others to help Jordan and
Syria, whose governments are struggling to care for some two million Iraqi refugees who have fled their homeland.

Another 1.9 million are displaced within
Iraq, many in the past year marked by suicide bombings and sectarian violence.

The appeal came ahead of a two-day international conference in Geneva, opening on Tuesday, called by the
United Nations refugee agency to confront massive needs in the region.

"The Middle East is on the verge of a new humanitarian crisis unless the European Union, U.S. and other states take urgent and concrete measures," Amnesty said in a statement.

Malcolm Smart, head of Amnesty International's Middle East and North African Programme, said Syria and Jordan had borne the brunt of the refugee exodus so far, "but there must be a limit."

"It is vital that other governments now step in and deliver ... direct assistance to ensure that the refugees are adequately housed and fed, and have access to health care and education in Syria, Jordan and the other (host) countries," he said.

From 40,000 to 50,000 Iraqis flee their homes each month in an exodus linked to pervasive violence, poor basic services, a loss of jobs, and an uncertain future, according to the UNHCR.

INCREASINGLY DESPERATE

More than 3,000 U.S. forces and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed since Washington led an invasion of the country in March 2003 that ousted dictator
Saddam Hussein.

Sectarian tensions between majority Shi'ites and long dominant Sunni Arabs erupted after the bombing of a Shi'ite shrine in Samarra in February 2006, adding to widespread insurgency violence and prompting many to leave their homes.

"Those who have fled are becoming increasingly desperate as they and their host communities run out of resources," UNHCR spokesman Ron Redmond told reporters before the Geneva meeting.

"We hope to hear commitments on all of these aspects next week because the international community needs to focus collectively on a whole range of humanitarian needs," he said.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari, U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator John Holmes, U.S. Under-Secretary of State Paula Dobriansky and senior European officials are among 450 officials due to attend.

Although the gathering is not a donor conference, U.N. officials hope that it will put pressure on Western states to provide more financial help and take more Iraqi asylum-seekers.

Amnesty urged the United States and EU member states to set up "generous settlement programs" to take in the most vulnerable Iraqi refugees, often in need of costly medical care.

"Such resettlement programs should go far beyond token numbers and should constitute a significant part of the solution to the current crisis," it said.

Several thousand Iraqi refugees were accepted by so-called third countries last year, according to UNHCR, which hopes to find 20,000 resettlement places this year.

[CptSternn]

During the start of the war, and this thread, stories about Lynch and Tillman were brought up. In the back pages, people wrote that these stories were falsified. Lynch was never in a firefight. In fact, the rescue mission, which later became a FOX TV Movie, was bogus. The 'insurgents' they claimed 'captured' her were merely locals. They tried to drive her in an amulance to the green zone, and were fired upon. When the SEALs 'rescued her, they shot 'enemys', but in reality - they killed the security guards at the hospital who were protecting here keeping out persons who wanted to do her harm. In recent interviews, she states they gave her the best treatment, talked to her, kept her company, and she made friends with many. Of course, many of those friends were gunned downed in her 'rescue'.

That version of the story was kept off the front page. I was blasted for even suggesting that was the reality. People called me, and others who posted it 'anti-American'.

Well, turns out in front of a congressional committee yesterday that my version was the real version, and that the army, with direct influence from the bush admin, had concocted these elaborate lies to drum up support for their unpopular war.

Yet another lie on top of the many the bush admin force fed the public in the name of 'patriotism'.

US military blasted for lying to create war heroes

http://news.**********/s/afp/2007042....s9s3TUPHMWM0F

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A pair of high-profile US army figures accused the military of spreading outright lies and manipulating their stories for a hero-starved public, during testimony before Congress Tuesday.

One was Kevin Tillman, the brother of a US football star killed by "friendly fire" in Afghanistan three years ago, who said the military lied about the circumstances of his death to avoid a public relations fiasco and to draw attention from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.

The other was Jessica Lynch, a female soldier who decried her inaccurate portrayal as a "little girl Rambo," firing her weapon down to the last bullet before being captured by Iraqis in early 2003, and then daringly saved by US forces nine days later.

"It was not true ... I'm still confused as to why they choose to lie and try to make me a legend," she told the House Government Reform Committee hearing on "Misleading Information from the Battlefield."

Lynch was 19 when her convoy was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade in Nasiriyah. Eleven of the soldiers with her died in the attack.

Lynch told of Iraqi doctors' attempts to care for her while she lay partially paralyzed from her injuries.

"At the same time, tales of great heroism were being told. At my parents' home in Wirt County, West Virginia, it was under siege by media, all repeating the story of the little girl Rambo from the hills of West Virginia who went down fighting," Lynch said.

Lynch had not been firing a weapon at the time of the ambush, just riding in a truck. She said her testimony was not politically motivated, but that she felt the real story of what happened should get out.

"The truth of war is not always easy. The truth is always more heroic than the hype," she said.

"The bottom line is the American people are capable of determining their own ideals for heroes, and they don't need to be told elaborate lies."

Kevin Tillman told the congressional hearing that family members initially believed the US military's accounts that his brother, Pat Tillman, fought valiantly to the death during a firefight in Afghanistan on April 22, 2004.

"Our family was told that he was shot in the head by the enemy in a fierce firefight outside a narrow canyon," Kevin said.

But he said they felt shock and betrayal upon learning several weeks later that the National Football League star was apparently killed by over-zealous members of his own platoon.

"This was not some fog of war. They simply lost control," said Kevin, as he described the shooting of his brother by fellow troops.

"Pat's death was clearly the result of fratricide. It was due to a series of careless actions by several individuals in our own platoon after a small harassing ambush," said Kevin.

Kevin joined the US Army Rangers after the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington along with his older brother Pat, who gave up a 3.6-million-dollar contract as a defensive back for the Arizona Cardinals to become an Army ranger.

Kevin, who was assigned to the same unit, abandoned a promising pro baseball career for the same reason.

For more than a month after his death, including at a nationally televised memorial service, the army persisted in telling the family that Pat died in an ambush under hostile fire.

"Revealing that Pat's death was a fratricide would have been yet another political disaster during a month already swollen with political disasters, and a brutal truth that the American public would undoubtedly find unacceptable," Kevin told the panel.

"A terrible tragedy that might have further undermined support for the war in Iraq was transformed into an inspirational message that served instead to support the nation's foreign policy wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," he said.

"It was utter fiction," he said, accusing the military of "deliberate and careful misrepresentations."

In the hours immediately after his brother's death, "crucial evidence was destroyed -- including Pat's uniform, equipment and notebook," he said.

"The autopsy was not done according to regulation and the field hospital report was falsified."

The Pentagon last month called for action against a three-star general and eight other Army officers for their handling of Tillman's death.

House Democrat and panel member Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record) accused the government of making up "sensational details and stories" and said he hoped the hearing could "begin to right those wrongs."

"The least we owe to our courageous men and women who are fighting for our freedom is the truth," he said.

[CptSternn]

From the previous arguement, in this very thread, on this very forum, I bring you the update on the construction projects in Iraq. Before I post this article about the piece in the New York Times today, I'd like to say, once again, that I said this was the case a eyar ago, showed that back paeg stories proved it to be true, and was once again labelled anti-America as people tried to convince everyone that the Iraq re-construction effort was going 'well' and that the Iraqi's were 'better off now than before'

Now, finally on the font page, we find out that...

Auditors find seven out of eight Iraqi projects crumbling: report

http://news.**********/s/afp/usiraqr...qkb5pMstHMWM0F

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US auditors have found that seven out of eight
Iraq reconstruction projects declared successes by the US administration were no longer operating because of lack of proper maintenance or other problems, The New York Times reported on its website Saturday.

The newspaper said the conclusions will be summarized in the latest quarterly report by the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction that will be released on Monday.

The United States has previously admitted that some of its reconstruction projects have been abandoned, delayed or poorly constructed, the report said.

But this is the first time inspectors have found that projects officially declared a success -- in some cases, as little as six months before the latest inspections -- were no longer working properly, The Times said.

The inspections ranged geographically from northern to southern Iraq and covered projects as varied as a maternity hospital, barracks for an Iraqi special forces unit and a power station for Baghdad International Airport, according to the report.

At the airport, inspectors found that while 11.8 million dollars had been spent on new electrical generators, 8.6 million worth were no longer functioning, the paper noted.

At the maternity hospital in the northern city of Erbil, an expensive incinerator for medical waste was padlocked, and partly as a result, medical waste was clogging the sewage system and probably contaminating the water system, The Times said.

The newly built water purification system was not functioning either.

Auditors said they had made an effort to sample different regions and various types of projects, but that they were constrained from taking a true random sample in part because many projects were in areas too unsafe to visit.

The eight projects cost a total of about 150 million dollars.

"These first inspections indicate that the concerns that we and others have had about the Iraqis sustaining our investments in these projects are valid," the paper quotes Stuart Bowen, head of the office of the special inspector general, as saying.


Turns out 7 out of 8 projects built by all those American contractors either have been destroyed, were built so sub-standard that they fell apart, or that they were just abandoned half way through. Whats this mean? In means over 80% of all the money spent on construction in Iraq was wasted. How many hundreds of billions are we talking here? Quite a few.

It also means the Iraqi's are well far behind where they were prior to the invasion, and that once again the bush admin has been called out on their lies, claiming life is somehow better now than when they invaded.

More importantly, the bush team claims that troops are staying until they 'rebuild' the place, well, with these revealtions that only 10% of what they claimed to already have rebuilt to actually be there, and with the previous report that only 30% of the original projects were actually built at all (they had to slash 70% of the projects planned because of the cost of security) a rough number here puts the rebuilding of Iraq at what? 3% of the total projects bush said were being constructed actually there and in place 4 years on.

Who said those no-bid contracts were given to the wrong crowds? Looks like all that cronyism and 'American labour' did have an effect on the projects after all.

Makes you wonder what American tax payers are still forking out 30 billion a month for now, eh?

[CptSternn]

Poll: GOP support for Iraq war beginning to waver

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/...ies&eref=yahoo

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Public support for the war in Iraq has fallen to a new low. Not only that, but Republican support is beginning to waver.

President Bush's troop buildup, or "surge," meant to quell the sectarian violence is now in place.

"The final surge was just completed in the last 10 days," Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott said Sunday.

What happens now? "Come September, we'll have to see how they're doing and we'll have to make an assessment," Lott said. (Watch Schneider report the poll results Video)

But the public is already making an assessment, and it's not good. In the latest CNN-Opinion Research Corporation poll released Tuesday, 69 percent of those polled believe things are going badly in Iraq. Seventeen percent think the situation is improving. (View the latest poll results)

Thirty percent of Americans polled say they favor the war, the lowest level of support on record. Two-thirds are opposed.

Anti-war sentiment among Republican poll respondents has suddenly increased with 38 percent of Republicans now saying they oppose the war.

Moreover, 63 percent of Americans are ready to withdraw at least some troops from Iraq. Forty-two percent of Republicans agree.

Fifty-four percent of Americans do not believe U.S. action in Iraq is morally justified. (Read the complete poll results document -- PDF)

The telephone poll of 1,029 adult Americans was conducted between June 22 and 24, 2007, and has a sampling error of plus-or-minus 3 percentage points.

President Bush has always relied on solid Republican support for his Iraq policy. When Congress voted in April to impose a timetable for withdrawal, only two Republicans in the House and two in the Senate voted for the bill. Two-hundred-forty Republicans voted against timetables.

But there are some other cracks starting to show in the Republican wall of support -- most dramatically Monday when Republican Sen. Dick Lugar rose to speak in the Senate. (Watch Lugar call for a new direction for the Iraq war Video)

"I speak to my fellow senators when I say that the president is not the only American leader who will have to make adjustments to his or her thinking," Lugar said.

Lugar's assessment: "In my judgment, the costs and risk of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved." (Full story)

Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, echoed Lugar Tuesday, laying out his plan in a letter to the president. (Full storyexternal link)

"We must begin to develop a comprehensive plan for our country's gradual military disengagement from Iraq and a corresponding increase in responsibility to the Iraqi government and its regional neighbors," he wrote. (Watch GOP senators defect on Iraq Video)

Voinovich said his proposal to bring troops home was months in the making. "I think everybody knows that we fumbled the ball right from the beginning on this," he told CNN.

The Senate Democratic leader said Lugar's remarks may be a turning point. "But that will depend on whether more Republicans take the stand that Sen. Lugar took, a courageous stand," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said.

Are they? Among Democrats polled over the last four months, opposition to the war has remained nearly unanimous -- more than 90 percent opposed. About two-thirds of independents have also held steady against the war.

What's changed is Republicans. A growing number appear ready to follow Lugar's and Voinovich's lead.


Wow, it only took how many hundreds of thousands of lives and how many hundreds of BILLIONS until these eejits finally got to the point where they said, hrmmm....maybe this was the wrong thing to do?

...and still, there are the die hard right wing nuts who still are trying to keep the war going.

It is good to see that the majority of Americans now are honest and say they believe that it was MORALLY wrong to invade Iraq.

[CptSternn]

I found a few articles on this, and thought it needed to be posted.

Seeing Al Qaeda Around Every Corner

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/op...all&oref=login

AS domestic support for the war in Iraq continues to melt away, President Bush and the United States military in Baghdad are increasingly pointing to a single villain on the battlefield: Al Qaeda.

Bush mentioned the terrorist group 27 times in a recent speech on Iraq at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. In West Virginia on the Fourth of July, he declared, “We must defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq.” The Associated Press reported last month that although some 30 groups have claimed credit for attacks on United States and Iraqi government targets, press releases from the American military focus overwhelmingly on Al Qaeda.

Why Bush and the military are emphasizing Al Qaeda to the virtual exclusion of other sources of violence in Iraq is an important story. So is the question of how well their version of events squares with the facts of a murky and rapidly changing situation on the ground.

But these are stories you haven’t been reading in The Times in recent weeks as the newspaper has slipped into a routine of quoting the president and the military uncritically about Al Qaeda’s role in Iraq — and sometimes citing the group itself without attribution.

And in using the language of the administration, the newspaper has also failed at times to distinguish between Al Qaeda, the group that attacked the United States on Sept. 11, and Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, an Iraqi group that didn’t even exist until after the American invasion.

There is plenty of evidence that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is but one of the challenges facing the United States military and that overemphasizing it distorts the true picture of what is happening there. While a president running out of time and policy options may want to talk about a single enemy that Americans hate and fear in the hope of uniting the country behind him, journalists have the obligation to ask tough questions about the accuracy of his statements.



For the past few months the new propaganda and spin offensive began with bush, and has continued with the media. Now, everyday when you see Iraq on the news they talk about how they are fighting Al Qaeda, in fact, every insurgent, no matter if their they are Shia (Al Qaeda is a Sunni group) is labeled 'Al Qaeda'.

Yet another technique the bush admin is trying to get the masses to forget that the Americans invaded a sovern nation with no chemical weapons, and try and make Americans hate the average Iraqi who is defending his home.

[ArtificialOne]

So what you're saying stern, Is we should believe everything you say, because A. You're and Iraqi or a US soldier B. You're some sort of politician or media person who's been there and has studied the situation. You regurgitate raddical left wing spin and talking points on everything. You post articles that you try and minipulate the article to suit your point of view.

How about this, look at this site and get some first hand knowledge that hasn't been filtered by biased media outlets and Radical left centers.

Blackfive.net

It's also bad for you stern that the surge is working.... need evidence, look at above site. 'Nough said.

[ArtificialOne]

Oh, I forgot to add a Hooah!! to that. Go Army!!!

[CptSternn]

Heh, you can do the bush thing and pat yerself on the back and claim that all is well, but at the end of the day, America will retreat in Iraq.

America is destine to lose, there will be no other outcome. Trillions will be spent on the failed war, even trillions more in medical care for the tens of thousands of Americans who are permanately disabled in Iraq, and then even more on psychicatric costs for them and their families.

You can sit back, cover your eyes and ears, and then google the web looking for right wing websites that nobody has ever heard of, out of the mainstream media to try and back up your misguided claims, but at some point your going to have to face the stark reality at hand.

When America loses, and runs away, the 'insurgents' will be the ones running Iraq. Like in Vietnam.

[ArtificialOne]

You're so stereotypical stern. You'll ignore any evidence that doesn't fit your twisted view of politics and life. We will win, but maybe not if the dems do what they are best at, turning everything into doom and defeat. Even when things start going good they'll and you will always scream defeat and loss!!! Because you can't stand to be wrong or change your opinion. Facts are Facts stern and no matter how much you bitch, reality is differing from your "run to the hills" and americas losing" prospective. Yeah, Vietnam... another war hampered by defeatist politicicians. Nevermind that it acutally stalled and stopped the spread of communism in the east...

Oh wait... one of your posts said something about nuke air raid drills in schools.... What a load of BS!!! We haven't done them since the mid sixties at least!!! You must be near 40 or 50yrs old!!!!

[CptSternn]

Army suicides at highest level in 26 years

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20288335/

WASHINGTON - Army soldiers committed suicide last year at the highest rate in 26 years, and more than a quarter did so while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a new military report.

The report, obtained by The Associated Press ahead of its scheduled release Thursday, found there were 99 confirmed suicides among active duty soldiers during 2006, up from 88 the previous year and the highest since the 102 suicides in 1991.

The suicide rate for the Army has fluctuated over the past 26 years, from last year’s high of 17.3 per 100,000 to a low of 9.1 per 100,000 in 2001.

Last year, “Iraq was the most common deployment location for both (suicides) and attempts,” the report said.

The 99 suicides included 28 soldiers deployed to the two wars and 71 who weren’t. About twice as many women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan committed suicide as did women not sent to war, the report said.

Preliminary numbers for the first half of this year indicate the number of suicides could decline across the service in 2007 but increase among troops serving in the wars, officials said.

Factors for suicide
The increases for 2006 came as Army officials worked to set up a number of new and stronger programs for providing mental health care to a force strained by the longer-than-expected war in Iraq and the global counterterrorism war entering its sixth year.

Failed personal relationships, legal and financial problems and the stress of their jobs were factors motivating the soldiers to commit suicide, according to the report.

“In addition, there was a significant relationship between suicide attempts and number of days deployed” in Iraq, Afghanistan or nearby countries where troops are participating in the war effort, it said. The same pattern seemed to hold true for those who not only attempted, but succeeded in killing themselves.

There also “was limited evidence to support the view that multiple ... deployments are a risk factor for suicide behaviors,” it said.

History of mental disorders
About a quarter of those who killed themselves had a history of at least one psychiatric disorder. Of those, about 20 percent had been diagnosed with a mood disorder such as bipolar disorder and/or depression; and 8 percent had been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder, including post traumatic stress disorder — one of the signature injuries of the conflict in Iraq.

Firearms were the most common method of suicide. Those who attempted suicide but didn’t succeed tended more often to take overdoses and cut themselves.

In a service of more than a half million troop, the 99 suicides amounted to a rate of 17.3 per 100,000 — the highest in the past 26 years, the report said. The average rate over those years has been 12.3 per 100,000.

The rate for those serving in the wars stayed about the same, 19.4 per 100,000 in 2006, compared with 19.9 in 2005.

The Army said the information was compiled from reports collected as part of its suicide prevention program — reports required for all “suicide-related behaviors that result in death, hospitalization or evacuation” of the soldier. It can take considerable time to investigate a suicide and, in fact, the Army said that in addition to the 99 confirmed suicides last year, there are two other deaths suspected as suicides in which investigations were pending.


At least some of the baby killers have a conscious.

[CptSternn]

Recruiting For Iraq War Undercut in Puerto Rico

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081702175.html

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico -- The political activists, brown envelopes tucked under their arms, staked out the high school gates just after sunrise. When students emerged from the graffiti-scorched streets of the Rio Piedra neighborhood here and began streaming toward their school, the pro-independence advocates ripped open the envelopes and began handing the teens fliers emblazoned with the slogan: "Our youth should not go to war."

At the bottom of the leaflet was a tear sheet that students could sign and later hand to teachers, to request that students' personal contact information not be released to the U.S. Defense Department or to anyone involved in military recruiting.

The scene outside the Ramon Vila Mayo high school unfolded at schools throughout Puerto Rico this week as the academic year opened. On this island with a long tradition of military service, pro-independence advocates are tapping the territory's growing anti-Iraq war sentiment to revitalize their cause. As a result, 57 percent of Puerto Rico's 10th-, 11th- and 12th-graders, or their parents, have signed forms over the past year withholding contact information from the Pentagon -- effectively barring U.S. recruiters from reaching out to an estimated 65,000 high school students.

"If the death of a Puerto Rican soldier is tragic, it's more tragic if that soldier has no say in that war," said Juan Dalmau, secretary general of the Puerto Rican Independence Party (PIP). His efforts are saving the island's children from becoming "colonial cannon meat," he said.

Under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, all schools receiving U.S. federal funding must provide their students' names, addresses and phone numbers to the military unless the child or parents sign an opt-out form. Puerto Rico received $1.88 billion in U.S. education funds this year. For five years, PIP has issued opt-out forms to about 120,000 students in Puerto Rico and encouraged them to sign -- and independista activists expect this year to mark their most successful effort yet.

Such actions come as other antiwar groups on the island are seeking to undercut military recruiting, as well. For example, the Coalition of Citizens Against Militarism, an association of pacifist groups, plans to visit about 70 schools on the island in the coming days, meaning that many students will receive two, or even three, opt-out forms by the end of August.

Antiwar advocates have even gained direct access to Puerto Rican classrooms under a controversial directive issued last September by Rafael Aragunde, the island's education secretary, granting "equal access" by pacifist groups and military recruiters.

Although he will not bar recruiters from schools, Aragunde said, he has a "lot of sympathy" for what pacifist groups are trying to accomplish. "I've always felt that one of the byproducts of a good educational system is that you have citizens who will defend pacifism," he said. "I think that just like we have to insist on ecological values, we have to insist on pacifist values." Aragunde described his relations with military recruiters as "cordial."

Bill Carr, deputy undersecretary of defense for military personnel policy, acknowledged that the counter-recruiting campaigns are having an impact. "We're drawing less than the national average" in Puerto Rico, he said.

In the 2003-06 period, 4,947 Puerto Rican men and women enlisted in the Army or Reserves, or approximately 123 people per 100,000 residents, according to Pentagon data. That is below the average contribution of U.S. states, and far below the numbers in states such as Alabama, Kansas, Montana and Oklahoma, each of which enlists more than 200 men and women per 100,000, according to Army data.

"We're not taking more than our share from Puerto Rico," Carr said. "We're taking less than our share, because that's what they'll give us." Carr said he suspects that opt-out rates for states in the continental United States rarely break beyond 10 percent -- a far cry from the nearly 60 percent on the island.

Reaction outside the gates of the Ramon Vila Mayo school this week seem to confirm that suspicion. A few students shrugged off the political activists' overtures, while others smiled and declared their interest in joining the "Yankee" military. But most of the teens politely accepted the forms, nodded and even fetched pens from their school bags.

Calls for Puerto Rico's independence have existed since the days of Spanish colonial rule and continued after the United States seized control of the island in 1898. In the 1950s, a branch of the movement attempted a violent uprising. Although many Puerto Ricans express deep patriotism for the island, the independence impulse has never translated in the polls -- either in elections or in successive plebiscites on the status of the territory, in which independence has repeatedly been rejected.

Leaders from the island's two major political parties say that their PIP opponents are exploiting young people to advance their separatist grievances. And Pentagon officials accuse the activists of "manipulating" impressionable young people.

"What's going on in Puerto Rico is an artificial circumstance, where a group is trying to persuade students to take their name off a list, and of course that's going to meet in some change in behavior," Carr said. "In the event that someone approaches a young person and their voluntary behavior is to take an opt-out card and give it to their teacher, there's nothing we can or should do in that case. That's free speech. But it's curious speech, because it's manipulating the flow of information . . . and that is unhealthy."

The Pentagon said it is on track to meet its recruiting targets for this fiscal year. However, despite a $3.2 billion national recruitment campaign, the military was forced to bring back 1,000 former recruiters to help with the summer months -- the peak recruiting period -- and late last month introduced a $20,000 "quick-ship" bonus for recruits willing to enter training before October. Carr said that Puerto Rico's anti-military drive could force recruiters to focus on states such as Texas, where they meet with less resistance.

Maj. Ricardo Sierra, who runs eight of Puerto Rico's 14 Army recruiting stations, rejected the notion that anti-recruitment efforts are affecting his operations. High school students are not his target demographic, he said, because few speak English well enough to pass military entrance exams. Instead, Sierra said, recruiters are meeting targets by contacting college-educated students.

"We do target [high school students], we do campaigns, we talk to the seniors, but we don't get a whole lot of them," Sierra said, estimating that the U.S. military enlists an average of 22 Puerto Rican high school graduates per year.

Senior chief Joe Vega, who heads the island's three Navy recruiting stations, said that "if Puerto Rico was a fully bilingual state or country, the recruiting contribution would be much higher." His top recruiter, Chief Select Ernesta Marrero, said that many young people sign up out of patriotism or a sense of obligation to the United States.

"Being part of the U.S. is what gives them the right to their freedom, democracy, the chance to voice their opinions -- it's the constitution that we [the military] uphold," Marrero said.

Sonia Santiago, founder of the local group Mothers Against War, said her volunteers visit schools to "unmask" the way in which recruiters promise "villas y castillas" (villas and castles) that they cannot deliver. One persuasive tactic, she added, is to ask children how their mothers would feel if they were injured or killed in war.

Aragunde, the education secretary and a self-declared independista, said that most Puerto Ricans do not view the U.S. armed forces as "their military." According to a recent poll by the Puerto Rican daily El Nuevo Día, 75 percent of commonwealth residents oppose the Iraq war -- a figure that has escalated with the number of Puerto Ricans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Pentagon lists 37 service members from the island as killed in action in the two conflicts, but local antiwar groups say the number exceeds 80, including suicides and soldiers recruited from the U.S. mainland.

Deaths of all Puerto Rican troops make headlines here. The funeral in March of Army Cpl. Jason Nunez, 22, proved particularly emotional. In images broadcast throughout the island, his mother removed the U.S. flag from her son's coffin and deliberately dropped it to the floor. She later implored other parents not to allow their children to fight in the U.S. military.

Aragunde said such images shape public opinion. "You don't want children fighting on the streets, you don't want children cheating, nor stealing, and you don't want them to think that an alternative to solving any conflict is war," he said. "I feel it's my obligation to defend that value."


I wonder if the fact the news in Puerto Rico is done in Spanish, and since outlets like Fox don't have a Spanish speaking affiliate has had any effect on this? I mean, as a nation these people were able to do what no American state did. They today have a better grasp on the current conflict, with their citizens being more informed than most Americans.

With their news looking more like a European outlet than American, it makes you wonder how much brainwashing really goes on in America if people outside the normal media stream end up with this view and taking this action where as those in America who are subjected to the media there have not been able to undergo such actions.

[CptSternn]

Those who blow whistle on contractor fraud in Iraq face penalties

http://www.newspress.com/Top/Article...74540867487317

One after another, the men and women who have stepped forward to report corruption in the massive effort to rebuild Iraq have been vilified, fired and demoted.

Or worse.

For daring to report illegal arms sales, Navy veteran Donald Vance says he was imprisoned by the American military in a security compound outside Baghdad and subjected to harsh interrogation methods. There were times, huddled on the floor in solitary confinement with that head-banging music blaring dawn to dusk and interrogators yelling the same questions over and over, that Vance began to wish he had just kept his mouth shut. He had thought he was doing a good and noble thing when he started telling the FBI about the guns and the land mines and the rocket-launchers - all of them being sold for cash, no receipts necessary, he said. He told a federal agent the buyers were Iraqi insurgents, American soldiers, State Department workers, and Iraqi embassy and ministry employees.

The seller, he claimed, was the Iraqi-owned company he worked for, Shield Group Security Co.' 'It was a Wal-Mart for guns,'' he says. ''It was all illegal and everyone knew it.'' So Vance says he blew the whistle, supplying photos and documents and other intelligence to an FBI agent in his hometown of Chicago because he didn't know whom to trust in Iraq. For his trouble, he says, he got 97 days in Camp Cropper, an American military prison outside Baghdad that once held Saddam Hussein, and he was classified a security detainee. Also held was colleague Nathan Ertel, who helped Vance gather evidence documenting the sales, according to a federal lawsuit both have filed in Chicago, alleging they were illegally imprisoned and subjected to physical and mental interrogation tactics ''reserved for terrorists and so-called enemy combatants.''




At least the US military is consistent. They have no problems torturing their own to prove a point.

[CptSternn]

This article is one of the best to date I have read on the current Iraq situation.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...iraq_swindle/5

Some of my favourite bits...

- bush appointed his friends to run the show, including a 24 year old home-schooled kid with no previous experience to run the Iraqi economy, which promptly collapsed

- bush appointed a man with little or no experience to run the Iraqi health care system, and he spent the first few YEARS spending millions putting together an anti-smoking campaign countrywide, neglecting the fact most areas didn't even have hospitals

- They sent all the soldiers to fight, even those who were supposed to be fixing things like humvees. So then when the humvees break down, they can't be fixed, so the standard protocol to keep them out of enemy hands is to destroy them. When any military equiptment breaks, they now just douse it with petrol and burn it in the street, even for minor issues since they have no mechanics on hand in Iraq to fix any equipment.

- Halliburton claims to counter the attacks of insurgents on convoys, they need to keep trucks moving 24/7. So they have dozens of truck convoys moving 24 hours a day, moving nothing - empty payloads, at a cost of millions a day to the tax payers, and costing manys of lives, moving empty tractor trailer trucks in efforts to keep the enemy from stopping the important convoys.

- 16 billion dollars has disappeared so far, and no one can explain where it went. The men in charge who were supposed to be monitoring this when asked by congress answered 'we have no idea' and all still have their jobs

- Even though dozens of fraud cases have come to light, the bush administration refuses to prosecute criminally any of the offenders

- Halliburton needs various people to fill various jobs. They are putting anyone who signs up in those jobs, even if they have no experience. The barracks are filled with men reading books on how to fix things they have never before seen, at a cost of $10,000 a month, which these men are paid. Many have worked for months, without actually doing any work at all.

- Hundreds of contractors have been permanently disabled. Even though the law states they are supposed to receive the same benefits as soldiers in the war zone, the bush administration is fighting this - leaving hundreds of men and women disabled, with no insurance, and they are charged by the military for their hospital costs. They come home and instead of bringing home a large check, they owe hundreds of thousands in bills to the military hospitals.

- Companies stealing equipment, and then selling it back to the military. Some got caught, not one was charged criminally.

- The Army didn't want to give back the money congress appropriated for various projects, so it set up a DUMMY VENDOR, which they called DUMMY VENDOR, and put all the money they couldn't spend in that account - over 360 million. Then, it disappeared and no one in the army can explain where the 360 million went.

- Over half of the weapons bought for the new Iraqi army have gone missing. 50% of all weapons just vanished from storerooms. They are in the process of replacing them all, but have yet to find out where the others went, and have still not made any policy changes, meaning they more than likely will disappear again.

- And one of my personal favourites, Laura Bush was there making a news appearance a while back flaunting the new disease database she thought up to allow Iraqi hospitals to track disease outbreaks. She was on US news talking about this for weeks. Only problem is, the majority of hospitals in Iraq don't have telephones - most areas outside of Baghdad are without. In fact, the main hospital where the database is housed, is itself without phone lines, meaning no one can access this multi million dollar project.

- That is only topped by the fact a company got a contract to install natural gas powered generators at all Iraqi hospitals. Hundreds of millions spent putting in these generators, and no one noticed that no where in Iraq do they have natural gas. The multi-million dollar generators now sit silent, as until someone discovers gas there, and then build a pipelines nationwide throughout the country, there will be nothing to power them.

The writer makes a very good point. With all of these companies making out like bandits, all making record profits in a war that they are losing, failing all benchmarks miserably, what incentive is there for these companies to do good, if they are making record profits when they perform so bad?

[CptSternn]

Iraqi Translators Finally Get Visas

http://news.**********/s/usnews/iraq...B5vost9VGs0NUE

As many as 2 million Iraqi refugees have fled the violence at home, but the Bush administration has been criticized for allowing very few of them into the United States.

Even Iraqis who had been working for the U.S. military as much-needed translators, and who then found their lives threatened for their work with the Americans, had been largely frozen out.

But for translators at least, the picture is finally beginning to change. In just the past two months, 167 visas have been issued to Iraqi and Afghan translators to come to the United States along with their families, according to a State Department spokesperson. These visas were issued under a new program approved by Congress in June that allows up to 500 visas to be issued this year and in 2008 to Afghan or Iraqi translators who worked for the U.S. military or a U.S. embassy. Family members are eligible to come along with them.

The new program is a response to the heightened risk taken by these translators because of their association with the U.S. government. Many translators in both Iraq and Afghanistan hide their employer's identity from even close relatives for security reasons, and many wear masks when working near their own neighborhoods to avoid being identified. Still, many translators have been threatened, beaten, or murdered after their work was discovered.

To be eligible, translators must have worked for the U.S. government for at least a year. Their application first goes to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office. Once they are approved, translators and their families must travel to a third country, usually Jordan or Syria, for an interview.

Today, an additional 57 translators have been interviewed for visas and are now in the final stages of processing their applications. An additional 122 interviews have been scheduled for other applicants, and nearly 180 other translators have contacted the U.S. government for help in preparing their cases.

Still, these numbers represent a tiny number of the overall refugee population. And despite pledges that the U.S. government would accept as many as 7,000 regular Iraqi refugees, those figures remain very small. As of July 31, only 190 refugees had arrived in the United States.


So 2,000,000 people displaced by the US invasion, and now the US says, ok, we will let in 500. Way to go there.

We have taken in thousands of Iraqis here in Ireland (Afghans too). I see about as many Iraqis in one day as people who live in Iraq.

To have a press release sent out about allowing 500 more in, seems a bit ignorant, considering most of Europe is now feeding, housing, and taking care of the millions America has no time for.

[CptSternn]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20712196...week/?from=rss

The Petraeus report is out, and Newsweek has a review of it online. Interesting tidbit they point out in that story...

Not surprisingly, Petraeus performed smoothly in his testimony to Congress. But an internal Pentagon report is expected to 'differ substantially' from his recommendations on withdrawal from Iraq, NEWSWEEK has learned.

NEWSWEEK has learned that a separate internal report being prepared by a Pentagon working group will “differ substantially” from Petraeus’s recommendations, according to an official who is privy to the ongoing discussions but would speak about them only on condition of anonymity. An early version of the report, which is currently being drafted and is expected to be completed by the beginning of next year, will “recommend a very rapid reduction in American forces: as much as two-thirds of the existing force very quickly, while keeping the remainder there.” The strategy will involve unwinding the still large U.S. presence in big forward operation bases and putting smaller teams in outposts. “There is interest at senior levels [of the Pentagon] in getting alternative views” to Petraeus, the official said. Among others, Centcom commander Admiral William Fallon is known to want to draw down faster than Petraeus...

So the report he gave congress was inaccurate, and says almost the opposite of what he is reporting to the pentagon. Umm..isn't that lying under oath to congress? Didn't we just see another bush-ite sacked over this? Are they seriously trying it again, already?

Does it bother anyone else that these people lie under oath, to congress, to America?

Well, at least now most Americans are getting used to this sort of treatment...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/...l.iraq.report/

..according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Thursday, 53 percent of people polled said they suspect that the military assessment of the situation will try to make it sound better than it actually is. Forty-three percent said they do trust the report.

It says a lot about a nation when 43% of the people think their government is outright lying to them and say on the record they have no faith in their leaders reports and findings.

[CptSternn]

War Costing $720 Million Each Day

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092102074.html

CHICAGO, Sept. 21 -- The money spent on one day of the Iraq war could buy homes for almost 6,500 families or health care for 423,529 children, or could outfit 1.27 million homes with renewable electricity, according to the American Friends Service Committee, which displayed those statistics on large banners in cities nationwide Thursday and Friday.

The war is costing $720 million a day or $500,000 a minute, according to the group's analysis of the work of Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard public finance lecturer Linda J. Bilmes.

The estimates made by the group, which opposes the conflict, include not only the immediate costs of war but also ongoing factors such as long-term health care for veterans, interest on debt and replacement of military hardware.

"The wounded are coming home, and many of them have severe brain and spinal injuries, which will require round-the-clock care for the rest of their lives," said Michael McConnell, Great Lakes regional director of the AFSC, a peace group affiliated with the Quaker church.

The $720 million figure breaks down into $280 million a day from Iraq war supplementary funding bills passed by Congress, plus $440 million daily in incurred, but unpaid, long-term costs.

But some supporters of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq say that even if the war is costly, that fact is essentially immaterial.

"Either you think the war in Iraq supports America's national security, or not," said Frederick W. Kagan, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "If you think national security won't be harmed by withdrawing from Iraq, of course you would want to see that money spent elsewhere. I myself think that belief, on a certain level, is absurd, so the question of focusing on how much money we are spending there is irrelevant."

The war's unpaid long-term costs do not include "macro-economic consequences" described by Bilmes and Stiglitz, including higher oil prices, loss of trade because of anti-American sentiments and lost productivity of killed or injured U.S. soldiers.

In 2006, Bilmes, who was an assistant secretary of commerce under President Bill Clinton, and Stiglitz, a former chief economist at the World Bank, placed the total cost of the Iraq war at more than $2.2 trillion, not counting interest. The American Friends group used cost breakdowns and interest projections from the Congressional Budget Office to calculate the daily cost of war emblazoned on the banners flown in Boston, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Chicago and other cities.

The banners show what this could buy in terms of health care, Head Start programs, new elementary schools, free school lunches, renewable energy and hiring new teachers. Protest organizers say they hope to turn more people against the war by laying out its true financial impact.

"I think people are becoming more aware of these guns or butter questions," said Gary Gillespie, director of the group's Baltimore Urban Peace Program, which displayed the banners in the Baltimore suburb of Bel Air on Friday. "But when you talk about $720 million a day, even people who work on this issue are shocked by the number and shocked by what could have been done with that money. War has no return -- you're not producing a product."



$720 million a day on war....but yet the government can't afford to fix up schools, give free college educations to those who qualify, or offer socialised health care.

It shows what the US government holds dear and where they focus their priorities.

[CptSternn]

Top Democrats propose war surtax

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/...ies&eref=yahoo

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Top House Democrats Tuesday proposed a "war surtax" to pay for the war in Iraq, a plan quickly condemned by Republicans and opposed by the House leadership.

The surtax would be "a percentage of your tax bill," said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey, D-Wisconsin. "And if you don't like the cost, then shut down the war."

The measure -- sponsored by Obey, Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, and Jim McGovern, D-Massachusetts -- would require low- and middle-income taxpayers to add 2 percent to their tax bill, while higher-income taxpayers would add 12 to 15 percent, Obey said.

The House Democratic leadership made it clear Wednesday that they had not signed off on the measure.

In a statement released Tuesday afternoon, House speaker Nancy Pelosi blasted President Bush for not asking Americans to sacrifice and "adding hundreds of billions of dollars in debt for future generations to repay."

But Pelosi said she will not back the measure.

"Some have suggested that shared sacrifice should take the form of a draft; others have suggested a surtax. Those who oppose a tax and the draft also should oppose the president's war," Pelosi said. "Just as I have opposed the war from the outset, I am opposed to a draft and I am opposed to a war surtax."

A spokesman for the House Ways and Means committee, which handles all tax measures, told CNN "there's no expectation that this proposal will come before the committee."

The proposal comes as the Bush administration requested an additional $190 billion for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obey estimated the surtax would annually generate between $140 and $150 billion dollars which is equivalent to the annual cost of the war in Iraq. Video Watch Obey say he will not give the White House a blank check" »

"This is the first time in American history that when a president has taken a country to war and said 'by the way folks, we're going to have to sacrifice and the way to sacrifice is by cutting your taxes.'" Obey said. "It makes no sense."

Speaking at a Capitol Hill press conference, McGovern said families of troops serving in Iraq would be exempt from the surtax, and that the tax was similar to ones imposed during War War II and the Vietnam War.

The Republican leadership was quick to condemn the proposal.

"Raiding every taxpayer's wallet for the purposes of playing politics with our national security amounts to one of the most irresponsible proposals I've seen in a long, long time," House Minority Leader John Boehner said in a statement. "It's time for Democrats to support our troops and the strategy that has led them to make undeniable progress in Iraq."

A Democratic leadership aide dismissed criticism from the GOP, saying, "Republicans are talking about something [surtax proposal] that's never going to see the light of day, but they're doing it at their own peril because the more they talk about the costs of war, the more Americans will listen."
advertisement

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, said he agreed "this generation ought to help pay for" the war but that there was no agreement on backing the bill.

"One of the stories I just read said 'the Democrats propose,'" Hoyer said. "This is a proposal by Mr. Obey. Mr. Murtha and Mr. McGovern. This is not a party proposal."


I think this is a great idea. I mean, if more Americans had to foot the bill, then they wouldn't be so pro-war. Right now, the war is being funded by IOU's - to be paid by the next THREE generations. Sure, the current Americans under bush will not have to pay squat, but you can't borrow money forever and not expect to pay it back.

What is it now? Each American (included children) will have to pay $35,000 in taxes in their lifetime to pay off the current deficit created by the war? The number grows daily. For those who die before paying off their share, thats another share passed on to the next generation...

[CptSternn]

I had to post this one...

Rice: Kurdish rebels are 'common threat'

http://news.**********/s/ap/20071102...BxaAdUXMis0NUE

First the US labelled the Sunnis as 'terrorists' because they supported Sadaam, then followed by saying the Shia were also 'terrorists' because they support Iran. Now, the last remaining group in Iraq, the Kurds, have been labelled as a terrorist group.

These are the same Kurds America claimed were gassed by Sadaam. Sadaam claimed they were terrorists who tried to kill him, and he acted in self defence. Now, America has adopted the same rhetoric as Sadaam - ironic, eh?

This also means the Kurds, who America has praised time and time again for helping to beat Sadaams forces are now the bad guys.

This also means that every group in Iraq is now designated as a terrorist group by America.

So who exactly are they going to put in power in the government? The Sunnis, who were in power and America rallied against because of their 'crimes against the Kurds? The Shia, who America is against because they align themselves with Iran? Or the Kurds, who America now says are terrorists because Kurdistan, which they are fighting for, lies partly in Iraq and partly in Turkey and they vow to attack Turkey like they did Sadaam/Iraq until they reclaim their lost homeland?

You have to love the fact the bush administration is now using the same arguments Sadaam used for many discussions. Claiming certain (harsh) measures are needed to control the Shia from aligning with Iran and taking over the government, and now branding the Kurds as 'terrorists' and claiming they are free game for the government forces because they are destabilising Iraq.

All those 'crimes' against the 'Iraqi people' which the bush administration used for a precursor to war now are being enacted by the bush administration for the same justifications that Sadaam had used.

Heh - anyone think 'quagmire' is no longer appropriate?

[CptSternn]

I couldn't decide which topic to put this under, so I decided this might be the most appropriate thread for it...

Study: Veterans more likely to be homeless

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/08/hom...ans/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- More than 25 percent of the homeless population in the United States are military veterans, although they represent 11 percent of the civilian adult population, according to a new report.

On any given night last year, nearly 196,000 veterans slept on the street, in a shelter or in transitional housing, the study by the Homelessness Research Institute found.

That accompanied by the fact last week a report was release that vets are 17x more likely to commit suicide, and with the number coming back from the middle east now and killing themselves, that number is growing.

Of course, this is followed by yet another report this week:

Soldiers find little help getting back to work

http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/lo...5-3135a75e4049

WASHINGTON (AP) - Strained by extended tours in Iraq, growing numbers of military reservists say the government is providing little help to soldiers who are denied their old jobs when they return home, Defense Department data shows.

The Pentagon survey of reservists in 2005-2006, obtained by The Associated Press, details increasing discontent among returning troops in protecting their legal rights after taking leave from work to fight for their country.

It found that 44 percent of the reservists polled said they were dissatisfied with how the Labor Department handled their complaint of employment discrimination based on their military status, up from 27 percent from 2004.

Nearly one-third, or 29 percent, said they had difficulty getting the information they needed from government agencies charged with protecting their rights, while 77 percent reported they didn't even bother trying to get assistance in part because they didn't think it would make a difference.

Legal experts say the findings might represent the tip of the iceberg. Formal complaints to the Labor Department by reservists hit nearly 1,600 in 2005 - the highest number since 1991 - not counting the thousands more cases reported each year to the Pentagon for resolution by mediation.

And a bump in complaints is likely once the Iraq war winds down and more people come home after an extended period in which employers were forced to restructure or hire new workers to cope with those on military leave, they said.

Among the survey's findings:

-About 23 percent of reservists reported they did not return to their old jobs in part because their employer did not give them prompt re-employment or their job situation changed in some way while they were on military leave.

-Twenty-nine percent of those choosing not to seek help to get their job back said it was because it was "not worth the fight." Another 23 percent said they were unsure of how to file a complaint. Others cited a lack of confidence that they could win (14 percent); fear of employer reprisal (13 percent), or other reasons (21 percent).

-Reservists reported receiving an average of 1.8 briefings about their job rights and what government resources were available. This is down slightly from the 2.0 briefings they reported getting in 2004.

"Most of the government investigators are too willing to accept the employer's explanation for a worker's dismissal," said Sam Wright, a former Labor Department attorney who helped write the 1994 discrimination law protecting reservists.

Turns out about one in four coming home from Iraq have no jobs waiting, and from the 'yeah i figured as much' category today, the bush administration is siding with big business on this, keeping away lawsuits and protecting businesses from prosecution while leaving the troops to fend for themselves.

Once again, even in war, you see who the bush administration supports - big business back home over the lives and livelihood of their own military.

[CptSternn]

Australia's Howard loses parliament seat: opponent

http://news.**********/s/afp/austral...Plbv9i_uCs0NUE

SYDNEY (AFP) - The defeat of Australia's outgoing prime minister John Howard appeared complete Saturday when his opponent claimed victory in the parliamentary seat he held for 33 years.

Howard's conservative government had already been tossed out by voters in elections last Saturday, but counting had continued for his own Sydney seat of Bennelong, which was too close to call.

With the tally of postal and other votes now almost complete, former television journalist Maxine McKew claimed the seat for the centre-left Labor Party led by prime minister-elect Kevin Rudd.

"One week after the polls opened I can now say that in Bennelong we are 2,100 votes ahead, we have 51.25 per cent of the two-party vote, so we are comfortably ahead," McKew told reporters.

"I can formally say that Bennelong is now a Labor seat for the first time."

Howard, who acknowledged he would likely lose the seat but has not formally conceded, now faces the humiliation of being remembered as the first sitting prime minister in 78 years to be ditched by his own parliamentary electorate.

He won the seat in 1974 and the following year was appointed to his first ministerial post at the age of 36.

Howard, 68, became prime minister in 1996 after leading his Liberal-National coalition to victory against the Labor Party.

McKew said she was not disappointed that he had not formally relinquished the seat, noting that "Mr Howard and his family clearly had a huge amount to do this week" as they cleared out of their official residences.

"I would like to acknowledge John Howard's long years of public service," she added. "He gave 30 years to public life and that should be acknowledged."

McKew's win had already been factored into the Labor victory, with Rudd appointing her parliamentary secretary to the prime minister and cabinet when he announced his government line-up Thursday.

Howard's Liberal Party had also moved on, electing former defence minister Brendan Nelson as new leader.

After nearly 12 years in power, Howard was the second-longest serving prime minister in Australia's history.

As his party picks over the bones of its resounding election defeat, several senior members have blamed him for trying to hang on to power for too long.

Howard had resisted pressure to step aside ahead of the election in favour of his long-serving and ambitious treasurer Peter Costello.

"I thought that it would have been helpful for the Liberal Party if we had been able to actually have a transition before the 2007 election," Costello told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Costello, who served as treasurer throughout Howard's four terms in office, said Australians had wanted a fresh face in the prime minister's office -- a desire played on by Labor during its campaign.

"I think we could have neutered that strategy if we had had an opportunity to have an orderly transition in 2007. We didn't, and the rest is history," he said.

Howard had announced that if re-elected he would retire as leader before the end of his three-year term, and several commentators have made the point that he must regret not having stood down while he was still on top.

"He would be feeling the agony of the damned tonight," said former Labor leader Kim Beazley as it became clear that Howard would be ousted.

The outgoing prime minister, who dominated the Australian political scene for so long, has kept a low profile since his defeat, making few public comments and being photographed rarely.


Like blair, howard is now out, and setting new lows for himself and his party. Good to see the people prevailed and set things straight, giving this bastard the send off he deserved. No more first world allies providing any help in Iraq now.

[CptSternn]

It looks like the bush administration is continuing to play the misinformation game.

U.S. says al Qaeda in Iraq leader not captured

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. military in Iraq denied widespread reports Friday that trumpeted the capture of a top Iraqi insurgent leader.

Skeptical of the reports at first, the U.S. military is now certain that Abu Ayyub al-Masri -- the head of al Qaeda in Iraq -- has not been captured, a senior U.S. military official told CNN.

The reports emerged late Thursday that the elusive militant had been detained in the northern city of Mosul.

That's where U.S. and Iraqi forces have been fighting the predominantly Sunni al Qaeda in Iraq -- which has a strong presence in the city. Mosul has been called the group's last strong urban bastion in Iraq.

The report of his capture was first made by the Iraqi media and then picked up by The Associated Press.

The news spread throughout the country. An imam at a Shiite mosque in Baghdad was heard praising the arrest during his sermon at Friday prayers. Watch more about al-Masri's role with al Qaeda in Iraq Video

But U.S. military and intelligence officials were surprised and skeptical, despite the insistence of Iraqi officials that al-Masri was already in U.S. military custody.

Al-Masri , called "the Egyptian" and also known as Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, took the reins of Iraq's al Qaeda offshoot in June 2006, after a U.S. missile strike killed his predecessor, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Since then, Iraqi officials have reported his death three times, his capture twice and a mortal wounding once.


Every few weeks the US puts out the word it killed this man or captured him. Then, a few days after they retract the statement, on the back page, quietly. Then again a few weeks later they trumpet their success again on the front page of papers across the world, in the news crawl on faux news, and everywhere else for a few days, then again quietly retract the story once it dies down a bit.

I wonder how long under the average American figures out that all the high profile 'terrorists' they keep claiming they are killing/capturing are all just propaganda to keep the right-wing media with something positive to report.