It looks like the Iraqis are taking the first steps to rid their nation of foreigners.

If the mercenaries don't go legally, I assume they will be targeted by the same militias and death squads that have been doing the ethnic cleansing.

When these 100,000 foreign security guards are forces out of Iraq, who will protect all the illegal aliens from Africa and Asia that Bush has been using to supply and support our troops? They will be targets, too.

Bush should never have hired mercenaries. It was a desperate move that shows just how unplanned this occupation was. This White House has reaped what it sowed...disaster.

Bush is responsible not only for the lack of policy judgment in going into Iraq without any real intel or a plan to exit but also for ignoring any of the obvious ramifications that would result for the Iraqi civilians or our troops.

More innocent people are going to die because he intends to stubornly stay...just so he doesn't have to face his failure as a Commander-in-Chief and a chief executive who weakened our military and diplomatic stance in the world.

A failure and a murderer....OJ and Bush have a lot in common beyond the arrogance factor.

THANK GOD. I am just disappointed that it was the Iraqi government that has taken action against these mercenaries as opposed to our own government.

I find it outrageous that Americans are profiting from this war the way Blackwater is. The employees in Blackwater are performing what were traditionally military tasks, except now they are being paid up to TEN TIMES what our service members are being paid. My husband will be in Iraq soon and the idea that Blackwater employees are there performing military jobs but making that much more money makes my blood boil. Not to mention that these guys are exempt from UCMJ prosecution (as the code only applies to members of the military) as well as civilian prosecution pursuant to an action taken by Bremer prior to leaving Iraq. So essentially, they are completely unregulated and obscenely over-paid.

It is an insult to every service member in Iraq knowing our tax dollars are lining the pockets of companies like this.

Blackwater is dangerous. We are paying private citizens gross sums of money to engage in combat and yet we have no mechanism in place to hold them accountable for their actions once we set them loose. Blackwater has been under the radar for way too long, IMO.

This is the biggest news of the entire war. I am almost certain that Bush will resist this in whatever way he can devise. A lot of pretenses will be cast aside in the process. Watch this carefully to see the underbelly motivations for the war against Iraq.

Blackwater (according to them) has approximately 1,000 mercenairies in Iraq worth something like 800 million bucks in contracts. WE have been told that Blackwater is one of the biggest firms yet over 4 billion has been spent on private security or mercenairies.

The sad part is that Iraq's interior minister can say whatever he wants and it won't amount to a hill of dung. These guys are going no where. They thrive on conflict and dream about putting bullet holes in anything with warm blood. The fact that it may incite a riot amoungst the natives is precisely what these animals get lathered about.

What this will do is crystalize the fact that the only way to continue the occupation is with the off balance sheet addition of contractors. No contractors and you have to institute a draft. As a matter of fact, I'll bet that there are huge bonuses for these private contracting firms if they hang in there and don't pull personnel.

Betcha nobody asks about that.

PS:

Support the troops. Stop paying the contractors and you'll end the occupation.

Seems pretty simple to me.

No private security firm should ever be involved in a war zone for reasons too numerous to mention.

GREENSPAN MISSES CHENEY'S MEMO, SPILLS THE BEANS ON OIL
href="http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/17/3902/">http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/17/3902/

Greenspan, Kissinger: Oil Drives U.S. in Iraq, Iran
by Robert Weissman
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/17/3910/

Alan Greenspan had acknowledged what is blindingly obvious to those who live in the reality-based world: The Iraq War was largely about oil.

Meanwhile, Henry Kissinger says in an op-ed in Sunday’s Washington Post that control over oil is the key issue that should determine whether the U.S. undertakes military action against Iran.

These statements would not be remarkable, but for the effort of a broad swath of the U.S. political establishment to deny the central role of oil in U.S. involvement in the Middle East.

Greenspan’s remarks, appearing first in his just-published memoirs, are eyebrow-raising for their directness:

“Whatever their publicized angst over Saddam Hussein’s ‘weapons of mass destruction,’ American and British authorities were also concerned about violence in the area that harbors a resource indispensable for the functioning of the world economy. I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”

His follow-up remarks have been even more direct. “I thought the issue of weapons of mass destruction as the excuse was utterly beside the point,” he told the Guardian.

Greenspan also tells the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward that he actively lobbied the White House to remove Saddam Hussein for the express purpose of protecting Western control over global oil supplies.

“I’m saying taking Saddam out was essential,” Greenspan said. But, writes Woodward, Greenspan “added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab.”

“No, no, no,” he said. Getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of “making certain that the existing system [of oil markets] continues to work, frankly, until we find other [energy supplies], which ultimately we will.”

There’s every reason to credit this view. U.S. oil companies surely have designs on Iraqi oil, and were concerned about inroads by French and other firms under Saddam. But the top U.S. geopolitical concern is making sure the oil remains in the hands of those who will cooperate with Western economies.

Henry Kissinger echoes this view in his op-ed. “Iran has legitimate aspirations that need to be respected,” he writes — but those legitimate aspirations do not include control over the oil that the United States and other industrial countries need.

“An Iran that practices subversion and seeks regional hegemony — which appears to be the current trend — must be faced with lines it will not be permitted to cross. The industrial nations cannot accept radical forces dominating a region on which their economies depend, and the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran is incompatible with international security.”

Note that Kissinger prioritizes Iranian (or “radical”) control over regional oil supplies over concern about the country acquiring nuclear weapons.

One might reasonably suggest that Greenspan and Kissinger are only pointing out the obvious. (Kissinger himself refers to his concerns about Iran as “truisms.”)

But these claims have not been accepted as obvious in U.S. political life.

The Iraq was “is not about oil” became a mantra among the pro-war crowd in the run-up to the commencement of hostilities and in the following months. A small sampling –

Said President Bush: The idea that the United States covets Iraqi oil fields is a “wrong impression.” “I have a deep desire for peace. That’s what I have a desire for. And freedom for the Iraqi people. See, I don’t like a system where people are repressed through torture and murder in order to keep a dictator in place. It troubles me deeply. And so the Iraqi people must hear this loud and clear, that this country never has any intention to conquer anybody.”

Condoleeza Rice, in response to the proposition, “if Saddam’s primary export or natural resource was olive oil rather than oil, we would not be going through this situation,” said: “This cannot be further from the truth. … He is a threat to his neighbors. He’s a threat to American security interest. That is what the president has in mind.” She continued: “This is not about oil.”

Colin Powell: “This is not about oil; this is about a tyrant, a dictator, who is developing weapons of mass destruction to use against the Arab populations.”

Donald Rumsfeld: “It’s not about oil and it’s not about religion.”

White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer on the U.S. desire to access Iraqi oil fields: “there’s just nothing to it.”

Coalition Provisional Authority Paul Bremer: “I have heard that allegation and I simply reject it.”

General John Abizaid, Combatant Commander, Central Command, “It’s not about oil.”

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham: “It was not about oil.”

“It’s not about the oil,” the Financial Times reported Richard Perle shouting at a parking attendant in frustration.

Australian Treasurer Peter Costello: “This is not about oil.”

Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger: “The only thing I can tell you is this war is not about oil.”

Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary: “This is not about oil. This is about international peace and security.”

Utah Republican Senator Bob Bennett: “This is not about oil. That was very clear. … This is about America, and America’s position in the world, as the upholder of liberty for the oppressed.”

And Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen joined war-monger Richard Perle in calling Representative Dennis Kucinich a “liar” (or at very least a “fool”), because Kucinich suggested the war might be motivated in part by a U.S. interest in Iraqi oil.

What lessons are to be drawn from the Greenspan-Kissinger revelations, other than that political leaders routinely lie or engage in mass self-delusion?

Controlling the U.S. war machine will require ending the U.S. addiction to oil — not just foreign oil, but oil. There are of course other reasons that ending reliance on fossil fuels is imperative and of the greatest urgency.

More and more people are making the connections — but there’s no outpouring in the streets to overcome the entrenched economic interests that seek to maintain the petro-military nexus. A good place to start: The No War, No Warming actions www.nowarnowarming.org planned for October 21-23 in Washington, D.C. and around the United States.

Robert Weissman is co-director of Essential Action, a corporate accountability group based in Washington, D.C. that focuses especially on international issues and has been very involved in the access to medicines campaign. He is also editor of Multinational Monitor magazine. With Russell Mokhiber, he is editor of a weekly column, Focus on the Corporation, archived at http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/corp-focus.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

GREENSPAN MISSES CHENEY'S MEMO, SPILLS THE BEANS ON OIL
href="http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/17/3902/">http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/17/3902/

Greenspan, Kissinger: Oil Drives U.S. in Iraq, Iran
by Robert Weissman
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/17/3910/

Alan Greenspan had acknowledged what is blindingly obvious to those who live in the reality-based world: The Iraq War was largely about oil.

Meanwhile, Henry Kissinger says in an op-ed in Sunday’s Washington Post that control over oil is the key issue that should determine whether the U.S. undertakes military action against Iran.

These statements would not be remarkable, but for the effort of a broad swath of the U.S. political establishment to deny the central role of oil in U.S. involvement in the Middle East.

Greenspan’s remarks, appearing first in his just-published memoirs, are eyebrow-raising for their directness:

“Whatever their publicized angst over Saddam Hussein’s ‘weapons of mass destruction,’ American and British authorities were also concerned about violence in the area that harbors a resource indispensable for the functioning of the world economy. I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”

His follow-up remarks have been even more direct. “I thought the issue of weapons of mass destruction as the excuse was utterly beside the point,” he told the Guardian.

Greenspan also tells the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward that he actively lobbied the White House to remove Saddam Hussein for the express purpose of protecting Western control over global oil supplies.

“I’m saying taking Saddam out was essential,” Greenspan said. But, writes Woodward, Greenspan “added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab.”

“No, no, no,” he said. Getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of “making certain that the existing system [of oil markets] continues to work, frankly, until we find other [energy supplies], which ultimately we will.”

There’s every reason to credit this view. U.S. oil companies surely have designs on Iraqi oil, and were concerned about inroads by French and other firms under Saddam. But the top U.S. geopolitical concern is making sure the oil remains in the hands of those who will cooperate with Western economies.

Henry Kissinger echoes this view in his op-ed. “Iran has legitimate aspirations that need to be respected,” he writes — but those legitimate aspirations do not include control over the oil that the United States and other industrial countries need.

“An Iran that practices subversion and seeks regional hegemony — which appears to be the current trend — must be faced with lines it will not be permitted to cross. The industrial nations cannot accept radical forces dominating a region on which their economies depend, and the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran is incompatible with international security.”

Note that Kissinger prioritizes Iranian (or “radical”) control over regional oil supplies over concern about the country acquiring nuclear weapons.

One might reasonably suggest that Greenspan and Kissinger are only pointing out the obvious. (Kissinger himself refers to his concerns about Iran as “truisms.”)

But these claims have not been accepted as obvious in U.S. political life.

The Iraq was “is not about oil” became a mantra among the pro-war crowd in the run-up to the commencement of hostilities and in the following months. A small sampling –

Said President Bush: The idea that the United States covets Iraqi oil fields is a “wrong impression.” “I have a deep desire for peace. That’s what I have a desire for. And freedom for the Iraqi people. See, I don’t like a system where people are repressed through torture and murder in order to keep a dictator in place. It troubles me deeply. And so the Iraqi people must hear this loud and clear, that this country never has any intention to conquer anybody.”

Condoleeza Rice, in response to the proposition, “if Saddam’s primary export or natural resource was olive oil rather than oil, we would not be going through this situation,” said: “This cannot be further from the truth. … He is a threat to his neighbors. He’s a threat to American security interest. That is what the president has in mind.” She continued: “This is not about oil.”

Colin Powell: “This is not about oil; this is about a tyrant, a dictator, who is developing weapons of mass destruction to use against the Arab populations.”

Donald Rumsfeld: “It’s not about oil and it’s not about religion.”

White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer on the U.S. desire to access Iraqi oil fields: “there’s just nothing to it.”

Coalition Provisional Authority Paul Bremer: “I have heard that allegation and I simply reject it.”

General John Abizaid, Combatant Commander, Central Command, “It’s not about oil.”

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham: “It was not about oil.”

“It’s not about the oil,” the Financial Times reported Richard Perle shouting at a parking attendant in frustration.

Australian Treasurer Peter Costello: “This is not about oil.”

Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger: “The only thing I can tell you is this war is not about oil.”

Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary: “This is not about oil. This is about international peace and security.”

Utah Republican Senator Bob Bennett: “This is not about oil. That was very clear. … This is about America, and America’s position in the world, as the upholder of liberty for the oppressed.”

And Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen joined war-monger Richard Perle in calling Representative Dennis Kucinich a “liar” (or at very least a “fool”), because Kucinich suggested the war might be motivated in part by a U.S. interest in Iraqi oil.

What lessons are to be drawn from the Greenspan-Kissinger revelations, other than that political leaders routinely lie or engage in mass self-delusion?

Controlling the U.S. war machine will require ending the U.S. addiction to oil — not just foreign oil, but oil. There are of course other reasons that ending reliance on fossil fuels is imperative and of the greatest urgency.

More and more people are making the connections — but there’s no outpouring in the streets to overcome the entrenched economic interests that seek to maintain the petro-military nexus. A good place to start: The No War, No Warming actions www.nowarnowarming.org planned for October 21-23 in Washington, D.C. and around the United States.

Robert Weissman is co-director of Essential Action, a corporate accountability group based in Washington, D.C. that focuses especially on international issues and has been very involved in the access to medicines campaign. He is also editor of Multinational Monitor magazine. With Russell Mokhiber, he is editor of a weekly column, Focus on the Corporation, archived at http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/corp-focus.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

It sounds like the Iraqi government is trying to stand up and act like a government. Good for them! Getting rid of those jerks will go as long way to establishing credibility for the Iraqi government. If the Bushiato will let them, that is.
This isn't the first time Blackwater operatives have murdered innocent bystanders in Iraq. In the past they were just quietly sent home where they couldn't be touched.
This was the outfit that was "guarding" NO after Katrina.
These guys are recruited for this illegal private army from military and police backgrounds, a lot of them are the misfits who were too violent and/or undisciplined to be good soldiers or cops, others are lured away by the money Blackwater pays.
Blackwater, prior to Katrina was linked to union busting.
There have been many complaints about Blackwater operations in this country too.
Blackwater needs to be investigated, not only for its activities in Iraq, but also for its actions during and after Katrina, and during its involvement in "guarding" plants during strikes.
I think that if Congress looked into Blackwater's activities since its founding there would be some very interesting facts come out.

Butte,

It's about time that Blackwater was brought to the forefront and examined by the MSM.

They are part of the dirty underbelly of this administration and their no-bid war profiteering machine.

Congress must indeed look into the activities of this firm and others hired by Rumsfeld (both in Iraq/Afganistan/Asia as well as domestically) and its founder who has close ties to the White House and Mitt Romney.

CarissaP,

Thank you for sharing your info about these mercenaries and how they have impacted the lives of our troops. To think these people get paid so much more than our soldiers and Marines...and have no accountability to anyone.

I remember shortly after the invasion speaking with a poster here who knew an awful lot about the private security firms. He got angry when I used the word mercenary but then relented and explained how they worked.

Many are now Americans but a lot of them back then were from South Africa and Eastern Europe. No wonder Abu Graibe became a torture chamber and those other Gonzales-sanctioned gulags sprung up in Eastern Europe.

Someone posted an article a while ago about Blackwell building detention compounds for illegal aliens in the Southwest as well as training centers for guards. I wonder if they are also into the privatized prison system the GOP has financed in many Southern states?

Just how many of our tax dollars are going to finance what could be racist and religious goon squads?

There is something truly sinister and unamerican about the way these guys are hired and operate with no supervision.

While this administration has been so busy painting the Iraqi militias as barbaric (and they have been with their ethnic cleansing), look what this White House and their campaign contributor have been doing for profit...and convincing the MSM to look the other way.

Our free press has sorely let this country down in such a fundamental way. They have not been the guardian of our republic and its Constitution.

But the truth always, always comes out.

commonjoe, it's quite easy to determine that Martha has an opinion (and even what it is) simply by observing what she chooses to cut and paste. Our opinions are often more well-expressed by the words of others, and I see nothing wrong nor am I annoyed by Martha's use of them. She's been posting here for a very long time; nobody seems the worse for it.

I love how Bush's term isn't even close to ending, and we're striking gold whilst digging up dirt. You think this is going to eventually force the president to leave office if it escalates enough?

Now I am scared of the government for a new reason: That they hire mercenaries to do what their own individual forces should do.

If the hired hands quit, there'd be a draft. But guess what? If there was one, they'd have to force everybody to come and face the wrath of even more of the American public. I would say it would be complete and total disaster for Bush and the White House. I'm imagining the thought-to-be-impossible: %100 disapproval rating.

commonjoe:

You must be a member of the DLC or a RIGHT WINGER if my cut & paste bothers you? Cuts and pastes are for evidence of fact and Greenspan owning up that the attack on Iraq was about OIL was too important for just me to say.

My opinion is and has been all over this blog. If you have failed to see my opinions, possibly it is because I am against the DLC cooperation of our own Democratic Party with the REPUBLICANS. I feel ALL DLC members of Congress must be voted out in the 2008 Primary and General Elections.

The Iraq quagmire would never have happened except for the perceived power that DLC members of Congress would receive from RIGHT WING CORPORATE POWER.

Haven't you noticed that the 9/11/01 Flight 93 "Let's Roll scenario" was fake. THERE WERE NO TERRORISTS. The airplane crashing into the Pentagon as well as the WORLD TRADE CENTER killings and destruction was a masterfully remote controlled and carefully covered up "inside job" debacle by the RIGHT WING EXTREME through DLC/REPUBLICAN leadership to acquire legitimate, though false, reason to lead the United States into the WARS IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ and full CORPORATE WAR CONTROL OF OUR COUNTRY allowing large private corporations, like BLACKWATER and other private mercenary corporations full dominion of the United States and through the United States, the world.

NORTH DAKOTA'S ARMY was far enough away from New York and Washington, DC that Cheney didn't see the need to tell NORTH DAKOTA, so the ARMY in NORTH DAKOTA was not privy to Cheney's order to not shoot down airplanes attacking the Nation's Capitol, so NORTH DAKOTA ARMY AIR NATIONAL GUARD patriots protected the Capitol and the White House and have received metals for that protection.

commonjoe:

You must be a member of the DLC or a RIGHT WINGER if my cut & paste bothers you? Cuts and pastes are for evidence of fact and Greenspan owning up that the attack on Iraq was about OIL was too important for just me to say.

My opinion is and has been all over this blog. If you have failed to see my opinions, possibly it is because I am against the DLC cooperation of our own Democratic Party with the REPUBLICANS. I feel ALL DLC members of Congress must be voted out in the 2008 Primary and General Elections.

The Iraq quagmire would never have happened except for the perceived power that DLC members of Congress would receive from RIGHT WING CORPORATE POWER.

Haven't you noticed that the 9/11/01 Flight 93 "Let's Roll scenario" was fake??????? THERE WERE NO TERRORISTS. The airplane crashing into the Pentagon, as well as the WORLD TRADE CENTER killings and destruction was a masterfully remote controlled and carefully covered up RIGHT WING EXTREME "inside job" debacle by the RIGHT WING EXTREME through DLC/REPUBLICAN leadership to acquire legitimate, though false, reason to lead the United States into the WARS IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ and full CORPORATE WAR CONTROL OF OUR COUNTRY allowing large private corporations, like BLACKWATER and other private mercenary corporations full dominion of the United States and through the United States, the world.

PRAISE THE LORD, NORTH DAKOTA'S ARMY was far enough away from New York and Washington, DC that Cheney didn't think they mattered and did not tell NORTH DAKOTA, so the ARMY in NORTH DAKOTA was not privy to Cheney's order to not shoot down airplanes attacking the Nation's Capitol, so NORTH DAKOTA ARMY AIR NATIONAL GUARD patriots protected the Capitol and the White House; and have received metals for that protection.

Since you failed to see the post I wrote, here it is:

'Flight 93 was engaged by the North Dakota ARMY Air National Guard that had moved their "Happy Hooligans" of the 119 Fighter Group out of Hector Field, Fargo, North Dakota to Langley Air Force Base in Southern Virginia prior to 9/11/01. Flight 93 was on a course for either the Capitol or the White House with totally unconscious people on board flying by remote control. The U.S. Army Adjutant General of the State of North Dakota ordered the North Dakota Air National Guard's 119 Fighter Group of "Happy Hooligans" out of Langley AFB, Virginia to engage Flight 93. Flight 93 was shortly engaged with two (2) Sidewinder missals and brought down over Pennsylvania about 10:00 AM 9/11/01. THERE WERE NO HIJACKERS. Let's Roll was all made up theatrics for the media and the public.'

'The Pentagon was hit by a pilotless remote controlled drone or a Global Hawk cruise missile.'

http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904degrand.html

Hm, I saw something about the Pentagon being hit by a Cruise Missile. Officials are dismissing it as a wide angle lens fault.

Here ya go again DEMOCRAPS, With False information trying to stir the pop....Keep upi th great work, all this bullshit seals the deal for a Republican to take office.....You had HIGH hopes 4 years ago about getting in when Bush was just as much hated as he is now, because the American people know that you are all full of shit....Politics destoyed this country....Fuck your butt, Die in your sleep....
See you dicks in November!

Here ya go again DEMOCRAPS, With False information trying to stir the pot....Keep upi th great work, all this bullshit seals the deal for a Republican to take office.....You had HIGH hopes 4 years ago about getting in when Bush was just as much hated as he is now, because the American people know that you are all full of shit....Politics destoyed this country....Fuck your butt, Die in your sleep....
See you dicks in November!

Foxwood:

I don't think our government wants to officially acknowledge any truth of 9/11/01 on any of the three sites, all there seems to be any interest in is propaganda.

The media didn't immediately take Pentagon crash site pictures, the public wasn't allowed to immediately take Pentagon crash site pictures or even see the immediate Pentagon crash site, the Pentagon didn't take immediate crash site pictures. All the public was allowed to see was the hole, the destruction and be told a story. It wasn't a commercial aircraft that hit the Pentagon, the hole isn't big enough. I think that missile picture was correct, it had to be a missile; since F16's from the military of North Dakota shot down Flight 93 over Pennsylvania with two missiles that officials aren't acknowledging, but, just the same, decorated the pilots that shot the plane down.

Here is the Retired Colonel's number who made it known publicly that Flight 93 wasn't brought down over Pennsylvania by brave hero's but was brought down by F16 patriots of the North Dakota ARMY Air National Guard. He says it was a missile that hit the Pentagon. If you have questions give him a call, I hope this Regime doesn't kill him, but if he dies suspiciously, maybe they did:

Col. Donn de Grand-Pre Phone # (540)547-2996

http://prisonplanet.com/022904degrand.html

My opinion is that with true catastrophes -- there are lots of pictures -- no need for a cover up. You should have seen the amount of pictures our family took when a tornado blew our home away. No one tried to keep it a secret. I think it would be the same if a big COMMERCIAL AIRLINER landed in the Pentagon, the media would show us the pictures, lots of them, NOT JUST HEAR THE STORY, because it would be news and something to see. Every now and then a car goes astray and lands in somebody's house or lands half-way into a commercial business and the media takes pictures and puts the pictures on the news 24 hrs a day, exactly how it landed, at least for 24 hours, but not one picture of this supposed airliner that flew into the Pentagon has ever been seen, and it should not have been a secret in any way at all.

Just like the war in Iraq was actually for OIL and they said it wasn't, the Pentagon was actually hit by a missile and they say it wasn't, since our own government is covering it up, it appears to be of our own government's doing as a start for the never ending war.

The NEW "neo" LIBERALS and "neo" CONSERVATIVES had, and still have, a war plan their carrying out, a NEW WAR PLAN, the "Project of the New American Century" http://www.newamericancentury.org/, that the DLC Clinton administration was involved in; then the set up of their NEW WAR PLAN went into an even higher gear as soon as the REPUBLICAN Bush administration wormed their way into the White House.

Private mercenary armies should NEVER be used in any concflict that the U.S. participates in. Using these private armies is the fastest way for an empire to collapse as happened with Rome. If we can't find enough U.S. citizens to participate in a war then we don't need to be in that war.

Contracting services out, whether it's armies, laundry service, food service, what have you, is just a way to enrich the corporate buddies of this failed administration.

And in case one isn't aware, when the pictures were broadcast from New Orleans during and after Hurricane Katrina showing what appeared to be military personnel helping, those were ALL hired mercenaries Blackwater USA. ALL of them. They were not the National Guard as was assumed by many.

When a company is in the business of fighting wars, they will make sure that there is constant war so that they can maintain their profits and return dividends to their shareholders.

Blackwater USA = All War, All the Time = stolen taxpayer dollars = empire collapse

TheStorm:

You sound like a RED NECKED "BUBBA" lumpen-proletariat REPUBLICANT who doesn't know your RIGHT from your LEFT, much less be a storm.

If you read the interview you would find that the Colonel is very open and even gave out his phone number where you may call for further discussion or you can purchase his book. The Colonel's number is (540) 547-2996. Also, the NORTH DAKOTA ARMY AIR NATIONAL GUARD isn't hiding under a rock, you can talk to them if you have the courage.

MarthaA - Do you walk around with tin foil as a hat because "Big Brother" is watching you and can read your thoughts? I ask only because you seem to believe all of these insane conspiricy theories. Then you close your eyes, block your ears and deny anyone else the opportunity to take a point of view other than yours. Then comes the name calling such as "lumpen-proletariat right wingers." It seems to be a pattern. Furthermore judging from what you write, I would surmise that this is the spirit of neo-liberalism in 2007. Silence any opposition to your stance and make everyone else see the world the way you do. Decent is not welcome in the democratic party. You cannot think or have an opinion or solution other than my own. You claim to hold up the Bill of Rights, but you try to silence opposition at the same time. No one is subverting anything. Your just making a case for other swing voters who see this drivel and decide that the DNC is a bunch of kook fringe conspiricy therorists who can't stand other Americans thinking for themselves. You should hang a sign that reads "Any kind of critisism will not be tolerated."

Now, if you want to call me and my soldiers and start this rant with them, by all means. I'll even let you call my cell and use my time to make your case to a platoon of loyal American soldiers and officers. You want to hear a differing opinion? Well, you haven't heard one on this forum, yet. I've got some female soldiers that would eat you and this drivel for lunch. So, come and chat with some real Americans that have spent time in the "sandbox" and some people that have real, valid opinions - not a bunch of armchair folks who only echo your own thoughts and puff up your ego.

Hey people you know I don't think many Americans like to kill so why not pay people to do the killing for us. Plus who cares if some civilians get killed. This is war, people are supposed to die. Besides their just Iraqis. Most of America wants to nuke them anyways.

P.S.

My brother is a blackwater guy and he says that if they weren't there then America would have a draft.

no most americans don't want to "nuke them" most of us including many people currently in the service don't agree with this conflict at all. yeah some buy into the propaganda but others know bs when they see/hear it. As a dominate power in the world we should be leading them in ethics this would include not supporting mercs like a fascist african dictatorship where they kill all people incl women and children who just get in their way. good going cowboy (marine from Iraq) you show your character.
rushbabie and commonjoe are posters with only negative criticism and weak arguments no matter what they are posting about on this site
If you are a marine and a grunt not an officer you need to start thinking for yourself and what you have to return home to. Neither party seems to be working for the majority of people in this country but the dems do seem less hell bent on destroying our way of life completely
and for thestorm I bet I could make you cry like a baby in a fair fight but by your post your prob wouldn't have a clue what a fair fight was, you prob think cutting someones throat is their sleep is about as honorable as it gets your quite the sick one arn't you did moma not love you as a child?
for others who read this please forgive the stupidity of this post it as well as the others mentioned in it belittle any true issues or intelligent oppinion that might occure on this site.
force out the mercs let Bush call for a draft and watch the peoples outrage. If you don't think this occupation has anything to do with profit or oil then please inform the rest of us as to why we are their it's not to help the Iraqi people and the whole terrorist fear tactic is wearing thin on the population better think of another lie and a good one.
If the elitist had invested the money, into r&d and manufacturing of alternate energy types, that they have wasted on the military to control current energy types we would be in a better world and they would still be the economic elite of the country but they are wanting in intellect and seem to have very closed minds on progress
I say this because capatilism is a stonger more enticing idea then democracy, thus it corrupts and transforms the idea of democracy to its idea, which when invoked the wrong way (as it now is) leads to a greatly divided population both between economic classes and members of the same class. This division weakens a country and promotes the failing of it's economy. You can witness this in many of the great societies that once where. And that of course is why they are no more.

This same type of pillaging and plundering is going on here too. This administration placed our precious sons and daughters in this mess to advance oil interests,and instead of going through Congress and appealing to the public to boost troops to help the soldiers in their missions, they outsourced to private (profit) driven corporations that are better paid, have better health coverage & assistance when they come back, and have siginificantly less accountability for what they do. The audacity and sheer cruelty of that is frightening.

And the change in the bankruptcy laws making it more difficult to obtain, and less available to the middle class (the wealthy have plenty of resources to put their money in offshore accounts just in time to bankrupt their corporation, their personal assets are protected, none of THAT was modified) They just so happened to have passed right when Congress was screaming we couldn't afford the troop surge. The 1st shakedown started with the poor and high-risk citizens, the next wave will be the middle class when inflation starts rolling up. And bankruptcy will not be an option for them any longer. This administration is creating a slave workforce out of it's own citizens to advance none of its majority citizens interests, essentially to pay for this disaster in Iraq and maintain corporate profit & dominance, while enduring crumbling infrastructure,losing our sons & daughters for a questionable cause, none of our soldiers home when we need them to deal with the natural disasters, which are becoming worse due to greed and corporate ecological plundering. Texas-based corporations are out of control in cashing in on all of this. It's going to take several democratic administrations to get us back on track.

This is the most profit-driven, violent, self-centered, divisive, cruel and deceptive administration I've ever seen. Thank heavens the election is coming up. I'm running to the polls to vote.

Rushbabies,

To be honest, I am just confused about what is going on here. We are in Iraq for what again?. If our goal was to build an stable government, then we have failed. Because the government hasn't brought about peace talks between Sunni, Shiite and Kurds who live there. We failed to take into account Iraq's history and the infighting between the groups that has happened for a millenia. This is an time to get other countries in the region involved in bringing about the kind of an stable government the Iraq people want and need. We as an country can't continue to do this alone.

Darien - Constructive dialogue - Thank you!!! What you said is all 100% correct. I don't deny anything you said. The reason why we are there is because we broke it, and we must attempt to fix it. That's all. Unfortunately, what Iraq needs is a social change. A stable society leads to a stable government and then to a stable economy that is being invested into and is always growing. The only way to achieve this is to get both sides to sit down and hammer out their differences and get them to unite for the good of the Iraqi people. Until that happens, nothing can be done. We can train their security forces all day and do raids 24/7 on suspected safehouses, but unless there is a fundamental social change where both groups are working towards a common goal of a better Iraq, nothing else can happen. No government, no economy - only continued bloodshed and violence like in east Africa. Why isn't anyone investing in Iraq now? Because there isn't any law and order. We must diplomatically try to get these two sides to agree on something, which is something we have not tried hard enough to do. Once that happens, we would have a starting point. So, yes...so far we have failed. Only recently have things even started to look up with more and more Sunnis and Shiia starting to come to either the US or Iraqi patrols with information about the "bad guys" in their neighborhoods. Even though we are only starting to see fruit after four years of work, we cannot abandon this approach, yet. I just hope the Iraqis can see this an unite for a common cause. Even the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland saw an end to almost 800 years of open hostility. Now they are prospering because of the peace brokered for the common good.

blackwater needs to get the hell out of there because they are underminding any good that our troops are doing for the people of iraq if thats happening.it's really sad that our gov. would allow these hired guns to run wild in this country.i mean let's screw up there water and power plants and there sewage sys.and now we have these a-holes terrorizing the people that we are trying to save.but of course the dems. will be chicken shits and let this admin. get away with it. i'm losing my patience with my party (dems.)if they don't start showing some balls i may have to go to the independent party or start a movement to vote out all and i mean all incumbent dems. so we can make a change for the people who they represent.so lets go dems. suck it up you got the people behind you do something.

The Language of Politics

The language of politics is the language of dialectic, propaganda, and tropes.

What is dialectic, propaganda, and tropes? And, why is dialectic, propaganda, and tropes important to your best interest and to your understanding of politics?

Dialectic, propaganda, and tropes are important because those who obtain and hold political power and authority over others use dialectic, propaganda and tropes to obtain and hold their political power and authority over those that they rule.

What is dialectic?

1. Dialectic is that branch of logic which teaches rules and modes of reasoning. 2. The process and modes of reasoning and disputing that are used to both distinguish TRUTH from ERROR, and to make fallacies pass for TRUTH.

For political purposes, the language of a political movement is the dialectic of the political movement.

What is propaganda?

1. Binary emotional rhetoric. 2. Subjective language containing only two choices that are used to lead others to an emotional conclusion to accept one of the two available choices.

What is a trope?

A trope is a word that by intent of the user has multiple and conflicting meanings that are of both literal and figurative definition.

Why is it important to the average person that they understand the definition and use of dialectic, propaganda, and tropes?

It is important to the average person that they understand the definition and use of dialectic, propaganda, and tropes because dialectic, propaganda and tropes are the "coin of the realm" in politics; politics being leadership of constituents in their best interest and non-constituents against their best interest. Dialectic, propaganda, and tropes are the political means by which political constituents and non-constituents are led both in and against their best interest.

It is of primary importance to the understanding of politics that the definition and use of dialectic, propaganda, and tropes be known and understood by all average citizens of the United States, because a lack of knowledge and understanding of dialectic, propaganda, and tropes both has in the past and will continue in the future to allow unscrupulous political leaders, out of their own greed, to lead constituents and non-constituents BOTH against and in their own best interest for the benefit of themselves and their own greedy constituents.

Average people of the 70% Majority Common Population must learn, know and understand dialectic, propaganda, and tropes of both their own political movement and opposing political movements, so that when they are subjected to opposition political dialectic, propaganda, and tropes; they can recognize opposition dialectic, propaganda, and tropes for what it is, a political attack by political opposition to lead them against their own best interest and in the interest of those politically opposed to their best interest.

Political Analysis

Dialectic analysis, propaganda analysis, and trope analysis are all a part of understanding who the political enemies are and what the political enemies are of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION.

George Lakoff's books "Moral Politics" and "Don't Think of an Elephant!" were worthless as regards to any real political understanding of the issues separating the Political RIGHT and the Political LEFT with regard to moral values pertaining to dialectic, propaganda, and tropes.

If Mr. Lakoff had any real intent of being of any benefit to anyone other than selling his books, Mr. Lakoff would have separated the dialectic, propaganda, and tropes of BOTH the Political RIGHT and the Political LEFT, developed criteria for moral standards and values, and made a moral evaluation of the dialectic, propaganda and tropes of BOTH the Political RIGHT and the Political LEFT, based upon those established criteria for moral values and standards; Mr. Lakoff DID NOT establish standards and evaluate the moral relevance and value of BOTH the Political RIGHT and the Political LEFT with regard to dialectic, propaganda, and tropes; and for these reasons, both of Mr. Lakoff's books, "Moral Politics" and "Don't Think of an Elephant!"are largely irrelevant books that served no other purpose than to make money for Mr. Lakoff at the expense of those searching for political understanding.

LAW Restricts Political Freedom in United States

On September 21, 2007 at 3:40 PM, I called the Oklahoma State Election Board at 1-(405)521-2391 to find out what the procedure would be for "writing in" my personal choice for political candidates to represent me in the upcoming Primary and General Elections; I was told that it was AGAINST Oklahoma State LAW to "write in" a candidate of choice on an Oklahoma State Ballot.

I DO NOT have ANY confidence AT ALL, that candidates that represent the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION will be provided in either the Primary Election on February 5, 2008, or the General Election in November 2008.

It is tyranny by the government when LAW limits the political choice of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION to representation between one of two political minorities; a choice of a REPUBLICAN that represents a 10% minority of American aristocracy, or an alternate choice of a Democrat that represents a 20% minority of the Professional Middle Class, and by LAW does not allow the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION any other choice than to vote Democrat or REPUBLICAN in a TWO-PARTY POLITICAL SYSTEM, a choice that EXCLUDES the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION from political representation; when the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION is EXCLUDED from the political process, both in the State of Oklahoma and other states by LAW, as is the case in Oklahoma, this is political oppression, suppression and tyranny by the government and the colluding political interests of the aristocratic and professional classes within those states which by LAW restrict "write in" candidates.

A so-called democratic government that intentionally EXCLUDES the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION from selecting candidates that will represent their own 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION, CLASS AND CULTURE, and limits the political choices of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION as a class and culture to being represented by candidates of the combined 30% minority of the aristocratic and professional middle class is Spartan Democracy, the democracy of the Spartans over the Helots as a class and culture of slaves, and NOTHING MORE.

Will the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION allow themselves to be treated as 21st Century Helots in 21st Century American democracy that will have them have the freedom of slaves, and accept the freedom of slaves as actual freedom when their freedom is in reality oppression, suppression and tyranny, or will the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION stand up and say that the freedom of 21st Century American Helots is not enough? WE THE PEOPLE MUST STAND UP AS A 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION and demand the right to "write in" candidates in all 50 states of the United States that represent the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION; and reject the offense of continuing to be suppressed, oppressed and tyrannized by LAW, forcing the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION to vote solely for candidates of the aristocratic and professional classes without any other choice as a matter of LAW.

Many states in the United States restrict political freedom to choose political candidates in the same manner as is done in Oklahoma by forbidding "write in" candidates as a matter of LAW. WE THE PEOPLE must demand the right to "write in" candidates that represent the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION in all of the states and territories of the United States and reject the offense of continuing to be suppressed, oppressed and tyrannized as a matter of LAW by being forced to VOTE for candidates of the aristocratic and professional classes without any choice as a matter of LAW throughout the states and territories of the United States

Published on Friday, September 28, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

Democrats Were Charged To End A War, Not Start One
by Mike Gravel

Hillary Clinton was either misinformed or economical with the truth in Wednesday night’s debate when she responded to my challenge to her by saying the Senate’s resolution earlier in the day on Iran was designed to permit economic sanctions against individual members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

She and her staff should know the United Nations Security Council on March 24 already slapped economic sanctions on individual Guard Members. Like the Red Army in China, Iran allows Guard commanders to own and run private companies. Security Council Resolution 1747, which the United States voted for, froze financial assets held outside Iran on the seven military commanders, including General Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr and six other admirals and generals.

I know of no law dictating the State Department must first designate individuals or groups as terrorists before sanctions can be imposed on them. Dozens of countries have been under U.S. unilateral sanctions that are not designated as terrorist. The U.S. first imposed sanctions on Iran in 1979 over the hostages, not terrorism. The only possible purpose of the Senate resolution asking the State Department to designate the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization is to set it up for military attack in George Bush’s war on terror.

As Virginia senator Jim Webb valiantly said in the Senate, the United States has never before designated the military services of a sovereign state a terrorist group. Indeed, though there is international dispute over the definition of terrorism, there is little disagreement on the legal point that terrorists are non-state actors who target civilians, i.e., never members of a government. Governments can be guilty of war crimes, but not terrorism. And the resolution talks about attacks on American troops, not civilians.

The hypocrisy of Hillary and the 75 other senators who called for more unilateral sanctions on Iran, was exposed Monday by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier who said, according to Spiegel Magazine, that American companies are violating existing U.S. sanctions by surreptitiously doing business with Iran through front companies in Dubai.

Joe Lieberman wrote the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq that was passed with Democratic support on October 11, 2002. Lieberman’s new resolution setting up a Bush-Cheney invasion of Iran passed by 76 to 22 with Democratic backing on September 26, 2007. These are two dates that will live in infamy in the 21st century. Led by Senator Clinton, it was another sad day for the Senate and for Senate Democrats, who were elected to the majority in November in order to end a war, not start a new one.

***

Mike Gravel is a former US Senator from Alaska and is currently running for the Democratic Nomination for President.