He lied. Hillary, not Obama or McCain stood at the forefront of ousting Rumsfeld.
It was not Clinton alone Sen. John Kerry called for his resignation and Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y called for his impeachment. ( Note: Joe Lieberman, former Democrat, thought it was a bad idea.)
McCain now admits he did not call for the resignation:
"As he gets closer to the Republican nomination, Sen. John McCain has been trying to balance his unqualified support for the Iraq war by reminding audiences that he was also a tough critic of how it was managed until President Bush finally changed strategies a year ago. In recent weeks, McCain has gone so far as to tell audiences that he was “the only one” who called for Donald H. Rumsfeld’s resignation as defense secretary.
The trick is that he never did, at least not publicly. The senator from Arizona was a tough critic of Rumsfeld and more than once said that he had no confidence in the Pentagon chief in the two years before Bush finally dumped Rumsfeld in November 2006. But even as he was criticizing Rumsfeld, McCain typically stopped short of calling for the Pentagon chief to step down.
While campaigning in Fort Myers, Fla., on Jan. 26, he told a crowd: “In the conflict that we’re in, I’m the only one that said we have to abandon the Rumsfeld strategy — and Rumsfeld — and adopt a new strategy.” Four days later during a debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., aired on CNN, McCain said, “I’m the only one that said that Rumsfeld had to go.” A McCain spokesman acknowledged this week that that was not correct.
February 9 Washington Post article, the Post reported on February 16 that McCain "overstate[d] his public position on Rumsfeld" and never called for him to resign.
( Note Sen. Obama was not not active in this debate.)
Sen. Clinton: Rumsfeld should resign
Updated: 2006-08-04 09:34
WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday called on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to resign, hours after excoriating him at a public hearing over what she called "failed policy" in Iraq.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton: "I just don't understand why we can't get new leadership that would give us a fighting chance to turn the situation around before it's too late," the New York Democrat and potential 2008 presidential contender said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I think the president should choose to accept Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation."
"The secretary has lost credibility with the Congress and with the people," she said. "It's time for him to step down and be replaced by someone who can develop an effective strategy and communicate it effectively to the American people and to the world."
Asked about Clinton's comments, Pentagon spokesman Eric Ruff said, "We don't discuss politics."
Clinton had resisted joining the chorus of other Democrats demanding Rumsfeld's ouster. Her remarks Thursday were the harshest assessment yet from the woman considered her party's early front-runner for the 2008 presidential nomination.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. [Reuters] The former first lady has come under attack from some in her own party for voting for the war in 2002 and her current opposition to a deadline for U.S. troop withdrawal.
She criticized Rumsfeld in person earlier Thursday during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.
"Under your leadership, there have been numerous errors in judgment that have led us to where we are," she said. "We have a full-fledged insurgency and full-blown sectarian conflict in Iraq."
The defense secretary rejected some of her specific criticisms as simply wrong and said the war against terror will be a drawn-out process. He said he never glossed over the difficulties of the fighting.
"I have never painted a rosy picture," he said. "I've been very measured in my words, and you'd have a dickens of a time trying to find instances where I've been excessively optimistic."
Earlier in the day, the senator wasted no time going after Rumsfeld when he testified in a morning hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
"Under your leadership there have been numerous errors in judgment that have led us to where we are," the New York Democrat said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. "We have a full-fledged insurgency and full-blown sectarian conflict in Iraq."
The defense secretary seemed briefly stunned by the intensity of her attack, exclaiming, "My goodness," before launching into a point-by-point defense.
He rejected some of her specific criticisms as simply wrong and said the war against terror will be a drawn-out process.
"Are there setbacks? Yes," said Rumsfeld. "Is this problem going to get solved in the near term? I think it's going to take some time."
The testy exchange between Clinton and Rumsfeld came after a top general told the panel violence in Iraq is probably as bad as he's ever seen it and the country may be descending into civil war.
"We hear a lot of happy talk and rosy scenarios, but because of the administration's strategic blunders - and frankly the record of incompetence in executing - you are presiding over a failed policy," she said. "Given your track record, Secretary Rumsfeld, why should we believe your assurances now?"
Rumsfeld vehemently denied he'd ever glossed over the difficulties of the fighting in Iraq or elsewhere.
"There's a track record here," countered Clinton. "This is not 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, when you appeared before this committee and made many comments and presented many assurances that have frankly proven to be unfulfilled."
"Senator, I don't think that's true," Rumsfeld fired back. "I have never painted a rosy picture. I've been very measured in my words and you'd have a dickens of a time trying to find instances where I've been excessively optimistic. I understand this is tough stuff."
At that point, the Republican chairman of the committee, Sen. John Warner of Virginia, came to Rumsfeld's defense, saying his past comments had been balanced.
Clinton still shied away from a demand made by a growing number of Democrats: a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq.
The disagreement between the two extended to Afghanistan. The senator specifically faulted Rumsfeld for saying in 2002 that the Taliban was gone, noting that the extremist faction has grown stronger in recent months.
He conceded violence has escalated in Afghanistan, but added, "Does that represent failed policy? I don't know. I would say not."
The defense secretary said he expected the violence there to follow a seasonal pattern and decline as winter approaches. Sun, 09 Mar 2008 05:33:00 +0000
President Bush's planned Iraq agreement avoids congressional oversight The Bush administration yesterday advanced a new argument for why it does not require congressional approval to strike a long-term security agreement with Iraq, stating that Congress had already endorsed such an initiative through its 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein.
The 2002 measure, along with the congressional resolution passed one week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks authorizing military action "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States," permits indefinite combat operations in Iraq, according to a statement by the State Department's Bureau of Legislative Affairs.(Interestingly, by the same logic, the 2002 authorization also enables Bush to extend his presidency indefinitely as well.)
The statement came in response to lawmakers' demands that the administration submit to Congress for approval any agreement with Iraq. U.S. officials are traveling to Baghdad this week with drafts of two documents -- a status-of-forces agreement and a separate "strategic framework" -- that they expect to sign with the Iraqi government by the end of July. It is to go into effect when the current U.N. mandate expires Dec. 31.
Clinton legislation
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton introduced legislation in December that requires the President to seek Congressional approval for any agreement that would extend the U.S. military commitment to Iraq. She also joined a number of other Senators in a letter warning the President against rushing the United States into long-term security commitments to the Iraqi government and urging him to seek Congressional consent.
The legislation requires:
• No funds may be authorized or appropriated to carry out any bilateral agreement between the United States and Iraq involving “commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole,” including a status of forces agreement (SOFA), that is not a treaty approved by two-thirds of the Senate under Article II of the Constitution or authorized by legislation passed by both Houses of Congress.
• The State Department Legal Advisor must provide to the Congress a memorandum evaluating the President’s decision to deny Congress its constitutionally protected role by concluding an agreement on the future of the U.S.-Iraqi security relationship as an executive agreement without the assent of the Congress.
• The memorandum must include an analysis of the Constitutional powers relied on by the President in reaching the conclusion that such an agreement does not require approval by the Congress.
• It is the sense of Congress that any bilateral agreement between the United States and Iraq involving “commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole”, including a status of forces agreement (SOFA), that is not a treaty approved by two-thirds of the Senate under Article II of the Constitution or authorized by legislation, does not have the force of law.
The precedent
The precedent for this, ironically enough, is our "special" defense relationship with Israel -- which has never been voted on, much less approved, by the Senate.
Instead, we have a "strategic memorandum" signed by the Reagan Administration and the Shamir government in the mid '80s (not long before the Iran Contra scandal broke). It basically commits the US to do for Israel whatever we would do for our NATO allies.
A piece of paper, not a treaty, never voted on, never ratified. Yet, every subsequent administration has treated it as holy writ. Obviously, Bush hopes the same will be true of his "strategy" agreement with the notional puppet government of Iraq. Sat, 08 Mar 2008 03:12:00 +0000
KBR Dodges $500 Million In Social Security And Medicare Taxes In Cheney-Backed Scheme
No private contractor has financially profited from the Iraq war more than Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), which until last year was a subsidiary of Halliburton. The firm currently has more than 21,000 employees in Iraq, and between 2004 and 2006, received more than $16 billion in government contracts — far more than any other corporation.
Yet KBR hasn’t been passing on these enormous profits to American taxpayers or even its own employees, thanks to a plan that Vice President Cheney helped establish. Today, the Boston Globe reports that KBR has avoided paying more than $500 million “in federal Medicare and Social Security taxes by hiring workers through shell companies” based in the Cayman Islands. A look at the costs to KBR employees:
While KBR’s use of the shell companies saves workers their half of the taxes, it deprives them of future retirement benefits.
In addition, the practice enables KBR to avoid paying unemployment taxes in Texas, where the company is registered, amounting to between $20 and $559 per American employee per year, depending on the company’s rate of turnover.
As a result, workers hired through the Cayman Island companies cannot receive unemployment assistance should they lose their jobs.
KBR’s practices are extreme, even compared to its competitors. Other top Iraq war contractors — including Bechtel and Parsons — pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for their employees.
The Bush administration has aided this tax dodging. One of KBR’s shell companies is Overseas Administrative Services, which was set up two months after Cheney became Halliburtion’s CEO in 1995. Since at least 2004, the Pentagon has known about KBR’s practices, but chosen to ignore the issue.
"Failing to contribute to Social Security and Medicare thousands of times over isn't shielding the taxpayers they claim to protect, it's costing our citizens in the name of short-term corporate greed," said Senator John F. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee who has introduced legislation to close loopholes for companies registering overseas.
Of course, KBR is more than happy to claim workers as its own in one instance: when seeking “legal immunity extended to employers working in Iraq.”
Cheney's office at the White House referred questions to his personal lawyer, who did not return phone calls.
Heather Browne, a spokeswoman for KBR, acknowledged via e-mail that the two Cayman Islands companies were set up "in order to allow us to reduce certain tax obligations of the company and its employees."
From Publishers Weekly Starred Review. Dubose and Bernstein show in this thorough, rollicking career biography that it's Cheney-not the more publicly criticized Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, Condoleeza Rice or President Bush-who is chiefly responsible for the most unpopular aspects of the Bush regime: an imperial executive office and foreign policy; abandonment of democratic ideals (respect for government checks and balances, the Geneva Convention, the Bill of Rights and the Freedom of Information Act); and questionable corporate-government colusion (the secret energy task force, Halliburton's government contracts in Iraq). Tracing Cheney through three White House adminsitrations, six terms in the House of Representatives, and a tour as Halliburton CEO, the portrait that emerges from these pages is both alarming and compelling; like a J.R. Ewing, Cheney proves to be the kind of fascinating figure you love to hate. As obstacles to Cheney's will-Congress, the Constitution, foreign countries, the press, or other politicians-are sidestepped, ignored, or trammeled, Cheney emerges as a classic Machiavellian; in Cheney's case, it appears that the end which justifies the means is power, pure and simple. Against Cheney, idealistic liberals who believe that an appeal to democratic ideals, the Constitution, or basic decency will work with this administration emerge here as painfully naïve; unfortunately, this realization has only settled in after the damage was already done. Dubose and Bernstein present a sobering and darkly flattering expose of the reclusive power behind the throne, and a grim vision of what his legacy may be. Sat, 08 Mar 2008 00:26:00 +0000
Iraqis continue to flee their country Flies rest on the face of an Iraqi refugee child waiting with his family at the Tanaf border crossing between Syria and Iraq, some 300 kms northeast of Damascus, 10 November 2007. The number of Iraqis seeking asylum in Syria each month has dropped from 20,000 to a few hundred since Damascus imposed new visa restrictions last month, a senior border guard said. According to the UN High Commissioner of Refugees (UNHCR), 4.2 million Iraqis have fled the violence since the US-led invasion of March 2003.
RAQ: 'Not Our Country To Return To' By Maki al-Nazzal and Dahr Jamail*
DAMASCUS, Mar 3 (IPS) - More Iraqis continue to flee their country than the numbers returning, despite official claims to the contrary.
Thousands fleeing say security is as bad as ever, and that to return would be to accept death.
"Return to Iraq?" asks 35-year-old Ahmed Alwan, an Iraqi engineer now working at a restaurant in Damascus. "There is no Iraq to return to, my friend. Iraq only exists in our dreams and memories."
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reported September last year that there are between 1.2 and 1.4 million Iraqi refugees in Syria alone.
Most, like Alwan, do not intend to return.
"I shall never return to Iraq until the last American soldier and Iranian mullah leaves," Alwan says. "It is their country now, not ours. The only thing that might take me back is when I decide to fight for Iraq's real liberty."
Why they won't go back
Iraqi refugees in Syria speak of lack of security back home, lack of services, fear of the future, mistrust of Iraqi politicians, and loss of homes. Most are simply too afraid to return.
UNHCR report contradicts US media claims
A UNHCR report issued last month contradicts reports by mainstream media in the U.S., and claims by the Bush administration, that more Iraqis are returning to their homes than the number leaving.
The report says that from February 2006-October 2007 Syria received between 30,000-60,000 refugees each month. Immigration officials at al-Tanf on the border say the daily average for those entering Syria from Iraq in late January was over 1,200, while the daily average crossing back was less than 700.
"Many assassinations take place all over Iraq, including Baghdad, and military operations are still being carried out the same way as 2004 and 2005," Nayil Mufeed, a security advisor with a mobile phone company in Baghdad told IPS. "We have advised our employers that moving out of Baghdad to Amman is a definite necessity in such a fragile security situation."
"Even if we believed that security is better in some areas, we know it is worse in other areas, and that it changes suddenly from one place to another," Farooq Munim, a retired school headmaster from Mosul, now a refugee in Syria told IPS.
"My city, Mosul, was safe for those who have no connection with Americans or government intelligence, but now it is not safe for anyone after the explosion at the Zinjilly neighbourhood that was carried out by Peshmerga (Kurdish militias) and Americans to justify the new surge against the city."
Mosul city, 300 km north of Baghdad, is under a major siege by the U.S. military supported by the Kurdish militia and Iraqi troops from southern Iraq. The city, a Sunni stronghold, has been a target for Kurdish militias attempting to cleanse it of its Arab majority in order to support claims that it is a Kurdish city.
Many Iraqis in Syria say they will not return for fear of detention.
"They (U.S. military) say Fallujah is safe now while over 800 men are detained there under the worst conditions," 25-year-old Omar, whose name is on a list of wanted persons by the local police, told IPS. "I am wanted by Fallujah police just because I helped some foreign journalists who visited the city to cover the American crime in 2004, and I showed them eyewitnesses who testified that there were Iraqis who helped the Americans destroy our city. At least 750 out of the 800 detainees are not resistance fighters, but people who refused to collaborate with occupation forces and their tails."
Iraqis commonly refer to Iraqis who collaborate with occupation forces as "tails of the Americans."
For Iraqis who do return home, the reasons usually have little to do with any perception that things are improving.
Iraqis return and leave
"If you do not mention my name and my company, I will tell you all about Iraqis returning home," a passenger transport company manager in Damascus told IPS. "People just move back and forth to check their property, cash their pensions and salaries and for other necessities, but the media make it look like people returning home."
"Some people did go back when they had nothing to spend any more, especially after the Iraqi government promised to pay them money on return," said the manager. "Many of them came back to Syria when they found that all those promises were just lies. On the other hand, Iraqis from the north and south are still fleeing because of the military operations everywhere in Iraq."
Another UN survey of Iraqis returning to their country found that "46 percent were leaving Syria because they could not afford to stay, 25 percent said they fell victim to a stricter Syrian visa policy; and only 14 percent said they were returning because they had heard about improved security."
Others do not return for financial reasons.
"It is cheaper here than in Iraq," Hanan Jabbar, a 38-year-old housewife who fled to Syria five months ago told IPS. "A litre of kerosene costs a dollar back home, while it's 10 cents here. That is just one example for how impossible life now is in Iraq. My kids go to school safely and play like other children now without me worrying to death about them. God bless Syria and Jordan for having us, and God damn America and all its allies for doing all this to us."
On many streets of Damascus today one finds more Iraqis than Syrians, partly because Syrians are at work while most Iraqis are unemployed. They hang around Internet cafés, tea houses and on the streets, looking out for any kind of work.
"I took my family back home in January," Rasool Mussa, a shopkeeper from Baghdad now a refugee in Damascus told IPS. "The first night we arrived, Americans raided our house and kept us all in one room while their snipers used our rooftop to shoot at people. I decided to come back here the next morning after a horrifying night that we will never forget."
(*Maki, our correspondent in Damascus, works in close collaboration with Dahr Jamail, our U.S.-based specialist writer on Iraq who has reported extensively from Iraq and the Middle East) http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41430 Mon, 03 Mar 2008 04:44:00 +0000
While Barak Obama was debating Hillary Clinton he was trying to make the point that the invasion of Iraq had serious negative impact on the ongoing war in Afghanistan. He gave an illustration:
"You know, I've heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon -- supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon," he said. "Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq. And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief."
From the Fact Check Desk: Obama's Army Anecdote
February 22, 2008 1:33 PM
ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html
Asked about the story in the Spin Room last night, Obama strategist David Axelrod told the National Review's Stephen Spruiell, "that was a discussion that a captain in the military had with our staff, and he asked that that be passed along to Senator Obama."
Conservatives have weighed in on this story, many of them challenging its veracity Well, captains command companies, not rifle platoons. A rifle platoon is normally commanded by a 2nd lieutenant, sometimes (if short handed) by a senior sergeant. So for starters, Obama betrays a woeful ignorance of military organization and the chain of command. Then he remarks that the platoon was under-strength because 15 of its men had been “sent to Iraq.” Sorry, the Army doesn’t work that way. Platoons are organic units, consisting of three rifle squads, a heavy weapons squad, and a headquarters section. You can’t break it up. It is the smallest building block in the infantry that can conduct fire-and-movement tactics…
The idea that our guys were scrounging weapons and ammo because they were short is ludicrous. How much ammo you carry is done on a “per man” basis in the infantry–each solder carries a “basic load,” which is backed up by reserve supplies at company, battalion, and above. It is possible to run out of ammunition, temporarily, in the midst of an intense firefight…
To the best of my knowledge, no U.S. forces in either Afghanistan or Iraq ever ran out of ammunition for more than a few hours at most. When you consider that we were operating in Afghanistan at the tenuous end of a 8,000 mile supply line, that’s pretty impressive.
ARMY CAPTAIN DEFENDS STORY
I called the Obama campaign this morning to chat about this story, and was put in touch with the Army captain in question.
He told me his story, which I found quite credible, though for obvious reasons he asked that I not mention his name or certain identifying information.
Short answer: He backs up Obama's story.
The longer answer is worth telling, though.
The Army captain, a West Point graduate, did a tour in a hot area of eastern Afghanistan from the Summer of 2003 through Spring 2004.
Prior to deployment the Captain -- then a Lieutenant -- took command of a rifle platoon at Fort Drum. When he took command, the platoon had 39 members, but -- in ones and twos -- 15 members of the platoon were re-assigned to other units. He knows of 10 of those 15 for sure who went to Iraq, and he suspects the other five did as well.
The platoon was sent to Afghanistan with 24 men.
"We should have deployed with 39," he told me, "we should have gotten replacements. But we didn't. And that was pretty consistent across the battalion."
He adds that maybe a half-dozen of the 15 were replaced by the Fall of 2003, months after they arrived in Afghanistan, but never all 15.
As for the weapons and humvees, there are two distinct periods in this, as he explains -- before deployment, and afterwards.
At Fort Drum, in training, "we didn't have access to heavy weapons or the ammunition for the weapons, or humvees to train before we deployed."
What ammunition?
40 mm automatic grenade launcher ammunition for the MK-19, and ammunition for the .50 caliber M-2 machine gun ("50 cal.")
"We weren't able to train in the way we needed to train," he says. When the platoon got to Afghanistan they had three days to learn.
They also didn't have the humvees they were supposed to have both before deployment and once they were in Afghanistan, the Captain says.
"We should have had 4 up-armored humvees," he said. "We were supposed to. But at most we had three operable humvees, and it was usually just two."
So what did they do? "To get the rest of the platoon to the fight," he says, "we would use Toyota Hilux pickup trucks or unarmored flatbed humvees." Sometimes with sandbags, sometimes without.
Also in Afghanistan they had issues getting parts for their MK-19s and their 50-cals. Getting parts or ammunition for their standard rifles was not a problem.
"It was very difficult to get any parts in theater," he says, "because parts are prioritized to the theater where they were needed most -- so they were going to Iraq not Afghanistan."
"The purpose of going after the Taliban was not to get their weapons," he said, but on occasion they used Taliban weapons. Sometimes AK-47s, and they also mounted a Soviet-model DShK (or "Dishka") on one of their humvees instead of their 50 cal.
The Captain has spoken to Sen. Obama, he says, but this anecdote was relayed to Obama through an Obama staffer.
I find that Obama's anecdote checks out.
Some are quibbling about whether or not the "commander in chief" can be held responsible for how well our soldiers are being equipped, since Congress provides the funding for the military, but the Pentagon (and ultimately President Bush) are in charge of the funding mechanism.
I might suggest those on the blogosphere upset about this story would be better suited directing their ire at those responsible for this problem, which is certainly not new. That is, if they actually care about the men and women bravely serving our country at home and abroad.
- jpt Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:06:00 +0000
Soldiers defense for murder :: Sleep-deprived and dehydrated The leadership of the US troops in Iraq continue putting our soldiers in danger. First by not planning, then by not not supplying needed equipment and now by abusing them as pawns without consideration that they are humans.
Exhausted soldiers try to get rest while on patrol in Iraq, May 2007. Michael Kamber / New York Times / Redux
This is from a Time Magazine article about the trial of Sgt. Evan Vela
As the first day of testimony in what is expected to be a four day trial kicked off on Friday before an eight-person jury of both officers and enlisted soldiers.
Part of an elite parachute infantry sniper-scout platoon, Sgt. Evan Vela is accused of murdering an unarmed Iraqi that his five-man squad had taken captive after the man breached their hideout.
Vela's civilian defense attorney James Culp argued that his client was not guilty of murdering Genei Nesir Khudair Al-Janabi because, at the time Vela pulled the trigger, he was so sleep-deprived and dehydrated after four days of non-stop battlefield action that he was neither in control of his actions nor fully aware of what he was doing. "It was a terrible accident," Culp said outside the courtroom during a recess, "but Evan didn't intentionally shoot anyone."
On the witness stand, Sgt. Robert Redfern, another soldier on that patrol, described a combat schedule leading up to the shooting that tested the limits of human endurance. In great detail, he chronicled two back-to-back two-day missions that included nighttime hikes while carrying 150 lb. packs in what may be the most dangerous area of the country. During the day, the soldiers had no choice but to bake in the open sun in 120 degree heat as they tried to conserve the three or four liters of water per man they had carried in. And, since they were either traveling or conducting surveillance around the clock, no one was allowed to sleep more than 15 minutes at a time. "By the second day, I could barely stand," said Redfern. Some soldiers began administering hydrating IVs to each other just to stay mobile and fend off headaches. By sunup of the fourth day, the ailing group holed up in a hideout to try to get a few hours of uninterrupted sleep. Each soldier took a one hour guard roation while the others slept.
That's when Al-Janabi startled the group. There is conflicting testimony over who was supposed to be on guard at the time, but Sgt. Michael Hensley, the group's commanding officer, pinned the man down and searched him. Some time after that, Vela shot him in the head with a nine mm. pistol.
In his testimony today, Hensley, one of the soldiers already acquitted for his role in the death (but guilty of planting the AK-47), endeavored to justify the killing, saying that Al-Janabi would not stop yelling, crying and "flopping around like a fish" despite repeated efforts to silence him. It was then that Hensley says he decided, for the safety of his men, that Al-Janabi had to die. "I thought that he was trying alert insurgents," Hensley said. "I felt like I had no choice or we would be further compromised." He says he asked Vela, who had a pistol trained on the man, if he was ready, and then he told him to shoot. Vela pulled the trigger and the man died of that single bullet to the head. When asked why he didn't shoot Al-Janabi himself, Hensley said, "Vela happened to be the one with the pistol. I would have gladly shot him myself."
Iraq's Minister of Human Rights, Wijdan Mikhail Salim, however, does not see the case as either a justified kill or a horrific accident by an exhaustion-impaired soldier. She was attending today's proceedings, she told TIME, because, "I want to be sure that any American soldier who wrongs an Iraqi will go on trial. [Vela] killed an Iraqi man, an unarmed man. He must be punished." Sun, 10 Feb 2008 04:41:00 +0000
The US intelligence community which has been disgraced by their lack of intelligence and manipulation of false intelligence is now claiming that al Qaeda leaders have diverted operatives from Iraq and across the globe and are increasing preparations to strike the United States, specifically the White House.
(So it's maybe it not the the US `surge' that is working, rather it is al Qaeda that is refocusing?)
"Al Qaeda is improving the last key aspect of its ability to attack the U.S. — the identification, training and positioning of operatives for an attack in the homeland," said Michael McConnell, director of national intelligence, which oversees all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.
Is McConnell to be believed?
Consider this statement: Intelligence officials also said they used a controversial interrogation tactic known as "waterboarding," which some people regard as torture, only on three senior al Qaeda members early in the war on terror and that it has not been used in five years.
This statement is highly suspect considering the controversy that `waterboarding' has raised, and considering that ABC News reported there is a presidential finding, signed in 2002, by President Bush, Condoleezza Rice and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft approving the techniques, including water boarding.
Keeping the fear level up
By keeping the fear level up, the Bush administration feels justified in keeping military spending up. And that would be good for Michael McConnell and his old friends.
Mr. McConnell only earns $186,600 annually as director of national intelligence. President Bush hired him away from Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., a large defense and intelligence consulting company for whom he had worked for over a decade, leaving behind his yearly salary of $1,999,840.
Of course McConnell received an unspecified lump-sum retirement payment, an unspecified bonus and an unspecified payment to his retirement account from Booz Allen Hamilton, according to his financial records. The company also continues to pay for his medical and dental insurance.
Separately, McConnell downs smaller amounts of stock in other companies that also work extensively with the U.S. government, including Halliburton Co., Boeing Co., L-3 Communications Holdings Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., Oracle Corp., Microsoft Corp. and others. He also earns $16,000 as a board member for CompuDyne Corp., which sells security systems to the federal government, and $30,000 as chairman of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance, a trade group that lobbies the government on intelligence matters. (source)
This Administration continues it's inbred relationships with companies that need the US military dollars to keep flowing in. Trusting anything coming from this administration has become impossible. Thu, 07 Feb 2008 02:21:00 +0000
Hillary Clinton :: The text of the bill she voted for - the use of force - not a decleration of war. Since most people who are arguing that Hillary Clinton voted for the War with Iraq have no clue what the vote was really about, and instead continue to use biased politically motivated lies as the bases of their opinion about what happened, - I thought for those willing to read the bill - a better view of what Senator Clinton voted for, could and should be examined.
Congress has not voted for a war since 1946. This was not a vote for war.
The bill authorized the President to use force - but not to engage in war without Congressional approval. IN FACT the bill contained this phrase: "APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution."
The President illegally went to "war" by knowingly going beyond the resolution in contempt of Congress.
Note that the use of military force has been continually used by the United States in situation where `no war' resulted.
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
--H.J.Res.114--
H.J.Res.114
One Hundred Seventh Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate. Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:24:00 +0000
McCain - the War Candidate For those who want to continue having a pro-war President - McCain is the best choice.
CBS Weekly commentary by CBS Evening News chief Washington correspondent and Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer.
We ask because there hasn't been much to jog your memory on the campaign trail.
The threat of recession has blown Iraq off television and the front pages. In South Carolina, a poll of Democrats showed the economy overwhelmingly outweighed the war as the most important issue.
That's given the candidates a virtual pass on Iraq.
Until John McCain accused Mitt Romney yesterday of favoring a timetable for withdrawing American forces there, a charge Romney vehemently denies, Republicans hardly mentioned the war.
That would force them to mention George Bush and frankly, they'd rather talk about Ronald Reagan.
Nor do Democrats bring it up. The surge of troops the President sent there last year reduced the violence and that raises questions about the Democrats' previous demands for an immediate American drawdown.
Yet, the war goes on. Last week, 38 Iraqis died and hundreds were injured as a massive bomb went off in the town of Mosul. The Iraqi president promised to "do something," neglecting to mention he had been urged to "do something" in Mosul for months BEFORE the bomb went off.
For the record: While the Iraqis have been trying to get their act together, the war has claimed 4,094 American military and civilian lives and left more than 29,000 wounded.
Iraq may be off the front pages, but it is not over. The candidates and the rest of us would do well to remember that. Tue, 29 Jan 2008 05:56:00 +0000
How many Americans are we willing to sacrifice in Iraq now knowing that 935 false statements by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials led us into this fiasco?
By The Associated Press – 3 hours ago
As of Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2008, at least 3,931 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes eight military civilians. At least 3,197 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers.
The AP count is two higher than the Defense Department's tally, last updated Wednesday at 10 a.m. EST.
The British military has reported 174 deaths; Italy, 33; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 21; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; Denmark, seven; El Salvador, five; Slovakia, four; Latvia, three; Estonia, Netherlands, Thailand, Romania, two each; and Australia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, South Korea, one death each.US Military Deaths in Iraq at 3,931
By The Associated Press – 3 hours ago
As of Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2008, at least 3,931 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes eight military civilians. At least 3,197 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers.
The AP count is two higher than the Defense Department's tally, last updated Wednesday at 10 a.m. EST.
The British military has reported 174 deaths; Italy, 33; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 21; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; Denmark, seven; El Salvador, five; Slovakia, four; Latvia, three; Estonia, Netherlands, Thailand, Romania, two each; and Australia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, South Korea, one death each.
Within the first week of the operation Phantom Phoenix, Coalition Forces and Iraqi Security Forces have detained 193 suspected extremists, killed 60 suspected extremists and found 79 weapons caches. These caches included over 10,000 rounds of small arms ammunition, over 2,000 heavy machine gun rounds, over 4,000 pounds of home-made explosives, over 300 pounds of TNT, approximately 100 improvised explosive devices in various stages, over 300 blasting caps, over 50 pressure plates, over 2,000 feet of detonation cord and many other items.
Finding these caches continues to reduce extremists’ ability to attack CF, ISF and Iraqi civilians. The discovery of 4,000 pounds of homemade explosives takes away the enemy’s ability to build eight more massive vehicle bombs of the type that have been destroying Iraqi infrastructure and killing innocent Iraqis. Liberating Villages
US and Iraqi forces liberated six villages from al Qaeda control in the region near Miqdadiyah, Iraqi army Major General Abdul Karim al Rubaie, the director of operations in central Diyala province told AFP.
"The villages have been under the control of al-Qaeda for a long time," Rubaie. "We have taken them back and al-Qaeda has been chased out." Ten al Qaeda were reported killed and 20 captured during the operation.
Col. John Lehr, commander of 4th Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, who commands the Brigade that is leading the efforts in Diyala Province , reported that he was “very thankful for the integration of 3rd Brigade, 5th Iraqi Army into our operation. Upon joining us, they immediately discovered a major cache system, which will lead to other cache systems and the capture of other terrorists.” In one particular find in Diyala in an area known as the Breadbasket, Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces together uncovered a weapons cache in an underground bunker complex with several rooms.
“The 3rd Brigade, 5th Iraqi Army Division made this latest find possible. They are making great gains headway against the enemy,” said Brig. Gen. James Boozer, deputy commanding general of Task Force Iron. “Their ability to turn human intelligence is significant because of the relationships they have made with the population in this short amount of time.
Major Bombing by the US
In addition the U.S. bombers and jet fighters unleashed 40,000 pounds of explosives on the southern outskirts of Baghdad within 10 minutes Thursday (10 Jan 2008) in one of the biggest airstrikes of the war, flattening what the military called safe havens for al-Qaida in Iraq. Large-scale air strikes have been rare in Iraq, especially over the past few months when the intensity of military action tapered off as overall violence declined and U.S. commanders emphasized "hearts and minds" engagement with civilians.
Coalition forces are meeting less resistance than they expected, according to AP:
The top U.S. commander in northern Iraq said Wednesday a nationwide operation launched against insurgents was meeting less resistance than expected, but that troops would pursue the militants until they were dead or pushed out of the country.
Maj. Gen. Mark P. Hertling told reporters in Baghdad that in his area of control alone, 24,000 American troops, 50,000 members of the Iraq army and 80,000 Iraqi police were taking part in the offensive against al-Qaida in Iraq....
First, U.S. and Iraqi forces would try to clear areas of insurgents. Then, Iraqi police would move in to establish some semblance of law and order. Finally, Hertling said, the so-called "Awakening Groups" or "Concerned Local Citizens" -- mostly Sunni fighters who have joined the Americans in the battle against al-Qaida - would be relied upon to maintain stability after troops move out of areas....
Hertling said his troops had killed 20-30 insurgents so far. operation was blown?
Unfortunately, the reason for the light resistance appears to be that the operation was blown, and many of the insurgents fled north to avoid it. Information tends to escape the Iraqi forces. From the Long War Journal post on Iron Harvest:
Both Iron Harvest and Phantom Phoenix "are seeing less resistance than expected," Multinational Forces Iraq reported. "There are expectations that the decrease in resistance can be due to leaks in the [Iraqi security forces] or extremists might have seen an increase in helicopters in their areas prior to the operation."
And from AP:
Hertling said reports that insurgents in Diyala had fled north just before Phantom Phoenix began were probably accurate, a reason troops have met relatively little resistance so far. He also said the insurgen[cy] probably learned of the military's plans in advance.
"Operational security in Iraq is a problem," he said, noting that the Iraqi army uses unsecured cell phones and radios. "I'm sure there is active leaking of communication. That is why we have to keep a tight line on operational security."
It appears that "a tight line" now includes keeping Iraq security forces out of the loop of specific attacks until just before they launch. Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:28:00 +0000
Iraqi media reported that a number of politicians would ask parliament to strip Adnan al-Dulaimi, the head of a mainly Sunni party, of his parliamentary immunity.
A joint force of the Iraqi police and multinational forces recently found a cache of weapons in al-Dulaimi's house and investigations reportedly revealed the involvement of al-Dulaimi's son in the killings of civilians.
After the incident, Iraqi authorities transferred al-Dulaimi from his residence to the Rashid Hotel inside Baghdad's Green Zone to keep him under monitoring.
Al-Dulaimi's house was similarly raided last year and weapons were found inside it, but the matter was later settled after a meeting between him and US officials. Qoutes of Adnan al-Dulaimi
* "Our participation in this so-called national unity government is weak and marginalized and our ministers have no authority to serve Iraq or its people."[1]
* "When you are forgotten and suffer psychological pressure you tend to go back to religion and appeal to God to end your ordeal, added to that the desire to take revenge on those who illegally threw you in jail, you tend to be a soft target for extremists."
* "In every meeting I have with US officials I repeat my appeal to them to take into consideration that they cannot keep people in prison indefinitely without charges.
* "It is just not right and gains them nothing but increasing extremists who spend their days in detention looking forward to one thing, which is to be released one day and to take their revenge."
* "They keep reassuring me that they would take action but they never did. They release [a] few dozens and the next day arrest hundreds."
* "There are now around 17,000 Iraqi detainees in Buka camp in the south. Most of them are innocent people. They get arrested and thrown in jail for months and years without charges and without trial, and while in prison they are approached by al-Qaeda people." Amnesty bill
The Iraqi government took a small step towards national reconciliation by sending a draft amnesty bill to the parliament speaker.
The bill, drafted by the Shia-dominated government, falls far short of Sunni demands, however. It covers less than a quarter of those held in Iraqi prisons, and none of those held by the American military.
Sunni parliamentarians have argued that most prisoners are charged with terrorist crimes, rendering it ineffective.
Some also fear referring the bill to parliament will actually delay prisoner releases.
Ali al-Dabbagh, the government's spokesman, said the draft bill would exclude those imprisoned for a variety of crimes ranging from terrorism, kidnapping and rape to antiquities smuggling, adultery and homosexuality.
It also excludes senior figures of the former Baath government.
If passed in its current form, the bill could see some 5,000 prisoners released, al-Dabbagh said. The Iraqi government has about 20,000 people in custody, while the US military holds about 25,000.
New Music :"Christmas In Fallujah," Video, Lyrics & Links
About This Video: Live In Chicago, Billy Joel & Cass Dillon performing "Christmas In Fallujah". Became Available on iTunes Dec. 4th
Proceeds to Benefit: Homes for our Troops
Billboard Magazine writes: Up-And-Comer Voices New Billy Joel Song
November 30, 2007, 12:50 PM ET Jeff Vrabel, Savannah, Ga.
Billy Joel has broken his self-imposed retirement from pop for the second time in a year, but he'd almost rather you didn't know that.
The second new Joel-penned single since his last pop album, 1993's "River of Dreams," is called "Christmas in Fallujah" and hits iTunes Dec. 4. There are two major differences between it and the classics that have made him one of the best-selling artists of all time. First, there's no piano on it, and second, there's barely any Billy Joel on it, either.
Instead, for what Joel says is a first, he's written a song expressly for another singer, a 21-year-old Long Island native named Cass Dillon. Joel tells Billboard the inspiration for "Fallujah" was partly born of letters he's received from service personnel overseas, but also simply from years of the realities of war.
The song came to him quickly, Joel says, as did the realization that he wasn't the guy to record it. "I thought someone with a young voice should be singing this, someone just starting out in life," he says. "Plus, you know, I'm 58 years old. My voice isn't the voice I was thinking of when I was writing; I was thinking of a soldier, someone of that age."
Enter Dillon, a young singer/songwriter who'd spent a few years under the wing of Tommy Byrnes, Joel's longtime musical director. Dillon left college two years ago to pursue a musical career, and has spent the intervening years on the coffee-shops-and-bars circuit. Byrnes had played Joel several of Dillon's songs, and when it came time to find a singer for "Fallujah," Joel says Dillon "popped right into my head."
Compare it to Nirvana - In Bloom: Sub Pop Version Very similar music.
Homes for our Troops is a non-profit organization that provides specially adapted homes for our nation’s wounded soldiers. We live in a world where “stringent” standards dictate that 60% of donations should be spent on program activities. According to their FAQ, Homes for our Troops spends 84% of donation dollars directly on the program activity it sells.
The Lyrics to Christmas in Fallujah by Billy Joel
"Christmas In Fallujah" Words & Music By Billy Joel Preformed By Cass Dillon 2007
It's Evening In the Desert I'm Tired and I'm cold But I'm just a solder I do what I am told
We Came with the Crusaders to save the holy land It's Christmas In Fallujah and no one gives a damn
And I just got your letter And this is what I read you said
I'm fading from your memory so I'm just as good as dead
We are the armies of the empire We are the legionnaires of Rome
It's Christmas In Fallujah and we ain't never coming home
We came to bring these people freedom we came to fight the infidel
there is no justice in the desert Because there is no god in hell
They say osama's in the mountains deep in a cave near Pakistan
But there's a sea of blood in Baghdad A sea of oil in the sand
Between the Tigris and Euphrates another day comes to an end
it's Christmas In Fallujah Peace on earth goodwill to men
it's Christmas In Fallujah hallelujah hallelujah (hoorah)
it's Christmas In Fallujah hallelujah hallelujah (hoorah)
it's Christmas In Fallujah hallelujah hallelujah (hoorah)
it's Christmas In Fallujah hallelujah hallelujah (hoorah)
Merry Christmas from Fallujah hallelujah hallelujah (hoorah)
Merry Christmas from Fallujah hallelujah hallelujah (hoorah)
In general, holiday albums do not get confused with vehicles for social change. If you don't like in-your-face, change-the-world music, then stop reading now. Far removed from the typical bouquet of carols, Jefferson Pepper's Christmas in Fallujah is a holiday music anomaly. This is protest music at its finest, exploring the dark underbelly of America's social and political landscape. As for the artist's unusual name, I'm imagining some cross between Jefferson Airplane and Sgt. Pepper, but I could be wrong.
Christmas in Fallujah Written by: Jefferson Pepper c2005 Jefferson Pepper
It's Christmas in Fallujah, to the victors go the spoils We came to help the people, it's not about the oil I came here to Fallujah with presents in my sack I bring the gift of freedom through unprovoked attack
That's not the sound of reindeer up on your roof at night We're coming down your chimney with guns and blinding lights We're gonna take your husband, I'd like to tell you why But I can't speak your language, I'm too overwhelmed to try
But Uncle Sam made a list, he's checking it twice He's gonna find out who's naughty or nice But sometimes the names, they get mixed up If we get it right half the time that's close enough
It's Christmas in Fallujah, children snuggle in their beds While the corpses of their parents dance around in their heads Palaces and bridges, we burned them to the ground 'Cause someone got a contract to rebuild the whole damned town
It's Christmas in Fallujah, hear the bells begin to toll I'm sorry about your mother, she's somewhere down in the hole We came here to Falujah to win your hearts and minds But when we bombed your building your family was inside
Don't blame it on us soldiers, we're only doing what we're told Never had a spoon of silver, now I've got a broken heart of gold And I'm gonna have to live with all these nightmares that I've seen Never taught to know the difference between Osama and Hussein
But Uncle Sam made a list, he's checking it twice He's gonna find out who's naughty or nice But sometimes the names, they get mixed up If we get it right half the time that's close enough Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:21:00 +0000
Guantanamo Bay, Dec 07: Osama bin Laden's former driver and bodyguard said he felt an "uncontrollable enthusiasm" when working for the al Qaeda leader and helped him elude US retaliation after the September 11 attacks, a US federal investigator testified on early Friday.
Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Guantanamo detainee facing war crimes charges, told agents he drove bin Laden and his son Othman when they evacuated their compound near Kandahar, Afghanistan, ahead of the attacks, investigators told a marathon pretrial hearing that lasted about 14 hours with frequent short recesses.
Although not initially with bin Laden on September 11, Hamdan returned to bin Laden's side and continued to drive him for weeks as he moved from city to city and house to house to avoid US efforts to retaliate, said Robert McFadden, a Defense Department special agent who interviewed him.
Hamdan heard bin Laden say he had expected up to 1,500 deaths in the attacks but was pleased to learn there were many more, said FBI agent George Crouch Jr., who interviewed Hamdan separately at the Guantanamo Bay detention center.
McFadden said Hamdan told him he had pledged an ongoing oath of allegiance or "bayat" to bin Laden. Asked if Hamdan had described how he felt while serving bin Laden, the Defense Department agent said, "uncontrollable enthusiasm."
The comments from the agents came as a judge began hearing the first witnesses in a US military war crimes proceeding since the end of World War Two. The Guantanamo war crimes tribunals first convened in August 2004 but no witnesses were called in any previous hearings.
Unlawful enemy combatant
The testimony was part of a pretrial hearing to determine whether Hamdan is an unlawful enemy combatant who can be tried on war crimes charges in a US military tribunal set up to judge prisoners captured in the post-September 11, 2001, war on terrorism.
Army Maj. Henry Smith told the court earlier that Hamdan was wearing civilian clothes with no military markings when he was captured on November 24, 2001, at a checkpoint near Kandahar while driving a car carrying two anti-aircraft rockets without the launching mechanism.
Hamdan arrived at the checkpoint minutes after a white van carrying three Arabs had been stopped, Smith said. He said two of the men offered resistance, including one who tried to detonate a grenade, and were killed in a burst of gunfire.
The third man, Said Boujaadia, is also a Guantanamo detainee and testified under a grant of immunity. He contradicted Smith's testimony on the timing of the arrest and whether Hamdan was detained before or after him.
This is the military's third attempt to prosecute Hamdan on war crimes charges and comes six months after the judge in the case, Navy Capt. Keith Allred, dropped the previous charges against him.
Allred ruled in June that Hamdan had only been declared an enemy combatant and said he had no authority to decide whether the defendant was a lawful or unlawful combatant under a measure passed by Congress in 2006 to provide a legal basis for the war crimes trials formally known as military commissions.
An appeals court ruled in September that commission judges do have the authority to hear evidence and decide whether prisoners are unlawful enemy combatants. That led to a third attempt to prosecute Hamdan, who is charged with conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism.
Only unlawful enemy combatants who are not citizens can be tried by a military commission, the law states. Lawful combatants, such as uniformed soldiers from countries at war with the United States, would have to be tried by court-martial or handled by other means, officials said.
Exhausted soldiers try to get rest while on patrol in Iraq, May 2007.
