Todays Asia Times article: Bush buried Musharraf’s al-Qaeda links
By Gareth Porter, reveals several interesting points that would be orgasmic for Conspiracy Theorists.

Pervez Musharraf’s resignation as Pakistan’s president on Monday brings to an end an extraordinarily close relationship between Musharraf and the George W Bush administration, in which Musharraf was lavished with political and economic benefits from the United States despite policies that were in sharp conflict with US security interests.

It is well known that Bush repeatedly praised Musharraf as the most loyal ally of the United States against terrorism, even though the Pakistani military was deeply compromised by its relationship with the Taliban and Pakistani Islamic militants.

Hints of this relationship have been sneered at by NeoCons from the beginning. But, A.Q. Khan’s actual nuclear role is still under scrutiny, after his daughter wrote a book saying that he was just a pawn for Musharraf’s nuclear dealings with North Korea and Iran.  Musharraf convinced Khan to be the “fall guy” to appease Bush’s need for political currency.

What has not been reported is that the Bush administration covered up  the Musharraf regime’s involvement in the activities of the Abdul Qadeer Khan nuclear technology export program and its deals with al-Qaeda’s Pakistani tribal allies.  The problem faced by the Bush administration when it came into office was that the Pakistani military, over which Musharraf presided, was the real terrorist nexus with the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

Quote Bruce Riedel, National Security Council (NSC) senior director for South Asia under Clinton and Bush:

“… al-Qaeda “was a creation of the jihadist culture of the Pakistani army”. If there was a state sponsor of al-Qaeda, Riedel said, it was the Pakistani military, acting through its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

Vice President Dick Cheney and the neo-conservative-dominated Bush Pentagon were aware of the intimate relationship between Musharraf’s regime and both the Taliban and al-Qaeda. But al-Qaeda was not a high priority for the Bush administration.

After 9/11, the White House created the political myth that Musharraf, faced with a clear choice, had “joined the free world in fighting the terrorists”. But as Asia expert Selig S Harrison has pointed out, on September 19, 2001, just six days after he had supposedly agreed to US demands for cooperation against the Taliban regime and al-Qaeda, Musharraf gave a televised speech in Urdu in which he declared, “We are trying our best to come out of this critical situation without any damage to Afghanistan and the Taliban.”

Musharraf played a complicated game. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was allowed to operate in Pakistan’s border provinces to pursue al-Qaeda operatives, but only as long as they had ISI units accompanying them. That restricted their ability to gather intelligence on the northwest frontier. At the same time, the ISI was allowing Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders to operate freely in the tribal areas and even in the southern port city of Karachi.

The Bush administration also gave Musharraf and the military regime a free ride on the Khan network’s selling of nuclear technology to Libya and Iran, even though there was plenty of evidence that the generals had been fully aware of and supported Khan’s activities.

The article also confirms that the Bush Administration manipulated terrorist news and events to control the 2004 election outcome.

The New Republic magazine reported July 15, 2004, that a White House aide had told the visiting head of ISI, Ehsan ul-Haq, “It would be best if the arrest or killing of any HVT [high-value target] were announced on 26, 27 or 28 July.” Those were the last three days of the Democratic National Convention.

The military source added, “If we don’t find these guys by the election, they are going to stick the whole nuclear mess up our a**hole.”

Just hours before Democratic candidate John Kerry’s acceptance speech, Pakistan announced the capture of an alleged al-Qaeda leader.

It is well established that ISI is the managing head for Taliban and al Qaeda … Bush hosted ISI leaders in the White House.

Musharraf was making a political pact with a five-party Islamic alliance in 2004 to ensure victory in state elections in the two border provinces where Islamic extremist influence was strongest. This explicit political accommodation, followed by a military withdrawal from South   Waziristan, gave the pro-Taliban forces allied with al-Qaeda in the region a free hand to recruit and train militants for war in Afghanistan.

Yet another deal with the Islamic extremists in 2006 strengthened the pro-Taliban forces even further.

But Bush chose to reward Musharraf by designating Pakistan a “Major Non-NATO Ally” in 2004 and by agreeing to sell the Pakistani Air Force 36 advanced F-16 fighter planes. Prior to that, Pakistan had been denied US military technology for a decade.  … al-Qaeda’s new “safe haven” was in Pakistan’s tribal areas and that the terrorist organization had reconstituted its “homeland attack capability” there. That estimate ended the fiction that the Musharraf regime was firmly committed to combating al-Qaeda in Pakistan.

Had the Bush administration accurately portrayed Musharraf’s policies rather than hiding them, it would not have avoided the al-Qaeda safe haven there. But it would have facilitated a more realistic debate about the real options available for US policy.

The details supporting treason for the entire Bush Administration are still surfacing.  Accumulation of legal evidence is mounting.  Once a “Constitutional” administration takes office, justice may finally be served.  Impeachment is moot, but High Treason is just one of the options for the American Court System.  Then, again, the World Court may now have opportunity to indict Bush for “Crimes Against Humanity”.  In spite of the cover up and coercion activities by the Bush Administration, truth will wiggle its way to the surface.

The satisfaction of seeing political criminals brought to justice is second only to the damage that has been wrought.  There are global crises of Bush making that must be addressed.  Dallas, Texas may want to re-think its role to house a library of lies …

©2010 BlueBloggin. All Rights Reserved.

Pipes: Bush Will Attack Iran If A Democrat Wins The White House»

… said he believes that President Bush will attack Iran if a Democrat wins the White House in November. During an interview posted at the National Review Online, Pipes said that the U.S. and its allies should tell Tehran to “watch out” for “an American attack”:

What I suspect will be the case is, should the Democratic nominee win in November, President Bush will do something. And should it be Mr. McCain that wins, he’ll punt, and let McCain decide what to do.

Pipes also said that countries like Russia and China should aid the U.S. in pressuring Iran, if they want to prevent America attacking unilaterally:

Look, if you don’t want an American attack, then you have to join us in being very serious with the Iranians and making clear to them we will attack if they don’t stop.

Pipes, who has a history of what The Nation calls “signature distortions,” is just the latest in a rising chorus of voices advocating that Bush attack Iran before his term ends. The Israeli newspaper Yediot Achronot reported that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert planned to encourage Bush to prepare an attack against Iran during his meeting with the President yesterday.

The White House denies any intent to strike Iran, but that hasn’t stopped Vice President Dick Cheney or former U.N. ambassador John Bolton from promoting the idea.

– Pat Garofalo

Olmert in US: Fewer questions remain on Iran

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert emerged from his meeting with US President George W. Bush Wednesday saying he had “fewer questions” regarding the country’s path, determination and timeframe for dealing with Iran, which was the central issue discussed.

Olmert declined to give further details, but said that “every day we are making real strides towards dealing with this problem more effectively.”

Sitting at Olmert’s side, Bush declared Iran” [It's] very important for the world to take the Iranian threat seriously, which the United States does,” Bush said. “Iran is an existential threat to peace.”

His language reflected the terminology Israel uses, referring to an Iranian nuclear weapon as an existential issue. Some Israeli officials have worried that the international community does not view the Iranian threat in such stark terms, and is seeking to make sure the US is on the same page on the issue.

In his AIPAC address Olmert also stressed that the Iranian nuclear threat must be stopped “by all possible means” and called for “dramatically increased sanctions.”

“The international community has a duty and responsibility to clarify to Iran, through drastic measures, that the repercussions of their continued pursuit of nuclear weapons will be devastating,” he said, noting the close coordination of Israel and the US on efforts to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

“Israel will not tolerate the possibility of a nuclear Iran, and neither should any other country in the free world.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Interesting Comments about Pipes from THINKPROGRESS.ORG –

WaltTheMan responds to what Abu Ben Hussein Leporello Says: This is Superb! The departing Clinton administration left the incoming administration plans to Capture or Kill Bin Laden. The incoming administration trashed those plans ’cause they came from the Clinton Administration. By way of payback, the departing administration will leave an incoming Obama Administration a nice, neat war on its hands. Now that’s Christian Charity at its finest! And that will show you unappreciative 93%ers just what a petulant, spoiled frat boy can Really accomplish!
Impeach Cheney and Bush and Save the Constitution, Along With Countless Thousands of Lives!
—————————————–
I might also mention that the Clinton Administration did not attack Afghanistan because evidence of Bin Forgotten involvement in the attack on the USS Cole was not in. Out of respect for the incoming administration, he left the response and the plan to take out Bin Laden wait for the evidence. When the evidence materialized in February, BushCon just yawned. That was their first missed opportunity to avert 9/11.

©2010 BlueBloggin. All Rights Reserved.

Bush at Center of Intelligence Leak

(The Intelligence Daily) – Attorneys and current and former White House officials close to the investigation into the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson said Thursday that President Bush gave Vice President Dick Cheney the authorization in mid-June 2003 to disclose a portion of the highly sensitive National Intelligence Estimate to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward and former New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

These current and former White House officials are among the 36 witnesses who have testified before a grand jury and have been cooperating with the special counsel’s probe since its inception.

The officials, some of whom are attorneys close to the case, added that more than two dozen emails that the vice president’s office said it recently discovered and handed over to leak investigators in February show that President Bush was kept up to date about the circumstances surrounding the effort to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

Details of President Bush’s involvement in the effort to counter the former ambassador’s claims came in a court document filed late Wednesday evening in US District Court in Washington by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, which was first reported by the New York Sun newspaper.

President Bush retained a private attorney when he was interviewed in the leak probe two years ago, specifically about whether he knew about it or had authorized it.

According to four attorneys who over the past two days have read a tran scri pt of the President Bush’s interview with investigators, Bush did not disclose to either investigators or the special counsel that he had authorized Cheney or any other administration official to leak portions of the NIE to Woodward and Miller or any other reporter. Rather, these people said the president said he frowned upon “selective leaks.”

Bush also said during the interview two years ago that he had no prior knowledge that anyone on his staff had been involved in a campaign to discredit Wilson or that individuals retaliated against the former ambassador by leaking his wife’s undercover identity to reporters.

The Probable Cause to Charge Dick Cheney for Mass Murder, Terrorism, and High Treason

Bush has been successful in preventing accountability, so far. The next US Administration has a responsibility to restore the US Constitution and apply the laws of TREASON and SUBVERSION to every illegal act “authorized” by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Americans are complicit. We bought the lies. We allow Fox News to be Bush’s personal propaganda outlet. We became willing victims of distractions manufactured by the ‘dis-information‘ machine and twisted marketing geniuses. Bush has proven Adolph Hitler correct. Mein Kampf translated into Bush Doctrine has been hiding in plain sight. The foundations of Bush Strategy lay in the old Oxford Group and Moral Re-Armament dogma.

Americans do not have the attention span, anymore, to research the roots of our pain. We just attack the pain. We do not know how to heal ourselves … so we self-destruct as we look to simplistic knee-jerk solutions. We have identified with our abductors.

The clock is ticking they will be out of office soon!

©2010 BlueBloggin. All Rights Reserved.

(WSWS) — An Israeli press report that US President George W. Bush intends to launch a military attack on Iran before he leaves office at the beginning of next year prompted a heated denial from the White House Tuesday.

The article, which appeared in Tuesday’s Jerusalem Post, cited a report on Israeli Army Radio, quoting Israeli officials who had met with Bush and his delegation during their visit to Israel last week.

“A senior member of the president’s entourage said during a closed meeting that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were of the opinion that military action was called for,” the article quoted an Israel official as saying.

The report cited the US official as stating that “the hesitancy of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice” had delayed a decision on military action against Iran.

Bush expressed the opinion that “the disease must be treated, not the symptoms,” according to the Israeli officials.

The White House denial—issued within hours of the story appearing on the Jerusalem Post’s web site—was notably harsh in its tone. “An article in today’s Jerusalem Post about the president’s position on Iran that quotes unnamed sources—quoting unnamed sources—is not worth the paper it’s written on,” read the statement.

Later on Tuesday, however, Bush’s spokesperson Dana Perino was pressed by several reporters, who expressed skepticism in regard to the denial. “Do the President and the Vice President feel that an attack is called for—whether someone said that in Israel, or not?” asked one.

Dana Perino refused to answer, reiterating the official position that Washington is working to resolve its confrontation with Iran “diplomatically” but that it would not take any “options off the table.”

In reality, the Jerusalem Post story is hardly the only indication that the Bush administration is preparing for a military attack on Iran.

Ample physical evidence exists in the stepped up US military deployments in the region, with the Navy once again having two aircraft carrier battle groups—the USS Lincoln and the USS Harry S. Truman—within striking distance of Iran.

Meanwhile, the flagship of the 6th Fleet, the USS Mount Whitney, has been deployed off the coast of Lebanon, in what the Navy has described as an “unscheduled mission.” The ship is the Navy’s most advanced command, control and intelligence vessel, capable of coordinating a major attack over a wide region. It joined the USS Cole, a missile destroyer, already there.

In Washington, Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, appeared before a Senate committee Tuesday to reiterate the Pentagon’s unsubstantiated charges that Iran is responsible for violence in Iraq. The lack of a US military response thus far, he stressed, “does not signal lack of resolve or capability to defend ourselves against threats.”

In his speech before the Israeli Knesset last week, Bush placed Iran at the center of his pledge of unconditional support for Israel. “America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions,” he said. “Permitting the world’s leading sponsor of terror to possess the world’s deadliest weapons would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

When will this stop? Adolph Hitler and George #43, have too much in common. I have predicted over and over that Bush will pull a stunt before he leaves office. My only hope is that the American people will finally cut the purse strings, no money, no more war!

Oh yes, Israel can fund George’s last adventure. But, Israelis are becoming more practical … the consequences from such aggression will ultimately destroy their country.

The American people must take control back from policies set in motion by the Great Deceiver. A Democratic President can change the course, maybe. There is momentum here. The only hope is for a new president to gather world support, untie the knot of confrontation politics that has made the world a more perilous place, and focus on the common perils facing humanity. Common goals can unite. Stepping up to Climate Change is daunting enough. Finger pointing is a waste of time … war is the ultimate distraction. Foreign Policies must be structured to bring the world together, not tear it apart.

©2010 BlueBloggin. All Rights Reserved.

U.S. knew Saddam was going to attack Kuwait: book

New Delhi: The US had prior knowledge about Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein attacking Kuwait in 1990 but did nothing to stop him, says a former Indian diplomat in a new book.
In his book “The Ultimate Prize: Oil and Saddam’s Iraq” (Allied Publishers), Ranjit Singh Kalha, former ambassador to Iraq, quotes the US envoy in Baghdad April Glaspie as telling Saddam on July 25, 1990: “We have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflict, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.”

This was barely a week before Iraq invaded Kuwait on Aug 2, 1990.

The US envoy also told the Iraqi president, “We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods… All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly.”

Kalha, who retired as secretary in the ministry of external affairs in 2002 and was in Iraq around the time, notes in his book that is replete with unclassified documents: “If Saddam had any lingering doubts about the attitude of the US, these were soon cleared.”

According to him, on July 27, 1990, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US was called to the Pentagon and told, “Iraq is going to invade Kuwait.”

Even a day before the Iraqi attack on Kuwait began, Kuwaiti defence minister Sheikh Salem al-Sabah received a text from the US: “We do not want to alarm you unnecessarily, but we think the contingency plan should be put into effect… under no circumstances should the Emir be allowed to spend the night in Kuwait city. He should cross into Saudi Arabia and go to Khafji, 20 kilometers south of the border.”

Kalha’s book comes at a time when the US’ latest war in Iraq has sparked off a major debate in different parts of the world, particularly amongst Americans, many of whom are of the view that the war could have been avoided.

Many of the points raised by the former Indian envoy helps in establishing the link between the first Gulf War of 1991 and the US’ current armed engagement in Iraq.

According to Kalha, the US, which had thrown its weight behind Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war of 1980, grew apprehensive about the Iraqi president’s growing clout in the region. Initially, US officials had even thought that Saddam would only invade the oil producing islands of Kuwait and not take over the entire country.

“Obviously, I didn’t think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait,” the book quoted from an interview given by Glaspie to the New York Times on Sep 20, 1990.

Kalha thinks the US government decided to punish Saddam because he had gone beyond the agreed script and taken over entire Kuwait instead of a few islands and its main oilfield.

“What if he had confined himself to the two islands and the Rumaila oilfield? Was this the script that Saddam was to follow? Was he now to be punished for not sticking to the agreed script? Had Saddam over-reached himself? Had Saddam confined himself to what Ambassador Glaspie so casually confirmed later, the story of Iraq might have been different,” the Indian envoy writes.

Kalha is now a member of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).

Its about the oil … Kalha writes

But why should the US/UK governments take such huge political risks against a rising tide of international public opinion as evidenced by the unprecedented peace marches and protests the world over? Why is the control of Iraqi oil so important?

It is conservatively estimated that Iraq’s proven oil resources are equivalent to 115 billion barrels and it has an additional 215 billion barrels in yet-to-be-explored deposits. At present, that is only second to Saudi reserves estimated at 260 billion barrels.

However, according to an OPEC study, the life of Iraqi oil reserves is likely to last over 600 years. Contrast this to Saudi oil reserves, which are not expected to last beyond this century.

Press reports indicate that 417 new oil wells are likely to be commissioned and Iraq could in five years’ time be pumping something like 10 million barrels per day. Industrialised countries consume nearly 50 million barrels per day and the US accounts for nearly two-fifths of this consumption.

Official forecasts predict that the US will require another nine million barrels per day by the year 2020. Only Iraqi oil can meet this huge demand and cover current US imports for almost a century. It is a strategic asset and it is now well recognised that it should be in “safe hands”.

What we suspected can now be verified by an objective source. The Indian Ambassador to Iraq partook in the conversations that describe US complicity in a manufactured excuse to battle Saddam for his oil. This solves the mystery why Bush #41 decided not to pursue Saddam, because he knew the truth might leak out. There were witnesses to the ’set up’ war. Kuwait was obviously in the loop. This is why George Bush #43 had to manufacture the serious allegation about WMD. He had to bring a skeptical coalition together. The British were the necessary ally to make the trumped up intelligence sound credible.
I do not follow conspiracy theories … but this makes me wonder. As the layers of deception are peeled back, it may be evident that a criminal conspiracy charge can be made against many players in the Bush #41 and #43 administrations. Just how many high ranking politicians, both Republican and Democrat, knew. The damage to America and the World is phenomenal. World economy is entering crisis stage because China, India and Russia are becoming more invested in the oil grab. Russia feels threatened. India and China have middle class growing pains. America’s oil gluttony is about to be matched, if not already. The piper will be paid, one way or another.

Excerpts From Iraqi Document on Meeting with U.S. Envoy

GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60’s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?

Is the US State Department still keeping April Glaspie under wraps?

The US State Department, which is said to have placed a gag order on Glaspie in August 1990 prohibiting her from talking to the media about what had transpired at that meeting, is apparently still keeping her under wraps despite the fact that she retired from the American Foreign Service in 2002.

So, where is April Glaspie today?

Absurd or not, the fact of the matter is that after April Glaspie left Baghdad in late August 1990 and returned to Washington, she was kept under wraps by the State Department for eight months, not allowed to talk to the media, and did not surface until just before the official end of the Gulf war (April 11, 1991), when she was called to testify informally before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about her meeting with Saddam Hussein.

She said she was the victim of “deliberate deception on a major scale” and denounced the transcript of the meeting as “a fabrication” that distorted her position, though she admitted that it contained “a great deal” that was accurate.

The veteran diplomat awaited her next assignment, later taking a low-profile job at the United Nations in New York. She was later shunted off to Cape Town, South Africa, as US Consul General. Nothing has been heard of her since her retirement from the diplomatic service in 2002. It’s almost as if she has become a non-person.

April Glaspie’s interview March 16, 2008 with Dar al Hayat

April Glaspie’s interview March 15, 2008 with Dar al Hayat

Cross Posted on TruthHugger

©2010 BlueBloggin. All Rights Reserved.

Military Doctors Withholding Treatment from Soldiers with Mental Health Problems
The military is denying crucial care to soldiers, making them vulnerable on the battlefield.

Since 9/11, one Army division has spent more time in Iraq than any other group of soldiers: the 10th Mountain Division, based at Fort Drum, New York.

Over the past 6 years and and six months, their 2nd Brigade Combat Team (BCT) has been the most deployed brigade in the army. As of this month, the brigade had completed its fourth tour of Iraq. All in all, the soldiers of BCT have spent 40 months in Iraq.

At what cost? According to a February 13 report issued by the Veterans for America’s (VFA) Wounded Warrior Outreach Program, which is dedicated to strengthening the military mental health
system, it is not just their bodies that have been maimed and, in some cases, destroyed. Many of these soldiers are suffering from severe mental health problems that have led to suicide attempts as well as spousal abuse and alcoholism.

As the VFA report points out, “Mental health experts have explained that ’shifting the goalposts’ on a soldier’s deployment period greatly contributes to an increase in mental health problems.”

Perhaps it should not come as a surprise that, during its most recent deployment, the 2nd BCT suffered heavy casualties. “Fifty-two members of the 2nd BCT were killed in action (KIA),” the VFA reports and “270 others were listed as non-fatality casualties, while two members of the unit remain missing in action (MIA).”

This level of losses is unusual. “On their most recent deployment,”
the VFA report notes, “members of the 2nd BCT were more than five times as likely to be killed as others who have been deployed to OEF and OIF and more than four times likely to be wounded.”

One can only wonder to what degree depression and other mental health problems made them more vulnerable to attack.

When they finally returned to Fort Drum, these soldiers faced winter conditions that the report describes as
“dreary, with snow piled high and spring still months away. More than a dozen soldiers reported low morale, frequent DUI arrests, and rising AWOL, spousal abuse, and rates of attempted suicide. Soldiers also reported that given the financial realities of the Army, some of their fellow soldiers had to resort to taking second jobs such as delivering
pizzas to supplement their family income.” What has the army done to help the soldiers at Fort Drum? Too little.

In recent months, VFA reports, it has been contacted by a number of soldiers based at Fort Drum who are concerned about their own mental health and the health of other members of their units. In response, VFA launched an investigation of conditions at Fort Drum, and what it found was shocking.

Soldiers told the VFA that “the leader of the mental health treatment clinic at Fort Drum asked soldiers not to discuss their
mental health problems with people outside the base. Attempts to keep matters ‘in house’ foster an atmosphere of secrecy and shame,” the report observed “that is not conducive to proper treatment for combat-related mental health injuries.”

The investigators also discovered that “some military mental health providers have argued that a number of soldiers fake mental health injuries to increase the likelihood that they will be deemed unfit for combat and/or for further military service.”

The report notes that a “conversation with a leading expert in treating combat psychological wounds” confirmed “that some military commanders at Fort Drum doubt the validity of mental health wounds in some soldiers, thereby undermining treatment prescribed by civilian psychiatrists” at the nearby Samaritan Medical Center in Watertown, NY.
Because some soldiers do not trust Samaritan, the report reveals that a number of “soldiers have sought treatment after normal base business hours at a hospital in Syracuse, more than an hour’s drive from Watertown … because they feared that Samaritan would side with base leadership, which had, in some cases, cast doubt on the legitimacy of combat-related mental health wounds. According to the VFA, the problem of military doctors refusing to back soldiers with mental health problems is widespread: “VFA’s work across the country has confirmed that soldiers often need their doctors to be stronger advocates for improved treatment by their commanders and comrades. For instance, soldiers need doctors who are willing to push back against commanders who doubt the legitimacy of combat-related mental health injuries.”

While talking to soldiers at Fort Drum, VFA also discovered “considerable stigma against mental health treatment within the military and pressure within some units to deny mental health problems as a result of combat. Soldiers at Fort Drum are not alone. In an earlier report titled “Trends in Treatment of America’s Wounded Warriors” VFA disclosed that leaders of the military mental health treatment system have been warning Department of Defense leadership of the magnitude of the mental health crisis that is brewing.

This is an epidemic of abuse that has long term implications. Twice wounded soldiers; once in Iraq or Afghanistan and a second time by their own country. These victims will be released into society with incomplete repairs. Our throw away society must not be applied to used human beings. The lowest bidder must not be imposed on our wounded. This is a glaring indictment on the Bush Administration who failed to accept the consequences of their insidious actions. Attacking the wrong enemy and loosing a generation of soldiers, when they are needed in other places, is a monumental crime.

©2010 BlueBloggin. All Rights Reserved.

No Funds in Bush Budget For Troop-Benefits

President Bush drew great applause during his State of the Union address last month when he called on Congress to allow U.S. troops to transfer their unused education benefits to family members. “Our military families serve our nation, they inspire our nation, and tonight our nation honors them,” he said.

A week later, however, when Bush submitted his $3.1 trillion federal budget to Congress, he included no funding for such an initiative, which government analysts calculate could cost $1 billion to $2 billion annually.

Bush’s proposal was added to the speech late in the process, administration officials said, after the president decided that he wanted to announce a program that would favor military families. That left little time to vet the idea, develop formal cost estimates or gauge how many people might take advantage of such a program. Some administration officials said the proposal surprised them, and they voiced concerns about how to fund it.

Some critics in Congress cite the episode as a case study of what they consider the slapdash way Bush has put together the legislative program for his final year in office. Still, the idea is generating bipartisan interest from members of Congress who are eager to assist military families coping with long-term absences of loved ones deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Bush liked Gates’s suggestion, which eventually became one sentence in the president’s 53-minute State of the Union speech. “It is a good idea, and we are trying to determine the cost and put together a proposal,” the official said.

Not much new here. Big words filled with hot air. Bush makes a promise for veterans benefits and just happens to forget to fund it. Congress sounds excited about the plan, but, Oooops, its just a plan. Maybe the next administration will do something about it?

The idea of allowing more troops to extend education benefits to family members has been percolating on Capitol Hill for some time. Most U.S. troops who use the GI program use only about half the education benefits, Norton said, and only a tiny percentage use all of their money, so the cost of allowing family members to participate in the program would probably be high. “There is likely to be a pretty hefty price tag,” Retired Col. Robert Norton, deputy director for government relations at the Military Officers Association of America said. “We think it’s a good thing for military families. We would like to see the details.”

Great ideas are like a car with no engine.

©2010 BlueBloggin. All Rights Reserved.

Oscar Wyatt Jr., 83, founder and former chairman of Coastal Corp. enters Manhattan federal court in the second week of his trial in this October file photo. LOUIS LANZANO: AP

Texas Oilman Handed Year Prison Term

NEW YORK (AP) — Texas oilman Oscar Wyatt Jr. was sentenced to a year in prison Tuesday for his role in corrupting the U.N. Iraq oil-for-food program, winning leniency from a judge who cited his military service during World War II and his many good deeds during his lifetime.

U.S. District Judge Denny Chin imposed a sentence below the year and a half to two years in prison to which Wyatt had agreed when he pleaded guilty to conspiracy last month. Wyatt also agreed to forfeit $11 million.At trial, the government introduced evidence that Wyatt used an energy company he founded, Coastal Corp., to buy crude oil from Iraq in the decades leading up to the 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

After the invasion, Wyatt maintained a close relationship with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to guarantee his continued access to Iraqi oil, prosecutors said.

Wyatt lawyer Gerald Shargel had described his client as an American hero, a self-made businessman who built a successful oil company and helped thousands of people before making “a very, very, very, very regrettable mistake in judgment.”

Shargel said blame for the corrupt oil-for-food-program “can’t be placed solely at the door of Mr. Wyatt.”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Edward O’Callaghan responded by saying Wyatt went to Baghdad in January 2001 and suggested to officials there how they could have a “surcharge scheme without it being obvious.” The prosecutor said Wyatt kept pushing for more oil until February 2003, a month before the U.S. invaded Iraq.

Charged with conspiracy, wire fraud and violating U.S. laws governing dealings with the Iraqi government, Wyatt — three weeks into his trial — pleaded guilty on Oct. 1 to the single conspiracy count.

Prosecutors had alleged Wyatt acceded to the demands of Iraq’s State Oil Marketing Organization that customers wanting to buy Iraqi crude pay secret surcharges of 10-50 cents per barrel.

In the trial, the government argued Wyatt used a series of front companies, including Cyprus-based Nafta Petroleum Co. and Mednafta Trading Co., to buy Iraqi oil under the Oil-for-Food program and then pay the surcharges demanded into a bank account in Jordan secretly controlled by the Iraqi government.

Chevron to pay $30 million in Oil-for-Food settlement

Vitol pleads guilty in oil-for-food case

Is Oscar Wyatt a friend of the Bush family?

There is good reason to believe that George [H. W.] Bush did not first come to Odessa, Texas, in a red Studebaker. One knowledgeable source is the well-known Texas oil man and Bush campaign contributor Oscar Wyatt of Houston. In a recent letter to the Texas Monthly, Wyatt specifies that “when people speak of Mr. Bush’s humble beginnings in the oil industry, it should be noted that he rode down to Texas on Dresser’s private aircraft. He was accompanied by his father, who at that time was one of the directors of Dresser Industries.” “I hate it when people make statements about Mr. Bush’s humble beginnings in the oil industry. It just didn’t happen that way,” writes Mr. Wyatt…  Dresser was a Harriman company, and Bush got his start working for one of its subsidiaries. One history of Dresser Industries contains a photograph of George Bush with his parents, wife, and infant son “in front of a Dresser company airplane in West Texas.” … Can this be a photo of Bush’s arrival in Odessa during the summer of 1948? In any case, this most cherished myth of the Bush biographers is very much open to doubt.  here…

©2010 BlueBloggin. All Rights Reserved.

Pentagon Warns of Civilian Layoffs If Congress Delays War Funding

Democrats Are Firm on Link to Troop Withdrawals From Iraq

By Jonathan Weisman and Ann Scott Tyson Washington Post

The Defense Department warned yesterday that as many as 200,000 contractors and civilian employees will begin receiving layoff warnings by Christmas unless Congress acts on President Bush’s $196 billion war request, but senior Democrats said no war funds will be approved until Bush accepts a shift in his Iraq policy.

Skirmishing over war funding has continued for nearly a year, but the White House and Congress appear ready to push toward a showdown in the coming weeks. Democratic leaders are convinced that Congress’s abysmal approval ratings stem in large part from its inability to force Bush to change his approach in Iraq. But with violence declining in Iraq, Republicans believe they are in an even stronger position to stay the course.

“We are calling on Congress and the Democrats in Congress to send the president supplemental war funding without arbitrary surrender dates and without micromanaging the war before they leave for their next vacation,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that controls defense funding, said the country owes troops “more than just a debt of gratitude. We owe them and their families a new way, a way that leads home.”

Now that Congress has approved a huge base budget for the Pentagon of $459 billion, from which funds can be shifted for various needs, Democrats can rightfully assert that there is no immediate funding crisis, said Cindy Williams, a former head of the Congressional Budget Office’s national security division. The Pentagon can borrow billions of dollars slated to be spent at the end of the current fiscal year to pay for operations now, she said.

But with the cost of the Iraq war soaring, fund transfers this winter could be huge, and disruptions would be inevitable. With Democrats saying that future funds will have policy strings attached, “both sides are playing a big game of chicken here,” she said.

“The money has already been provided by the House of Representatives. If the president wants that $50 billion released, all he has to do is call the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, and ask him to stop blocking it,” said House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.). House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) also blamed Republicans for any lack of money for the war.

The Pentagon, therefore, has started planning for the possibility that the Army and the Marine Corps will exhaust their operations and maintenance budgets. In the past two weeks, those budgets have been used to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which cost about $10.5 billion a month.

Under current budget rules, the Defense Department can shuffle only $3.7 billion a year without seeking congressional approval. Morrell said that shows the department has already exhausted its options, but Democratic congressional aides said that a request from the Pentagon for additional transfer authority would almost certainly be approved. The goal, said one leadership aide, is to keep the administration on a short leash.

So, how does the Pentagon plan on pressuring Congress to give them ‘unlimited funding’ without any strings? Ask King George. The threat of shutting the government down ‘with the exception of critical’ agencies is how they extort what they want.

The specter of labeling the Democrats ‘bad guys’ has worked every time. Pelosi crumbles, Reid crumbles, then we concede to the dictator again. How can an administration get away with this? Keep funding a war ‘over there’ then trash the wounded ‘over here’. Force the wounded to pay back their sign up bonus and pay some of their own medical bills. Demean the mentally damaged casualties and withdraw continued support.

The pressure on commanders to target PTSD in the field, then send them home with “personality problems” due to “pre-existing mental flaws” is outrageous. This administration is waging war on our own soldiers. This administration gives lip service to the uproar about PTSD and it’s spreading impact on America’s population, but, the deception still shouts betrayal.

America is betraying everything it touches. We have been taken advantage of. The civilized among us have been too polite to roll up our sleeves and take a real punch at this bully. Have we been brainwashed into lying down in front of a freight train and “hoping” it stops in time? Hope has failed, we are wasting time. Action is all that’s left!

©2010 BlueBloggin. All Rights Reserved.

Naturalization paperwork jam hits Texas hard
Backlog may keep some from casting votes for president

WASHINGTON — Millions of people who applied for naturalization and other immigration benefits to beat a midsummer fee increase are caught in a paperwork pileup that threatens the chance for some to become U.S. citizens in time to vote in next November’s presidential election.

The application backlog is so large that Citizenship and Immigration Services, a division of the Homeland Security Department, is months behind schedule in returning receipts for checks written to cover fees — an early step in the process.

The Texas Service Center is working on applications dating from July 26.

“Were we caught off guard by the volume? Let’s just say it was anticipated it would increase. It was not anticipated it would increase by that much,” said Emilio Gonzalez, director of Citizenship and Immigration Services.

The immigration agency would not say how many applications it has received. The American Immigration Lawyers Association, a private legal advocacy group, said it was told by agency officials that 3.5 million applications had come in over a two-month period. The agency projected a workload of 3.2 million applications for fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

Gonzalez ordered his staff to give priority to naturalizations, but some applicants will miss voting in primaries, which begin in January.

“I really want to target the elections,” Gonzalez said. “I really want to get as many people out there to vote as possible.”

The application crush was worsened by another flood of about 300,000 applications from skilled workers wanting to become legal residents. The agency initially said it wouldn’t accept the visa applications but changed its mind amid public outrage.

The agency also set up hot lines and is posting progress updates on its Web site. Files are being sent to Vermont and California for processing there. The agency has asked staff members to volunteer to help clear the delayed paperwork, just as the State Department did when confronted with a passport application backlog because of a change in law requiring Americans to show a passport when flying to and from Mexico, Canada and the Bahamas.

At least 110 immigration workers are being sent to Texas and Nebraska to help process applications, the agency said.

WASHINGTON — Regardless who wins the White House next year, the issue of how to fix America’s dysfunctional immigration system will be waiting like a ticking time bomb in the new president’s inbox.

Find your candidate — which of the 17 presidential candidates most closely matches your own views on immigration? Find out with an interactive tool. DETAILS

The immigration issue is almost as emotional as the Middle East wars. There is blood letting on both issues. People are dying to get into the USA. People are dying to get out of the Middle East. Both issues cost too many Taxpayer dollars. Both issues are fraught with heartbreak. Both issues are a politician’s nightmare. Regardless who wins, somebody will loose votes. No single answer will solve either problem and inequity will be applied, no matter who wins.

The US economy is dependent on cheap labor, whether we accept it or not. There is a whole underground economy based on ‘un-reported cash income’. Both Americans and Illegals take advantage of this lifestyle. American crooks get rich off the backs of illegals. Scams and coercion fleece illegals so they have to work twice as hard to become legitimate citizens. Regardless of the hype everyone hears, the truth is that most working illegals pay more taxes than you do. They are at the mercy of scam tax preparers and hoodlums who coerce them into holding the bag for American con artists. They are too frightened to report awful things done to them. They don’t know who to trust. The majorities come here for a better life and to help their families back home … for that they sell themselves into a form of slavery that few Americans would tolerate. Americans have become intolerant and cynical watching these workers demean themselves for pennies on the dollar. Then there are the real criminals who take advantage of the easy flow of traffic between countries. Embedded among these desperate travelers they put everyone at risk. Foreign criminals traffic drugs, slaves and arms to their American Citizen counterparts. As long as there is a market, there will be providers. America is the biggest market of all! Immigration is a plate of spaghetti that will take a master to unravel. Americans must take a closer look. It is not just the weight on our humanitarian services that is suffering. It is our inability to distinguish one issue from another. America has lost its vision and is beholding to slick politicians to guide us through the quicksand we find ourselves in. Tax dollars should be spent on solutions, not fences. ARE WE OSTRICHES?

©2010 BlueBloggin. All Rights Reserved.