Friday, July 23, 2004
It gets even better at the New York Times :
Talking to reporters on Wednesday before the court session began, the defendant, Jonathan K. Idema, said that he had been in direct contact with Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld's office 'five times a day, every day' and that he had e-mail messages, correspondence and tape recordings to prove it.
Talking to reporters on Wednesday before the court session began, the defendant, Jonathan K. Idema, said that he had been in direct contact with Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld's office 'five times a day, every day' and that he had e-mail messages, correspondence and tape recordings to prove it.
Best quote from the mercenary torturer story:
Idema told reporters in the courtroom he had daily contact with U.S. officials "at the highest level," including Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's office.
"The American authorities absolutely condoned what we did. They absolutely supported what we did," Idema said.
US received prisoners from criminal mercenaries (Toronto Star)
Jonathan Idema (Army Reserve 1975-84, w/ some special ops background) was in Afghanistan on his own. He took prisoners, ran "protection" for reporters, sold "Al Queda" videos to TV. He even turned in "world class terrorists" to US forces.... well, except that they weren't terrorists. He did torture them though. The Afghan .gov finally arrested him for it, after he repeatedly duped the NATO forces there into performing raids and attacks.
Jonathan Idema (Army Reserve 1975-84, w/ some special ops background) was in Afghanistan on his own. He took prisoners, ran "protection" for reporters, sold "Al Queda" videos to TV. He even turned in "world class terrorists" to US forces.... well, except that they weren't terrorists. He did torture them though. The Afghan .gov finally arrested him for it, after he repeatedly duped the NATO forces there into performing raids and attacks.
Monday, July 12, 2004
Regarding the Vietnam War, it is commonly recounted that America held total military supremacy against an enemy that held total political supremacy. That is to say, we could bomb all we wanted, but still not win the war. Think about that context as you read the following statement:
"Contrary to U.S. government claims, the insurgency in Iraq is led by well-armed Sunnis angry about losing power, not foreign fighters, and is far larger than previously thought, American military officials say.
The officials told The Associated Press the guerrillas can call on loyalists to boost their forces to as high as 20,000 and have enough popular support among nationalist Iraqis angered by the presence of U.S. troops that they cannot be militarily defeated. "
That's right. Read it again. They aren't talking about political failure. That's American military saying that despite the full force of the world's greatest superpower, native Iraqi guerrillas "cannot be militarily defeated." About the point your guys are saying the enemy, such as they know it, is invincible... just about then, I think you should get very, very worried.
The story is Associated Press: AP: Iraq Insurgency Larger Than Thought
"Contrary to U.S. government claims, the insurgency in Iraq is led by well-armed Sunnis angry about losing power, not foreign fighters, and is far larger than previously thought, American military officials say.
The officials told The Associated Press the guerrillas can call on loyalists to boost their forces to as high as 20,000 and have enough popular support among nationalist Iraqis angered by the presence of U.S. troops that they cannot be militarily defeated. "
That's right. Read it again. They aren't talking about political failure. That's American military saying that despite the full force of the world's greatest superpower, native Iraqi guerrillas "cannot be militarily defeated." About the point your guys are saying the enemy, such as they know it, is invincible... just about then, I think you should get very, very worried.
The story is Associated Press: AP: Iraq Insurgency Larger Than Thought
Thursday, July 08, 2004
So there were enough (truly) conservative Republicans and Democrats in the House willing to work together and roll back one of the more controversial aspects of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. In fact, the votes were cast to that effect. What can go wrong at that point? Dallas Morning News reports: "The amendment appeared on its way to victory as the roll call's normal 15-minute time limit expired, but Republican leaders kept the vote open for about 20 more minutes as they persuaded about 10 Republicans who initially supported the provision to change their votes. "
Nice. Wonder about the specifics of the intimidation employed....
Nice. Wonder about the specifics of the intimidation employed....
