marccooper.comAbout MarcContactMarc's Video Blogs

DUPHASTON FOR SALE

[caption id="attachment_4483" align="alignleft" width="432" caption="Bradley Manning"][/caption]

Courage deserves support DUPHASTON FOR SALE, .

We don't know what role if any Manning played in the current Wikileak strategy.  Meanwhile, effects of DUPHASTON, DUPHASTON reviews, the Obama administration has launched a full-scale shakedown aimed at hunting down the leakers. This is really disgraceful and a classic case of wanting to kill the messenger, DUPHASTON pics. Where can i buy cheapest DUPHASTON online, NOBODY has been able to point to how a single data point in the Wikileaks documents have compromised in any way national security or any individual soldier.  What it has exposed is the futility of a dead-ended policy. The administration should be spending its time and resources figuring out how to get the hell out of Afghanistan and what to do about the double-agents in the Pakistani regime rather than trying to persecute the person or persons who conducted the PUBLIC SERVICE of making these shameful documents public, DUPHASTON use. Buy DUPHASTON without a prescription. DUPHASTON from canada. DUPHASTON duration. Buy cheap DUPHASTON. DUPHASTON mg. DUPHASTON dangers. DUPHASTON without a prescription. Get DUPHASTON. Fast shipping DUPHASTON. DUPHASTON coupon. DUPHASTON description. Order DUPHASTON no prescription. Is DUPHASTON safe. Where can i find DUPHASTON online. Online buying DUPHASTON hcl. DUPHASTON images. Buy DUPHASTON from canada. DUPHASTON australia, uk, us, usa. Order DUPHASTON online c.o.d. Where to buy DUPHASTON. Is DUPHASTON addictive. Taking DUPHASTON. DUPHASTON pharmacy. Kjøpe DUPHASTON på nett, köpa DUPHASTON online. Where can i buy DUPHASTON online.

Similar posts: BUY NEXIUM NO PRESCRIPTION. BUY IMURAN NO PRESCRIPTION. BROMAZEPAM FOR SALE. Buying LORAZEPAM online over the counter. My ANSIETEN experience. Order ADIPEX-P from United States pharmacy.
Trackbacks from: DUPHASTON FOR SALE. DUPHASTON FOR SALE. DUPHASTON FOR SALE. DUPHASTON wiki. Order DUPHASTON no prescription. Where can i buy cheapest DUPHASTON online.

135 Responses to “DUPHASTON FOR SALE”

  1. pabloN. Says:

    Here is Daniel Ellsberg on the new ‘Daniel Ellsberg’:

    http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/7/headlines/us_army_analyst_charged_in_wikileaks_case

    Daniel Ellsberg: “For forty years I’ve hoped that someone would put out information on the scale that I did, but in a more timely way than I did, before I chose to do it in my time. And Manning would be the first person in forty years to have done that, if it is true that he’s put out a great raft of cables, which he regards as criminal. And I give him—I’m very gratified, if that’s the case. And I hope he’s not the last.”

  2. Hester Says:

    “…the Obama administration has launched a full-scale shakedown aimed at hunting down the leakers.”

    What a shocker! How dare the government not support the young man (“…who is said to have felt unsupported in life anyway…”) for leaking government and military communications?

    And now for a dose of sanity on the subject:

    Getting Lost in the Fog of War

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/opinion/27exum.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

  3. Michael Balter Says:

    Re Hester: Those who trust the government to do the right thing will find the release of secret documents distasteful. Those who are skeptical of government motivations and actions will welcome such leaks. What else is new? Let the faithful cover their eyes and ears, while the rest of us eagerly seek knowledge and the truth in the midst of obfuscations and lies.

  4. Cappadonna Says:

    Balter – I’d argue that neither side is more ‘truthful’ or ‘pure’ than the other.

    1. Hester and the columnist are both clear — you leak military secrets you’re going to jail, or worse. Sorry Marc, but this young soldier knew the risk. Hell, McChrystal got fired for pretty much calling Obama a punk and Biden a dumbass in Rolling Stones.

    As much as the anti-war left likes to dance and cheer, the reality is that raw data blasted on a public website can could be dangerous and is highly illegal, especially for a soldier in the field. Like I said yesterday, the Marc Coopers and Amy Goodmans of the world probably wouldn’t be toasting this kid if he sold those reports, to say Russia, Al Qaida or Isreal.

    2. To your point, this data will not change the point of view of a lot of folks, primarily because we as a nation have become a disorganized confederacy of divergent point of views where the art of compromise and better good are lost. The left wants to become Canada 2.0, the right wants to become Pre WWII Germany and the mdoerate/Obama-holics just want to maintain status quo. And nobody is budging. But that bring me to….

    3. The real question is what will happen to those who haven’t decided on Iraq/Afghanistan one way or the other. Could these leaks become the Pentagon Papers of Today? Or will it be completely ignored like Prisoner abuse, The Downing Street Memo and numerous other verified documented reports which most Americans all but ignored for the last 9 years?

    What affect it will have depends on us. Obama’s not going to save us — and he never said he would. The President not going to stick his head out and end these wars — he gets crucified for pointing out how stupid it is to arrest a middle age college professor for trespassing in his own house.

    Our congress, except for a few brave souls are even more cowardly and embedded in the Military Industrial Complex than the White House. I just heard my former Congresswoman, Rosa De Lauro having a slap fight with an Ohio Senator over a military contract for jet fighter engines.

    If we want to change things, we’ll need to get off our blogs and meet people in the real world. The information is now there — its up to us to educate.

  5. Hester Says:

    “The military is rightly accused of overclassifying material, but in this case we have some idea of why: even with the names removed from these reports, you know where they happened (many still have place names). You know when they happened. And you know an Afghan was speaking to a U.S. soldier or intelligence agent. If you have times, locations and half the participants, you don’t need names to identify who was involved in a conversation — with some very basic detective work, you can find out (and it’s much easier to do in Afghanistan, which loves gossip).”

    “If I were a Taliban operative with access to a computer — and lots of them have access to computers — I’d start searching the WikiLeaks data for incident reports near my area of operation to see if I recognized anyone. And then I’d kill whomever I could identify. Those deaths would be directly attributable to WikiLeaks.”

    http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/voices/why-the-wikileaks-leak-is-more-and-less-important-than-you-think/2471/

  6. Hester Says:

    Michael Balter says:
    “What else is new? Let the faithful cover their eyes and ears, while the rest of us eagerly seek knowledge and the truth in the midst of obfuscations and lies.”

    Of course Michael Balter, that’s quite noble of you knowledge and truth seekers, but I prefer to deal with reality. When the leaders of the Taliban, Pakistanis, Iranians, Chinese, Russians, Saudis, etc. live according to the ethic of transparency, then I will be as noble as you. Until then, I shall proceed with caution, and expect my government to do the same.

  7. pabloN. Says:

    Excuse, folks…but the cat is already out of the bag…and maybe you should pay a
    little heed to the cat’s meow.

    The country has been lied to about the conduct of this war, and about the chances for success. Clearing the towns and cities to allow local government to function has been a chimera.

    There have been paramilitary death squads with hit lists derived with the same amount of acumen and care as was populating Gitmo.

    There is film footage of the intentional targeting and killing of civilians and journalists along with the audio permission from US officers -in real time- to conduct the deadly operation.

    http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/12/families_of_victims_of_2007_us

    There is evidence of the cover-up of collateral damage the death of civilians and the seizure of reporters evidence.

    But most of all is in its totality the reams of documents are so at odds over what the Bush administration and now the Obama administration have been telling the people about the prospects of this war and the necessity for the vital interest of national security.
    Put another way the documents make clear that the strategy is unwinning and unwinnable.

    The outrage over the leaks has little to do with security and everything to do with political embarrassment. Liberals have been painstaking sold on the necessity for this war and it turns out to be a lie.

    Instead of focusing on the human tragedy caused by the daily slaughter of innocents- the country and the Party are engaged in a semantic dance in an effort to create face-saving political space which will last a period of years.

    The very lives of the worlds citizenry hangs in the unfolding dance whereby the Party can extricate itself while its members can tell themselves that they were never in favor of this fiendish repeat of Indochina.

    This dance will have its moments where the two partners bow and courtesy symbolizing a relationship predicated on fidelity to one another no matter how awful things have become as a result of the relationship. Much like modern Japan how can America ever publicly come to terms with its own war crimes?
    Simple. There aren’t any.

  8. Sergio Says:

    Change I can’t believe in.

  9. Hester Says:

    “The other interesting data are notes from what the military calls KLEs—key leader engagements. Military officers, as well as officials from State, USAID, and other agencies regularly meet with important players in a war zone to get their take on the situation. Often they’re dull and tell the interviewers little they didn’t already know; sometimes, though, they give insight to “atmospherics”—how Afghan locals feel about US forces or the Taliban. Many of these key leaders take their lives into their hands; from my experience in Iraq, I know that numerous Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds with high standing among their tribes—and among our enemies—took time to brief US officials, often to dish dirt on crooked or violent elements in their vicinity. If they were ever outed as collaborators with American forces, they’d be as good as dead. And Wikileaks has 16 pages of secret military KLEs with individuals and groups in Afghanistan, spanning six years. No names are redacted. In this case, what retired general James Jones, the White House national security adviser, said yesterday is correct: WL is putting some lives at serious risk with that particular data dump.”

    http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/07/wikileaks-afghan-documents-and-me-source

  10. Michael Balter Says:

    Those who talk about how lives are at risk because these documents have been released conveniently forget that thousands of people have already died because of the lies that the US government told us about WMD in Iraq, and the way that the Bush administration twisted intelligence information to bamboozle Americans into supporting that war (the death toll for Iraqis could be up to 100,000, for Americans several thousand.)

    The same process is now occurring in Afghanistan, where US soldiers and Afghan civilians are dying every day in a war that is foolish and ill-advised. Turn the clock back to Vietnam, where 50,000 US soldiers and 1-2 millon Vietnamese died, and you will understand why we might have wished that Americans had known what was in the Pentagon papers years earlier.

    Secrecy allows governments to lie their way into wars that young Americans have to fight, and that kill thousands of innocents where they are fought. Anyone who really cares about putting lives at risk would realize that and want to know everything there is to know.

  11. Jim R Says:

    Your read too much Mother Jones and listen to too much Amy Goodman, Michael. And I can see why. They have the ‘true’ inside information on facts and Intelligence assessments not available, even to the CIA and President of the United States, leading up to and during wars.

    The passive appeasing strength through weakness Neville Chamberlain approach to the world’s tyrants have never won freedom for anyone, have never prevented wars but increased them, have killed 10 times more of the world’s humanity than taking a stand against tyrants, and have increased the duration and lives lost in war by demonizing and working against those that risk their lives to save the lives and freedom for others.

    But I highly doubt the the Mother Jones and Amy Goodman kind ever had to worry about risking their lives anyway. It was when their college deferments were either ending or stopped, it was when the time came for their privilege to end and their sense of ‘equally’ was being tested they got all nuanced and intellectual and SELF INTEREST in finding a way to justify their saving their own ass without it looking like that is exactly what was going on.

    Mother Jones and Amy Goodman not only provided the dodge, but a way to feel good about themselves in the process. Get all nuanced and moral. PROTEST THE MORALITY OF WAR!

  12. Jim R Says:

    The military has always provided a way for ‘true’ conscientious objectors to avoid the draft, and the true ones used this process.

    The dodgers needed not apply because they understood one one actually need some examples of their objection prior to their college exemption running out.

  13. Hester Says:

    Total transparency! Truth! Justice! The end of war!

    “Hundreds of Afghan civilians who worked as informants for the U.S. military have been put at risk by WikiLeaks’ publication of more than 90,000 classified intelligence reports which name and in many cases locate the individuals, The Times newspaper reported Wednesday.”

    “The article says, in spite of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s claim that sensitive information had been removed from the leaked documents, that reporters scanning the reports for just a couple hours found hundreds of Afghan names mentioned as aiding the U.S.-led war effort.”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20011886-503543.html

  14. Dan O Says:

    Jim R you sound exactly like Archie Bunker, and he was a caricature.

    If we concede that sometimes it is wise for governments to keep some things secret, will you also concede, particularly in the interest of preventing authoritarianism, that it is best for governments to be as transparent as can possibly be tolerated?

    It seems like there is some irony in arguing passionately that we stand tough against tyranny by permitting (perhaps encouraging) representative democracy to keep secrets from the citizens.

    I rarely ever meet a small government conservative who isn’t involved in a deep, wet, passionate love affair with the intelligence and military apparatus. Jim R is neck deep in that affair.

  15. Rob Grocholski Says:

    I have a fear that this episode with Private Manning might end up much more as a case of tragedy v military stupidity than one of courage or cowardice. On one hand I think it’s a really bad idea for low ranking enlistees to decide on their own to release classified information. The young private had to know that his actions could have very serious consequences. And at the same time, the military has to be allowed to organize and catalogue itself. How could the military not properly safeguard electronically kept info? Kinda crazy.

    However, there’s the bigger picture of the government – visa via the military – simply filing everything under “secret.” The license or temptation for government abuse here should be cause for concern. Chemerinsky picks up this point quite strongly:

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chemerinsky-wikileaks-20100728,0,4762357.story

  16. uncle jim Says:

    “How could the military not properly safeguard electronically kept info? ” Easy. The military is a hidebound institution, which reacts slowly to any new tech. Just a couple of months ago, the Taliban could asscess these “drones” because the Air force didn’t incript the signlas going to and from them in the clear.

    As for Manning, do not cry for him. He will serve at most a coupla years in a prison, then be out, write a book, have an Ollie Stone-type make a movie about heroic his treasonous ass was, be the toast of whatever left this country has.

    As for the Afghans, well after we are gone and the Taliban is back in place, and women are slaves and whomever we Americans allowed to be compromised by this traitor has been killed along with their families, I’m sure we will here bleating by Goodman types as to how America caused it all.

    And as for Al Quida, well………

  17. Hester Says:

    I think our government does classify way too much information in the name of “national security”. I hope responsible challenges to unnecessary restriction of information will continue. I don’t consider Wikileaks’ actions as responsible for the reasons described in the articles I posted above.
    My concern is that someone like Julian Assange does not temper his zeal with the realities of this world. I fear that our bastards and Taliban bastards are simply the same to him. This man has the look and behavior of a fanatic a bit too pleased with his role in sticking it to the U.S.
    I am open to changing my opinion of him. I’d really be in awe of the guy if he put the spotlight on Putin and his ex-KGB thugs of Russia. Now that would be courageous!

  18. pabloN. Says:

    Rob:

    Glad you posted the Chemerinsky article…I would have missed it otherwise…thanks.

    Edwin Chemerinsky would be also known at the author of a hornbook on Constitutional Law which means his work is present in the library just about every lawyer graduating after 1995. Anyone reading that work would understand the depth of his genius on the subject.
    Armchair dilettantes may want to check it out.

    Some of the shrill remarks concerning “the threat of national security” reposted here are speculative and must be discounted.

    It seems that the NYTIMES met with the administration prior to publication and cooperated with the government in crafting the story.
    At the same time the source documents have not been published in their entirety and some 50,000 plus pages were held for redaction based on security concerns. Perhaps these are legit (?).
    The charge that national security has been compromised because of the release of the documents seen to date is pure shit.
    The existential threat to the nation was never, repeat, never at issue with respect to the conflict in Afghanistan (or war would have been studiously avoided).
    Are there threats to individuals or operations within the theatre? I doubt it. From what I have read these leaks seem to consist of the raw data reports from the field..much like a police officer compiles reports on his beat.
    None of the shrill invocation of a threat to the security of the nation point to anything specific from the documents… preferring instead the generalised argument of what these documents COULD do.

    I for one hope that they are correct. There is ample evidence of systematic war crimes waged against innocent people contained in the documents….and much more alleged outside of the documents.
    Just yesterday some 52 kids were killed, machine gunned from a helicopter. In the Manichean world of some of the uber-offended above, this type of news is just collateral damage…but at the same time the actions by the military towards the civilian population as seen in their totality preclude any chance at nation building.

    America is seen as the new Russia. Karzai is the new Najiboullah.

    I understand the feelings of Hester, Uncle Jim, and Jim R who have been lied to by our government. Great diffidence is shown to you by the administration. … and for you this war will be dragged out for at least another six years….the government will not abandon you on this issue. They’ll wait until you give them the political grace to end this war: “Peace with honor” as a euphemism will insure party support. Until you accept that fiction the carnage will continue.

    However, the Tet moment has arrived. The evidence is in.

  19. Listener Says:

    This sentence deserves a prize: Of course Michael Balter, that’s quite noble of you knowledge and truth seekers, but I prefer to deal with reality. Just one I wouldn’t care to share. Knowledge and truth seekers vs reality? Is that even a binary choice?

    :: shakes head, moves on ::

    I recommend the letter someone sent to James Fallows of The Atlantic for something closer to clear thinking.

  20. Hester Says:

    Listener said:
    “Just one I wouldn’t care to share. Knowledge and truth seekers vs reality? Is that even a binary choice?”

    Well Listener, it’s like this: It is called sarcasm. The writer implied that those who did not share his view could not be knowledge and truth seekers. Surely you would not want to share that view, either?

  21. Rob Grocholski Says:

    “The existential threat to the nation was never, repeat, never at issue with respect to the conflict in Afghanistan (or war would have been studiously avoided).”

    How about the existentialism of the 3,000 people murdered on Sept 11, 2001?

  22. Rob Grocholski Says:

    Hester
    Your clumsy sentence aside, I think TIm Rutten raises similar concerns about WikiLeaks & Assange:
    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0728-rutten-20100728,0,2859424.column

  23. pabloN. Says:

    Rob:

    last I l;ooked out the window…we’re all still standing… in the distance I can see the flag…and assume the ramparts are still there too.

  24. Hester Says:

    Yes, my sentence was clumsy!
    Thanks for the link, Rob.
    Concerns and questions, indeed. Perfectly legitimate ones, in my view. Why should Wikileaks and Julian Assange be above scrutiny?

  25. pabloN. Says:

    ….but where are the others?!!
    The usual suspects so quick to reveal every right wing affront seem missing from the argument today.

    Come to think of it over on MSNBC the story about courage and cowardice seems to have been airbrushed off of today’s docket of stories… instead we have more tales of republican perfidity.
    WikiLeaks had 40 pages in the Guardian today.. why narry a peep from the troika on DemPravda?

    Rob, call me a conspiracist but I am connecting dots here…. the cabal of the missing Dissonance regulars are still awaiting guidance from Maddow on the issue.. and if I am wrong and seldom WAS heard an encouraging word on MSNBC on these leaks today then I am sure to get them in redacted form albeit second hand here… maybe later.

    Geez Rob, did we come that close to the end?
    Never in the course of history was so much owed to so few…in the case of the Afgans, this means 19 Saudi’s

  26. Rob Grocholski Says:

    Conspiracist? No. You seem to be a distinct original, marching to you’re own drum beat…

    Try this one, comrade Pablo: In your ‘connecting of the dots’ have you found anything in the WikiLeaks document dump that should change anyone’s mind about the Taliban? Specifically, have you found anything in the docs where we should view the Taliban differently than as depraved, violent, women-hating, religious fundamentalist nut-jobs that they’ve been portrayed as so far?

  27. pabloN. Says:

    Nope… they seem like a virulent strain of the american tea party…however sui-generis Afgan.
    There are many places with people who do ugly things. Notwithstanding, after some nine years and a good deal more carnage inflicted on innocent people the prospect for changing the narrative isn’t going to occur.

    My comrades, all 112 of them voted to cut funding today!!

  28. Dan O Says:

    I hate to make what might seem like an insensitive quibble Pablo, but it was not 52 kids: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/07/2010726143021529494.html

    This is still a tragedy, but it’s also important to be accurate. I expect to get some rant about the “liberal narrative” in return, so be advised that I’m not out defending the empire, I’m just making sure the account is accurate.

  29. pabloN. Says:

    DAN O: Your point again?

    52 dead…women and children… and I wrote children..
    And you are asking me to be bmore accurate?

    Okay. How about this from the Guardian 7/25:

    “Behind the military jargon, the war logs are littered with accounts of civilian tragedies. The 144 entries in the logs recording some of these so-called “blue on white” events, cover a wide spectrum of day-by-day assaults on Afghans, with hundreds of casualties.

    They range from the shootings of individual innocents to the often massive loss of life from air strikes, which eventually led President Hamid Karzai to protest publicly that the US was treating Afghan lives as “cheap”. When civilian family members are actually killed in Afghanistan, their relatives do, in fairness, get greater solatia payments than cans of beans and Hershey bars. The logs refer to sums paid of 100,000 Afghani per corpse, equivalent to about £1,500.

    US and allied commanders frequently deny allegations of mass civilian casualties, claiming they are Taliban propaganda or ploys to get compensation, which are contradicted by facts known to the military.

    But the logs demonstrate how much of the contemporaneous US internal reporting of air strikes is simply false.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-civilian-deaths-rules-engagement.

    Place my statement about 52 dead children (which you correceted to include women and children) alongside this from the Guardian:

    “US and allied commanders frequently deny allegations of mass civilian casualties,…
    But the logs demonstrate how much of the contemporaneous US internal reporting of air strikes is simply false.”

    Here is hoping you hold Obama to the same standard you have imposed on me. After all you will be voting for him yet again.

  30. Dan O Says:

    I’m not getting into a silly pissing match with you Pablo. I think I sufficiently contextualized what I wrote, and you reacted as I expected nonetheless. Just to be clear, you wrote, “Just yesterday some 52 kids were killed,” and that single statement turns out not to be accurate. That is all.

    My minor correction in no way is an apology for civilian deaths and in no way does it indicate that I don’t get what’s going on. But read it how you like, you always do.

  31. Dan O Says:

    And actually (again this is not me defending any US action here), but this is more than just a little quibble as your response to me demonstrates.

    Saying “children” (not fully accurate), and then amending that to be “women and children” (also not fully accurate) is to trade in the connotations of that phrase. We generally take the killing of women and children to be more morally reprehensible than the killing of men, and so there is an ever so subtle distortion in the way you’re phrasing that attack that isn’t entirely neutral. It’s a slightly sophistic use of the phrase on your part.

    Just because I know you’re going to have an aneurysm over what I’ve written, let me say, yet again, that nothing is excused, and nothing is made better by my observation, and nothing I’ve said precludes me from understanding the wider picture here.

    I think we can all agree that this a horrible consequence of the US presence there without needing to massage it into darker regions by calling this episode the death of 52 children when it wasn’t.

  32. pabloN. Says:

    I thank you for your point. There was no intent to massage facts. I had heard the news via an interview between Amy Goodman and Julian Assange. I stand corrected on all points.

    I also note that you see these civilian killings as horrible… and not mere collateral damage.

  33. Marc Cooper Says:

    Pablo

    Back in the good old days of the sixties we had a term for folks like you:a pathetic isolated individual.

    Your notion that everyone ” to the right” of you, in ur view about 99.9 percent of the populace is a compliant tool of deceitful democrats in nothing short of a religious belief. Let me speak you in the sort of terms you prefer. You are fundamentally a reactionary and an elitist. How could it be otherwise if only you and ten other enlightened folks Know the truth while rest of us capitalist tools stumble around in the dark and await direction from Rachel Maddow?

    So just how many divisions do u have? Who do you represent? What political impact do u have? What strategy do you propose that would attract a real constituency other than six losers at a Socialist Workers Party picnic?

    By the way, your characterization of the NYTimes role is purely false. There is no evidence whatsoever that they met with the government in order to “cooperate” in production of the story. Indeed, they sent one of the finest editors in America, Dean Baquet, a courageous African American who quit as editor of LATimes because he refused to gut his staff, to solicit any response from the admin.. Something that the White House punted on. If you think the the admin is happy with what has been published you are no more than an idiot Pure and simple.

    Indeed, the Msm corporte NYTimes is “objectively to your left.”. I assure you that this series has put a lot more unwanted pressure on Obama than has all of your empty squawking. What have you done recently to get more than 100 members of the prez’ own party to vote against the latest round of war funding in the middle of an election season?

    Oh I forgot. Yiou have been leading the working class.
    Plse don’t answer. Don’t confuse me for someone who cares what u think.

  34. Sergio Says:

    I didn’t know Dean Baquet was at the NYT. I liked him, back when the LAT still retained something.

  35. Michael Balter Says:

    You can now make donations to Bradley Manning’s legal defense fund at the site I linked to a few days ago:

    http://www.bradleymanning.org/

    We need whistleblowers, please support them!

    And to those who don’t approve of what WikiLeaks did: Too late! Time to get on with your lives because it’s going to happen more and more often. Secrecy is the enemy of democracy.

  36. Jim R Says:

    One can do just about anything they want, as long as they are willing to accept the consequences for breaking the law, even murder.

    Michael wants one to do anything they want without the consequences apparently…..as long as they don’t break HIS laws.

    I believe this is called anarchy. Everyone lives by their OWN laws.

  37. Jim R Says:

    If there is reasonable evidence one Afghanistan freedom fighter was murdered by the lunatics due to security information made public by Manning, then imo Manning should be tried for murder, and Assange as an accomplice.

    Reckless behavior that leads to the death of others, especially others risking their lives to defeat tyranny, must have serious consequences.

    Michael sits in his little cafe in Paris, sipping his coffee and reading his paper it total security in a civilized country, while glorifying and demanding no consequence for dangerous behavior that could damage the security of others in a mighty struggle to bring for themselves what he has taken for granted for himself for way too long.

    My guess is the only struggle Michael has any first hand knowledge of is making up his mind for coffee or cappuccino.

    The term ‘useful idiot’ comes to mind.

  38. Dan O Says:

    Jim R,

    Then surely you think that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz, Yoo, and so on, all belong in jail for their “Reckless behavior that leads to the death of others.” We might cite the recklessness of the ginned up WMD evidence, or the recklessness of engaging in torture as a matter of policy, or perhaps the worst recklessness of all, going into Iraq with half the troops advised by the Army.

    The latter choice was becasue Rumsfeld was obsessed with his vision of a lean army. This decision made it inevitable that Iraq descended into anarchy and chaos: it led to the seige in Fallujah, it resulted in the deaths of many thousands of Iraqis and many more Americans than might otherwise have happened. It is entirely possible that with 500,000 troops as suggested, the situatiopnwould have been more stable. I don’t know about that of course, but all of the above seems like reckless behavior that led to the deaths of others.

  39. Cappadonna Says:

    Jim R, I understand your frustration and POV — folks are demanding that Manning goes free on an obvious violation of military conduct. Its a crime in the military and can get you executed. And Assange doesn’t care that a straight data dump with little regards filtering could get some US Soldier or an Afghan Security agent killed. He’s more worried about all the awards and TV news spots coming his way.

    From your perspective, the Lefty Peacenik class are more concerned about flipping off the Administration than the lives of soldiers on the field. I don’t think that’s completely true, but I get it.

    That being said, Dan O has a point — the WikiLeaks documents only highlight what we already knew — tbe Bushies started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, completely mismanaged them and all but left those soldiers to fend for themselves while they handed over reconstruction contracts to Haliburton.

  40. reg Says:

    “Reckless behavior that leads to the death of others…must have serious consequences.”

    Which is why Jim R wants to see Dick Cheney taken to the dock and charged with several hundred thousand counts of manslaughter for his overseeing a phony “intelligence” racket to push our government into assenting to the BushCo “strategy” of invading Iraq because their “WMDs” posed a “national security threat.”

  41. reg Says:

    Jim R: Afghanistan is waging “a mighty struggle to bring for themselves what he has taken for granted for himself for way too long.”

    Actually Jim, if that’s the case, we can disengage over the next year or two, leave a modest training mission and help them with foreign aid – no problems. The problem is that the ones “waging a mighty struggle” most tenaciously are our enemies there who have the blood of 9/11 on their hands, directly or as accomplices of varying degrees. My view of the war – in context of the strategy shift after years of fucking it up due to the insane Iraq venture – is less critical than most here, but all we can do is give the Afghans who don’t want to see the Taliban take over the South a decent shot and an assist. If they aren’t about waging that struggle, we need to narrow our sights and take a minimalist strategy that focuses on al Qaeda strongholds. We can’t spend more than a decade trying to hand other people something they don’t care enough about to fight for effectively themselves. That’s pretty simple, and should govern our use of the military as a general rule. Your moralism is opportunistic – frankly the Soviets were fighting the same backward Islamist fanatics, on the side of a vastly imperfect but more modernist, pro-woman’s equality, pro-education, pro-Western government. My assumption is that you didn’t make an argument in defense of the Red Army at the time.

  42. Michael Balter Says:

    No struggle at all, I nearly always go for the cappuccino.

    Oh, and I had to decide today how much to contribute to Bradley Manning’s legal defense fund. But again, that was no struggle either, it’s a worthy cause.

    Oh wait, I also sacrificed nearly two years of my life in the US Army organizing against the war in Vietnam, something I didn’t have to do because I had a student deferment that I gave up. I wonder if Jim R has the courage of his convictions? If so, he should be volunteering to fight in Afghanistan.

    (you can read about my Army adventures here, it’s a big file but worth every byte:)

    http://www.michaelbalter.com/images/pdf/BUZZ.pdf

  43. reg Says:

    I have no idea where this Petraeus strategy is going to go – I’m not terribly hopeful, but I’ll give it a chance through a realistic reassessment planned in December and with a July ’11 deadline for the beginning of a draw-down (and I’m for the draw-down proceeding according to conditions, as long as we’re moving in the right direction and not over-extending the full current mission – i.e. I’m “trusting the President” on this one. You’re welcome to accuse me of being a hack – I could care less. But the Wikileaks stuff was all part of the information that was factored into the decision to change strategy, “surge” the troops (which, for a variety of reasons beyond simply upping the force numbers, helped defuse the civil war on the ground in Iraq – admittedly a different country with a different balance of forces. I opposed the surge, but having read Thomas Ricks “The Gamble”, I’m glad Petraeus was given carte blanche to try to rescue the mission for a year or so. He’s an impressive guy and if he thinks he can pull this one out of the fire too, more power – until July ’11, when a handover to the locals has got to begin.)

    Pablo is free to pull a “verbose Sergio” and accuse me of various sins against humanity, “gringoism”, etc. – that’s of zero significance to my views. I would, however, welcome any questions or critiques from Michael Balter, et. al. I think that having sharp critics and “oversight” of my position from the non-loony Left is crucial – lives are at stake and I could be wrong, too hopeful, too trusting, etc. I also think that the target should be pushing for a real draw-down and hand-over – with US backing up Afghans who are fighting the Taliban, not leading them – beginning July ’11. But I don’t think that giving the benefit of the doubt on strategy to Obama-Biden-Gates-Clinton-Petraeus is the same boat as Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld. Doesn’t mean they can’t fuck it up or won’t.

  44. Michael Balter Says:

    Just a quick comment for now, reg, which is that got it right when you reminded us above that the US backed the wrong side in Afghanistan, the reactionary Islamic fundamentalists against the relatively progressive (although certainly not flawless) government that the Soviets were backing. And that set in motion forces that are now almost impossible to reverse, and almost certainly won’t be reversed. The sad fact is that US intervention can’t help, it can only make things worse, and the only way Afghanistan can get on a progressive course again is if its own people choose to do so. Some mistakes are so big they can’t be fixed, and this, tragically, may be one of them.

    btw, the logic of sending troops to Afghanistan means, as wiser commentators than I have already pointed out, sending them to Yemen too. Wow, Jim R, Hester, et al., you’ve got choices of where to volunteer!

  45. reg Says:

    Michael – you’re wrong on this one. Not horribly wrong, but wrong. Espresso, not cappucino.

    On the war, I’m torn and I can’t say your opposition is wrong. Based on what’s gone before, it’s the most rational position. But after (rationally) opposing the “surge” in Iraq I was convinced by Rick’s book that there was some sense in the Petraeus strategy (key to which was “buying off the terrorists”, which he didn’t initially discuss with Bush, which in itself is a scary thought) and it left the Iraqis somewhat better equipped to find a political solution among themselves. Of course, that might well have been blind luck. Afghanistan is more complicated – but I also believe that keeping heat on the al Qaeda strongholds is a real national security interest, while I saw absolutely zero (other than the “optics” and horrible costs created by an utterly foolish decision to invade) in Iraq.

  46. reg Says:

    Pablo – “WikiLeaks had 40 pages in the Guardian today.. why narry a peep from the troika on DemPravda?”

    Pablo – Rachel Maddow was so loathe to even discuss this – despite her calls for the Obama administration to change course and withdraw troops from Afghanistan – that MSNBC let her stay home, probably taken to bed with “the vapors” – and called in Chris Hayes, Washington editor of that Democratic Party weekly newsletter, The Nation – to handle the story. My informants tell me, however, that he had an earpiece linked directly to Robert Gibb’s desk throughout the entire broadcast, feeding him talking points.

  47. pabloN. Says:

    Our hosts comments give creedence to the maxim: A nail which stands out gets the hammer.
    What kind of BS includes dunning a comdemndation of this ugly war and its tepid coverage by the MSM as reportage from a socialist picnic?
    The slight of hand here is that the story of the Afgan conflict is not about me…it is a foriegn policy debacle and a coverup.

    Anyway, our host writes:

    “By the way, your characterization of the NYTimes role is purely false. There is no evidence whatsoever that they met with the government in order to “cooperate” in production of the story”.

    According to Assange the NY Times was the only news outlet which went to the Administration prior to publication for the purpose of informing the government of the story it was about to publish…a prior (self) restraint.

    http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/28/wikileaks_founder_julian_assange_transparent_government

    Our host charges:

    “So just how many divisions do u have? Who do you represent? What political impact do u have?”

    Well Marc: What does anyone have? You misread me because I have been hard on the regulars here. Perhaps I have and should apologise. Let me do so by changing the tone (but not the tenor) of my passion for the success of the country. I mean that.
    The question from my perspective is a what point, in the face of the atrocity of war, does one have a moral obligation to withold unequvicol support for the party in power.

    Put another way, Marc, if what Reg just wrote comes to pass (as I truly belive it already has):

    “But I don’t think that giving the benefit of the doubt on strategy to Obama-Biden-Gates-Clinton-Petraeus is the same boat as Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld. Doesn’t mean they can’t fuck it up or won’t”

    What result? The evil of the two lessers and hold the mayo?
    Those Progressives inside the Party must learn to leverage their influence to change the balance of power away from the monied interests and empire.

  48. Michael Balter Says:

    “According to Assange the NY Times was the only news outlet which went to the Administration prior to publication for the purpose of informing the government of the story it was about to publish…a prior (self) restraint.”

    Wrong. The Times contacted the White House to ask for comment on the documents. Routine journalism.

  49. Michael Balter Says:

    Off topic but important, Marc’s daughter’s book on Mad Men:

    Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #715 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
    #1 in Books > Entertainment > Television > Guides & Reviews
    #1 in Books > Entertainment > Television > History & Criticism
    #1 in Books > Entertainment > Television > Shows

  50. reg Says:

    Pablo – war is always evil. Read Niehbur on this if you want a clue to my thinking. War is founded on committing evil acts. I supported the choice to go to after bin Laden in Afghanistan. There may have been smarter options at the time. I’m not sure and it’s pointless to debate at this time. But don’t kid yourself that the Taliban was the greatest of evils that the Afghans had experienced in terms of governance and that a swift withdrawal of US troops would mean a resurgance and probable takeover of significant segments of the country by a resurgent – and vengeful – Taliban. So you’re parsing evil by your own lights -everyone is at this point – and if you think not you’re even more morally obtuse than you’ve appeared to be. You’re looking for an easy way out – I guess we all are. But you can shove your phony moralism up your ass. The only argument at this point is between “lesser evils” and “best among bad outcomes.” I take responsibility for supporting the war. It wasn’t a casual choice, because I hate war. I don’t have pictures of folks who’ve made war their specialty or glorify it as some righteous crusade adorning my walls, as you do. It’s ugly, but sometimes it may be justfied. This isn’t anything close to as simple as you pose it. As for your personal brickbats, I’d worry if someone with your ideological bona fides agreed much with me. So thank you for drawing a clear line.

  51. reg Says:

    “The slight of hand here is that the story of the Afgan conflict is not about me…”

    It becomes “about you” when your comments suggest that everyone from the New York Times to MSNBC is working in concert with the Democratic Party, while you hold the rosetta stone unlocking the perfidy of liberalism. Marc should probably asked, “What ideas have you got?” What you’ve offered to date – which is electoral nihilism, steeped in self-regard and washed down with pisco – isn’t impressive.

  52. reg Says:

    Also, the reason I hold my present views is because I believe I turned out to be wrong about my contingent views regarding Petraeus and the “surge” in Iraq. It’s based on a change of mind as I looked at a set of outcomes. Most of the stuff being said about Afghanistan I said about Iraq before the Petraeus strategy shift – and was proved wrong enough in terms of the “lesser evil” of a revised strategy that had significant positive impact for Iraqis suffering a civil war that I’m open to the same military leadership’s plan to change course in Afghanistan.

  53. Hester Says:

    Michael Balter says: “Wow, Jim R, Hester, et al., you’ve got choices of where to volunteer”

    First, it was the implication that anyone who questioned the absolute wonderfulness of the document leak was not interested in knowledge and the truth.
    Next, it was the charge that those of us who might be concerned about the lives of Afghans who worked with the US are conveniently forgetting about all of the other lives lost in these tragic wars. Only you, of course, and those who agree with you, are capable of concern for both.
    Finally, you end with the little swipe about volunteering for the future invasions you imply I must surely support.

    Just think. All of those judgments based on what?

  54. 4th Time Around (22) Says:

    Nothing you could site in Reg’s bad reasoning (or smitten Obama Love?) sums up his hopelessness better than his rational of Thomas Rick’s “The Gamble,” a sentimental and brain dead book that gets to the heart of the problem: Military Man Crushes.
    Rick’s is all for war even though he ADMITS no real, sustainable political progress has been made. The book is about how somewhat sane soldiers had taken over a war that was being waged by kill jock fools.

    Yes, more forces in place not terrorizing the population in Iraq DID work BETTER, but to what end? What’s the advantage to a well ordered quagmire? The meter is still running folks…

    Petraeus, who is treated like a God by Ricks for a quick recovery from a shooting he managed to receive in practice
    maneuvers(!), seems like a nice enough guy. But when Reg tells you the mistakes of the past are “pointless to talk about now”
    you can bet todays mistakes will be just as pointless to talk
    about tomorrow. And tomorrow, and tomorrow…..

    So, to sum, we are stuck at the tables, chasing it.

  55. pabloN. Says:

    Reg:

    Courage deserves support:

    “I take responsibility for supporting the war. It wasn’t a casual choice, because I hate war”

    You said it and I believe you; plus I apologise because I did not think you would..

    By my “lights” it will not much matter how much- if any- public opinion follows europe out the door on the war.. the war will continue for at least six more years.

    When I hear terms like “exit strategy” I begin to wonder just what baggage is implied by that statement?

    I have concluded that ‘exit strategy’ means a period of time… a period of which begins with the knowledge that the war is unwinnable which extends into the future where the hostilities might end causing the least damage to political prestiege at home.

    During the executory period between when the knowlege of not being able to meet war’s objectives and when the last troops leave is where the moral justification for war ends. The longer the timeframe the greater the injustice.

  56. Michael Balter Says:

    “First, it was the implication that anyone who questioned the absolute wonderfulness of the document leak was not interested in knowledge and the truth.”

    Okay, I’ve been trying to ignore this, but it is a lie. I clearly said that the division was between those who didn’t want to know what was in the documents and those who wanted to know the truth, nothing more. Read what I said. Like nearly all right-wingers, Hester is dishonest. The problem with right-wing assholes like Hester is that they are getting more and more boring all the time, broken records with mush for brains.

    There, how’s that for characterizing your stupid brainless ideas?

  57. Michael Balter Says:

    Just to really get it out of my system: What we get on blogs like this one, and from nearly everyone on the right side of the political spectrum all the way up to the Bushes and Cheneys who did everything they could to keep from fighting in the wars they criticized everyone else for not supporting, are armchair warriors who would shit in their pants if they got within 20 miles of a war. But they are happy to sit there and cheer on the brave young men and women who do go off to Iraq and Afghanistan in the place of these cowards, because it is all a game to them. Those who question these wars are at least fulfilling some sort of moral duty, while people like Hester and Jim R are gullible suckers for every spoonful of bullshit they are fed by any authority figure who comes along.

    There, now that I have that out of my system, we can go on with the genteel discourse.

  58. Dan O Says:

    Pablo says, “You said it and I believe you; plus I apologise because I did not think you would..”

    Perhaps it is in assuming the worst about people, like you do in that statement, that is the source of so much misunderstanding. You never asked reg what his convictions were (or mine or Balter’s), you just assume he’d hightail it away from any of them that are ionconvenient, and then you’re surprised when he doesn’t fall to the level of your expectations.

  59. pabloN. Says:

    July 29th, 2010 at 9:24 am
    Pablo – “WikiLeaks had 40 pages in the Guardian today.. why narry a peep from the troika on DemPravda?”

    Pablo – Rachel Maddow was so loathe to even discuss this – despite her calls for the Obama administration to change course and withdraw troops from Afghanistan – that MSNBC let her stay home, probably taken to bed with “the vapors” – and called in Chris Hayes, Washington editor of that Democratic Party weekly newsletter, The Nation – to handle the story. My informants tell me, however, that he had an earpiece linked directly to Robert Gibb’s desk throughout the entire broadcast, feeding him talking points.
    ——————

    I DID endure the Maddow/Matthews/Olbermann troika last evening just to see where they would slot the WikiLeaks story. Earlier in the day I heard a one hour interview with Assange on Democracy Now…so I was anxious to see how MSNBC would spin this monumental story on Day 2.
    I did not see coverage from the troika last evening on the WikiLeaks story.

    So in one sense I was surprised and in another I was not.

  60. reg Says:

    “Rick’s is all for war even though he ADMITS no real, sustainable political progress has been made”

    That’s an utterly false characterization of Rick’s non-simplistic conclusions. He states that the progress in tamping down a full-blown civil war is contingent. And that there is very rough political sledding ahead within Iraq. This is pretty obvious, to anyone other than the cheerleading factions. But anyone who thinks that the current state of animus and internal strife in Iraq is as bloody and seemingly dead-end as it was in, say, 2006, is the brain-dead faction. Petraeus made significant changes that yielded significant results and set the stage for a draw-down that has broad support and isn’t being played out purely as the “backstabbing” narrative that drove post-Vietnam discourse. You didn’t read “The Gamble” – you repeat your interior monologue.

  61. pabloN. Says:

    Dan O:

    Yes, that is true.. I am guilty of projecting. I admitted that before you raised the point.

    A healthy dose of respect is deserved… and all around I might add…. last I saw (and it has been awhile) there was no pablo in the Marx Bros.

  62. reg Says:

    Also – Michael Balter. Thank you for your (relatively unique) service. I’m not kidding. I considered it at the time, but I didn’t have your guts.

  63. reg Says:

    Pablo – in all honesty it takes no courage for me to state “I take responsibility for supporting the war” because there are no significant consequences for me, as Michael points out. I said that in the spirit of honesty, not courage. Michael, incidentally, showed some true courage in joining the army in order to protest the war. I came very close to going to jail for draft refusal – arrested by the FBI, federal charges, trappings of a trial, etc – but I managed to slip through the system on some technicalities and a bit of acting talent. So I can’t claim any consequences from my resistance. From what I’ve seen, the true courage is on the battlefield – but even there I’m guessing its contingent on some very complex motivations and factors governing one’s actions. The issue of dissent – with a few exceptions such as Dan Ellsberg and Brad Manning and our own MBalter, who put his ass on the line in a hostile institution, with total authority and control over his person, in order to propogate the anti-war cause – generally is a question of honesty and integrity. Real courage ? Not so much.

  64. reg Says:

    And for the record, I was glad to see this document dump, because it necessitates a more honest debate.

  65. reg Says:

    Pablo – Maddow and Olbermann haven’t been on last all week. Their shows were hosted by Lawrence O’Donnell and Chris Hayes. I don’t watch Matthews and Olbermann – I think Olbermann is a predictable blowhard and Matthews is entertaining but too hyperventilative for my taste. I watch Ed Schultz – skipping through it on DVR for a few entertaining moments of Midwestern labor populism (enjoy the Al Sharpton interviews, who seems to have had his body snatched by a Sensible Person Pod.) And I watch Maddow who I think leavens the cable “news” entertainment factor with a modicum of good reporting, including her recent venture to Kabul. But both Schultz and Chris Hayes covered this story, as in-depth as they cover anything. (I enjoy watching Chris Hayes because he looks like he’s 17 years old and is absurdly nerdy. I imagine a Spiderman costume underneath his suit. Much more dissonant for me – given my decades-long residence in the Bay Area – than having my “news” delivered to me by a cheerful-but-snarky woman with an “anti-broadcast-babe” butch cut and zero fashion sense who periodically refers to her girlfriend. )

  66. Hester Says:

    Michael Balter says: “Those who question these wars are at least fulfilling some sort of moral duty, while people like Hester and Jim R are gullible suckers for every spoonful of bullshit they are fed by any authority figure who comes along.”

    Good grief, What do you know about my stance on these wars? Have YOU bothered to ask? No, you just assumed the worst because I did not give uncritical acclaim to Bradley Manning and Wiki-Leaks… and of course, I MUST be a Right Wing blah, blah, blah.
    As for the rest of your rants, what can I say? When the invective starts rolling off the keyboard, you have lost the argument, sir.

  67. Anna Churchill Says:

    Reality check:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/

    Brilliant/horrible short filmed report of action on Helmond front in Afghanistan.

    It should be on the home page. Click on the video.

    This lets you know why Manning did what he did

  68. Michael Balter Says:

    “you have lost the argument, sir.”

    This is just the kind of thing I am talking about. In reality, those who opposed the release of the documents by Wikileaks have lost the argument, because they have been released! So now there is just bloviation, and when the next round of leaks comes, there will be more bloviation. But it won’t change the facts on the ground, as it were.

  69. Anna Churchill Says:

    Hester says:

    you just assumed the worst because I did not give uncritical acclaim to Bradley Manning and Wiki-Leaks… and of course, I MUST be a Right Wing blah, blah, blah.

    You aren’t a ‘Right Wing blah, blah, blah’, Hester, just a blah, blah, blah.

  70. Cappadonna Says:

    Mr. Balter — actually, it could change the world on the ground. The leaking for classified raw field data could possibly put people in danger in the battlefield. Remember the Taliban can read too.

    Again, I understand your point of view, but please understand that there are legitimate reasons to raise eyebrows over a website dumping stolen military documents.

    To Hester’s point — not everyone whose going ‘WTF’ over the Wiki Leaks article is some flag-waving right winger who is gung-ho for this war.

  71. Anna Churchill Says:

    reg, did you say this or Pablo…can’t tell…but its hilarious:

    “…“news” delivered to me by a cheerful-but-snarky woman with an “anti-broadcast-babe” butch cut and zero fashion sense who periodically refers to her girlfriend. )”

    I so get annoyed by those awful cheap jackets she wears. And O M G did you see what she was wearing in the reports from Afghanistan?

    (I really liked the NBC correspondent guy. He has an interesting background, too)

  72. Anna Churchill Says:

    Cappadonna- your point is stupid. It shows you have not read up on what caused Manning to do what he did nor do you have the facts straight about what was released: diplomatic cables. He released what he did because he saw a mounting case–given the cables going back and forth–of lies and deceit that in fact were putting lives at risk.

    Even the administration has now started to tone down the indignation by trying to dismiss the relevance of what was leaked as being a security threat. Its an embarrassment threat. And Assange said he scrubbed anything that would put someones life in danger…and you fool…the three news outlets also reviewed the information.

    God, people like you and miss america are so fucking tiresome in your refusal to actually comprehend the facts.

  73. reg Says:

    I said that – my wife was totally was totally amused one evening when Rachel got up to do a “Glenn Beck” with some stage props and was wearing baggy jeans and sneakers. (that entire comment was addressed to P, not quoting him.)

  74. 4th Time Around (22) Says:

    I would challenge anyone to read “The Gamble” and not note Reg’s
    double talk. The “Surge” as Ricks confesses, was to be judged on sustainable Political Progress in Iraq. Never happened. So, we stay in Iraq to avoid the civil war we provoked by invading the Country in the first place. Mostly, however, Ricks piles tons of credit on the U.S. Forces for not expecting results out of shocking and awing the hell out of the Iraqi people. My account of Ricks book is utterly true, and the writer was actually still for hanging in Iraq after his book “Fiasco.” Call it creeping Hitchensism, call it dumb, but we just can’t stop cheering for the home team.

  75. Marc Cooper Says:

    A few words on Manning. If he willingly and non violently broke a law then he should be prepared to face the consequences. That’s exactly what MLK did in Birmingham. He knew he was going to be arrested and he wanted to be arrested and he was arrested. Indeed, that was his whole point. That did not negate the need to defend him and support him.

    In Manning’s case, by the way, last time I looked we had a presumption of innocence for those accused. We dont know yet what he did or did not do and what responsibility he assumes. If he did not leak any material and did not break the law, he clearly needs to be defended. If he did leak any of the data he’s suspected of doing, and he owns up to that (as I expect he would) then he still deserves not only a competent and full legal defense (as all on trial do) but he also deserves moral support and admiration for his conscious sacrifice.

    Pablo… ur unreal. As I said, you represent nobody. You offer no solutions. Your politics are a crude reductionism. I will alllow u to keep posting here until you completely bore me to death. By the way, The Guardian and Der Spiegel presumably did not ask admin for response because they’re foreign papers and dont really care what the White House says. That’s fine. As an American paper, the NYTimes had the journalistic and moral responsibility to seek comment from the Obama admin and they did. SO put up or shut up. You have proof of any sort that NYTimes premeptively cleared its story with govt or “cooperated” with it in publication? Show it or shove it.

    Balter, thanks for the updated Amazon stats. She also got a good mention today in NYRB (which I believe is run by the NSA).

  76. reg Says:

    By all means read “The Gamble” and judge 4th Time’s slippery “concision” of Rick’s POV on whether what’s called “the surge” had meaningful success. The notion that any progress on the political front has “never happened” since the pre-surge days of the Sunni insurgency allied with al Qaeda in blowing the hell out of anyting Shia is ridiculous. But read “The Gamble” if you want to gain some insight into the latter phase of the war. Eye-opening in many ways (if you read it with “eyes open” rather than desperation to perpetuate one’s comfy monologue.)

  77. reg Says:

    NYRB ???? Jesus – I was impressed – like VERY – with the New Yorker bit. NYRB is as good as it gets, in terms of reviews anyone actually reads. Natasha’s edging dangerously toward the cusp of attention from Judith Butler…

  78. Marc Cooper Says:

    Reg

    Better Breitbart than Butler!!!!!

    The NYRB piece is a snooty one on MM design and it includes a nice graph and link to Natasha’s book. It’s basically praiseful but with an effete back-handed compliment when it is referred to as “only fitfully provocative.” LOL

  79. Randy Paul Says:

    Balter, thanks for the updated Amazon stats. She also got a good mention today in NYRB (which I believe is run by the NSA).

    Under the direction of the Trilateral Commission and the NED . . . .

  80. reg Says:

    Don’t forget CFR.

  81. pabloN. Says:

    Our host fumes at me:

    ” As an American paper, the NYTimes had the journalistic and moral responsibility to seek comment from the Obama admin and they did. SO put up or shut up. You have proof of any sort that NYTimes premeptively cleared its story with govt or “cooperated” with it in publication? Show it or shove it.”
    —————-

    I guess I’ll show it:

    The initial response also demonstrated the White House believed Wikileaks should have consulted them before leaking the classified information to the press. That’s interesting given the fact that the U.S. government has been hunting Julian Assange and displayed a zealous thirst to halt the operations of Wikileaks. Even more interesting is the fact that there was some back and forth prior to the publishing of the documents thanks to two reporters with the New York Times who consulted the White House and ASKED THE WHITE HOUSE FOR PERMISSION AND GUIDANCE ON WHAT TO PUBLISH AND WHAT NOT TO PUBLISH. The meeting gave the White House time to prepare for the oncoming document dump by Wikileaks. (emphasis mine)

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Danger-of-the-Wikileak-by-Kevin-Gosztola-100728-36.html

    On the issue of the Times self-inflicted prior restraint:

    “Washington Bureau Chief Dean Baquet, reporter Mark Mazzetti and a third Timesman presented senior administration officials with synopses of the reports they planned to use, if not the actual documents, at a meeting in the White House late week, the person said. (By chance, I witnessed the Times contingent walking into the West Wing.)

    They were not apparently asked to spike the whole story, but were reminded that the Wiki logs were, in the opinion of officials, a) old news and b) harmful to the US-Pak partnership.

    Emails to Baquet and Mazzetti weren’t immediately returned.

    In a “Note to Readers” on Sunday, The Times editors reported that “Government officials did not dispute that the information was authentic,” adding that the paper redacted anything that would hurt individual soldiers and anything that “would harm national security interests.”

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0710/Times_trio_visited_West_Wing_ahead_of_Wiki_bombshell.html?showall

  82. reg Says:

    Marc – I blurbed her with an Amazon link over at Ta-Nehisi Coates’ Atlantic blog on a Mad Men season premiere thread. There’s been some pretty smart discussion by TNC’s commenters. I’ll try to sneak one in again if there’s another MM post next Monday.

  83. Anna Churchill Says:

    Now this is really interesting! Manning is being seen as heroic and the unstable, screwy hacker Lamo– who ratted Manning out–is getting death threats:

    From CNN blurb:

    “Adrian Lamo spoke to CNN from the Sacramento Public Library, where he was trying to get away from reporters and a throng of people who, he said, are angry with him. He says he has received death threats in person and on his Facebook page and Twitter messages from people who feel like he betrayed Pfc. Bradley Manning.”

  84. Anna Churchill Says:

    Can anyone else hear all the fingertips of all the screenwriters on all the key pads bashing this whole thing into a movie?

    20 years ago Tim Robbins would have been a shoe in to play Assange and the part of Manning will make the career of a new actor.

  85. Sergio Says:

    military man crushes…funny!

  86. Cappadonna Says:

    Ann, once again, YOU are what’s wrong with the left — disagreement == stupid and sellout. You’re a fool too damn full of yourself to get the point of what I’m saying.

    And Assange only took out names. There were many dates and several locales left. Again, the Taliban can read too.

    Don’t play me like I’m ignorant wingnut. I don’t disagree that the information should be upfront and open. My point is that given that the wikileak stuff only confirms what we already knew and the President was able to eek by another war budget in Congress – I’d suggest that the Net Roots Left stop doing an touchdown dance and get ready to move the ball another ten yards.

    As an aside, I heard the DN! interview with Assange. Its only my opinion, but he struck me as a somewhat a pompous ass. There’s one thing to say that you did your best to ensure no soldier was put at risk from the document release. Its another thing to declare all who are thinking of security are stupid. How the hell is some blogger think he can somehow bury every vital data point in over 90,000 documents.

    Just what the Progressive movement needs, another smug sanctimonious savior who thinks he’s smarter and purer than everyone else.

  87. Anna Churchill Says:

    Cappadoodoo:

    Its been said over and over security has not been breached. Get over your phony patriotic fantasy. Why are you arguing the point ‘here’. You will never assent to any point of view but your own bias.

    So now you attack Assange’s personality! Jesus, compare what you perceive of his pomposity with most generals. Patton, Montgomery, MacArthur etc etc. Assange has built a tiny, effective network of resistance against the arrogance and pomposity that has murdering people since time began.

    “…just what the Progressive movement needs, another smug sanctimonious savior who thinks he’s smarter and purer than everyone else.”

    Damn straight!

  88. Randy Paul Says:

    Anna wrote:

    Cappadoodoo

    and then wrote:

    So now you attack Assange’s personality!

    Your lack of self-awareness is a true marvel.

  89. Jim R Says:

    So are you saying Anna if we had had more good boys like Assange and less aggressive Generals in WWII and Korea, we could have saved alot more lives by helping the other side to win sooner?

    Of course you and Michael do not have to worry one little bit about aggression and tyrants stealing your person, property, and freedom because you know and they know you have aggressors and bullies to defend you at the end of a 911 call. Aggressors and bullies you and Michael and other passive appeasers constantly bitch about and bite every chance you get.

    Spoiled and thankless consumers of the benefits of a strong and free country, for which you constantly tear down. Disgusting.

  90. Jim R Says:

    …and refuse to lift one hand to help defend. Just the opposite. You try to make heroes out those like yourself that damage it. Pathetic.

  91. Jim R Says:

    What would have saved millions of live in WWII is if the passive appears had stood up to Hitler the minute he made his first move into the Rhineland But no, he got the passive appeasers at his door with hat in hand begging they not hurt them instead.

    If Patton had been the President of France, Montgomery the Prime Minster of Britain, and MacArthur the President of Poland, instead of the panty-wastes that were in charge instead, there wouldn’t have been a WWII to begin with.

    Appeasing and placating bullies with weakness and ‘negotiation’ doesn’t work on school playgrounds nor world playgrounds. President Obama tried that already. How has that worked out so far??

  92. Dan O Says:

    Jim R,

    Your last two posts are just silly. They can only come from a John Wayne version of the world, where one side is all bad and the other side all good.

    Your comparison of Afghanistan and WWII is silly, and so the analogy is absurd.

    As a side note, in my view, there are very few single wars right now, that are unwinnable by the US. The question is how much are you willing to pay for it, and how many people are you willing to kill? We could win Afghanistan: just garrison about 600,000 troops there, and blow the hell out of anything that crosses the Pakistani border. But this would be winning by losing as we killed enormous numbers of people, lost focus on other important issues, and probably inflamed the situation in Pakistan.

    The importance of the leaks is the disconnect between what it would take to “win” in one sense, vs. what our government is telling us. They are lying to us, although we all know this already.

    The documents show that, once again, the state of the Afghan war is the fault of George Bush. I’m not being an Obama apologist here. When we should have been fully focused on finishing off the Taliban and bringing some sort of stability to the country, we were starving this effort by going into Iraq (another effort we starved).

    Obama, at the very least, is attempting to right the situation in advance of the withdrawl dealine. More troops and a different focus might work.

    But the simple fact is, that then and now, to varying degrees, we’re being lied to. Do you want a government that lies to you without consequence?

    No one who argues for transparency, or even for the justice of breaking the law, is advocating that the US loses a war, or that more soldiers die (although how that would be a consequnce is unclear), or that our enemies win. They want the government of the US to refrain from lying to the people of the US. That seems like a pretty low standard to hold our democracy to.

  93. reg Says:

    Jim R – anyone who supported the invasion of Iraq while we were getting mired in Afghanistan is a total hypocrite in attacking war critics. The fault for our being in such a shitty position lies directly with the people who took their eyes off the ball where our enemies actually were. If you were an Iraq invasion supporter, you’re guilty as hell of selling our troops down the river and turning the Afghan war into a likely loss for the USA. Look in the mirror if you’re on a manhunt for enemies of the troops and glib phonies who don’t give a shit about our national security, so much as flag-waving fantasies.

    You’re the problem here.

  94. Anna Churchill Says:

    DanO says:

    …We could win Afghanistan: just garrison about 600,000 troops there, and blow the hell out of anything that crosses the Pakistani border…

    Are you talking about getting to grips with the mythical Al Queda or dealing with the Taliban who are tyrannizing the Afghan population?

    And the problem started with allowing the Taliban to take root; by supporting the foreign fighters to fight our fight against the Russians…blah blah blah

    Bombing the shit out of anything that comes ACROSS the Pak/Afg border isn’t going to do anything to stop the boogeyman of terrorism against the US. How do you see that winning a war?

    The terrorism against the US has gone viral. Pakistan and YEMEN–which sports a literally swathe of ‘badlands’ are where any meetings can take place.

    Its all moot. Its too late. Pakistan is seething and Iran has been so fucked over by the US the hate will have to burn itself out.

    Bombing the shit out of Afghanistan was the most profoundly cruel and stupid response to 9-11.

    Didn’t anyone see the FRONTLINE expose on the information the goddam NSA had prior to 9-11? And the fact there were these bizarre “rules” about information sharing of intelligence. INSANE. It only PROVED that the gazillions spent on this huge spying apparatus has nothing to do with protecting anything but the status quo.

    All those flag waving assholes who think Manning’s actions posed a threat to national security need to get to grips with the FACTS.

    The biggest threat to national security has been the psychopaths who steal billions in tax payers money to create these huge spying apparatuses whose sole purpose is to be able create geo political scenarios that stuff their bank accounts and fuel their megalomania. They use this information to justify wars and securing all that oil that is needed to prosecute them.

  95. Anna Churchill Says:

    Randy…you really need to get a life…and some ideas.

  96. pabloN. Says:

    As Reg says:

    “Jim R – anyone who supported the invasion of Iraq while we were getting mired in Afghanistan is a total hypocrite in attacking war critics.”

    ‘Mired’ is truly le mot juste.
    There were those involved with the events of 911 which should have been brought to justice…but events quickly spun out of control and collective punishment became de rigueur.
    Collective punishment flourished. The Bush folks knew that Saddam wasn’t behind 911 but didn’t mind that the public thought this was the case… in fact, the rhetoric got so heated that talk of invading Syria or Lebanon, or Iran, or Yemen, or Somalia got serious vetting.. while even the staunchist of friends like France were placed in the metaphoric cross-hairs for having the temerity of asking diplomatically that the neo-cons take a powder and chill.

    At the same moment the blind rage of retribution expressed itself through devices like the waterboard. Black-hooded, bare-chested inquisitors were dispatched by the plane load to far flung destinations in order to drill bicuspids to exact information and revenge.
    The information confirmed the greatest fear, which prompted even more collective punishment.
    Soon everyones emails were opened and everyones affiliations were suspect.

    ‘Mired’ is truly le mot juste.
    There were those involved with the events of 911 which should have been brought to justice…but events quickly spun out of control and collective punishment became de rigueur.
    But the campaign today isn’t aimed at those responsible for 911. It is aimed at Taliban…if it is aimed at all.

    “Look in the mirror if you’re on a manhunt for enemies of the troops and glib phonies who don’t give a shit about our national security, so much as flag-waving fantasies.

    You’re the problem here.”

  97. reg Says:

    Pablo – your implication that the Taliban were innocent victims is absurd. I’m not going to get in the weeds about the relative justice of the Afghan war with you because you’re a waste of my time. You’ve apparently appointed yourself a bit of gum on my shoe.

  98. Cappadonna Says:

    For all your ranting and raving Anna, what the hell have you ever done to make things better? And don’t count running through the streets with a bullhorn and picket sign.

    Anna, get over yourself — you ain’t Assata and
    Assagne isn’t a Biafra Freedom Fighter. You’re a well heeled middle class Net Roots blogger bitching on the web. And neither of us know how raw intelligence data works. And neither does wiki leaks.

    Yes Assange ‘did his best’ shield soldiers. (though from his interview, I think he really doesn’t give a damn.) There are data points that we would gloss over but trained spies and soldiers key in on. And Al Qaida has modem access too.

    Honestly the security issue probably isn’t a major concern — as most of the stuff it reveals we already knew and a lot of field report are things like “we made it to checkpoint x at blah blah blah” — rather boring stuff. But, its a real concern, despite your ignorant rants.

  99. Randy Paul Says:

    Randy…you really need to get a life…and some ideas.

    You need some new meds . . .

  100. Dan O Says:

    Oh Anna.

    You’re so good at taking a necessarily brief summary of a complex situation and pretending that’s the whole argument.

    Pointless as always, but…

    And the problem started with allowing the Taliban to take root; by supporting the foreign fighters to fight our fight against the Russians…blah blah blah

    And? So there was blowback from the Russian invasion. What’s the implication, that we should go back in time? Where’s Doc when you need him?

    Bombing the shit out of anything that comes ACROSS the Pak/Afg border isn’t going to do anything to stop the boogeyman of terrorism against the US. How do you see that winning a war?

    I could channel you and call you a thundering moron, and tell you that you should learn how to read, but instead I’ll just point out that in a glib and shorthand way I was talking about the Taliban. Morevoer I was making the point, that a “win” can happen, but in some cases only at enormous moral and human cost. I wasn’t advocating that action.

    and Iran has been so fucked over by the US the hate will have to burn itself out.

    Every account I’ve seen has remarked on how popular the US is amongst the people of Iran. Once again, it’s all fantasy all the time from you. This will be true only if the US attacks Iran or allows Israel to do so.

    The terrorism against the US has gone viral.

    What does that even mean? Does it mean that terrorism can originate from many places? How is that new?

    The rest of your post consists of non-sequiters as usual.

    Bombing the shit out of Afghanistan was the most profoundly cruel and stupid response to 9-11

    Get serious here. The first US response was to get the Taliban to give up Bin Laden and his compatriots. They refused. The US did nothing for 6 weeks and then invaded. That invasion, widely predicted to be a quagmire of epic proportions, was limited, short, and highly successful, so the characterization of it as “bombing the shit” out of them is wildly inaccurate.

    Morevoer, the invasion was totally justified. The problems began when Bush went looking for other adventures and left Afghanistan to rot. Cruel was the Taliban’s rule, and cruel was the Taliban’s decision to invite invasion by not giving up the terror network operating in their country.

  101. pabloN. Says:

    JIM is being offensive:

    “If Patton had been the President of France, Montgomery the Prime Minster of Britain, and MacArthur the President of Poland, instead of the panty-wastes that were in charge instead, there wouldn’t have been a WWII to begin with.”

    Another theory I had heard floated was the terms of the Amistice in 1918. Reparations caused economic collapse giving rise to Hitler.

    Like Evolution and Relativity though, it’s only a theory.

    Under yours, we would need to drill down and examine the motives of constituencies which elected these, these err, ‘effeminate’ Presidents instead of vetting officers from foriegn officer corps to lead their respective countries…
    So tell us, Jim, why the prediliction for military leadership in civil society? Is it strength or manliness?

    In light of criticisms hurled at the democratic socialist left here (some justified to combat rudeness..but some targeting the left for being left of liberals).. here is one post openly accusing vibrant euro democracies of diviant inclinations which could have only been put right by strong foriegn military acting as President.

    Further denigrating the peoples in these democratic countries by assailing them- instead of the facists who attacked them.
    ….The nub being that european countries have no business conducting diplomacy to avoid war…because war is the preferred diplomatic solution for crisis facing the USA today.

    Jim, your hyperbole doesn’t hide your intention..

  102. pabloN. Says:

    reg Says:

    July 30th, 2010 at 9:56 am
    Pablo – your implication that the Taliban were innocent victims is absurd. I’m not going to get in the weeds about the relative justice of the Afghan war with you because you’re a waste of my time. You’ve apparently appointed yourself a bit of gum on my shoe
    —————

    No Reg, that wasn’t my meaning at all..
    I was trying albiet unsucessfully to say that if the USA could have gotten those responsile for 911…. or, had the Afghan gov’t extridited them… then war might have been avoided.
    But once hostilities began…those responsible for 911 became attenuated to the point where they are almost incidental..

    And now the country is “mired” as you say… ‘distracted’, ‘eye off of the ball’ etc.

  103. Anna Churchill Says:

    For fuck’s sake the US had who was responsible in their sites and did fuck all about it…so all that speculating is soooooooooooooooo off point.

    This is hilarious– or rather would be if it weren’t so full of holes and lies. Talk about spin:

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/30/hayden.wikileaks.secrets/index.html?hpt=T2

  104. Anna Churchill Says:

    Dan…

    The first I ever heard of the Taliban was in about 95/6 or 7. As usual a documentary filmmaker was on the case and trying to alert the world of what was happening. It was a harrowing account of how they were stripping away civil rights and liberties especially from women.

    And what was the US doing? Through, no doubt, Charlie the Dick WIlson, paying for it to happen.

    The invasion was and is a quagmire of epic proportions.

    What planet are you on? In face, what are you on?

    Your blather is predicated on the belief that there is even a shred of nobility of purpose in any of the aggression at all and totally pretending that the whole reason the war logs were released is because the war is being prosecuted by morons and crooks.

  105. Anna Churchill Says:

    And Dan…do you really, really think that oil exploration rights and access not to mention the lure of mineral wealth lucre have nothing to do with both Russia’s and our invasion?

    Go find the cute long article about Hunt’s dirty dealings for oil rights explorations etc along with Halliburton. Thats why everyone was being blown to shit.

  106. Dan O Says:

    Let me see if I understand.

    We didn’t do [Some Action] in ’96 when the Taliban was coming to power, this in ’01 we have no right to react to an attack on our country by elements of a terrorist organization under the formal protection of that government?

    You’re a deeply confused person. By the way, we’ve been there for 9 years now; where is that pipeline we went in for?

  107. Anna Churchill Says:

    under the formal protection???? So the Taliban were the government? are you fucking mad? And the majority of Taliban were not Afghans, you dolt. And never have been. Afghanistan was invaded…again.
    You are no better than the flag wavers.

    In a world where there might have been an explosion of sanity the amount of money wasted on killing with no outcome that can justify it AND ALL THE LATEST REVELATIONS ARE ABOUT THIS FACT, DAN OH…that same money could have been used to invest in infrastructure for Afghanistan…that would have created a barrier to people being seduced into fighting for the Taliban for purely mercenary reasons…like survival.

    You are actually showing what little flag waving idiot you are.

    ‘we have no right to react to an attack??? puff puff.

    Try reacting to the information and FACT that your own government knew what was being cooked up and did nothing…because INTELLIGENCE agencies dont share information.

  108. Dan O Says:

    So the Taliban were the government?

    Yes.

    It’s really no fun to debate with the nihilistically uninformed.

    Insult away Woody Anna; that doesn’t change the fact that you just have your facts wrong.

  109. Hester Says:

    What was that about “Collateral Murder”, Mr. Assange?

    “There is no protection mechanisms for these people, be it informant or other community members who as part of the role as an elder meets with the officials or international forces, while wikileaks served greatly in brining to public some of the unspoken files, it certainly also acted against the principle of “Do No Harm” that all civil society and watchdogs have to adhere to.”

    http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/wikileaks+damage+already+done+says+human+rights+group/372767

  110. Hester Says:

    Sorry, it appears the link does not work.

    http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/wikileaks+damage+already+done+says+human+rights+group/3727677

  111. Hester Says:

    ” The Taliban has issued a chilling warning to Afghans, alleged in secret US military files leaked on the internet to have worked as informers for the Nato-led coalition, telling Channel 4 News “US spies” will be hunted down and punished.”

    http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/taliban+hunt+wikileaks+outed+afghan+informers/3727667

  112. devin the dude Says:

    I’ve started reading Jim R’s posts in the voice of Yosemite Sam.

  113. devin the dude Says:

    Actually, I’m going to go with Barney Fife.

  114. Anna Churchill Says:

    excellent James Ridgeway read reminding all of Afghan debacle and its history…and Pakistan

    http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/07/wikileaks-taliban-afghanistan

  115. Anna Churchill Says:

    # Dan O Says:
    July 30th, 2010 at 1:17 pm

    So the Taliban were the government?

    Yes.

    It’s really no fun to debate with the nihilistically uninformed.

    Insult away Woody Anna; that doesn’t change the fact that you just have your facts wrong.

    Read this and weep, pal:

    (Can Dan say ‘nuanced’)

    The former Taliban regime
    Main article: Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan

    On September 27, 1996, the ruling members of the Afghan government were displaced by members of the Islamic Taliban movement. The Taliban declared themselves the legitimate government of Afghanistan; however, *****the UN continued to recognize the former government of Burhanuddin Rabbani.*****

    The Organization of the Islamic Conference left the Afghan seat vacant until the question of legitimacy could be resolved through negotiations among the warring factions.

  116. Anna Churchill Says:

    ******QUESTION OF LEGITIMACY*****

    THE TAL I BAN declared, declared, declared THEMSELVES, themselves

    UN DID NOT RECOGNIZE them

    Putting Dan’s foot in his mouth for him:

    “…n ‘01 we have no right to react to an attack on our country by elements of a terrorist organization under the formal protection of that government?”

    hmmmm ‘a terrorist guberment UNDER the FORMAL protection of that guberment.

    THE TERRORISTS DECLARED THEMSELVES A “GOVERNMENT”

    The country was a hostage

  117. Dan O Says:

    Anna, you’ve confirmed for me yet again, that you are an utter waste of time. I will try to restrain myself from engaging with such obvious obliviousness.

    Who the fuck cares what the UN said? From 96-01 the Taliban was the de facto government of Afghanistan. They were in charge. Ran any voting (such as there was), ran the courts, ran the police, ran the military. By any reasonable measure those things constitute being the government. By your logic the Nazis were never the government of Germany.

    Right now I’m marveling at your utterly hollow little gotcha. I don’t really know what to say. This wouldn’t pass muster in a third grade debate over flavors of ice cream.

  118. Randy Paul Says:

    I’ve started reading Jim R’s posts in the voice of Yosemite Sam.

    I might also suggest Ross Perot or maybe Andy Devine.

  119. Jim R Says:

    “No struggle at all, I nearly always go for the cappuccino.”

    Touche’ Michael.

  120. Anna Churchill Says:

    So the Nazis were the government of say….Denmark.

    The Taliban were/are a group of foreign interlopers. THEY ARE PREDOMINANTLY FOREIGN. They rule by force and terror.

    Calling them a ‘government’ is ludicrous.

  121. Anna Churchill Says:

    Dan: lets deconstruct this illogical jumble of letters you have posted…

    “…in ‘01 we have no right to react to an attack on our country by elements of a terrorist organization under the formal protection of that government?”

    Afghanistan and its people were not behind the attack on the WTC, you thick headed twit.

    The Taliban were foreign fighters ARMED by the very government you think should go and attack the Afghans who were overrun by these fuckers under the ruse of fighting the Russians and once gaining a foothold forced their fascist mad cult onto the Afghans.

    Soooooo fucking logical to go bomb the shit out a whole country to track down a group of renegade psychos terrorizing that country.

    You understand nothing about the Middle East. There would be know Al Queda, no Taliban no Ahmadina what ever or Ayotollacrazy if it werent for the off the map hubris, greed, cruelty and rip snortin’ stupidity of the bozos who thought they could just carve up a whole fucking region and fuck with a whole lotta people all to serve their (our) interests– with impunity.

    Pakistan and all its madness can again be traced back to the hubris of Britain and then the pathology of Jinnah.

    Its all about colonialism. Your gung ho, simplistic take on what you think is the appropriate response to a successful terrorist attack NOT orchestrated by a foreign country but by a loosely associated group of very pissed off people making the West’s idea of vigilante justice (Clint Eastwood) look like baby play.

    Responding with a war machine was just fucking laughable if it weren’t for the body count.

  122. Dan O Says:

    OK, last one, because once again, getting into it with you is an endless morass.

    The Taliban members were composed of mainly Afghans, my dear, many of whom had been displaced by the war with the Russians as well as other internal fighting. Many of those displaced who went on to fight for the Taliban were educated at madrassas in Pakistan. They mainly weren’t foreign, they were Afghans (with the support of Pakistan’s ISI and indirectly Saudi Arabia).

    The Taliban was the government. You might argue that they were illegitimate, but they were the government. I don’t know what else to tell you. If it’s night out and you insist it’s day, then we’re done talking.

    Let me ask you a question if we can manage to wade through the unabated id and name calling that comprise your arguments. Since the Taliban were asked to turn over Bin Laden and his pals, and they chose not to do so, what would you have advised the US as a response to the 9/11 attack?

  123. Jim R Says:

    You are a masochistic Dan O.

    You sound like Ward Churchill, Anna. Any relationship?

  124. Randy Paul Says:

    I’ve got your back, Dan:

    The world first became aware of the Taleban in 1994 when they were appointed by Islamabad to protect a convoy trying to open up a trade route between Pakistan and Central Asia.

    The group – comprised of Afghans trained in religious schools in Pakistan along with former Islamic fighters or mujahedin – proved effective bodyguards, driving off other mujahedin groups who attacked and looted the convoy.

    They went on to take the nearby city of Kandahar, beginning a remarkable advance which led to their capture of the capital, Kabul, in September 1996.

    One wonders what part of “comprised of Afghans” someone doesn’t understand . . .

    But wait, there’s more:

    As ethnic Pashtuns, a large part of their support came from Afghanistan’s Pashtun community, disillusioned with existing ethnic Tajik and Uzbek leaders.

    Pashtuns are far and away the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan. Indeed, the word Afghan is a Persian word meaning Pashtun.

  125. Anna Churchill Says:

    http://kabulcenter.org/?p=120

    The Taliban’s Emergence in Afghanistan: A founder’s insights
    February 1, 2008

    By Wakil Ahmad Mutawakil

    How the Taliban emerged
    ————————————————–

    My bad…I have read over and over about ‘foreign fighters’

    The above article–from the horses mouth–does support the bullet points of your arguments, but also my misconception…the Taliban were an outgrowth of displacement by the Soviet invasion and Afghan refugees growing up in Pakistani madrasses…so my sense of a strong foreign influence is not totally without merit.

    Then..enter OBL in the midst of all the war chaos who made promises he did not keep and the rest is history.

    OBL is still the foreign influence that resulted in things getting crazier.

    What I would like to know is was it post OBL or pre that the nightmare of strictures against women began. Though I am sure with the influence of the Pakistani madrasses a great deal of the die was cast.

    As to the hilarious question about what would I do in response to 9-11? I would have ripped those responsible for coordinating intelligence new assholes and let the public know that billions of their money had been squandered to only protect vested interests and enrich a handful of people at the cost of innocent lives. Thousands.

    Within less than a minute of first hearing the words: a plane has flown into the WTC…another has…one tower is falling (I was getting this from someone talking on a cell phone to their housemate watching the news on British TV about 2 pm local time) the first words that came to mind were: Arabs, terrorists, Germany, CIA…knew about it…let it happen.

    I was right on all accounts (Germany was where some of the hijackers prepared out of)

    If I can figure that out…along with millions of others what makes it so hard for you?

    “Response”?????????? To not have fucked over everyone in the first place. To not have consistently fueled tyrants….and in the case of Afghanistan allow a Congressman to get the green light on millions at the behest of some Right wing christian fundamentalist witch who so feared the idea of communism she preferred to see 3000 people blown to hell in the heart of Manhattan. And then once they realized that mistake—and they did–to not go in there with a war machine but for the same money to have gone in there with a Marshall plan. Thats how OBL got their attention. Only just once do it right. Like it was done in Germany.

    The population was reeling from oppression. GIVE THEM FOOD; infrastructure, education.

  126. Anna Churchill Says:

    Must clarify that Dan or Randy (they blur into one) got me confused with their confusion in talking about 9-11 in relation to Taliban rather than Al Queda– which is what I was referring to.

    Their point was that the Taliban was the ‘government’ that would not give up the AL Queda operatives

    My point is they (along with Saddam Hussein) would not have been there in any position of power if it werent for American tax payers’ money paying for them and all their nice weaponry.

    So who is really responsible for 9-11?

  127. Randy Paul Says:

    So who is really responsible for 9-11?

    The people who perpetrated the act: Al Qaeda.

    In the words of Jon Stewart, Anna: go f#$% yourself.

    I lost a colleague on UA 175 and a friend who worked for Cantor Fitzgerald. Why not convey what you just wrote to them, you witless virago?

    Why not tell some of the widows and widowers and other family members your opinion, you cowardly termagant?

  128. bunkerbuster Says:

    “nihilistically uninformed.”
    love that! I’m stealing it and putting it straight into my wingnut dismantling kit. lol…..

  129. Anna Churchill Says:

    Randy…now you are just being an asshole twisting the argument into a load of hysterical bullshit.

    My posts, here, are at least consistent with genuine outrage at the loss of human life by way of the stupidity at large…

    And the fact you can’t grasp the real causes of why a 9-11 happened should be reason you might want some quiet time to contemplate the death of your friends.

    That you can’t find outrage at a government (yours) that had spent billions in black spending constructing a ginourmous spying apparatus that actually was following Bin Laden and hijackers and knew an attack was being planned….AND DID NOTHING. This isn’t ‘truther” fantasy, you moron, the expose piece was on FRONTLINE just a few weeks ago. All the speculation about what was known is valid.

    That you go primitive and want to just go around indisciminately killing people to avenge your friend’ death…rather than understanding the long ugly road that lead to a group of radicals who also wanted to indiscriminately kill people to avenge a veritable carnival of carnage perpetrated by the US for the past 100 years…well, good luck.

    And how has that indiscriminate killing to avenge the deaths of 9-11 been working out for ya? All those Iraqi and Afghanistan kids blown to bits make you feel better?

    Talk about nihilism.

  130. Anna Churchill Says:

    And just an interesting twist to who may have some diplomatic cojones:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/01/iran-stoning-woman-brazil

    Lula is offering sanctuary to the woman sentenced to being stoned.

    He has taken shit for being an ally of Iran. But, very interestingly, he may be outsmarting everyone in being able to mollify Ah-Man.

    And until recently Brazil was a place a husband could murder his wife, with impunity, for cheating.

    This is a fascinating turn of events.

  131. Anna Churchill Says:

    PS Randy, there were many victims’ family members who against going to war…and specifically said NOT in the name of those that were lost who would be horrified by prospect and against it.

  132. Anna Churchill Says:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews/klein.html

    Plus interview transcript…here is a tasty morsel:

    “…(interview with Mark Klein)

    The legal case I joined as a declaration — I gave the Electronic Frontier Foundation [EFF] a declaration which basically laid out the facts as I know it. So I’ve become a witness in their case, and of course, as you know, that case is stalled because the government is still trying to get the whole thing dismissed on the grounds [that it would reveal] state secrets, so it’s still in court. Nothing much has progressed.

    Editor’s Note: The case is currently on appeal before the 9th Circuit Court.

    How do you feel now?

    Well, I feel better that some of it has gotten out. When some of my documents were leaked out, they got all around the Internet, and I can see by reading the exchanges on the Internet that at least the tech community has got it and has an idea what the government is doing and doesn’t like it.

    I’d like to [go] further, though — get the American people as a whole to understand what’s going on, and that takes more effort by the media, which has been rather sparse in the coverage. The courts, of course, have been somewhat frozen by the government trying to block the case. And the Congress, again, is still frozen as far as I can tell. Even though it’s changed hands and the Democrats control Congress, nobody’s contacted me. So I am still frustrated by that side. …

    … There were terrorists who were living among us prior to 9/11. They were moving around; they were going to flight schools; they were renting apartments; they were traveling around. Doesn’t the government need to do something in terms of gathering information to try to prevent the next terrorist attack?

    ******I think if they needed anything, they had it already on the books. There’s lots of — maybe too much — leeway for surveillance as it is. And they had lots of information that 9/11 was going to happen. But for some strange reason, they didn’t act.********* [where is your outrage now, Randy]

    So I think you’re asking this government — which is full of prevarications and misleading statements and not very truthful and also a large component of simply incompetence — handing them the keys to everybody’s private information. I don’t trust them with that. I think they’re far more interested in just aggrandizing power for power’s sake, and they’re just using it as an excuse — the so-called war on terror, which is their excuse for everything they do. Everything is aggrandizing power secretly, with no oversight. And I’m against that. It’s dangerous. …

  133. Anna Churchill Says:

    More from that same segment but a detailed profile on one of the players…a ‘maverick’ FBI agent:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/

  134. Randy Paul Says:

    Randy…now you are just being an asshole twisting the argument into a load of hysterical bullshit.

    I stand by what I said. Your bilious and flatulent commentary here adds nothing.

  135. jjthesuperb Says:

    I wish assange had threatened to leak state secrets about israel, because then the mossad would have punched his ticket before he could hit the send button.