Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Why these Obama associations continue to be questioned
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, May 01, 2008

John M. Murtagh provides a little reminder of what the Weather Underground did routinely when William Ayers and his wife Bernadette Dhorn, were a part of it. You see, his father was targeted by them and his home was bombed:
In February 1970, my father, a New York State Supreme Court justice, was presiding over the trial of the so-called “Panther 21,” members of the Black Panther Party indicted in a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores. Early on the morning of February 21, as my family slept, three gasoline-filled firebombs exploded at our home on the northern tip of Manhattan, two at the front door and the third tucked neatly under the gas tank of the family car. (Today, of course, we’d call that a car bomb.) A neighbor heard the first two blasts and, with the remains of a snowman I had built a few days earlier, managed to douse the flames beneath the car. That was an act whose courage I fully appreciated only as an adult, an act that doubtless saved multiple lives that night.

I still recall, as though it were a dream, thinking that someone was lifting and dropping my bed as the explosions jolted me awake, and I remember my mother’s pulling me from the tangle of sheets and running to the kitchen where my father stood. Through the large windows overlooking the yard, all we could see was the bright glow of flames below. We didn’t leave our burning house for fear of who might be waiting outside. The same night, bombs were thrown at a police car in Manhattan and two military recruiting stations in Brooklyn. Sunlight, the next morning, revealed three sentences of blood-red graffiti on our sidewalk: FREE THE PANTHER 21; THE VIET CONG HAVE WON; KILL THE PIGS.

For the next 18 months, I went to school in an unmarked police car. My mother, a schoolteacher, had plainclothes detectives waiting in the faculty lounge all day. My brother saved a few bucks because he didn’t have to rent a limo for the senior prom: the NYPD did the driving. We all made the best of the odd new life that had been thrust upon us, but for years, the sound of a fire truck’s siren made my stomach knot and my heart race. In many ways, the enormity of the attempt to kill my entire family didn’t fully hit me until years later, when, a father myself, I was tucking my own nine-year-old John Murtagh into bed.
You see, Murtagh was 9 when the bombs exploded. Unlike Obama who was 8 at the time, he can't seem to find it in him to just wave off what the WU attempted to do to his family. And the surviving members of the WU certainly aren't people he would associate with for any reason.

Says Murtagh:
Though never a supporter of Obama, I admired him for a time for his ability to engage our imaginations, and especially for his ability to inspire the young once again to embrace the political system. Yet his myopia in the last few months has cast a new light on his “politics of change.” Nobody should hold the junior senator from Illinois responsible for his friends’ and supporters’ violent terrorist acts. But it is fair to hold him responsible for a startling lack of judgment in his choice of mentors, associates, and friends, and for showing a callous disregard for the lives they damaged and the hatred they have demonstrated for this country. It is fair, too, to ask what those choices say about Obama’s own beliefs, his philosophy, and the direction he would take our nation.
Exactly so. It is indeed fair to ask about those choices.

Murtagh obviously has no sympathy, and certainly no use for Ayers or his associates nor should he, or anyone else:
At the conclusion of his 2001 Times interview, Ayers said of his upbringing and subsequent radicalization: “I was a child of privilege and I woke up to a world on fire.”

Funny thing, Bill: one night, so did I.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
And some of those fellow travelers are disappointed ..
It’s no different for Obama; and that doesn’t make him a bad man either. In fact, he would probably make a much better president than John McCain or Madame DeFarge. It just means that the system won’t allow people of integrity to reach the highest rung on the political ladder. They end up being compromised. Eventually, the level of compromise is so great that the system no longer functions properly; the economic situation deteriorates, the country is wracked with debt and corruption, the military is bogged down in unwinnable wars, and the liberties upon which the nation was built begin to crumble. Everything that’s happening right now. Obama can’t change that nor can anyone who operates within the system. That is what makes men like Reverend Wright more important historically than Obama, even if Obama becomes president. Wright represents people-powered change, "transformational change"; the change that takes place when workers organize into labor unions and shut down plants and factories. The kind of change when women form liberation movements and demand the right to vote or equal pay. The kind of change when gays demand equal protection under the law and equal opportunity at work. The kind of change when black people say "enough" and take their place at "white’s only" lunch counters or in seats at the head of the bus.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
I heard that Obama was part of a Fundamentalist Muslim sleeper cell in the U.S.

When he gets elected president, he will replace all 9 Supreme Court judges with Mullahs and Imams from the Middle East.

He will make all U.S. women cover their heads, and ankles, and that he will outlaw bacon and make Hummus the national food.

(It might have been on Fox that I heard that.)

 
Written By: Juan Man
URL: http://
Juan... WTF?
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Or maybe I read it in the Onion.
 
Written By: Juan Man
URL: http://
The most galling thing about Ayers’ story is that he was rewarded for his terrorism with a university position giving him license and free reign to reshape public school curricums to indoctrinate students with Ayers’ own radical views.

Ayers is now an authority, but not the type of authority that the Left wants to see questioned. Ayers wields tremendous power over the education of young people, but it is not the type of power that we are supposed to speak truth to.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
One more hard hit, on the Ayers-Dohrn association for instance, and Obama will go down for the count.

He is an astonishingly vulnerable candidate.

His network includes a racist church, unrepentant domestic terrorists, a by-implication association with Farrakhan, and an official campaign blogger who is an admitted communist.

What’s he going to do about this? Have a news conference where he says, "I’ve had enough. So this morning I’d like to repudiate and distance myself from my own life."

Watching him trying to talk his way around Wright again this morning, in that same sonorous, evasive manner that is supposed to evoke thoughtfulness, he looked to me like someone who knew very well that he’s just holding on and playing not to lose.

If Meredith Viera hadn’t been there at the ready with the now de rigueur liberal journalist fellatio, he could have been done in simply by being asked honest questions.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
History also shows that George Washington and his band of rebels and terrorists against the British Empire were rewarded for their terrorism.

I guess it could be reasonably be surmised that the Empire doesn’t always win.





 
Written By: Juan Man
URL: http://
Left-wing ideology now dominates academia, journalism, and both houses of Congress. Wake up! You are the empire. If the Democrats win the Presidency this year you will have to feed your adolescent rebellious fantasies by railing against the Republican minority in Congress. Maybe you will sense that there is something a little unsatisfying about waging a rebellion against the minority in the name of the monoculture.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Juan, you have absolutely no grasp of history if you would equate the Colonial Army with terrorists.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
Steverino, the moral equivalance becomes crystal clear once you are able to see nine year old John Murtagh as a British soldier fighting for the Crown.

(Or you are 13 years old).
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Weather Underground victims for Truth?

SWIFTBOATING!!!
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
History also shows that George Washington and his band of rebels and terrorists against the British Empire were rewarded for their terrorism.
Well, Juan, you tool....if you can find me an example where George Washington and his band of rebels fire bombed a British civilian family home in the dead of night while they slept....let me know and then maybe your metaphor will have some merit.

Till then, it’s just another of your misleading, inaccurate, toolish, trolling examples.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
"His (Obama’s) campaign is not being derailed by his race, it’s being derailed by a person who doesn’t want him to prove that we have made great advances in this country," Huckabee told reporters.
...
"Jeremiah Wright needs for Obama to lose so he can justify his anger, his hostile bitterness against the United States of America," Huckabee said.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
If Jeremiah Wright wanted Obama to lose, he could make that happen in a New York minute. Of that much I’m certain.

Obama has clearly been wounded by the fact of his association with Wright and the church. But what Wright’s weekend striptease and Obama’s renunciation of Wright had the look of was what Nixon’s boys once called a "modified limited hangout."

I’m pretty convinced that Wright wants Barack to get the power. That would be the most important thing: get the power, Barack!

What we’ve just seen looks to me like a way to try to part company for the rest of the campaign. A Plan B move, maybe even a Plan C move, but a stage they clearly didn’t want to reach.

I think that Obama assumed that getting around the church thingy would rest on the fear that the media has of race. Nobody wants to be the next, you know, Imus.

Now the media has settled into the rationalization that Obama has "put the Wright mess behind him."

Well, I assure you that the Clintons know that’s not true, which would put me and the Clintons on the same page for the first, and hopefully the last, time.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
I guess it could be reasonably be surmised that the Empire doesn’t always win.
I guess it could be reasonably be surmised that you side with terrorists.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
I guess it could be reasonably be surmised that you side with terrorists.
Oh no, he thinks he’s cleverly made an accurate comparison between apples and horsedung.
The premise being history as we’ve written it has declared our ’terrorist’ Washington to be okay, whereas ’terrorist’ Ayers has been declared by us to be a scumbag.

It’s obvious Juan likes to take a non-moral stand in the middle of nowhere with regards to the acceptable and unacceptable merely to pretend he’s making us think and reflect. A cutsie way of saying we have no moral leg to stand on in this judgement of Ayers as we are essentially descended from a series of victorious ’terrorist’ actions as a nation.

And, just as obviously, is practically clueless or deliberately misrepresenting the differences in morality between the times of Washington and our own times that would have precluded Washington and his band or rebels from ever even considering random terror as a method for achieving their aims.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Perhaps Juan would like to offer up his own loved ones to terrorists who want to change the system by violence? If not, then he’s obviously a ’chickenhawk.’
 
Written By: JorgXMcKie
URL: http://
Nevermind that Washington was a commander of a declared, uniformed recognized military force....
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Nevermind that Washington was a commander of a declared, uniformed recognized military force....
Washington also wasn’t fond of the "sniping" style of Western riflemen. He prefered the standard methods of the day, stand should to shoulder and face the enemy.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Juan, you have absolutely no grasp of history if you would equate the Colonial Army with terrorists.
All Righty Then,

Would you be willing to say that George Washington and his rag-tag army were Illegal Combatants against the British King?

And that there were times when the British and the Hessians were picked off by concealed colonists - much like Al Qaeda in Iraq picks off U.S. Military in the Iraqi Occupied Territories?

The greater point is that terrorism is the last resort tactic of the weaker side - and that the weaker side will use whatever tactics they have available.

When the US built bases in Saudi Arabia, on Sacred Muslim, Infidel-Detesting Soil, it took less than two years for the war against the U.S. to begin. The weapon they chose was a truck loaded with explosives, parked in a garage of America’s phallic like Monuments of World Domination, a WTC Building.

If they had a B1 bomber with a nuclear payload, they would have used that - but the best they could do on such short notice was a rental truck. And it is ultimately distracting to understanding the nature of the conflict if you simply, dismissively, label them as terrorists.

They are at WAR with us, using any means they have available.

Of course, with America and Israel having massively superior hardware and fire-power than our enemies, it is alluring to yell, "Come Out and Fight Like a Man!’

But if the weapons at disposal were reversed, the U.S. and Israel would use the same "terrorist" tactics as the jihadist militants.

First Understand Your Enemy.

(BTW - The Vietnamese thought carpet-bombing of habited areas by U.S. B-52 bombers constituted terrorism - innocent civilians being destroyed by an invader with far superior weapons of mass destruction. )
 
Written By: Juan Man
URL: http://
Would you be willing to say that George Washington and his rag-tag army were Illegal Combatants against the British King?
Why don’t you give us an internationally accepted definition of a "legal combatant" (e.g. how does the Geneva Convention define it) and then reexamine the question.

The obvious answer is "No, they were not ’illegal combatants’" given normal standards, but I’ll give you a chance to actually apply some minimal investigation to realize the answer yourself.
much like Al Qaeda
Again, refer to the internationally accepted views of legal vs illegal combatants.
When the US built bases in Saudi Arabia
You mean during that huge coalition of nations to remove Iraq from Kuwait that included just about every major Muslim nation on Earth?

Seriously, do you have even the slightest grasp of history?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Juan,

Simply by fighting in standard Continental Army uniforms, under widely visible and recognized flags, George Washington and his Army met the Geneva Convention definition of "lawful combatants".

Google would be your friend, if the facts were.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
Would you be willing to say that George Washington and his rag-tag army were Illegal Combatants against the British King?
Why don’t you give us an internationally accepted definition of a "legal combatant" (e.g. how does the Geneva Convention define it) and then reexamine the question.

The obvious answer is "No, they were not ’illegal combatants’" given normal standards, but I’ll give you a chance to actually apply some minimal investigation to realize the answer yourself.
much like Al Qaeda
Again, refer to the internationally accepted views of legal vs illegal combatants.
When the US built bases in Saudi Arabia
You mean during that huge coalition of nations to remove Iraq from Kuwait that included just about every major Muslim nation on Earth?a
There is no international agreement about what an "illegal combatant" is. It is a contrived classification - used by the defending side to label the other side, as the enemy who is not fighting "FAIR" (in other words, not fighting directly against our military strengths). I used the term in the manner which exploits its eye-of-the beholder nature. It is the same with the term terrorists.

http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/aug02/law.asp

If it were Israeli suicide-bombers fighting the Palestinian Invasion and Occupation of Israel, they would be called Freedom Fighters, Martyrs for the State of Israel, and Hollywood would be glorifying them for posterity. Of course, in the Arab world, the Israeli suicide bombers would be called terrorists.

So these terms - illegal combatant, terrorist, are simply revealing of - on which side the accuser is on, and nothing more. There are more accurate terms to describe who is the aggressor, and who is the defender - terms such as Invader and Occupier.

Problems are seldom solved from this mindset- especially in matters such as religious certitudes and confiscatory invasions.

There is an appaling inability in many Americans to divorce their chauvinism from their critical reasoning capacity. Of course, that applies to the other side, also.

I served my country in the military, but I refuse (am incapable of?) turning off my rationality because the corporate media, and millions of my countrymen have done so.

Since you are posing as the historian, Let ME pose some historical questions to you.

How many Iraqi troops did Bush 41 tell the Saudi King were on Saudi Arabia’s border, ready to invade, as revealed by U.S. satellite photos, before the U.S. finally received permission to build U.S. Air Bases on Saudi Arabia’s sacred Muslim soil. ? (The answer may tell you why Prince Bandar Bush asks to see top secret photos when Bush 43 is trying to convince the Saudis of something.)


How many times did the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, tell Saddam that the U.S. had no position on Saddam’s problems with Kuwait’s sideways drilling into Iraqi Oil fields?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html

Unless you can accurately talk about these historical events, please do our readers the courtesy of not posing as a historian.
 
Written By: Juan Mann
URL: http://
please do our readers the courtesy of not posing as a historian
Dude — you’re linking to a 9/11 truther site?

idiot
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Dude — you’re linking to a 9/11 truther site?

idiot
I can sense your fear.

From here.
 
Written By: Juan Mann
URL: http://
Dude — you’re linking to a 9/11 truther site?

idiot
http://www.pdhealth.mil/deployments/gulfwar/background.asp

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/02/ST2008040203634.html

I’m going to guess you get your "true" information from Rev. Moon., Ruppert Murdoch, Richard Mellon Scaife, and DisneyLand.

 
Written By: Juan Mann
URL: http://
Your WaPo link provides the OPPOSITE of the conspiracy you’re trying to claim. Stick with the troofer sites.

Again — you’re an idiot.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Your WaPo link provides the OPPOSITE of the conspiracy you’re trying to claim. Stick with the troofer sites.
Remember, this is the corporate media, Pro-War Washington Post you’re reading in that link.

I guess the incriminating nuance of the reporter eluded you, when the reporter stated:

"PORTIONS of Glaspie’s account of her meeting with Hussein on the eve of the invasion TRACK with testimony she gave to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ... "

Really, portions tracked???? Doesn’t that mean other PORTIONS of her testimony DID NOT TRACK with what she told the Senate Committee? But the Post reporter wisely doesn’t "go there". The reporter just got on the record that there were discrepancies in her two testimonies.


Here is what YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE from your position:

Saddam wants to know what the U.S. will do if he tries a military adventure against Kuwait.

He asks for a meeting with the U.S.

Glaspie, who was briefed by Baker just before the meeting with Saddam, tells Saddam, that if you try any funny business with Kuwait, the U.S. will break your face.

Saddam then Invades anyhow.

Why would Saddam request a meeting when it didn’t matter what the U.S. said it would do?

In further evidence,

G.H.W. Bush was asked when the story of the Glaspie/Baker trap was made public:

How could the U.S. tell Saddam the U.S. had no position on the Iraq-Kuwait "dispute" ?

Bush gave his tacit confirmation of the charge when he said

"We didn’t think he would be that stupid."

The rest of the sentence, unsaid, was "... to fall for the trap."

Keep calling me names, it shows how upsetting these things you were totally unaware of affect you, how they are confronting your propagandized story of reality.

 
Written By: Juan Man
URL: http://
Keep calling me names, it shows how upsetting these things you were totally unaware of affect you, how they are confronting your propagandized story of reality.
Propaganda... based on your links you understand the concept completely.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Propaganda... based on your links you understand the concept completely.


It’s quite amazing how many Americans will take as The REALITY, those representations made by media owned by A Second Coming of Christ Korean Moonie, an extreme conservative Australian Media tycoon who buys as much media as possible in the English speaking world and the turns it into video or printed (right-wing) cheesecake, and a spoiled-brat, born-rich descendent of the Mellon dynasty, who never paid a tax he didn’t hate.

Those are the sources behind a lot of American’s news.

I pity those people living in the matrix created by those masters of propaganda.



 
Written By: Juan Man
URL: http://
It’s quite amazing how many Americans will take as The REALITY, those representations made by media owned by A Second Coming of Christ Korean Moonie, an extreme conservative Australian Media tycoon who buys as much media as possible in the English speaking world and the turns it into video or printed (right-wing) cheesecake, and a spoiled-brat, born-rich descendent of the Mellon dynasty, who never paid a tax he didn’t hate.
Good lord ... This guy makes MK look intelligent.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
"If it were Israeli suicide-bombers fighting the Palestinian Invasion and Occupation of Israel,"

You mean like the Irgun, who actually were considered to be terrorists for doing things like blowing up the King David hotel to fight the British occupation of Palestine?

"When the US built bases in Saudi Arabia, on Sacred Muslim, Infidel-Detesting Soil, it took less than two years for the war against the U.S. to begin."
"How many Iraqi troops did Bush 41 tell the Saudi King were on Saudi Arabia’s border, ready to invade, as revealed by U.S. satellite photos, before the U.S. finally received permission to build U.S. Air Bases on Saudi Arabia’s sacred Muslim soil. ?"

Sorry, old boy, but those bases were under construction for a lot longer than two years before the war against the US began, and a long time before those satellite photos you talk about.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Oh, Juan:

Third Geneva Convention
Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:

* 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
* 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
o that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
o that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
o that of carrying arms openly;
o that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
* 4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
* 4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
* 4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
* 4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
* 4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.
Emphasis added. Note that such documented jihadist tactics such as firing from mosques, storing ammo in schools, using ambulances to transport weapons, ammo, and troops, firing from within groups of civilians, are not within the laws and customs of war....

Juan, meet clue-by-four.

 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
Good lord ... This guy makes MK look intelligent.


Thanks for your heart-felt response.

We all appreciate and look forward to your feedback.

Drop by anytime.
 
Written By: Juan Man
URL: http://
"If it were Israeli suicide-bombers fighting the Palestinian Invasion and Occupation of Israel,"
You mean like the Irgun, who actually were considered to be terrorists for doing things like blowing up the King David hotel to fight the British occupation of Palestine?
Of course. When Begin did not have US Apache heliocopters with missiles, U.S. Cat Bulldozers, and stolen American (plans) for nuclear weapons, he did the only rational thing a massively under-armed military group could do - kill civilians. A regular Freedom Fighter was he.
"When the US built bases in Saudi Arabia, on Sacred Muslim, Infidel-Detesting Soil, it took less than two years for the war against the U.S. to begin."
"How many Iraqi troops did Bush 41 tell the Saudi King were on Saudi Arabia’s border, ready to invade, as revealed by U.S. satellite photos, before the U.S. finally received permission to build U.S. Air Bases on Saudi Arabia’s sacred Muslim soil. ?"
The correct answer is that the Saudis were told Saddam had 100,000 Iraqi soldiers on the border of Saudi Arabia.
Sorry, old boy, but those bases were under construction for a lot longer than two years before the war against the US began, and a long time before those satellite photos you talk about
Would you like the link for the following?
The Prince Sultan Air Base is located 80km south of Riyadh. During the decade following Operation Desert Storm, it was host to upwards of 4,500 US military personnel and an undisclosed number of aircraft. During mid-2003 the roughly 4,500 US troops at Prince Sultan redeployed from Saudi Arabia to Qatar, leaving about 500 in Saudi Arabia, primarily at Eskan Village.

The Saudi base is very large, and it has extensive landing and plane storage facilities, with the American enclave located inside the much larger secure 80-square-mile base of the Royal Saudi Air Force. A good way of looking at Prince Sultan / Al Kharj is as a large parking lot. It has an immense 15,000-foot runway with a parking area. But as early as 1994 — except for some construction under way — there was nothing there. This plot of desert — in the middle of nowhere — was known as "Al Kharj" or "Al’s Garage" during Operations Desert Shield and Storm.

When the US Air Force arrived in Saudi Arabia to support Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, some Saudi bases were modern facilities, while others were little more than a runway, a parking ramp, and sand. Facilities for more aircraft were needed closer to the Kuwaiti border, so a new base was constructed at Al Kharj, about 60 miles south of Riyadh. Al Kharj, one of the sites selected to receive Phase II aircraft, was a classic bare base location. It had been programmed as a massive Saudi military installation, but only a runway, a taxiway, and a parking apron had been constructed.

During Desert Shield, coalition forces found it necessary to build what was then called Al Kharj from scratch. From October 1990 to March 1991, a combined 435-person RED HORSE squadron was involved in more than 25 major projects, valued at more than $14.6 million. These included bedding down the largest air base in theater (in terms of number of aircraft — capable of bedding down five fighter squadrons) at Al Kharj Air Base. Erecting 17 K-Span facilities and carving out roads, they created a theater munitions storage depot. RED HORSE, augmented by the 4th CES from Seymour Johnson AFB, NC, and contract personnel, hauled 200,000 cubic yards of clay to build a foot-thick clay foundation for tent city. Eventually, they erected a tent city, set up four kitchens, an air transportable hospital, six K-span structures, and support facilities. They built munitions storage areas and bladder berms, completed utility distribution systems, and installed mobile aircraft arresting systems. In less than two months in 1990, Al Kharj changed from a base without buildings and only a ramp and runways, to one with tents to support dining halls, hangars, a hospital, electric power generators, and services for an expanded population of Air Force personnel. Al Kharj was ready for aircraft early in January 1991, and by the beginning of the war was home to 4,900 Air Force personnel.
The bases were there- some just rudimentary, and they were Saudi facilities. The Saudis feared the Islamic blowback of inviting Infidels on sacred soil. The nightmare scenario for the Wahabi Saudis was to have a U.S. Air Force person stationed on SAUDI soil, who was BOTH a woman and a Jewess. That is why they resisted U.S. military presense until Bush 41 said it’s either the USAF or your royal *ass falling to Saddam.

Oh, in that case WELCOME USAF.

So your implication that the US presence in Saudi Arabia was a fait accompli prior to the Baker/Glaspie/Kuwait trap for Saddam is either/or/and incorrect, misleading, an obfuscation. But hey, nice try, old bean.

 
Written By: Juan Man
URL: http://

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:

* 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
* 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
o that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
o that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
o that of carrying arms openly;
o that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
* 4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
* 4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
* 4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
* 4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
* 4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.

Emphasis added. Note that such documented jihadist tactics such as firing from mosques, storing ammo in schools, using ambulances to transport weapons, ammo, and troops, firing from within groups of civilians, are not within the laws and customs of war....
From that same source, reading further:

The treatment of prisoners who do not fall into the categories described in Article 4 has led to the current controversy regarding the interpretation of "unlawful combatants" by the George W. Bush administration. The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is contradicted by the findings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgement quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,"

You still have time to catch the midnight train to Georgia.
 
Written By: Juan Man
URL: http://
Why would Saddam request a meeting when it didn’t matter what the U.S. said it would do?
Because he didn’t believe the US would really punch him in the face. In some respect he was correct. He remained in power for another decade.

Seriously, you are one of the nuttier commenters that comes by here. McQ was right when he said you make MK look intelligent. MK doesn’t ramble like the crazy guy on the corner who yells at invisible creatures and rants about the black helicopters. You do.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Because he didn’t believe the US would really punch him in the face.
Really? You know this because who told it to you? Are you an expert on Saddam’s mental processes?

You are simply stating (most likely someone in the media’s) opinion, and treating it like a proven fact.

However, when I ask a perfectly logical question - why would Saddam ask for a meeting, and then ignore a warning from the U.S., you state your speculative conjecture as if it were a fact, and then reveal your discomfort from having such a dialogue by trying to categorize such possibilities as really kooky.

It’s a motif I perceive from many of the "I believe my government." crowd who congregate in this and other such caves of self re-affirmation.

The assumption is that the crowd in the cave has all the right answers, and whose sources of getting information are impeccable, and totally reliable ...
while people like me simply aren’t clever enough not to be bamboozled by sources which disagree, or totally contradict your sources.

Your certainty is not based on any logic, but on an implanted in your mind emotional infrastructure of derision and contempt for ideas other than your implanted "own", which cost the "conservative" movement billions of dollars and 30 years of creating think-tanks, gaining and concentrating media outlets into the hands of owners who are very much in agreement with no taxes, (effecetively) no government philosphy.

So when I coin phrases like Moat Warriors of the Filthy Rich and Trained Honking Seals, it is far less from hyperbole than you might be capable of imagining.

Your (in generic terms) fatal flaw is that you have an emotional attachment to a philosphy, a Reaganesque shining-city-on-a-hill you must defend, when in fact you are unpaid serfs and defenders of the filthy rich ACTUALLY living in the castle on the top of the hill. (Moon. Mellon, Murdoch, the Waltons) Yes, many Americans want to destroy the Estate Tax for the benefit of the Walton Family. What could be more natural than a middle class American to just DESPISE the very idea of a "DEATH" tax they will never, ever come close to paying.

My attachment is to the truth, and I skewer Democrats as quickly as I do the "so-called conservative" phonies, when I learn any "side" is worthy of being exposed.



 
Written By: Juan Man
URL: http://
trying to categorize such possibilities as really kooky
When you link to a troofer site as evidence, and then go on a ramble beginning with Saddam and ending with the estate tax, you expose yourself as fairly kooky. It’s fun to watch.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
"Good lord ... This guy makes MK look intelligent."

I wouldn’t go quite that far, but I agree with the concept.

I have no further questions to ask of this witness.

"My attachment is to the truth,..."

And his detachment is from reality.

I have no further questions to ask of this witness.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
It is my intention to disseminate as much information, to put into question as many "WHAT ???? I find this hard to believe???? questions out into the caves of the Libertarians, and so-called Conservatives, as is consistent with my web-face time.

From the Luddites, I get name calling.

From the reasonably intelligent, I get this "I am amused." "You amuse us."
type of condescending drivel you just posted.

If you think the corporate owned media has no agenda, if you believe everything or most everything the government tells you is true and factual, then, you are a distant stranger to the very nature of governments, power, and the use of propaganda.

I don’t feel sorry for these easily amused and diverted Americans, but I do grieve for the loss of an enligthened, reflective, and critically thinking citizenry in this once great nation.

This is not why I served my country to protect for my children’s future.


 
Written By: Juan Man
URL: http://
This is not why I served my country
You are protecting your children’s future by posting comments on the QandO blog? Wow, not only do you like to wildly wave your arms around, you have delusions of grandeur. Please remain on the couch and tell us more!
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
You seem to be enchanted with conversing with me. And you seem to be well versed in what is REALLY going on in the U.S. (since you are able to pinpoint those precisely who DON’T know what’s really going on.)

Perhaps, you can explain to me why the Bush Administration changed the reporting chain of command authorizing U.S.A.F. intercepts being scrambled, in the event of a suspected airline hijacking some months before 9/11/2001? (That was before the Administration ordered Secretary Ashcroft to no longer fly using commercial aircraft until further notice. He wisely complied with the Bush directive.)

The new authorization sequence to replace the one which had worked well up to the point of the "change", was made longer, and included going through the Secretary of Defense. Darn the luck, Rumsfeld was in the Pentagon when the plane hit, arriving on target before the new improved hijacking possibility notification reached the Secretary of Defense.

Do you have a reality based response to that reality based question, or are you still in the royal "We are amused." stage of your conversation with me?
 
Written By: Juan Man
URL: http://
Perhaps, you can explain to me why
Because the US government planned and murdered over 3000 people on American soil so that we could eventually get ourselves into Iraq and to seek revenge against Saddam for targeting Bush’s father and line the pockets of Bush’s rich friends.

Isn’t it obvious?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Because the US government planned and murdered over 3000 people on American soil so that we could eventually get ourselves into Iraq and to seek revenge against Saddam for targeting Bush’s father and line the pockets of Bush’s rich friends.

Isn’t it obvious?
I think you are being too harsh on this singularly incompetent, singularly secretive, and singularly contemptuous of the Constitution administration. I do not believe they "planned" 9/11 as you sarcastically posit. I believe the following, and it is based on "circumstantial" evidence, then when aggregated makes a damming case that:

The administration had been led to believe Al Qaeda was planning to hi-jack an American plane. Just as Bush’s father needed someone like Saddam to create an "incident" in the Middle East which would create the rational for permanent deployment of American military power closer to OUR (life-blood) oil in the M.E., so to would a second incident serve as the impetus to finally take down Saddam, and actually seize functional ownership of the Iraqi oil fields, and not just exercise proximity power over the oil. With the demise of the Soviet Union, and insane talk in the U.S. about a "Peace Dividend" to the American people, the time was right for new thinking. The Project for a New American Century, Bible of the NeoCons, spells it out quite specifically, even alluding to the need of a Pearl Harbor type of event to carry out the New World Order.

Every know incident and later learned description of the actions of the first 9 months can be easily seen as consistent with that objective. From Paul O’Neil saying at the first cabinet meeting, they were talking about taking down Saddam, to Condi Rice’s refusing to convene ANY anti-terrorist Task Force meeting UNTIL September 4th, to zero notification to airlines and airports to be on hightened alert for a hijacking. It is a mosiac of incrimination never before seen in America. One can denegrate and rationalize individual instances, but when the evidence passes some numerical threshold, it becomes a twisted exercise in self-delusion to explain away every piece of corroboration of the thesis that the U.S. was in an intentional and deliberate stand-down mode. Note also the importance placed by the administration on the perpetrators of 9/11 based in Afghanistan - 20,00 troops to Afghanistan and 150,000 troops to Iraq (and a 100,000 or so private contractors to Iraq.)

They (at least Bush) had NO idea that 9/11 would be what it turned out to be. Watch Bush’s face for the seven minutes in the Florida classroom after he "learned" America itself was under attack. One can easily envision Bush fearfully thinking that his administration’s stand-down of nearly nine months resulted in a treasonous failure to protect American citizens. If Bush had forseen the attack being that serious, Air Force One would not have been flying around the U.S. like a chicken with its head cut off on 9/11.

However, Cheney was ready in the war room on the morning of 9/11 - ready to issue orders about the hi-jacking.

However, Bush got over his complicity in allowing 9/11 to be fully realized - so much so that in a Christmas Party in 2001, Bush remarked that 2001 was a GOOD year "for Laura and me." Glad to hear that Mr. President.

As your next question, if you don’t mind, what would be the odds that on the day four planes were actually hijacked, the U.S. Air Force would be running "practice exercises over American skies, simulating hi-jacked American commercial airliners.

Just looking for your thoughts on that co-incidence. Thanks.



 
Written By: Juan Man
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider