Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
too late
it was deceptive
yeap... I confirmed, right from her site... down right deceptive if you ask me not posting the link or her name.
usually I try to ignore anything about Ann...
ROFL!!! so the only good review you could find on her book was by Ann herself!!! ROFL!!!
you're absolutely hilarious!
UNREPORTED: THE ZARQAWI INVITATION
<< the looting of Iraq oil and assets >>
And Garner incurred their fury by getting carried away with the "democracy" idea: he called for quick elections -- within 90 days of the taking of Baghdad.
But Garner's 90-days-to-elections commitment ran straight into the oil sell-off program. Annex D of the plan indicated that would take at least 270 days -- at least 9 months.
by Greg Palast
They got him -- the big, bad, beheading berserker in Iraq. But, something's gone unreported in all the glee over getting Zarqawi … who invited him into Iraq in the first place?
If you prefer your fairy tales unsoiled by facts, read no further. If you want the uncomfortable truth, begin with this: A phone call to Baghdad to Saddam's Palace on the night of April 21, 2003. It was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on a secure line from Washington to General Jay Garner.
The General had arrives in Baghdad just hours before to take charge of the newly occupied nation. The message from Rumsfeld was not a heartwarming welcome. Rummy told Garner, Don't unpack, Jack -- you're fired.
What had Garner done? The many-starred general had been sent by the President himself to take charge of a deeply dangerous mission. Iraq was tense but relatively peaceful. Garner's job was to keep the peace and bring democracy.
Unfortunately for the general, he took the President at his word. But the general was wrong. "Peace" and "Democracy" were the slogans.
"My preference," Garner told me in his understated manner, "was to put the Iraqis in charge as soon as we can and do it in some form of elections."
But elections were not in The Plan.
The Plan was a 101-page document to guide the long-term future of the land we'd just conquered. There was nothing in it about democracy or elections or safety. There was, rather, a detailed schedule for selling off "all [Iraq's] state assets" -- and Iraq, that's just about everything -- "especially," said The Plan, "the oil and supporting industries." Especially the oil.
There was more than oil to sell off. The Plan included the sale of Iraq's banks, and weirdly, changing it's copyright laws and other odd items that made the plan look less like a program for Iraq to get on its feet than a program for corporate looting of the nation's assets. (And indeed, we discovered at BBC, behind many of the odder elements -- copyright and tax code changes -- was the hand of lobbyist Jack Abramoff's associate Grover Norquist.)
But Garner didn't think much of The Plan, he told me when we met a year later in Washington. He had other things on his mind. "You prevent epidemics, you start the food distribution program to prevent famine."
Seizing title and ownership of Iraq's oil fields was not on Garner's must-do list. He let that be known to Washington. "I don't think [Iraqis] need to go by the U.S. plan, I think that what we need to do is set an Iraqi government that represents the freely elected will of the people." He added, "It's their country … their oil."
Apparently, the Secretary of Defense disagreed. So did lobbyist Norquist. And Garner incurred their fury by getting carried away with the "democracy" idea: he called for quick elections -- within 90 days of the taking of Baghdad.
But Garner's 90-days-to-elections commitment ran straight into the oil sell-off program. Annex D of the plan indicated that would take at least 270 days -- at least 9 months.
Worse, Garner was brokering a truce between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds. They were about to begin what Garner called a "Big Tent" meeting to hammer out the details and set the election date. He figured he had 90 days to get it done before the factions started slitting each other's throats.
But a quick election would mean the end of the state-asset sell-off plan: An Iraqi-controlled government would never go along with what would certainly amount to foreign corporations swallowing their entire economy. Especially the oil. Garner had spent years in Iraq, in charge of the Northern Kurdish zone and knew Iraqis well. He was certain that an asset-and-oil grab, "privatizations," would cause a sensitive population to take up the gun. "That's just one fight you don't want to take on right now."
But that's just the fight the neo-cons at Defense wanted. And in Rumsfeld's replacement for Garner, they had a man itching for the fight. Paul Bremer III had no experience on the ground in Iraq, but he had one unbeatable credential that Garner lacked: Bremer had served as Managing Director of Kissinger and Associates.
In April 2003, Bremer instituted democracy Bush style: he canceled elections and appointed the entire government himself. Two months later, Bremer ordered a halt to all municipal elections including the crucial vote to Shia seeking to select a mayor in the city of Najaf. The front-runner, moderate Shia Asad Sultan Abu Gilal warned, "If they don't give us freedom, what will we do? We have patience, but not for long." Local Shias formed the "Mahdi Army," and within a year, provoked by Bremer's shutting their paper, attacked and killed 21 U.S. soldiers.
The insurgency had begun. But Bremer's job was hardly over. There were Sunnis to go after. He issued "Order Number One: De-Ba'athification." In effect, this became "De-Sunni-fication."
Saddam's generals, mostly Sunnis, who had, we learned, secretly collaborated with the US invasion and now expected their reward found themselves hunted and arrested. Falah Aljibury, an Iraqi-born US resident who helped with the pre-invasion brokering, told me, "U.S. forces imprisoned all those we named as political leaders," who stopped Iraq's army from firing on U.S. troops.
Aljibury's main concern was that busting Iraqi collaborators and Ba'athist big shots was a gift "to the Wahabis," by which he meant the foreign insurgents, who now gained experienced military commanders, Sunnis, who now had no choice but to fight the US-installed regime or face arrest, ruin or death. They would soon link up with the Sunni-defending Wahabi, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was committed to destroying "Shia snakes."
And the oil fields? It was, Aljibury noted, when word got out about the plans to sell off the oil fields (thanks to loose lips of the US-appointed oil minister) that pipelines began to blow. Although he had been at the center of planning for invasion, Aljibury now saw the greed-crazed grab for the oil fields as the fuel for a civil war that would rip his country to pieces:
"Insurgents," he said, "and those who wanted to destabilize a new Iraq have used this as means of saying, 'Look, you're losing your country. You’re losing your leadership. You're losing all of your resources to a bunch of wealthy people. A bunch of billionaires in the world want to take you over and make your life miserable.' And we saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities, pipelines, of course, built on -- built on the premise that privatization [of oil] is coming."
General Garner, watching the insurgency unfold from the occupation authority's provocations, told me, in his understated manner, "I'm a believer that you don't want to end the day with more enemies than you started with."
But you can't have a war president without a war. And you can't have a war without enemies. "Bring 'em on," our Commander-in-Chief said. And Zarqawi answered the call.
**********
Greg Palast is the author of Armed Madhouse out this week from Penguin Dutton, from which this is adapted.
(from an email)
you didn't even have the authors name and I prefer everyone post with links
no author? no link?
guess no one wants to take credit for that kind of crap lol
I resemble that remark :)
good post... I've always heard it called the school of assassins.
I doubt that is the case. IMO that over the years they have searched for answers about 911 to try and find some understanding of why... and at this point are sadly disallussioned with our government, in particular, this administration... and finding themselves in the spotlight have spoken out about it.
To insinuate that they find some sort of joy in their spouses deaths could only come from a sick mind.
I agree... and what I was trying to alude to in one of my previous posts about TV news... it's all for ratings which translates into $$$
the only true cure is education of the people so that there is no market for this kind of trash journalism which is based on manipulating emotionals rather than intellect.
good.
I hope you are right.
do you think ole Ann is mainstream???
“Godless” is Gutless
Greg Palast
June 7th, 2006
Anne Coulter says we’re “Godless” — we “liberals.” And by “liberals,” she means anyone who wants to keep the government out of our underpants, out of Iraq, and out of the business of helping Big Business shoplift America.
It’s time someone took on the blonde bully.
Anne, I realize yesterday was special day for you, releasing your book on June 6 — 06-06-06.
Going through it, I must, admit, is heavy going: ‘Godless’ is a 300-page brick of solid meanness and pin-head hatreds packaged like a fashion magazine: Big Brother wears Prada.
You accuse those who don’t sign on to your list of prejudices as the Lord’s enemies. That’s not original, Anne: the Taliban thought of it before you and they too were partial to dressing in black.
You want to talk about Godless? OK, let’s go:
Would the Lord lie us into a war?
Would the Lord let thousands drown in New Orleans while chilling at a golf resort?
Would the Lord have removed tens of thousands of Black soldiers from the voter rolls as the Republican Party did in 2004?
You talk about being “Christian” — but with all your zeal to fire up electric chairs and Abrams tanks, you sound more like a Roman.
I suggest this, Anne: let’s debate. Set the time, set the place, and I’ll be there. Nose to nose, my facts versus your fanaticism.
But I know you don’t have the guts to do anything but lob idiocies from your electronic Fox-hole.
Your new book is called, “Godless.” Your autobiography should be called, “Gutless.”
(from an email)
you should know me better by now... I think it's sick/disgusting, just as my post said.
good point.
I think for the most part TV news has deteriorated into a sound bite soap opera.
a very heartfelt, civilized and intelligent response
great... now we want to bomb countries to make the Dow go up. sick. totally sick.
Block the Vote, Ohio Remix
<< another reminder that if we don't fix the system of voting, our votes don't count and we are no longer a democracy >>
Published: June 7, 2006
If there was ever a sign of a ruling party in trouble, it is a game plan that calls for trying to win by discouraging voting.
The latest sign that Republicans have an election-year strategy to shut down voter registration drives comes from Ohio. As the state gears up for a very competitive election season this fall, its secretary of state, J. Kenneth Blackwell, has put in place "emergency" regulations that could hit voter registration workers with criminal penalties for perfectly legitimate registration practices. The rules are so draconian they could shut down registration drives in Ohio.
Mr. Blackwell, who also happens to be the Republican candidate for governor this year, has a history of this sort of behavior. In 2004, he instructed county boards of elections to reject any registrations on paper of less than 80-pound stock — about the thickness of a postcard. His order was almost certainly illegal, and he retracted it after he came under intense criticism. It was, however, in place long enough to get some registrations tossed out.
This year, Mr. Blackwell's office has issued rules and materials that appear to require that paid registration workers, and perhaps even volunteers, personally take the forms they collect to an election office. Organizations that run registration drives generally have the people who register voters bring the forms back to supervisors, who can then review them for errors. Under Mr. Blackwell's edict, everyone involved could be committing a crime. Mr. Blackwell's rules also appear to prohibit people who register voters from sending the forms in by mail. That rule itself may violate federal elections law.
Mr. Blackwell's rules are interpretations of a law the Republican-controlled Ohio Legislature passed recently. Another of the nation's most famous swing states, Florida, has been the scene of similar consternation and confusion since it recently enacted a law that is so harsh that the Florida League of Women Voters announced that it was stopping all voter registration efforts for the first time in 67 years.
Florida's Legislature, like Ohio's, is controlled by Republicans. Throughout American history both parties have shown a willingness to try to use election law to get results they might otherwise not win at the polls. But right now it is clearly the Republicans who believe they have an interest in keeping the voter base small. Mr. Blackwell and other politicians who insist on making it harder to vote never say, of course, that they are worried that get-out-the-vote drives will bring too many poor and minority voters into the system. They say that they want to reduce fraud. However, there is virtually no evidence that registration drives are leading to fraud at the polls.
But there is one clear way that Ohio's election system is corrupt. Decisions about who can vote are being made by a candidate for governor. Mr. Blackwell should hand over responsibility for elections to a decision maker whose only loyalty is to the voters and the law.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/07/opinion/07wed1.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
Block the Vote, Ohio Remix
But right now it is clearly the Republicans who believe they have an interest in keeping the voter base small.
Published: June 7, 2006
If there was ever a sign of a ruling party in trouble, it is a game plan that calls for trying to win by discouraging voting.
The latest sign that Republicans have an election-year strategy to shut down voter registration drives comes from Ohio. As the state gears up for a very competitive election season this fall, its secretary of state, J. Kenneth Blackwell, has put in place "emergency" regulations that could hit voter registration workers with criminal penalties for perfectly legitimate registration practices. The rules are so draconian they could shut down registration drives in Ohio.
Mr. Blackwell, who also happens to be the Republican candidate for governor this year, has a history of this sort of behavior. In 2004, he instructed county boards of elections to reject any registrations on paper of less than 80-pound stock — about the thickness of a postcard. His order was almost certainly illegal, and he retracted it after he came under intense criticism. It was, however, in place long enough to get some registrations tossed out.
This year, Mr. Blackwell's office has issued rules and materials that appear to require that paid registration workers, and perhaps even volunteers, personally take the forms they collect to an election office. Organizations that run registration drives generally have the people who register voters bring the forms back to supervisors, who can then review them for errors. Under Mr. Blackwell's edict, everyone involved could be committing a crime. Mr. Blackwell's rules also appear to prohibit people who register voters from sending the forms in by mail. That rule itself may violate federal elections law.
Mr. Blackwell's rules are interpretations of a law the Republican-controlled Ohio Legislature passed recently. Another of the nation's most famous swing states, Florida, has been the scene of similar consternation and confusion since it recently enacted a law that is so harsh that the Florida League of Women Voters announced that it was stopping all voter registration efforts for the first time in 67 years.
Florida's Legislature, like Ohio's, is controlled by Republicans. Throughout American history both parties have shown a willingness to try to use election law to get results they might otherwise not win at the polls. But right now it is clearly the Republicans who believe they have an interest in keeping the voter base small. Mr. Blackwell and other politicians who insist on making it harder to vote never say, of course, that they are worried that get-out-the-vote drives will bring too many poor and minority voters into the system. They say that they want to reduce fraud. However, there is virtually no evidence that registration drives are leading to fraud at the polls.
But there is one clear way that Ohio's election system is corrupt. Decisions about who can vote are being made by a candidate for governor. Mr. Blackwell should hand over responsibility for elections to a decision maker whose only loyalty is to the voters and the law.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/07/opinion/07wed1.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
but he doesn't disagree there should be more research and debate... right?
yup! Although I liked the idea of a hero that is a techie nerd (like me) and uses his brain as much as anything to thwart the bad guys :)
Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains
sounds like he just has a different opinion about the magnitude and has a problem with the politics around it. I won't argue that there isn't room for debate, but I think acknowledging there is a problem is a good place for us to be right now especially given the out right denials in the recent past. Do you disagree?
just finished watching it... it was okay and yeah, getting typical for him.
that's great. I wonder how many states do that?
don't ya love his guy's credentials?
"Admittedly, I possess virtually no expertise in science. "
LOL
ROFL!
reminds me of something my mother use to say...
"every body is crazy but me and thee... and sometimes I wonder about thee"
I just rented it 20 mins ago lol
End Game...
really disliked it... didn't like the character Cuba played.
good points and quote.
Of course if you are killed in the line of duty it's like automatic.
I think that's the case I heard about here locally. He had come up from Mexico and when he turned 18 he enlisted. He died in Iraq and automatically became a citizen. I think with an honorable discharge a person should be granted citizenship.
And I'm sure they're looking at any way they can boost enlistments.
thanks :)
If we DID have a draft, the public would have more at stake and would pay a lot more attention to what our pols are doing in the WH.
I think you're right. I've said since before we invaded Iraq that it would sadly take it hitting home personally for many people to truly understand the real consequences of the war.
The military is often a great way for someone to get on their feet. I hadn't realized until recently that immigrants were allowed to join, but it seems like a good thing. Sorry to hear about your parents passing away so recently. Glad the VA took care of them.
LOL
don't they already dangle promises of citizenship to non-citizens if they serve?
I'll bet those are closed meetings... the public would be screaming if they thought a draft was coming.
sure, the perfect situation is for two parents in a loving stable home. for me it's not a matter of a "marriage commitment" if both parents are committed to do the best for the kids. Even with a formal marriage committment that doesn't necessarily happen.
And personally, I think it's as harmful or more harmful for kids to have their parents stay in a miserable and dysfunctional marriage for the sake of the kids, rather than working to create a situation that works well for everyone.
I don't think it's the norm to plan for kids out of wedlock... and most parents don't want that for their kids. But shit happens... even the pill is not 100% effective.
Especially the part about staying home with your kids while they are young. I think that is crucial.
I totally agree. With my two younger sons I had to return to work when they were six weeks old... very cruel. If there were any reasonable way I could have stayed home for at least six months, I would have.
And as I mentioned, I had my step-daughter and son-in-law living with me for a year and a half... one of my big motivations was to allow her to stay home with my granddaughter. Granddaughter is now 2 1/2 and will be starting pre-school next year and my step-daughter will be going to work for the first time. Not everyone has the money or help to do that.