Born, Memorial Day, May 31st 1977
Indicted, Memorial Day, May 30th 2006
Treason, and violation of Article 134:
(1) That the accused made a certain statement;
(2) That the statement was communicated to another person;
(3) That the statement was disloyal to the United States;
(4) That the statement was made with the intent to promote disloyalty or disaffection toward the United States by any member of the armed forces or to interfere with or impair the loyalty to the United States or good order and discipline of any member of the armed forces; and
(5) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
Certain disloyal statements by military personnel may not constitute an offense under 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2385, 2387, and 2388, but may, under the circumstances, be punishable under this article. Examples include praising the enemy, attacking the war aims of the
-Pictures coming soon
"I've always been amazed that the very people forced to live in the worst parts of town, go to the worst schools, and who have it the hardest are always the first to step up, to defend us. They serve so that we don't have to. They offer to give up their lives so that we can be free. It is remarkably their gift to us. And all they ask for in return is that we never send them into harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary." - Michael Moore, Farenheit 9/11
What saddens me about this isn't that the other side cares more about power than anything else. It's that my side -- of which Jonathan Chait is a sterling example and spokesperson -- doesn't, and therefore loses political struggles it ought to win, thus creating BOTH empirical harms and a morally less attractive social order.
Thank you for contacting my Washington, DC office. The concerns of my New York constituents are very important to me and I appreciate that you took the time to share yours with me. Please know that as I participate in discussions on the issues before the United States Senate, the thoughts and the opinions of all New Yorkers who write or call are given careful consideration. Please check my website for updates on the issues being considered by the Senate.This is what I recieve in the mail after months of calling Senator Clinton's regional office in Syracuse and her offices in DC. All I wanted was an answer as to the Senators position on Senator Feingold's resolution to censure President Bush. Looks like I'm not going to get one other than her silence.
by TOM HAYDEN
[posted online on May 17, 2006]
Democrats are slowly but surely uniting around a plan for military withdrawal designed by the Center for American Progress, a think tank linked to Clinton-era Democrats and headed by former White House Chief of Staff John Podesta.
TACOMA, Wash. — The first time Staff Sgt. Matthew Kruger came home from Iraq, he and his wife, Maggie, went straight into marriage counseling. The second time, she threatened to divorce him if he didn't get out of the Army. The separations were tearing them apart. So in July, to save his seven-year marriage, Kruger quit the service. Then he looked around the job market, and it didn't take long to figure out that leaving the Army held its own perils. Nothing offered him the financial security of his military job — especially the generous health coverage for his wife and three small children. And so, 29 years old and with no other place to turn, Kruger spent his first full day of freedom at a military processing center, signing up for four more years.
For many service members, it's a matter of balancing risk: Within the military, multiple deployments are commonplace, and more than 2,400 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq and 18,000 have been wounded. Outside the military, 46 million people in the U.S. have no health insurance, and those who do pay increasingly higher prices for it.Now that the Guard has been broken by so many deployments it is unlikely I'll be sent overseas for awhile. A National Guard soldier can't be deployed for more than two years in a five year time period without signing a voluntary waiver. This creates gaps in units that preclude them from being deployed in the first place. Of course that doesn't mean that the day wont come eventually, there is always the chance of being swept up as back fill for one of these units that is under-manned. That's brings up issues on how these units that have never trained together are suppose to function effectivly, along with all the other issues a deployment brings on the home front with a soldiers family having no support group and not even knowing the other families from the unit (families that may even live hundreds of miles across the state).
There's a reason most vets running for office this year are running as Democrats. The military is perhaps the ideal society -- we worked hard but the Army took care of us in return. All our basic needs were met -- housing, food, and medical care. It was as close to a color-blind society as I have ever seen. We looked out for one another. The Army invested in us. I took heavily subsidized college courses and learned to speak German on the Army's dime. I served with people from every corner of the country. I got to party at the Berlin Wall after it fell and explored Prague in those heady post-communism days. I wasn't just a tourist; I was a witness to history.
The Army taught me the very values that make us progressives -- community, opportunity, and investment in people and the future. Returning to Bush Senior's America, I was increasingly disillusioned by the selfishness, lack of community, and sense of entitlement inherent in the Republican philosophy. The Christian Coalition scared the heck out of me. And I was offended by the lip service paid to national service when most Republicans couldn't be bothered to wear combat boots. I voted for Bush in 1992, but that was the last time I voted Republican.
To read political motives into "Baghdad ER," a poignant and powerful documentary about military medical personnel working in Iraq, would be to insult and diminish not only the film but also its subjects. Even so, the right wing has started flapping already, and the Pentagon reputedly finds the movie worrisome.
Truth is always worrisome to those with vested interests. Those who would denigrate the film --which is a lesson in humanity, not politics--presumably have chosen to ignore the printed prologue on the screen: "This film is a tribute to the heroism and sacrifice of the soldiers who are the patients and staff of the 86th Combat Support Hospital" -- men and women working feverishly and around the clock to put wounded soldiers back together amid the horror of a bedeviling war.
"Military officials told NBC News that the Marine Corps' own evidence appears to show Murtha is right."
Today, the Washington Post reported that the U.S. has been “secretly supporting secular warlords who have been waging fierce battles against Islamic groups for control of the capital, Mogadishu.”The Bush administration is “backing the warlords as part of its global war against terrorism,” even though some of these warlords “reportedly fought against the United States in 1993 during street battles that culminated in an attack that downed two U.S. Black Hawk helicopters and left 18 Army Rangers dead.”
Photos taken by former medic and Battle of Mogadishu veteran Mark Jackson while stationed in Mogadishu, Somalia with the 10th Mountain Division from Aug - Dec 1993. Jackson caption for the photo, "Shocked members of TF 2-14 stare blankly at helicopters evacuating wounded and dead soldiers from the stadium."
-Update, The Morning After Edition
There's no morning after pill to solve this mess for the right
© 2006 The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — In a move designed to win support for immigration reform from get-tough conservatives, President Bush plans to send thousands of National Guard troops to help secure the Mexican border.
Bush, in a speech to the nation Monday, will propose using the troops as a stopgap measure while the Border Patrol builds up its resources to more effectively secure the 2,000-mile line between the U.S. and Mexico, said two White House officials speaking on a condition of anonymity before the president is scheduled to speak at 8 p.m. EDT.
-Hey, I don't care, I'll go down there and collect some special duty pay for sitting around sweating my ass off on the border. More money in my pocket. I'm just wondering why, if this is such a priority, why we can't fully fund the Border Patrol in the first place. Probably the same reason we can't fully fund the Veterans Administration, and everything else. The Iraq War is sucking our coffers dry. It's always cheaper to have a soldier do what a State or Federal agency does anyways. Seems I heard something of this , "deploy Guns and Badges" strategery somewhere before...
P.S. Click on the Shamrock for a fast-forward Flashback.
Hayden, President Bush's pick to replace Porter Goss as head of the CIA, contracted with MZM Inc. for the services of Lt. Gen. James C. King, then a senior vice president of the company, the sources say. MZM was owned and operated by Mitchell Wade, who has admitted to bribing former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham with $1.4 million in money and gifts. Wade has also reportedly told investigators he helped arrange for prostitutes to entertain the disgraced lawmaker, and he continues to cooperate with a federal inquiry into the matter.
Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events.
Being in the military, I understand there are natural limits to what you can say on a blog about military operations, or things that might effect the "good order and discipline" of a unit, but I don't understand what honest political discourse has to do with either of these areas. I do understand what happens when the military suppresses this kind of speech. It certainly doesn't help retention efforts. There are, however, more positive side effects.
Meet Leonard Clark less than a year latter.
Leonard Clark - Democratic Candidate for U.S. Senate I support impeachment of President Bush and the entire administration! The undeclared war in Iraq was a bad idea, based on lies, and our continued presence there is a mistake. We should end our occupation as soon as possible. The undeclared war in Iraq is not only costing lives, but money that would be better spent elsewhere. We need to bring fiscal responsibility back to government. As much as possible, I am an environmentalist, and support positive environmental legislation. April 22nd is Earth Day, but in my view, every day should be Earth Day!
You want to support the military? Really? Support this guy. Support these Veterans, as well. If you can find a Republican Veteran running for office, let me know. I'm not completely partisan about the whole thing, it's just a rare thing these days to find an Elephant in uniform unless there's a photo-op on an Aircraft carrier involved. We in the military need to find our voice. It's our duty.
Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy had "red and watery" eyes, "slightly slurred" speech and unsteady balance after his car crashed into a security barrier near the Capitol early yesterday, a police report said.
The Democratic congressman from Rhode Island has been charged with three infractions, the report said.
Capitol Hill Police officers at the scene suspected Kennedy might have been intoxicated, a police union official had said yesterday.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- CIA Director Porter Goss is resigning, President Bush announced Friday. "Porter's tenure at the CIA was one of transition, where he's helped this agency become integrated into the intelligence community, and that was a tough job," Bush said in a photo session with Goss at the Oval Office.Think Progress has the real story about Goss that Bush's lapdogs in the Press have failed to report:
For more than a decade, Cunningham-linked defense contractor Brent Wilkes curried favor with lawmakers and CIA officials by hosting weekly parties at lavish hospitality suites at the Watergate and Westin hotels in Washington. Guests would gamble, socialize, and sometimes receive prostitutes; according to Harper’s magazine, the festivities “began early with poker games and degenerated” into what one source described “as a ‘frat party’ scene — real bacchanals.”
GOSS’ NO. 3 ADMITS ATTENDING PARTIES: The highest-ranking CIA official to admit he attended the poker parties thrown by Wilkes is Executive Director Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, the agency’s third-ranking official. (Foggo even “occasionally hosted the poker parties at his house in northern Virginia,” though he denies ever seeing prostitutes at the gatherings.) Foggo’s connections to Wilkes and fellow contractor Mitchell Wade are now the focus of an investigation into CIA contracts by the agency’s inspector general, first made public in March. One of Wilkes’ companies, Archer Logistics, won a contract to provide supplies to CIA agents in Afghanistan and Iraq despite having “no previous experience with such work, having been founded a few months before the contract was granted.”
GOSS CONNECTED? Last week, Harper’s magazine reported that party-goers “under intense scrutiny by the FBI are current and former lawmakers on Defense and Intelligence committees — including one person who now holds a powerful intelligence post.” CIA Director Porter Goss is perhaps the only individual who fits such a description. (Goss denied the accusations through a spokesperson.) But the alleged links between Goss, Foggo, and Wilkes led some to return to questions raised when Goss initially selected Foggo to be executive director in November 2004. At the time, the decision was viewed with skepticism since Foggo’s previous position was as a “midlevel procurement supervisor,” and because following his unexpected selection, “Porter Goss lieutenant Patrick Murray went to then-Associate Deputy Director of Operations for Counterintelligence Mary Margaret Graham and informed her that if anything leaked about other Goss appointments — in particular, Foggo’s — she would be held responsible.”Project on Government Oversight fellow Jason Vest reported last week that much of Foggo’s counterintelligence file “has to do with various social encounters over the years, none of which he’s been deceptive about when polygraphed, and all of which have been deemed to be of no threat to operational security — but are still the types of things that could be embarrassing for Goss and the Agency.” Vest suggests the latest reports raise important questions about the “relationship between Foggo and Wilkes, and the relationship of each with Goss.”
WASHINGTON - May 2 - Mr. President, our country desperately needs a new vision for strengthening our national security, and it starts by redeploying U.S. forces from Iraq and refocusing our attention on the global terrorist threats that face us. I have filed an amendment that requires the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq by December 31st, 2006.
Unfortunately, Mr. President, the Senate will not be given the opportunity to vote on this amendment if we invoke cloture on the emergency supplemental bill that we will be considering shortly.
This body has failed time and again to debate the direction of our country’s policy in Iraq. Three years ago the President landed on an aircraft carrier and declared “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq. Today, with thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent, we are still no closer to a policy that lifts the burden from our troops and taxpayers, and that actually makes our country safer from the terrorist networks that seek to hurt us.
By failing to discuss alternatives to the Administration’s failed Iraq policy, we have let down this institution and our constituents. We simply cannot continue to avoid asking the tough questions about Iraq. We should not be appropriating billions of dollars for Iraq without debating – and demanding -- a strategy to complete our military mission there. Not when the lives of our soldiers and the safety of our country are at risk, Mr. President.
Mr. President, our military has performed heroically in Iraq, but the continued and indefinite presence of large numbers of U.S. forces there significantly weakens our ability to fight the global terrorist networks that threaten us today.
That is why I filed an amendment requiring the Pentagon to draw up a flexible timeline for redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of this year. The President has repeatedly failed to spell out for the American people when we can expect our troops to redeploy from Iraq. He has refused to provide a vision for ending our military mission in Iraq, and as a result a growing majority of Americans have lost confidence in our purpose, our direction, and our presence in Iraq.
Last August, I proposed a target date for withdrawal when I suggested U.S. troops leave Iraq by the end of 2006. This amendment in part reflects the fact that the Administration has made no progress – no progress whatsoever – in developing a clear vision for ending our military mission, redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq, and refocusing on the real national security threats that face our country.
My amendment spells out what an increasing number of military, intelligence, and diplomatic officials have been saying for some time – that a massive and seemingly indefinite U.S. presence in Iraq is destabilizing and potentially damaging to Iraqi efforts to rebuild their government and their country. Our presence is generating instability in Iraq, and unless we make it clear that our intent is to leave, and to leave now, our presence is more harmful than it is helpful.
More important, though, is the fact that our current Iraq policy is making the United States weaker, not stronger. We need to redeployU.S. forces from Iraq because, as a result of our current costly and burdensome presence in Iraq, we are unable to direct our resources worldwide to defeat the wide and growing network of terrorist organizations that seek to harm Americans. This Administration has compounded its misguided decision to wage war in Iraq by refusing to recognize the consequences of its actions – the tremendous cost to our brave troops and their loved ones, the drain on our financial resources, and the burden on our nation’s national security resources and infrastructure, which are unable to focus on new and emerging threats to our country.
I don’t have to point very far, Mr. President, to show how imbalanced and burdensome our policies in Iraq are. While we have spent, according to the Congressional Research Service, upwards of $6 billion dollars per week during Operation Iraqi Freedom, and $1.3 billion per week during Operation Enduring Freedom, we are spending a little more than $2 million annually – not weekly -- in Somalia, a known haven for terrorists and criminals and a true threat to our national security. This supplemental appropriation, if passed, will increase the cost of this war to $320 billion and rising. Mr. President, this is simply unsustainable, and because the President has failed to provide us with any semblance of a vision for when our troops will be redeployed, we can expect more of the same for years to come. That is, unless the Congress finally requires the Administration to develop an Iraq strategy that includes a flexible timeline for redeploying our troops by the end of 2006.
Mr. President, my amendment recognizes the need to maintain a minimal level of U.S. forces in Iraq beyond 2006. Those forces will be needed for engaging directly in targeted counter-terrorism activities, training Iraqi security forces, and protecting essential U.S. infrastructure and personnel.
Mr. President, it is time for Members of Congress to stand up to an Administration that continues to lead us astray in what has become an extremely costly and mistaken war. We need to hold this Administration accountable for its neglect of urgent national security priorities in favor of staying a flawed policy course in Iraq. And we need to tell the Administration that they it can’t continue to send our men and women in uniform into harm’s way without a clear and convincing strategy for success.
Some have suggested that we should tie our military presence in Iraq to whether or not Iraqis are able to form a unity government. While I share their frustration with the status quo, decisions about our troop presence should be based on what is best for our country’s national security. Making decisions about our troop levels contingent on a political solution in Iraq doesn’t make sense – our troops should not be held hostage to the failure to bring about a political solution in Iraq.
Here’s the bottom line: We need to refocus on fighting and defeating the terrorist network that attacked this country on September 11, 2001, and that means placing our Iraq policy in the context of a global effort, rather than letting it dominate our security strategy and drain vital security resources for an unlimited amount of time. The President’s Iraq-centric policies are preventing us from effectively engaging serious threats around the world, including Iran, global terrorist networks, and other emerging threats. We must change course in Iraq, and we must change course now, Mr. President. It is in this spirit that I filed this amendment to this supplemental spending bill. And, if I am not allowed a vote on my amendment to the supplemental, I can assure my colleagues that I will be looking for the next opportunity to bring this amendment to the floor for debate and a vote.
My colleagues are entitled to disagree with my approach. I welcome their suggestions and their advice. But what I really want is for the Senate to live up to its responsibility and engage in a serious debate about the topic that’s on the mind of every American – how to put our Iraq policy right and our national security policy right.
According to current and former intelligence officials, Plame Wilson, who worked on the clandestine side of the CIA in the Directorate of Operations as a non-official cover (NOC) officer, was part of an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran.Reports Shuster in this rush transcript:"INTELLIGENCE SOURCES SAY VALERIE WILSON WAS PART OF AN OPERATION THREE YEARS AGO TRACKING THE PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS MATERIAL INTO IRAN. AND THE SOURCES ALLEGE THAT WHEN MRS. WILSON'S COVER WAS BLOWN, THE ADMINISTRATION'S ABILITY TO TRACK IRAN'S NUCLEAR AMBITIONS WAS DAMAGED AS WELL."