Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- DorisKing on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- george on Health care reform would save state money
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on So they said
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- JWink on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
Open thread
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted Oct. 19, 2006 at 12:05 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
77 Comments
Moderates in Kansas Decide They’re Not in GOP Anymore
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff WriterThursday, October 19, 2006; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/18/AR2006101801679.html
First, a very chilling story about military families receiving help in california:http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061013/news_7m13bread.html
This is how we take care of the families of those who serve in the military? Damn.
And second, a link to Project Vote Smart’s ratings of members of congress according to their voting record on veteran’s issues.
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=004044M
Hank, when you see this, tell me again how republicans do so much more of our veterans than democrats as you stated in a prior thread. Here is a snapshot from that link of the Kansas congressional voting ratings. Notice that the highest rating belongs to the only democrat serving from kansas (atm).
KS U.S. Senate Sr Samuel D. ‘Sam’ Brownback Republican 42KS U.S. Senate Jr Pat Roberts Republican 50KS U.S. House 1 Jerry Moran Republican 0KS U.S. House 2 Jim R. Ryun Republican 0KS U.S. House 3 Dennis Moore Democrat 60KS U.S. House 4 Todd Tiahrt Republican 0
A smart administration would treat the people who deliver large quantities of high explosives with more than the usual deference, lest they get it delivered on the White House lawn. This administration seems so oblivious to that possibility that they treat our men and women in uniform as one more entity to screw with some of the most niggly regulations they could devise, such as making wounded service people pay for their own meals and toilet paper while in military hospitals, and now requiring their families to depend on charity to survive! And then, because they can’t seem to recruit more personnel with the slogan “Uncle Sam Wants You to Bend Over a Bit More,” they extend the tours of our soldiers indefinitely. Bush and Rumsfeld are practically begging for a military takeover, with their asses pressed firmly against the firing squad wall!
AMERICA HELD HOSTAGE:DAY 2098….
Presidency held hostage:824 Days left.
Congress held hostage:79 Days left.
GOD BLESS OUR SOLDIERS AND THEIR FAMILIES.SOUNDS LIKE WE NEED DIVINE INTERVENTION.
HAVE A NICE DAY.
Rove you magnificent bastard, gas prices below $2. How about $1.75 by election day?
Heard their talking of giving the Reservist multi rotations, in Iraq. Guess that’s what the Repubs. do for the (ex) military.
Did any of you thinking people see Keith Olberman’s commentary last night? Brilliant. Just brilliant.
He even spoke of a “leftist” (where is williams these days) who was jailed for speaking out.
Here is a link to the speech that got Debs jailed. Sound familiar?
And heckler continues to deny that habeas corpus is dead.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/debs-speech.htm
KFG
Explain to me who took your Habeas Corpus and how they took it. Don’t give me a link to someone elses words, explain it in your own words, if you can.
wow, did we just get a concession speech from values boy? In addition to his usual “holier than thou” pontifications?
heheheheh
Ya know, values boy, I am gonna bookmark this comment. Then I am going to trot it out ANYTIME someone bashes Randy Scholfield.
“but things are starting to look so shaky for conservative Christians that I’m starting to doubt that Jesus was a Republican — just kidding.”
JUST KIDDING??????????
This is WAAAAAAAYYYYYY more bigoted and biased and shameful than Randy has ever even THOUGHT of.
and this….
“There may be a dramatic turnaround on the political horizon for Kansas and our country.”
Well, no shit values boy. Welcome to the real reality based community. Your fifteen minutes of fame may indeed be just about over. You are behind on your soma doses for the sheeple.
And in the post game analysis, values boy is most proud of this?
“But before religious conservatives get too disheartened, maybe they should throw a little revival by remembering their notable impact: There is now a conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, marriage amendments were passed by overwhelming margins throughout the country, and parental notification laws for abortion were enacted in parts of the country.”
That is all you have to show for your years of hate based, bigoted theocracy in power? Jesus WEPT.
Hey, the country is in the toilet, our grandkids wont be able to pay the debt and interest for our needless wars, the constitution is shredded….
….but godddam, we got the queers in their place and we chipped away at the constitution and choice for all americans.
If that is all you have to show for your little reign of terror, you must be so very proud of yourselves…
Of course, he warns the faithful to keep their powder dry for the next opportunity to lauch a theocratic coup.
“The upcoming election results, win or lose, should usher in a time of reflection for religious conservatives. Methods and motivations should be questioned, and whether the ideas at the forefront of the movement encompass all core Christian values, not just a few.”
To quote Dave… “You think?”
And isnt it just a little freakin’ late, after the destruction of America, to say THIS CRAP?
“We should also affirm a commitment to elect people based on more than ideology and demand qualified professionals with integrity.”
Well where the phuck was THAT thought when you got on your knees in front of the ethically and competency challenged phill klein?
Of course, no good religious commentary is complete without a little finger wagging and a nice gratuitous threat.
“Many on the left are anxiously waiting to win big in November so they can proclaim that the values movement is dead. But they seem to forget that resurrection is a central theme to Christianity and the beliefs of many Christian voters.”
So it is with vampires too Brent. So it is with blood sucking, life stealing vampires.
We know you are already plotting your comeback and it will be filled with righteous revenge.
Just like this little experiment in theocracy was.
Wooden stakes anyone?
We’re keeping our silver bullets dry too just in case you try to mount a little comeback.
November is gonna be so.much.fun.
See ya here November 9 “values” boy.
Heckie, I’m just getting out the shoe shit scraper when Ben finishes using it to scrape off his troll.
If you cant understand it, wont accept ANY evidence, you already know how wrong everyone is but you…
…while the hell would I waste bandwidth trying to drill a hole in your thick skull to let the facts and sunshine in?
You just deny the facts and evidence anyway. And I am not into wasting time with you anymore.
Heckler,
Please note, KFG started by asking: “Did any of you thinking people…” Maybe it’s just me, but any swift boat deniers automatically fall outside the above category.
Have a good day…
Go to church and pray about it heckie. I am sure jesus er, I mean bush, will answer any questions you have.
hey, and while yer at it…
vote republican. It’s easier than thinking….
hehehehehehe
Thanks Steven!
I couldnt have said it better myself.
KFG
Cant do it can you KFG, cant think for yourself, and because you know it’s a lie, one you have to tell yourself every day just to keep the BUSHATE at full steam.
“… but things are starting to look so shaky for conservative Christians that I’m starting to doubt that Jesus was a Republican — just kidding.”
Castillo, what exactly are you saying? Are you saying that you’re kidding about having doubts, or are you kidding that Jesus was ever a Republican?
On another hand, how about dealing with things like this news regarding the overcrowding of the planet:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4584572.stmThe US just hit 300 mil mark, and stable number is not quite in sight. Why not be the good steward of the Earth, instead of adding more mouth to consume from the Big Business?
Religious right… How about the right for a Muslim man to marry up to 4 wives? Will Kline defend such right?
Didn’t Jesus place a lot more emphasis on compasion, charity, forgiveness and love than on retribution and exclusion? Seems to me that Castillo is a follower only of Saul; not of the words of Christ.
In case you were wondering — GARTH McGINN’s attitude on church and state.
“As God as my witness and with Jesus absolutely in my heart, I fundamentally reject that a country full of more hateful, spiteful, religious, intolerance is a better place and I will always strive to keep it and all religion out of our government. The separation of church and state is after all a fundamental moral value in of itself which is no doubt why our Founding Fathers started the Bill of Rights with it.”
VIVA McGINN
HE WILL WIN !!!
Just keep spinning heck.
November is gonna be so.much.fun.
See YOUR red ass here on November 8 Heckie.
And please, tell us now, what nic you will post under AFTER the elections?
‘Cause surely, you will be too embarassed to use “heckler” anymore….
“Render unti caeser that which is Caeser’s and unto God that which is God’s”
Sounds like seperation to me.
KFG
Please don’t set yourself up for a huge dissapointment. Rove is getting gas prices down and I’m sure he’s got a few more tricks up his sleave.
Remember the words of Carville- if Democrats can’t win big in this environment we suck. (that’s not exactly what he said but you get the jists)
On an unrelated note- do you practice black computer voo doo or what? EVERY time I get you a little wound up I get locked out of this Blog for 30 minutes or more. Sometimes it’s as much as 90 minuts. EVERY time for as long as I’ve been on this Blog. WTF, do you have a pass code to the WEBlog servers or something?
Yes Heckler, and my other powers are even more mysterious…..
You should be afraid. Very afraid.
heheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheh
Maybe even the WE server gets choked up with laughter at the crap you post.
I’ll post it again, so it doesn’t get buried and lost. Ben, JR, some of you with more technical expertise or info than I; maybe you can answer this:
Once again: (and again . . .)Question to the Editors:
I have noticed that comments are closed (for the first time that I’ve noticed) on some topics, but not others. What are the determiners for closing topics? A quick review of the closed topics and others that are not closed will make it clear that it is not based on number of comments, relative recency of comments, or age of the topic. So what are the standards?
I have tried to e-mail that question directly to the editors, and cannot get the e-mail to go through. I think either they’re not accepting my e-mail (doubtful), or something (or someone – me) is screwed up on my end. In any case, I’d appreciate an answer, either from the editors or one of our other knowledgable posters.
GMC – my best guess is that the editirs consider an issue to be “closed” and then officially close it so they don’t have to try to keep track of it. I will say that their job is made more difficult by trolls who post over other people’s names and email addresses. Such fraud creates situations that I odubt the editors want to leave on the blog.
Thanks the kudos GMC but I have absolutely no idea why some threads are getting closed.
My best guess is what Rage said. They are doing it to avoid spammmers linking and posting to the older stuff.
I call it sad. Every once in awhile a really old one would get posted to and tossed back in the mix. Nice to see how we all wrote back then. I’ve lost my edge.
“Please don’t set yourself up for a huge disappointment. Rove is getting gas prices down and I’m sure he’s got a few more tricks up his sleeve.”
Heckler do believe it’s a good idea to follow a leader whose only concern is winning.Is this really in YOUR best interest. After all gas prices will go up, will you personally share in the profits?
I like the fact that heckler seems to confirm that for the GOP “winning is the only thing” and the country’s well-being is unimportant.
Let’s take things a step further, I hear comments about the Dems and the military what will we do for you? How about the GI bill? How about enough concern for your sons and daughters to keep them out of a senseless war.What has the GOP done for YOU today?
Ben
I was being sarcastic with the Rove business.
And this statement-”winning is the only thing” is the unofficial motto of the Democrat party of today.
How about another piece of the puzzle.The Dem’s do not presume to know enough about your life and situation to tell you what to do. It’s about choice. Your choice and your personal rights. Your personal business should only concern you.
It might be the UNofficial motto of the Dems but it is the OFFICIAL motto of the Republicans.
Meanwhile, in “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED” land …
Iraq militias splintering into radicalized cellsNew groups appear more ruthless in use of violence
By Sudarsan Raghavan
Updated: 3:25 a.m. CT Oct 19, 2006BAGHDAD – The young Shiite men, some wearing black masks, glided from house to house in search of Sunni Muslim men. They arrived at the two-story dwelling of Mohammed Hussein clutching a bomb, neighbors said. As his mother stood at the front gate, they detonated it. Shrapnel and glass flew, sending her to the hospital. A wall fell on a neighbor, sending him to his grave.
Hussein, who is Sunni, arrived home an hour later and immediately blamed a man called Aziz Dinar. Residents in this western Baghdad neighborhood of Hurriyah — in Arabic, it means freedom — said Dinar heads the local office of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and elements of his militia, the Mahdi Army.
“We know he is behind all the incidents taking place in Hurriyah,” Hussein, 29, a civil servant, said with confidence. “He is the one who destroyed our house.” …
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15322218/
If “winning is the only thing,” Heckler, that’s why have the Democrats not won anything since Clinton?
In ‘92 the Democrats lost the House. The Senate was evenly split in the ninties until the 02 election, in which the Republicans took full command and have held since today.
You say that “winning is everything” when all Dems can do is snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?
Freud called it “projection.” Projecting your worst flaw on to another instead of seeing it in yourself.
It was the Republicans who shut down the recount in Florida to make sure Bush won. It was the Conservative SCOTUS who made sure it stayed shut down, with four of nine strongly dissenting.
It was Bush’s re-election chairman in Ohio, Blackwell, who made sure that the close election there fell out for his man.
You are so full of sh*t, Heckler, you squish when you walk.
GMC–
Are you using the right e-mail address?
It’s
pbrownlee@wichitaeagle.com
or substitute the editor of your choice
If the GOP was in charge during WW2 would they have saved Private Ryan?
Here is an interesting article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/18/AR2006101801503.html
Another interesting article; especially the release mentioned half-way down.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/19/baghdad.operation/index.html
Deja vu all over again – the feckless governments we supported in Saigon that could never stand on their own – even with a US-trained and armed million man army. The ARI is looking more like the ARVN every day.
Heckler,
You make it too easy, friend. There are two issues: habeas corpus and whether American citizens can be classified as enemy combatants and stripped of habeas corpus.
Here’s the text of the bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./temp/~c109Mc8Hll:e104603:
The section on habeas corpus follows:***********************************
“SEC. 6. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS.
(a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended–
(1) by striking subsection (e) (as added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742)) and by striking subsection (e) (as added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477)); and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
`(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who–
`(A) is currently in United States custody; and
`(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.
`(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien detained by the United States who–
`(A) is currently in United States custody; and
`(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.’.
(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001″
*********************************
Oh, and the text of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 1005e is to be found here:
http://www.pegc.us/detainee_act_2005.html
It basically says the same: no Habeas Corpus for those determined to be enemy combatants.
**********************************
On the other issue, whether American citizens can count as enemy combatants, the answer appears to be yes. Here I include some commentary from Jack Balkin.
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/does-military-commissions-act-apply-to.html
“Section 948a(1) defines an unlawful enemy combatant as
“(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces; or
(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.”
Section 948b states that “[t]his chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants.” So the MCA’s procedures apply only to aliens; not to citizens. Nevertheless, Congress has declared that persons falling into the definition in 948a are unlawful enemy combatants whether they are aliens or citizens.”
(The commentator continues…)
“Why does this matter, if the military commission procedures in the MCA don’t apply to citizens? The answer is that the government might seek to detain citizens as unlawful enemy combatants using the new definition in section 948a.”
So, Heckler, I believe this settles it: the new law legitimates denying habeas corpus to enemy combatants, and makes it possible to apply this category to American citizens, thereby denying their habeas corpus rights.
Oh, and I reject your stipulations. I don’t post summaries without documentation because to do so provokes too much Wingnut snivelling about ‘evidence’, and that hurts my ears.
How would Heckler prefer his crow to be served?
Re: Military families receiving help.
Dave s, your first link doesn’t surprise me at all. Well over a year ago, I met up with a young woman online. Her husband was serving in Iraq, while she and their two small children lived in base housing. After the 2004 election, Congress decided to cut military benefits, including those regarding the housing of our soldiers and their families, forcing those who serve to pay more on base for a place to live.
This young woman was struggling as it was. Her only recourse was to apply for WIC and food stamps to feed her family.
I can hear the Republicans screaming now, just as they did in that chat room, that this woman was a welfare mom, and she should leave her young children and go find a job and quit whining. Why should THEIR money have to go to programs to help her? And yet HER husband was putting his life on the line to keep them “safe from terrorists.”
If you could’ve heard the tears in her voice the first time she told us how afraid she was for her husband and how hard she was struggling in his absence, thanks to the cuts this lousy president and congress forced her to live under, you might tend to “hate” them, too.
She got strong fast. That’s what wives of the military do. As far as I know, she got by. Somehow. She used to be a frequent visitor to the chat room, but I haven’t seen her around for quite some time. I’m hoping her hubby is now home safe and things have gotten easier for them.
The Big Lie: Republicans support our troops.
RD – we need people like her telling their stories in campaign commercials. Unfortunately, I fear that she (or her husband) could then become subject to retaliation.
Of course, Ben! Disloyal to the regime, and a damned “welfare mother” to boot! :)
P.S. CF, ain’t amazing how these suckers diss habeus corpus, when noncitizens are involved? They seem to think that the lack of priviliges accorded aliens makes them legal nonpersons, at least when the Executive branch invokes the magic words “enemy combatant” (which, in the Supreme Court, they actually argued was sufficiently established by “some evidence” on a hearsay basis).
By this “standard”, there would be nothing to legally keep them from LITERALLY executing undesirable resident aliens, at will. THIS IS NOT AN EXAGGERATION.
And now it applies to American citizens. . .
Ben, unfortunately you are correct. If her husband actually joined in the criticism, depending upon the tone of the criticism and against whom it is directed, he could be subject to punishment, for violation of an article of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). I’m sorry, I didn’t look up the UCMJ provisions; I cannot post the specific provision right now. However, I do recall Article 92, failure to obey a lawful order; and I suspect, much as when I was in the Air Force during the time of Watergate, there is a general order that has been issued reminding uniformed personnel of this prohibition and proscribing public comment critical of the President. This, too, could be the basis of punishment, if the spouse went public with criticism against the president.
The form of punishment, should a violation of the UCMJ be alleged, could be an Article 15 (nonjudicial punishment), a Special Courtmartial, up to, in extreme cases, a General Courtmartial. Each has its own limitations on the maximum punishment permissible.
For an interesting take on the Military Comissions Act and the suspension of habeas corpus check out Glenn Greenwald’s post and the comments thread.http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/10/what-fox-viewers-are-told-about.html
This guy is a very good read if you haven’t read him yet. One of 2 blogs I’ve bookmarked in my toolbar (firefox).
Rage,
Indeed. And next time some Wingnut wants to go on about the ‘liberal media,’ I think the broadcast and print media’s silence at this destruction of our Constitutional protection answers the question of whose side they’ve taken.
The problem with the Habeous Corpus etc issue is that it is complex. The media, especially in today’s world of Survivor and sound bite news, just doesn’t have the wherewithall to deal with complex issues.
On the other hand, families of servicemen in Iraq depending on charity should be covered by the media. That is not a complicated issue.
We’ve got to stop the insanity. There is no legal authority for Iraq’s President to be incarcerated and in trial for war crimes. If he had been developing WMDs and supporting al-Quaeda, with an aim to harm Americans, then the U.S. had a legitimate cause to invade, and subject him to our imposed order. But he didn’t, so we didn’t. His arrest, incarceration and trial are all illegal. Even judges hearing the cases have been removed because they understand that the trial is illegal, so our administration tries to put the fix on by getting a cooperative judge. This is totally discrediting our country.
What this administration is really trying to do is to “repent” for giving him chemical weapons in the 1980s, without the Anglo-American oilogopolists who set him up having to atone for their sin. That’s sociopathy. Set somebody up as your minion, and then when he gets too big for his britches, execute him. The LA Times broke the story in 1990 that Saddam broached the State Department about invading Kuwait, and was told, “That’s not our concern.” They baited him. Had they said, “No, don’t go there,” he would have relented.
So, now we have hundreds of people imprisoned and tortured at Gitmo, who never plotted to attack the United States, but tried to repel an invader, the United States. When they did this against the Soviet Union, we called them “heroes”.
Consider if the Soviet Union invaded the U.S. Suppose ordinary citizens mounted a resistance. There was a movie about this in the 80’s. The resistance fighters, not members of the US Armed Forces, were portrayed as heroes. Maybe in this imaginary scenario, the Soviets would have called them “enemy combatants”.
The main impetus of the Military Commissions Act is to prevent war criminals from being prosecuted, under the legal standard that past crimes can be decriminalized by statute. It’s less politically damaging than forcing the President to issue pardons.
The torture allowance will discredit the U.S. If the Supreme Court upholds checks and balances, and honors civilized convention, this allowance will be overturned. If the SC upholds the allowance, it will represent a regression to barbarism.
Who gets this? If we can torture, then it is fine, in our government’s opinion, for our enemies to torture our captured soldiers.
We need a majority of Democrats to win at least the House this fall. Not because Democrats are perfect, but because America must put a stop to insane, barbaric monstrosity.
Potentially there might be legal standing to try Iraq’s president – similar to that used to try Serbia’s president. However, the venue for that trial should be the same as that for Milosovich.
heartlander,
Couldn’t have said it better myself. Now watch this putt!
Heartlander,
It’s my understanding that Saddam’s trial has nothing to do with the U.S. (except that we helped set up and encourage it), but has to do with his actions against his own citizens, especially the Kurds. Other than that, I agree with you 100%. It’s a farce.
The U.S. isn’t doing the prosecuting or involved in the trial because we (our administration) doesn’t want anything to come out about the Kuwait matter and other things involving the U.S. As you said, we same as gave him tacit approval to move on with his plan of attack.
Is it any wonder the countries of the ME don’t trust us?
RD – you wouldn’t be referring to April Glasspie would you? And why we had to leave someone more trustworthy than her at our emassy afterwards?
Things don’t seem to be going to well in MISSION ACCOMPLISHED land …
U.S. says Baghad attacks ‘disheartening’CHRISTOPHER BODEENAssociated PressBAGHDAD, Iraq – The two-month-old U.S.-Iraqi bid to crush violence in the Iraqi capital has not met “overall expectations,” as attacks in Baghdad rose by 22 percent in the first three weeks of Ramadan, the U.S. military spokesman said Thursday.
The spike in bloodshed during the Islamic holy month of fasting was “disheartening” and the Americans were working with Iraqi authorities to “refocus” security measures, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell said.
“In Baghdad, Operation Together Forward has made a difference in the focus areas but has not met our overall expectations in sustaining a reduction in the level of violence,” Caldwell said at a weekly news briefing.
The gloomy assessment of the operation, which began Aug. 7 with the deployment of an extra 12,000 U.S. and Iraqi troops, was issued at a time of perceived tension between the United States and the nearly five-month-old government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
Caldwell said, for example, that U.S. forces had been forced to release Mazin al-Sa’edi, a top organizer in western Baghdad for radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. He said al-Sa’edi was set free on the demand of al-Maliki after being detained Wednesday with five aides for suspected involvement in Shiite militant violence.
Caldwell also said that U.S. forces had entered the city of Balad as early as Oct. 13 after it got word of the early stages of the sectarian killings that swept through the region an hour’s drive of Baghdad for four days and left at least 95 people dead, most of them Shiites.
He said control over the city was left in the hands of the Iraqi military, however, and that the Iraqi government had not asked for U.S. assistance. U.S. forces were continuing to patrol the city, which has a major U.S. air base on the outskirts.
In ongoing violence Thursday, suicide bombings in the northern cities of Mosul and Kirkuk killed at least 24 people and wounded 72, police said.
The military also said two U.S. soldiers were killed Wednesday, raising the death toll for American troops in October to 72 and putting the month on course to be the bloodiest for U.S. forces in nearly two years.
One soldier died in Anbar province, while the second was killed in a roadside bombing north of Balad.
In Mosul, police shot to death a suicide bomber driving a truck at high speed toward a police post, said Col. Khalaf Ismail. Although the post was saved, the gunfire ignited fuel and explosives on the truck, killing 12 people and wounding 25 – mostly motorists lined up for gasoline at a nearby service station.
At least two policemen were among the dead, said the station commander, Col. Abed Hamed al-Jibouri said. He said as many as 42 cars were destroyed in the blast and fire.
Lines outside gas stations are routine in Iraq because of persistent fuel shortages.
Authorities imposed a curfew after the attack at 7:15 a.m., but it was lifted nearly six hours later.
Caldwell, however, said the Mosul police station was hit by three suicide car bombs. There was no explanation given for why his account of the bombing was different from that of police.
Elsewhere in Mosul, Caldwell said, two suicide car bombs hit U.S. military convoys. He did not say if there were casualties.
He also said there was a sixth suicide car bombing, but gave no details on its target or casualties.
The Kirkuk bombing was aimed at a bank where a crowd of civilians and army soldiers waited to get their wages. Twelve people, including four troops, were killed and a total of 47 were wounded, said Police Brig. Sarhat Qader. The death toll was set to rise because some of the wounded were in serious condition, qader said.
Mosul and Kirkuk have seen a significant increase in violence in recent weeks as U.S. troops focus on crushing insurgent and militia activity in the center of the country, especially in Baghdad and its environs.
Baghdad police said at least four people were killed and 13 wounded when two roadside bombs went off in the southern Dora district. Also in Dora, gunmen opened fire on a police station, killing four policemen.
A roadside bomb hit a convoy of civilian cars south of Kut, 100 miles southeast of Baghdad, killing four and wounding one, police Lt. Mohammed al-Shimmari said.
Interior Ministry spokesman Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf said militants of al-Qaida in Iraq suffered unspecified losses in clashes with security and tribal forces in Ramadi, the capital of restive Anbar province.
He said up to 60 al-Qaida gunmen arrived Wednesday in the heart of the city in 17 vehicles and remained there for 15 minutes before being forced to flee.
Witnesses in Ramadi confirmed the basics of Khalaf’s account, but added that the masked gunmen staged a military-like parade, carrying banners exhorting people to support an Islamic state in Iraq announced Sunday by a militant group. They said mosques in the city used loudspeakers to rally support for the new state.
The Mujahedeen Shura Council – an umbrella organization of insurgent groups that includes al-Qaida in Iraq – said in a video that it has established an Islamic state made up of six provinces, including Baghdad.
Insurgents are not known to control any territory. However, the Ramadi parade pointed to their growing confidence in a city where U.S. and Iraqi forces have a heavy presence.
But Khalaf sounded confident about the future of Anbar province. “We are comfortable with Anbar,” he said. “It will be a safe province in a matter of weeks.”
Also Thursday, unidentified gunmen shot and killed Police Brig. Bassem Kadhim outside his home in southwestern Baghdad, said Lt. Muataz Salaheddin.
Police found three bodies in Baghdad’s western neighborhood of Jamaa, apparent victims of sectarian killings. They were dumped near an unused rail track and bore signs of torture. All three had gunshot wounds to the head. A woman’s body was found in the Dora neighborhood. She was shot in the head and chest.
Meanwhile, al-Maliki said he hoped Saddam Hussein’s genocide trial would not last long and that he would quickly be sentenced to death, which would help undermine the insurgency.
Saddam and six co-defendants are on trial for their roles in Operation Anfal, a military offensive against the Kurds in 1987-88. The prosecution says some 180,000 Kurds were killed and hundreds of villages destroyed.
“Definitely, with his execution, those betting on returning to power under the banner of Saddam and the Baath (Party) will loose,” al-Maliki said Wednesday in Najaf.
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/breaking_news/15791489.htm
That is why al-Maliki wants the trial to distract people from what is happening on the ground.
One of the things that troubles me a lot about this war on terror is Republicans always — ALWAYS say:
“WE” are at war on terror. There is no WE in it — Military and their families are the only we making any sacrifice to fight this war and yet our supposed leaders continue to give lip service to supporting the MISSION INCOMPLETE and our soldiers, sailors and airmen.
Well, my memory doesn’t function as well as it used to do. The UCMJ article to which I referred earlier is Article 88, set out below, and only directly affects commissioned officers. However, as noted earlier, the services have been known to issue orders affecting all uniformed personnel proscribing the conduct prohibited by said Article 88, exposing all to similar punishment under Article 92.
ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALSAny commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
And, yes, this helps explain the silence of Generals while they are on active duty.
Vaughn Tolle, good posts.
Oh, and a reminder: 600,000 dead in Iraq. Seems like Bush ought to be proud rather than deny it. We sure showed them.
dave s has posted a link that I commend to all who have questions about the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The text of the Act may be read by clicking on the link in the Glen Greenwald blog article. All I ask, regardless of what side of the argument you are on, is that you read it, keeping in mind the portions thereof cited in CFs post, above, and the links therein contained.
While it may make your eyes glaze, it is important, IMHO, that each person read the actual text thereof so s/he may be informed of the provisions as enacted by the Congress and signed into law by the President. Don’t let Fox News, MSNBC, or any other media type tell you what it says, or doesn’t say; find out for yourself.
[/Rant]
Capn:RE: e-mail and closing topics
I tried it, it appeared to go through. I’ll let you know what answer I get, if any.
As “somebody” pointed out over in an opinion line post…the Uniform Code of Military Justice is the ultimate compound oxymoron…if it is uniform and it is a code, ipso facto is is not justice.
If anybody thinks this whole Military Commissions Act BS (administered by Military Tribunals) is just going to be invoked for the ‘bad’ islamic fundamentalist terrorists, remember…we see that convenient, easy to use terrorist label applied to the home grown variety as well.
McVeigh was a terrorist. So, logically, it could follow, if you sold McViegh some groceries you materially aided a terrorist. Off to jail with you. Raus!!!
and remember…Ve Haf Vays of Making You Talk
Jarwohl, mein Herr.
Ben,
That would be it (April Glasspie). Is there reason to believe it isn’t true?
Let’s get out of Iraq. Iraq is a phony “nation”. It didn’t self-create, it was created by outsiders, i.e. England. If we believe in this, then let the United States, or at least the original 13 colonies, become part of Great Britain. Saddam Hussein could have done little against the Kurds without U.S. inputs. Today, we are stuck between a rock and a hard place with respect to them, because they want to create for themselves an independent Kurdistan. So let them. Some of the territory they live in is part of Turkey–a country that refused to let us come in to mount the war in Iraq. Let people govern themselves. And if this means the oilogarchists can’t control oil flows, tough s**t for them. If they are as smart as they want to pretend they are, let them develop alternative energy and conservation in good old the US of A.
655,000, cf. That was the count I heard, and since that figure is closer by 5,000 to 700,000 than to 600 thou, I think it bears repeating. ;)
But, hey, what’s a bunch of dead towelheads, right?
(Sorry. I cringed while typing that. Obviously not my view or my racism.)
Some folks need to get a life; “scariest terrorist plot possible”:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/19/nfl.threat/index.html
TT got a zero / zilch / nada on the disabled veterans ratings of politicians.
VIVA McGINN
WIN WITH McGINN
In Case your wondering here is GARTH McGINN’s position and the solution to he supports on the Iraq War. It is only a small part of his views on National Security. To see the rest go to http://www.gogarth.org
According to GARTH McGINN:
National Security begins by demanding the specific milestones for withdrawal from Iraq within the year, the measures to determine those milestones and, most importantly, accountability for not hitting those milestones. Rubber stamping a foreign policy that has placed our nation in a more dangerous position and worsened our reputation around the world is unacceptable. There was a time just not too long ago when U.S. citizens were proud to wear their colors abroad. Now, we’ve been asked to not display our flag or colors for fear of retribution or worse. We can not bully the world into submission. We have to lead by example. In that regard, I believe we are failing miserably.
SOLUTIONNational Security:a) Demand specific milestones for withdrawal from Iraq within the year, the measures to determine those milestones and, most importantly, demand accountability for not hitting those milestones.
VIVA McGINN
WIN WITH McGINN
Enough with Todds spin! Vote for McGinn!
For a change of pace, under the general heading of who knew what, and when did he know it:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/house_clerks_te.html
CF
Thanks for the links.
What did I make to easy?
I’ll read this stuff and get back to you.
“So, Heckler, I believe this settles it: the new law legitimates denying habeas corpus to enemy combatants, and makes it possible to apply this category to American citizens, thereby denying their habeas corpus rights.”
Settles what??? I never said anything about enemy combatants losing habeas corpus. I believe that in the past I’ve said that YOU have not lost habeas corpus. Said the same thing to KFG numerous times. At least you got around to responding to it.
Heckler, an unlawful enemy combatant as defined by the Act may include an American citizen. That’s the gist of the argument. I also suggest you look at the link in dave s post, above, to the Glen Greenwald blog, for further discussion.
Vaughn
Thanks for pointing out daves post.
I can’t go through it all right now but I have to say this- if an American citizen is caught fighting against our forces, in a foreign country, it seems to me he’s effectively renounced his citizenship. And I for one don’t think in a case like that he should have all of the constitutional protections that you or I recieve.
I realize there could be cases that are not as cut and dried as the simple one I illustrate above. I’ll cover the necessary reading and be back tomorrow.
Heckler, one thing to keep in mind; one may be an unlawful enemy combatant as a U.S. Citizen who is not caught fighting our forces in a foreign country, under the Act. Be careful if you read it; there are many definitional provisions to keep in mind, and the terms defined are close, e.g., alien unlawful enemy combatant vs. unlawful enemy combatant.
BTW, the President, by Executive Order, may name one an unlawful enemy combatant.
Good reading.
Most definitely not a good day for the V.P. and his quest to not release visitor logs:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15332695/
If there is any real conservatism in you at all Heckler, the accumulation of power to the Executive that bush has just signed should chill you to the bone.
McGinn to win stop the spin!
Too bad Cheney et al had the sense to not tape meetings, unlike Nixon. ;)
Boener’s in Denial! http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061019/pl_nm/scandal_dc_1
Steve, it might help if they’d stick to the same story. What? No private conversations between any of them about what they should say regarding timing? This, I can’t believe. Come on, it’s politics, folks, on all sides.
Eagle editors.
Please give us a thread devoted to the assumption that Todd Tiahrt is so secure in his job representing his constituents that he no longer feels the need to answer to his constituents, actively campaign, or debate his challenger in the upcoming election. The assumption is valid and deserves discussion.
Todd Tiahrt is taking his constituents for granted.