Destination: Pakistan

U.S. Considers New Covert Push Within Pakistan - New York Times

President Bush’s senior national security advisers are debating whether to expand the authority of the Central Intelligence Agency and the military to conduct far more aggressive covert operations in the tribal areas of Pakistan. The debate is a response to intelligence reports that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are intensifying efforts there to destabilize the Pakistani government, several senior administration officials said.

Iraq War Outline

1. The Essentials (click to expand/contract)
• 2002-03 - U.S. makes case that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).
• March 20, 2003 - U.S. leads invasion of Iraq.
• May 1, 2003 - George W. Bush declares the end of major combat operations (the infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner).
• May 2003-June 2004 - U.S. establishes a military occupation of Iraq run by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA).
• Fall 2003 - The Iraqi insurgency begins. Members of the Iraqi army and secret police, who stayed underground when the U.S. invaded, form guerilla units and start attacking U.S. troops.
• June 2004 - CPA turns control over to an interim Iraqi government which is overseen by the CPA.
• January 2005 - The Iraqi interim government is replaced by the Iraqi National Assembly as a result of national elections.
• May 2005 - Suicide bombings tear through Iraq making for the bloodiest month in Iraq to date. Most of the attacks are perpetrated by Sunni Arabs against Shias.
• February 22, 2006 - The Shiite Al Askari Mosque is blown up by 5-7 men dressed as Iraqi special forces (believed to be Sunnis). Shiites across Iraq respond by blowing up Sunni mosques and killing dozens. Sectarian tensions had already been mounting, and this incident is widely considered the official start of the Sunni-Shia civil war in Iraq.
• November 2006 - Democrats regain control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate in U.S. Congressional elections. The main motivating factor for U.S. voters in the elections is the Iraq War.
1. The reason given for the invasion was that Iraq had WMDs. Since WMDs were not found, many people now believe the intelligence about WMDs was misrepresented or falsified in order to justify going to war.
2. Americans were not prepared for a long war. They had been told it would last weeks or months at the most. At the time of the 2006 elections the war had been raging for 3.5 years and there was no end in sight.
3. The stated goal was for U.S. forces to train and hand over authority to an Iraqi army. This goal was far short of being reached, and voters felt that putting Democrats into Congress would speed this up and get U.S. troops out of Iraq.
• December 6, 2006 - A bipartisan group of U.S. foreign policy experts called the Iraq Study Group releases a report detailing the situation in Iraq, and making suggestions for a change in course of action.
• January 10, 2007 - In a primetime televised speech to the American people, George W. Bush completely ignores the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, and instead shockingly announces a troop surge: the addition of 21,500 U.S. troops in Iraq.
• September 10, 2007 - General David Petraeus, the officer tasked with commanding the surge by President Bush, testifies before Congress that roughly 30,000 U.S. troops can be withdrawn by the summer of '08, and possibly more after that depending on conditions on the ground.
• September 14, 2007 - President Bush, in a televised address to the nation, announced that there would be a limited withdrawal of U.S. troops. 5,700 personnel would return home by Christmas '07, and a total of 21,500 would return home by July '08, thus returning the U.S. force in Iraq to the pre-surge level.
  1. People paying attention to the war up to this point know this decision is much ado about nothing. Tours of duty for U.S. soldiers have already been extended from 12 months to 15, and unless those tours are to be extended even further, Bush had no choice but to reduce the number of U.S. forces in Iraq back to pre-surge levels by summer 2008.
2. Leadup to War (click to expand/contract)
• WMD
3. Controversies/Scandals (click to expand/contract)
• Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame/Scooter Libby
• Private Contractors
4. U.S.-Iraq History (click to expand/contract)
• Oil for Food
• Sanctions/No-Fly Zones
• Gulf War I
• Iran-Iraq War

Documentaries Galore

I'll update this list whenever I find items worth putting here.

The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America


Iraq for Sale - The War Profiteers



Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War



JFK II - George H.W. Bush's involvement



Interview with John Taylor Gatto



America - Freedom to Fascism



The War on Democracy



Fiat Empire - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the Constitution



Assassination of JFK, Jr.



Zeitgeist



Ron Paul vs. Charles Partee of Federal Reserve Board (1983 Gold Standard Debate)



Why We Fight 1/4



Why We Fight 2/4



Why We Fight 3/4



Why We Fight 4/4



Corrupt Banking System (Federal Reserve for Dummies) 1/5



Corrupt Banking System 2/5



Corrupt Banking System 3/5



Corrupt Banking System 4/5



Corrupt Banking System 5/5



JFK's Speech to the American Press

Our Country is Stuck in 9th Grade

Here's what I observed during the Republican debate the other night in New Hampshire: a high school debate, with the exception of Ron Paul. It was painfully obvious how rehearsed the other candidates' answers were. Why is this a bad thing? Shouldn't candidates rehearse and prepare for debates? Sure...if they're in the 9th grade and arguing some position their teacher handed to their team. These people are competing for the office of the President of the United States. The candidates should be prepared for all the different types of questions they're going to be asked. This preparation should come from the natural preparation any candidate should be doing if he/she wants to be an effective president. However, you should be able to get up on stage and answer a question as if you're hearing it for the first time. We should be seeing that your beliefs are shaping an on the spot honest answer to the question, not that you've been practicing the answer, and your other talking points, in front of mirrors and your campaign staff for weeks. Why do campaigners continue to give these rehearsed answers? Because it is effective. The public is mentally stuck around the age of 14, so the candidates play to this and give answers that appeal to the public's level of thinking. Ron Paul's success in the online community indicates that the level of critical thinking of politically active internet users is higher than that of the rest of the country. I hope I'm wrong. Hopefully there is a huge movement throughout the country that is being ignored by the media and their (bullshit?) opinion polls. Part of the problem is certainly the format of these debates: many candidates, many topics, and limited time for answers. Their answers often have to be short and to the point, thus not giving them the opportunity to expand into further detail. However, something insightful can be said in 90 seconds as Ron Paul continually proves. The front running candidates most likely see this debate format as a blessing. In a longer format, Guiliani would be exposed as a one-dimensional candidate with a mantra. Hell, during last night's debate the people watching the debate said all Guiliani seems to do is talk about what he did as mayor of New York and they were very disappoined with him. Imagine what their reaction would be if he spoke for twice or thrice as long. Romney, whom I see as a very intelligent and shrewd man, would be hurt by a longer amount of speaking time because it increases the probability that he will contradict himself within the same answer. The guy is a sheister much in the same way the people who really run this country are. Expect to see the GOP and the mainstream media eventually give him the push as the Republican candidate. If McCain were to give longer answers and were to have his answers challenged by follow-ups, he'd slip into a level of incoherence similar to what happened to him on the Daily Show a couple of months back that would make any sane person say this guy is not fit to be president. Many people I'm sure will disagree with most of this. They will say rehearsal shows that a candidate is putting in the necessary preparation that voters should expect of him/her for a debate. But if this well-rehearsed individual is elected president, the individual will often not have the opportunity to rehearse the answers to certain unexpected questions from foreign leaders and dignitaries. I'm looking for someone whose beliefs guide his actions and is sharp enough to give an answer on his feet when the situation so requires. Ron Paul is the only candidate in the Republican party, and dare I say both parties, with dynamism in his answers. I never get the feeling that the answer he's giving to a question has been rehearsed in front of a mirror or touched up by campaign advisers to maximize effect on voters. He has a core set of beliefs and a great understanding of the issues that are vital to our country, and he uses that information to form a unique answer to every question. Next time you watch one of these debates, from either political party, look at and listen to each candidate's answers and ask yourself if this person must've rehearsed this answer dozens of times.

Why Congestion Pricing in NYC is Bullshit

On August 14th the federal government gave New York City $350 million to reduce traffic congestion with the stipulation that the city must try to alleviate congestion via some kind of pricing mechanism. Of course this was music to Mayor Mike Bloomberg's ears. He failed in July to get the necessary support of the state legislature to move forward with his congestion pricing system that is part of the wider plan to make New York City an environmental model for American cities in the 21st century. But, a few days later, the legislature said they would create a committee to look into Bloomberg's proposal. The overall goal of improving the environment of NYC is a noble one that I fully support. It is the means being used that I disagree with. Before I go into why I think this congestion plan is 1) unfair and 2) untenable for NYC, I'm going to speculate as to why I think Bloomberg is pushing this particular plan and why the government is funding him to encourage its creation. PlaNYC is part of an overall umbrella effort by environmental organizations to clean up cities across the United States. Bloomberg is quite possibly going to run for president in '08, and he certainly is and has been plotting out a campaign for some time now. Environmental groups have a large deal of political clout, and they continue to amass it at a rapid rate as global warming picks up momentum as a political and social priority in the US and the world. So what does all this mean? Bloomberg genuinely believes in taking action to clean up our environmental and stave off the effects of global warming, and for that I applaud him. But why is he so dead set on congestion pricing? Of the many actions that can be taken to alleviate the problem, why is this one his prize pony? The environmental groups are pushing him, that's why. They want NYC, the country's most populous and prosperous city, to get the ball rolling...in a hurry. There is no interest taken in whether or not this plan is the best solution for or is in the best interest of New York City; they just want it to happen here first so they can spread it throughout the country. Global warming is a problem which is already upon us, and the longer we wait to take action, the harder we will be struck by its effects. Therefore, environmental groups want to put any plan they believe will have great effect into motion immediately. Rather than testing this plan out in a smaller city, where it would be easier to conduct research, make predictions, and then measure how well those predictions pan out upon implementation, they are pushing it on the largest city in the country in a very short time frame. Not only that, but Bloomberg tried to pass it through legislature in just a couple of months without even providing any substantial statistical predictions on what this would do to the amount of congestion or the economy of the city. While the impetus of global warming is extremely powerful and action is needed now, we still must do proper planning and not lose our heads. Rather than hastily putting a pilot project in effect in New York City, why not 1) do a thorough study of what all of its effects are likely to be on the city? and 2) put it in place in a smaller city first? Putting enormous pressure on Bloomberg, who at this point I'm officially saying is in the pocket of the new enormity "Big Enviro", may get your plan enacted and into the national spotlight quicker, but have you thought about the potential downfall of this strategy? What if, due to inadequate research and planning, this system falls flat on its face in New York? Then congestion pricing as a nationwide solution is fucked. Even if it could have worked elsewhere in the country, which I certainly believe is possible, you won't ever get another chance because once it fails in New York, and the whole country knows because you made sure everyone was watching, it will be political suicide for any American politician to utter the words "congestion pricing."