When oh when will the citizenary begin to watch Bill Moyers "Journal" on PBS.
He is alone in reporting what ALL other MSM fails to do..

Damn! well done.

As for the content of the looming Petraeus report, anyone who has ever used the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet program knows what's coming next. Americans should expect to see the old "Fill Right" trick. That is, when producing a long-term financial model or forecast, the Excel user in the absence of research, data, or just common sense, simply copies the value or formula from one cell (for, say, monthly or quarterly sales) to all the succeeding cells (months or quarters in ensuing years). The result is an impressive looking spreadsheet, but one whose projections are baseless and without foundation.

As the interim surge report made clear in July, President Bush like any failed CEO has been relying on the old fill-right gimmick since the Iraq war commenced. Starting in 2003, Bush simply selected the cell containing the phrase "We're Making Progress" and filled right...

For a screen shot and more details, see:
"White House to Author 'Fill Right' Iraq Report for Petraeus."

How come Bush is not attacking the Saudis? Bush made a deal with his boss that they cannot go after the Saudis and the country of Jordan since they are supporting the war game.

Traitors in the islamic world is similar to the traitors in the christendom.

anon @ 7:

I'm reposting this just to keep people on point ...

Do you understand that you are discussing the tactics of military based hegemony as if there were a right way to do that?

1) Wars of opportunity are international crimes. The US subscribes to this via treaty, therefore wars of opportunity are crimes in the US. The US has committed international and US federal crimes.

2) Torture is an international crime. The geneva convention is accepted by treaty by the US which makes torture a US federal crime. Internationally, the Taliban and Al Qaida were aknowledged as being covered by the Geneva Convention. The US has committed torture on both, therefore committing international and US federal crimes.

3) … and more …

Do you understand that the discussion SHOULD NOT BE ABOUT MILITARY TACTICS OR TROOP LEVELS. You are discussing the best way for a criminal to stay alive and succeed after committing a home invasion. The criminal will argue that he is there and there is no point discussing how he got there. The police would argue that is the actual point - how did he get there. The answer to that question will result in criminal charges. In fact, all that follows the original crime is a subsequent crime.

Do you see? The US committed crimes - internation and federal - by pursuing this war, acts of torture and more. They want to start history AFTER those events, just like the criminal in the home invasion example. They must be denied. The clock MUST start at the time of the crimes. You are having discussions as if the original crimes never occurred. Crimes were committed. All that follow the commissions of those crimes are crimes as well.

Will a surge work? Are you kidding? Put 2 million troops in Iraq and I promise you Iraq will get peacefull REALLY QUICKLY. But … so what? What about the original crimes?

Does a forcefully subdued Iraq justify the original crimes? Bush, Cheney, McCain, Clinton, Lieberman and on and on would tell you … yes.

I say no …. in fact … HELL NO.

It wouldnt matter if the criminal who invaded your home painted your bedrooms, he would still go to jail for home invasion.

The US is an unprosecuted criminal state. We must correct this.

The sad truth.

...

EZ @ 8:

How come Bush is not attacking the Saudis? Bush made a deal with his boss that they cannot go after the Saudis and the country of Jordan since they are supporting the war game.

Traitors in the islamic world is similar to the traitors in the christendom.

Bush's dad is, I believe, the only president to continue receiving intelligence briefings. As a note, Bush's dad provides consulting services for the Saudi royal family. (The US government provides secret service protection for the saudis)

See a pattern here? You would be very hard pressed to identify benefit for the citizens of the US in any of this - therefore either Bush is incompetent or he doesnt work for US citizens. You would find it very easy to see example after example of benefit to Saudi Arabia and the House of Saud.

Who does Bush work for? We know who his dad works for.

Challenging the Generals

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/magazine/26military-t.html?em&ex=11882...

I would call that honest reporting.....something I haven't see alot of lately......sad........

5 Amitola Says:

Oh, how I rue the day that GHWB did not withdraw prematurely……..

Damn, I was just going to respond to this with something brilliantly elucidative and slightly scolding, when I got the joke.

Gimme a break, it's sunday.

EZ @ 8:

How come Bush is not attacking the Saudis? Bush made a deal with his boss that they cannot go after the Saudis and the country of Jordan since they are supporting the war game.

Pakistan, too. For some reason, the tribal areas along the Pakistani-Afghan border, where Al Queda moved after 9/11, and where Bin Laden is probably still holed up, is off limits to US military action.

Annoyed Canuck @ 20:

EZ @ 8:

How come Bush is not attacking the Saudis? Bush made a deal with his boss that they cannot go after the Saudis and the country of Jordan since they are supporting the war game.

Pakistan, too. For some reason, the tribal areas along the Pakistani-Afghan border, where Al Queda moved after 9/11, and where Bin Laden is probably still holed up, is off limits to US military action.

Wahabi Islam, developed in Saudi Arabia, finds some of its most fertile soil in Waziristan.

Did you read recently that the House of Saud just recently announced acceptance of the notion of Islamic State. In a way, this all ties together.

Bob Moyers must not be too concerned with his future.He's nearing retirement anyway...if only the younger generation of reporters had his courage....

On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace gave a very snide comment to a letter from Bill Moyers. Karl Rove told Chris that he is Episcopalian. Moyers wrote Chris citing numerous accounts of Rove telling others that he is not religious. Moyers could only assume that Rove was lying to Chris. Chris, who could never conceive of Rove lying to a fellow conservative, took offense at Moyers. In his comment, Chris chided Moyers on not speaking personally with Karl to determine his status on belief in God. Chris pointed out that Rove's largest donation to charity was to the Episcopal church that he allegedly attends. The seeming contradiction is easily explained. An individual's church attendance may have nothing to do with a belief in God. One can attend church in the hope of convincing others that one is a believer when one is an unbeliever. Perception is Truth to people like Rove. Moyers is correct, as usual.

Angry One @ 6:

As for the content of the looming Petraeus report, anyone who has ever used the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet program knows what's coming next. Americans should expect to see the old "Fill Right" trick. That is, when producing a long-term financial model or forecast, the Excel user in the absence of research, data, or just common sense, simply copies the value or formula from one cell (for, say, monthly or quarterly sales) to all the succeeding cells (months or quarters in ensuing years). The result is an impressive looking spreadsheet, but one whose projections are baseless and without foundation.

As the interim surge report made clear in July, President Bush like any failed CEO has been relying on the old fill-right gimmick since the Iraq war commenced. Starting in 2003, Bush simply selected the cell containing the phrase "We're Making Progress" and filled right...

For a screen shot and more details, see:
"White House to Author 'Fill Right' Iraq Report for Petraeus."

I've worked with statistical analysis and research abstracts most of my life. The formulas used are complex and back in the 1970s you couldn't find a calculator that would do them and computer time was expensive. It all had to be done by hand. Finally Texas Instruments released the "Statistician" making the work a bit easier. The point of it all is to analyze the data to find out if the results were statistically significant by establishing a probability level.

That's essential if you're writing an abstract, but in most cases you don't really need the analysis to know if your results are significant. The results are often clear and the only analysis required is common sense. I think that's the case with the Petraeus report. Regardless of whatever bovine scatology they use to justify their inevitable conclusion that the Surge is working, most people will have made their own analysis and recognize the report for it's pastoral origins.

"Didn’t the traditional media learn anything from their pathetic sycophantic shilling for the White House in the lead up to the war?"

No, they're too busy sucking up to their corporate masters. There is very little left of the media and the role it should play in a vibrant Democracy.

Carmikl @ 28:

Angry One @ 6:

As for the content of the looming Petraeus report, anyone who has ever used the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet program knows what's coming next. Americans should expect to see the old "Fill Right" trick. That is, when producing a long-term financial model or forecast, the Excel user in the absence of research, data, or just common sense, simply copies the value or formula from one cell (for, say, monthly or quarterly sales) to all the succeeding cells (months or quarters in ensuing years). The result is an impressive looking spreadsheet, but one whose projections are baseless and without foundation.

True. As a note, I think its the wrong question anyway. At the risk of incurring the wrath of ... well ... everyone, I would note that Germany subdued France during WWII. What did that prove? It proved that populations can be subdued. Did it make the Germans right? Of course not. Will the 'surge' - if it successfully subdues Iraq - make the US invasion right? Once again, of course not.

The question shouldnt be - will the surge work - since we really dont know what that means. The question should be - and I think is - is the invasion of Iraq by the US right. International law and US law by treaty would say - resoundingly - no.

By raising the issue of the surge, they are defining the questions and setting expectations. That shouldnt be allowed.

As the interim surge report made clear in July, President Bush like any failed CEO has been relying on the old fill-right gimmick since the Iraq war commenced. Starting in 2003, Bush simply selected the cell containing the phrase "We're Making Progress" and filled right...

For a screen shot and more details, see:
"White House to Author 'Fill Right' Iraq Report for Petraeus."

I've worked with statistical analysis and research abstracts most of my life. The formulas used are complex and back in the 1970s you couldn't find a calculator that would do them and computer time was expensive. It all had to be done by hand. Finally Texas Instruments released the "Statistician" making the work a bit easier. The point of it all is to analyze the data to find out if the results were statistically significant by establishing a probability level.

That's essential if you're writing an abstract, but in most cases you don't really need the analysis to know if your results are significant. The results are often clear and the only analysis required is common sense. I think that's the case with the Petraeus report. Regardless of whatever bovine scatology they use to justify their inevitable conclusion that the Surge is working, most people will have made their own analysis and recognize the report for it's pastoral origins.

This administration has nothing to fear from a dumbed down media that has cut fact checking from the budget.

The statements made about Vietnam and Cambodia were outright lies. They are fixing history to fit the policy. They are cherry picking intelligence to suit their will. Why on EARTH do people trust what this administration says about ANYTHING?

anon @ 33:

site monitor, wordpress threw away my comments and kept the quotations. My comments were lengthy and cannot be reproduced. Unless you can do something, you may as well remove 32 as pointless.

Sorry Carmikl.

That's an inherent problem I found early on with this format, but thankfully haven't had any problems with lately. Maybe it's why Turkey is banning WordPress in their country though. It has bugs.

.
.
.
anon @ 7:

I'm reposting this just to keep people on point ...

The US is an unprosecuted criminal state. We must correct this.

Until the majority of Americans swallow their pride and acknowledge this, this nation is doomed.
.
.
.

justabill @ 39:

anon @ 7:

The US is an unprosecuted criminal state. We must correct this.

The international laws that the US has broken the US is not a party to anymore, not since the US officially withdrew from international criminal court in 2002. And although that court had just been created in 1998, the US withdrawal from international law had actually been the defacto case since Reagan refused to comply with the decision of the World Court after the US lost to Nicaragua in 1986.

Nation-states are sovereign and compliance with international law is completely voluntary. The international system of nation states is anarchic. There is no authority above that can make states comply. Thus, the US may be hypocritical when it enforces the same international laws against other nations that itself is no longer a party to, but it is pure hyperbole to say "the US is an unprosecuted criminal state." Maybe in an ideal world, but not this one.

Actually, the U.S., by the Secretary General of the U.N.'s own words has broken international law by invading Iraq. Violations of the Geneva Conventions -- which the U.S. is also a signed member -- has been blatantly breached by this and other administrations.

Whether enforcement of these international crimes is possible is irrelevant to the fact that the U.S. is a criminal state, by breaking these international laws time and time again.
.
.
.

Republicans and their msm mouthpieces have been so effective at demonizing the UN and international law that the majority of the US population has long supported the US' withdrawal from international law. There was no noticable outcry when Reagan thumbed his nbose at the World Court or when Bush did the same to the international criminal court. Most Reps and Senators in the US recieved not one constituent complaint over either.

Bush thinks that "reality sucks"; the rest of the world believe that "Bush sucks".

The U.S. USED to be a signatory. Not anymore.

Isn't It Time We Rejoin the World Court?
George W. Bush drew fire from law and order advocates when in 2002 he "unsigned" (that is withdrew America from) the Treaty of Rome of 1998 that created an international criminal court. (...)

The president who turned America's back on judgment under international law was Ronald Reagan. His action resulted from fear (especially after prominent condemnation by Senators Barry Goldwater and Daniel Patrick Moynihan) of an adverse Court ruling in Nicaragua's case against the U.S. Reagan withdrew American acceptance of mandatory jurisdiction that had been filed forty years earlier by President Truman, with unanimous support of the Senate. ...

Powerful statement. It is just too bad that Bush has made a large portion of this country so blind to the truth that they won't even watch the video. Wake up America! Do we see Ari's or George's or Newt's or Rush's ( sorry Rush, I forgot that you haven't reproduced successfully proving there is a God) or Dick's or Mitt's or Fred's or Rudy's relatives out there signing up? How can Bush dare talk about any missions in Vietnam when he was a no show AWOL? Mama Bush probably thought the "boat people" benefited crom the war like the victims of Katrina did. Bill Moyers tells the truth. Americans need to listen.

justabill @ 46:

The U.S. USED to be a signatory. Not anymore.

Isn't It Time We Rejoin the World Court?
George W. Bush drew fire from law and order advocates when in 2002 he "unsigned" (that is withdrew America from) the Treaty of Rome of 1998 that created an international criminal court. (...)

The president who turned America's back on judgment under international law was Ronald Reagan. His action resulted from fear (especially after prominent condemnation by Senators Barry Goldwater and Daniel Patrick Moynihan) of an adverse Court ruling in Nicaragua's case against the U.S. Reagan withdrew American acceptance of mandatory jurisdiction that had been filed forty years earlier by President Truman, with unanimous support of the Senate. ...

Is the U.S. no longer a member of the U.N.? Did the U.S. officially withdraw from the Geneva Conventions?
.
.
.

As long as the 5 permanent members (P5) of the UN Security Council; the United States, the United Kingdom, China, France, and Russia, retain a single vote veto power, the UN is but a toothless joke to all 5 states. The UN only really applies to all other members. The P5 are defacto exempt from any action by the UN.

The US can make and enforce the international laws, but it doesn't have to abide by them. There is no international authority that can make the US do anything. Can persons in the US be tried in absentia in international criminal court? Yes. And as long as that person never leaves the US except maybe to an allied nation like the UK, nothing will ever come from it.
That's not the way it ought to be, but that is how it is.

Thanks, Bill.

It's refreshing to remember what reporting is really about.

Cabby

:)

To call the US a rogue state is a misnomer. A "rogue state" is one that operates outside of the international norms and since the US is currently the enforcer of those norms ala its military equal to all of the rest of the world combined. You'd never get a passing grade in any international relations course for trying to argue that point (at least not one in the US, unless your professor is Ward Churchill. lol. Oh wait, he's not teaching anymore because he was a "rogue" professor).

oops, I screwed up link part of the "Quote This Comment" didn't I. Sorry.

[That's ok. It's fixed-Sitemonitor]

justabill @ 60:

To call the US a rogue state is a misnomer. A "rogue state" is one that operates outside of the international norms and since the US is currently the enforcer of those norms ala its military equal to all of the rest of the world combined. You'd never get a passing grade in any international relations course for trying to argue that point (at least not one in the US, unless your professor is Ward Churchill. lol. Oh wait, he's not teaching anymore because he was a "rogue" professor).

Its not a misnomer. Throughout history, the strong defined standards and history. That changed, in my opinion, after WWII. A permanent collection of nations and international standards have existed since then. What we have is a hegemonic nation that is both in violation of international law (US treaty only federalizes that law) AND outside the standards and norms of the international community - rogue. You are attempting to use the same definitions the confederacy used prior to the civil war. That is, Washington only had jurisdiction over member states. This is one reason the civil war was fought, to enforce jurisdiction.

Your argument that the US enforces anything internationally is nothing more or less than a decription of the behavior of a hedgemonic state. It says nothing about whether that state is both lawfull internationally or a functional part of the community.

There are agencies within the US government that are full engaged in the international community and are lawful internationally. But that simply doesnt describe the executive or in my opinion the legislative branches of the US government in general.

The only thing at this point stopping the international community from imposing justice on the US is power and unless you are a neo-con, that is not an argument that the US is in conformance in any way.

The existence since WWII of permanent deliberative bodies and subsequent bodies of law and standards of behavior change the equation. The US is a roque.

Although I'm certain of two things. 1) Your text book would disagree and 2) your text book is likely of american origin.

It just occured to me what you are doing. You are using the US definition (with a brief lapse during clinton) of rogue state to mean a state with an authoritarian leader who sponsors terrorism and who threatens to disseminate weapons of mass destruction.

That is a right wing definition from the US.

I disagree with that definition and have consistently defined what I mean by rogue state. Which is not specifically US-centric, but has application internationally.

I'm using the definition I learned in college. As long as the US dominates the status quo in international relations it can't be properly called a "rogue state." That's not a reich-wing definition. But whatever is the point? Really? I'm just saying that the US is better defined these days as a belligerent hegemon than a rogue state. I believe you said “The UN has identified the US as a rogue state “ I would really like to see that if it's true, but "the google" didn't turn that up for me.

As far as a rogue state being "a state with an authoritarian leader who sponsors terrorism and who threatens to disseminate weapons of mass destruction." That sounds like the US under Bush to me.

Speaking of Propaganda, what do you think of this headline on the CNN webpage?

Ex-Iraqi leader returning 'to fight for our our country'

It sorta makes Ayad Allawi sound like Douglas MacArthur. You couldn't pay for that kind of publicity, or could you?

justabill @ 39:

anon @ 7:

The US is an unprosecuted criminal state. We must correct this.

The international laws that the US has broken the US is not a party to anymore, not since the US officially withdrew from international criminal court in 2002. And although that court had just been created in 1998, the US withdrawal from international law had actually been the defacto case since Reagan refused to comply with the decision of the World Court after the US lost to Nicaragua in 1986.

Nation-states are sovereign and compliance with international law is completely voluntary. The international system of nation states is anarchic. There is no authority above that can make states comply. Thus, the US may be hypocritical when it enforces the same international laws against other nations that itself is no longer a party to, but it is pure hyperbole to say "the US is an unprosecuted criminal state." Maybe in an ideal world, but not this one.

that self-serving argument is no refutation of the points made in anon@7 and anon@12. the simple actions by reagan and bush were unconstitutional and do not release the US from the treaties those presidents refused to honor. the actions of those idjits simply support what Anon has written.

All the same retoric and scenarios came to pass in Vietnam. The fake reasoning for war, the many deaths, and the war running on and on tho it was already hopelessly lost, and Nixon knew it. The war hawks then and the neo-con war hawks now were and are playing it  that it would be cowardly and unpatriotic to leave; this gave them then, and does give them now, time to keep making money even though they know they will have to pull out eventually. Even today when speaking of Vietnam, you will hear Marines who served there say, "Nixon had to keep the pressure on the North Vietnamese so he bombed Cambodia and Thailand, it was the only way to bring the North Vietnamese to the table." I say to these veterans, why couldn't we have just LEFT? Why was is SO important to bring the North Vietnamese "to the table?" Pride??? While we were doing that, 20 thousand more Americans died and as many as half a million more Vietnamese, both North and South, perished due to the continued fighting and continuous bombing. You see, the Nixon administration understood then as the bu$h administration does now that many Americans have a false pride and don't like to lose, so the warmongers can (and do) take total advantage of this so they can prolong the war and keep making $$$. After all, that's  what it's really all about, isn't it neos?!

[Deleted. Oddly enough, Ron Paul is not the topic of this thread]