Almost a year ago, I posted about the increase in “moral waivers” for military recruits (see here, here and here). What was being seen was that the military was admitting folks in with very sketchy backgrounds, including known KKK members and people with known memberships to infamous street gangs.

Often, I hear people talk about how we should send prisoners over to fight in Iraq but, this is darned close and a lot of military folks are concerned about serving alongside people with such backgrounds.

Now, it appears that, because more bodies were needed for the “surge”, an even greater increase of these waivers has occurred. In fact, the Army doubled the number of these waivers and the Marines increased their waivers by some 70%.

So, how bad does it get. Just read the following:

According to the new data, the Army and Marines have allowed recruits who have been convicted of assault with a dangerous weapn, burglary, drug abuse, sexual assault; in a few instances recruits were cleared to join after convinctions on terrorism or bomb-threat related charges.

“I understand that there can be valid reasons for personnel waivers and recognize the importance of providing opportunities to individuals who have served their sentences and rehabilitated themselves,” Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), the Oversight Committee’s chairman, wrote in a letter (.pdf) to an undersecretary of defense. “At the same time, concerns have been raised that the significant increase in the recruitment of persons with criminal records is a result of the strain put on the military by the Iraq war and may be undermining military readiness.”

The military only provided data on felony waivers from 2006 and 2007, saying information from prior years or about personnel waivers granted for misdemeanor convictions had been lost due to poor record keeping, according to Waxman’s letter. The committee chairman requested more internal documents about the protocol for granting waivers, whether the increase had to do with meeting tougher recruitment goals and any studies of the effectiveness of recruited felons the military might have produced.

Something tells me that these “lost records” might have some very disturbing truths to them. When the military is starting to do this to meet recruiting goals, doesn’t anyone else see that something is not working?

Popularity: 10% [?]

When you have a fire do you:

a) try to extinguish it?

b) watch it burn from a safe distance?

c) pour gasoline on it?

If you’re Condoleezza Rice, you’d probably choose “c”.

On a recent trip to Baghdad’s “Green Zone”, Rice decided to ramp up the rhetoric against radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and, by extension, his militia by, more or less, calling him a coward.

Really, how does this help?

“I know he’s sitting in Iran,” Rice said dismissively, when asked about al-Sadr’s latest threat to lift a self-imposed cease-fire with government and U.S. forces. “I guess it’s all-out war for anybody but him,” Rice said. “I guess that’s the message; his followers can go too their deaths and he’s in Iran.”

So, you have the American Secretary of State calling out a militia leader in Iraq, basically challenging his manhood.  Also, and I apologize if this sounds sexist but, the fact that she is a woman challenging Muslim men is also not to be overlooked (this is just my observation).

Regardless of the gender aspect, it is clear that she and the Bush administration have called out al-Sadr and this can’t be good news for those who could be caught in the crossfire (both figuratively and literally).

In fact, VoteVets has expressed such a concern:

Again, we have yet another member of the Bush administration who–in a ham-handed effort to help our “allies”–is actually placing our own troops in more danger.  I don’t think there’s any question that this echoes George W. Bush’s provocative invitation for terrorists around the world to descend on Iraq when he declared, “Bring’em on” in July 2003.  And we all know how that worked out.

But it’s not just about Rice’s dismissive, provocative tone, either.  It’s also this continuing, obnoxious Bush-brand of hypocrisy that the whole world sees: If Sadr had said the same thing of Rice–that she’s a Washington, D.C. bureaucrat who sends others to fight her own battles–the Bush administration would freak out.  And that fact isn’t lost on Iraqis.

As Rice is one who will not have to stay and fight the Mahdi Army side-by-side with our troops, I suggest that she keep her mouth shut if she’s not going to say anything helpful.  Because statements like these are certainly not.

This is a group representing Iraq and Afghanistan vets expressing these concerns, not just me.  At the end of the day, people’s lives are at stake.  You would think that the country’s leading diplomat would be…well…more “diplomatic” in her use of words.

Popularity: 10% [?]

…and, ABC News, your debate stunk.

I understand that there have been a lot of Democratic debates (last night made the 21st) but, seeing how they sunk to the levels of tabloid journalism in presenting this debate, they could have left it at 20.

Many bloggers have already panned this debate. It was over 50 minutes before a single policy question. Instead, we were treated to a rehash of Rev. Wright, Hillary Clinton’s Bosnia story, an obscure reference to 60’s radical William Ayers and — *gasp* — flag pins.

However, it’s not just me and bloggers. Just check out the comments on ABC’s web site. There are over 12.000 at this point and from what I have read, the general consensus is that ABC did a horrible job last night.

Popularity: 75% [?]

This is the political equivalent of “Groundhog’s Day”, every 6 months somebody comes in to say why we need more time and troops in Iraq. Well, I am listening and still don’t hear any compelling reason for us to still be there. You can still catch some of the hearing below:

Popularity: 7% [?]

On a recent episode of his show, Montel Williams had a disfigured Iraq War veteran who apparently was having issues getting the healthcare and benefits he needed, despite his sacrifice.  When one of the guests (pundits) he had on his show goes into blaming Democrats for him not having his benefits (ummm…for the first three years of this war, Republicans were in control of the House, Senate and the Presidency), Williams lets her have it with both barrels.  The bottom line for Williams was that we need to quit playing politics and start holding our president accountable for making the care of these soldiers a real priority.  Thanks to Crooks and Liars for the clip.

 

 Montell Williams Blasts Pundit: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Popularity: 7% [?]

“The surge is working”…”we are succeeding in Iraq”. We continue to hear these things from President Bush, Vice President Cheney, John McCain and any Republican automaton who’ll spew it.

However, one thing is becoming more apparent — the fragile cease-fire there is starting to crumble. What is being seen now is the resurgence of a Mahdi army that had once lay dormant.

Check this out:

A cease-fire critical to the improved security situation in Iraq appeared to unravel Monday when a militia loyal to radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al Sadr began shutting down neighborhoods in west Baghdad and issuing demands of the central government.

Simultaneously, in the strategic southern port city of Basra, where Sadr’s Mahdi militia is in control, the Iraqi government launched a crackdown in the face of warnings by Sadr’s followers that they’ll fight government forces if any Sadrists are detained. By 1 a.m. Arab satellite news channels reported clashes between the Mahdi Army and police in Basra.

The freeze on offensive activity by Sadr’s Mahdi Army has been a major factor behind the recent drop in violence in Iraq, and there were fears that the confrontation that’s erupted in Baghdad and Basra could end the lull in attacks, assassinations, kidnappings and bombings.

So, let’s see what excuses will pop up, now, to allow Bush to continue to run out the clock and leave this mess to his successor.

Popularity: 9% [?]

“…Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.

In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment — yet, it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage, your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other, made this day possible. Because of you, our nation is more secure. Because of you, the tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free.”

–George W. Bush, May 1, 2003

Reading these words again, I wonder how many chickenhawks patted themselves on the back that day and thought they were showing us how wrong we were to be against the war. They must have felt quite vindicated on that day.

However, what I remember is thinking was how I hoped that it all was over. I was wrong, as well.

The next week, the reality of the war set in on me. I remember hearing a name mentioned on the news. I caught the end of the segment but, I did hear that this person was from my hometown and I got a weird feeling in the pit of my stomach. I search the local TV and newspaper sites to confirm what I thought was true — the nephew of an old friend was killed while guarding a bridge in Iraq. He was 23, recently married and due to come home. Naively, I thought it was particularly terrible because the war was over and the troops would be coming home soon.

Again, I was wrong.

So, here we are, 5 years later and we have to admit that the mission was not accomplished and since that day, the day Bush declared the war over, the lion’s share of casualties and deaths in Iraq have occurred. Prior to the announcement of “Mission Accomplished”, 140 soldiers had died. Today, that number stands at 4,000 and counting.

Of course, if you ask Bush and Co., this was all worth it.

Popularity: 16% [?]

Montel Williams recently castigated the hosts of ‘Fox and Friends’ for spending time on their show to discuss the death of acting “icon” (yes, one of them said that) Heath Ledger but, not being able to accurately give the number of troops killed in Iraq last month or the name of a soldier who most recently died in the war. Could this be part of the reason that Fox opted not to renew his contract?

Popularity: 25% [?]

If you’re British, that is.

That’s right, one more in the “coalition of the willing” is saying it’s time to pack it in.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced that the combat duties of British troops in Basra, Iraq will cease in two weeks. Brown says the troops will switch to training roles and Iraqis will take over defense.

Furthermore, Brown says the 4,500 troops in Iraq will be cut to 2,500 by early 2008. On top of that, he is saying that the remaining troops may all be out of Iraq by March 2008.

However, the most telling detail in all of this is what Brown said in regards to why he feels the troops can leave:

“Since Our Boys withdrew from Basra’s city centre and palace to the airport a few miles away back in September attacks on them have fallen by 90 per cent.”

Did you get that? After they left, the violence went down. In other words, they quit occupying a city and the citys’ residents stopped attacking them. Did you hear that President Bush?

I’m sure this detail will be conveniently ignored in the coverage of Britain’s withdrawl.

So, Britain’s basically out. When are we leaving?

Popularity: 19% [?]

Question: What do these two statements have in common?

On Iraq:
“Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” (George W. Bush, Oct 7, 2002)

On Iran:
“I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.” (George W. Bush, Oct 17, 2007)

Answer: After yesterday, we know that these are, at best, trumped-up charges and, at worst, flat-out lies meant to get us into military conflict with countries that pose(d) no immediate threat to us.

As you are likely aware, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) came out yesterday and had some very telling things to say that stand in stark contrast to Bush Administration’s allegations on Iran.

The NIE is the compilation of the combined views of the nation’s 16 intelligence agencies regarding the security issues affecting the U.S. and, like I stated, its findings on Iran were very telling.

According to the NIE, Iran actually halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and, furthermore, states that due to significant technical issues, Iran probably is another 3-8 years away from having enough enriched uranium for a bomb.

However, the most interesting part of the report coming out is its back story. It is believed that the administration, particularly the office of Vice-president Dick Cheney, held up the release of this report for over a year, try to twist arms of intelligence analysts to get them to change the report to match the administration’s rhetoric.

So, in other words, as in Iraq, they went around the world citing Iran as an immediate threat when they clearly knew otherwise.

Of course, the chickenhawk spin-doctors are at work and trying to wipe egg off their faces on this and Republican candidates, no doubt, are going to have to get new material for their stump speeches, as this country has no desire to repeat the Iraq debacle.

We’ll have to see how this all shakes out but, one this is clear. We are certainly being lied to by this administration on Iran.

Popularity: 36% [?]