This is Blackwater, where guards who are above the law yell out to people “Shut Up or I’ll Shoot You”.
The convoy then continued around the traffic circle, according to a confidential Iraqi police diagram obtained by NEWSWEEK and provided to American investigators. According to the accompanying incident report, the Blackwater guards opened fire on an Iraqi Army checkpoint on a nearby road leading away from the square. The convoy also apparently sideswiped at least one Iraqi civilian vehicle in the circle. Samir Hobi, 40, says he got out of his car and complained to the Blackwater guards about the damage. He says one of the guards shouted back: “Shut up or I’ll shoot you.”
This comes from a piece in Newsweek describing the events of that fateful day when Blackwater fired without provocation onto the civilian population, killing at least 11 innocent Iraqis.
Diab says that he stopped oncoming traffic to allow the Blackwater vehicles to pass. As the convoy pulled into the circle, according to Diab, the Blackwater guards began throwing bottles of water from their vehicles—a signal to stay back. Yet shortly after the convoy slowed to a stop in the circle, he says, the Blackwater guards “started shooting randomly.” One of the bullets hit the driver of a white Kia that had stopped near the roundabout. (Blackwater guards have said they felt threatened because they believed the car was continuing to move toward them.) Diab says that he and another policeman, Ali Kalaf Salman, rushed to the car and tried to pull open the doors. As they did, the Blackwater guards intensified their fire.
The Blackwater men said in their written statements that they believed a policeman was “pushing” one of the vehicles—which the guards suspected to be a car bomb—toward the circle, which prompted them to fire. When asked whether he was pushing the Kia, Salman, the undercover police office, laughs. “When you see someone get shot, you try to help them,” he says. Salman says he was carrying a 9mm Glock, but kept it holstered throughout the shooting. ABC reported that Blackwater guards also said they saw one person pull out what appeared to be a trigger device for a bomb. But the Iraqi policemen suggest that perhaps the edgy Blackwater guards mistook everyday items for lethal weapons. “I pulled my radio out to call an ambulance, and they shot at me,” says Diab.
When the traffic police arrived at the white Kia, a woman in the car “was crying and holding her son,” says Salman. As the shooting intensified, the two policemen said they were forced to flee on foot across the square. They say they looked on as the guards fired at the Kia from all directions. “Whenever they saw movement inside the vehicle, they started shooting,” says Salman. Eventually, the men said, the Blackwater guards launched larger projectiles—perhaps rifle-fired grenades—at the white Kia, setting it on fire. The video obtained by NEWSWEEK shows a large-caliber shell casing at the scene.
For a trigger-happy, highly nervous group, this makes much sense. You see a vehicle you feel nervous about. Shoot first, ask questions later. You see someone go towards that vehicle and it looks to you like they are pushing the car closer to you, shoot first, ask questions later. Who cares for the dead, right?
Remember, America, you pay their salaries with your taxes. Is this the kind of organization you want representing you? Are their actions not terrorist in nature? Who shoots at civilians without provocation? Who is above the law? American tax-payer funded organizations? That’s what you’ve got. People who say “shut up or I’ll shoot you.” Seems to me this is a highly dangerous organization to keep loose like this…you never know when they might turn their guns on you.
Have y’all noticed that ever since General Petraeus’ bamboozling report to Congress on September 11, we haven’t heard much at all from Michael Gordon, the New York Times reporter who is the Bush administration’s latest propagandist. Note that in and around General Petraeus’ testimony, we got like three articles from Mr. Gordon, all praising His Lordship, the good General. Suddenly, nothing.
Republican Congressmen and women are now boycotting MSNBC because of David Schuster’s strong stance against the poor little old Rep Blackburn of Tennessee. She thought she was going in for a safe interview, for a free shot at evil dastardly liberals. She was shocked, SHOCKED to find someone hit back. How DARE HE! “I’m a Republican Congresswoman! How dare you stick it to me!”
What a bunch of sissies!
There is an excellent article in the New York Times on affirmative action out in California. Highly recommended reading.
We have his own words that he willfully and freely chose to violate the Law of the Land, the Senate ratified Charter of the United Nations. Without an actual UN resolution that called for an invasion of Iraq, Mr. Bush broke the law and invaded Iraq. Here are his own words, courtesy of Juan Cole, who translated from the Spanish transcript just recently released to El Pais. This is George Bush talking with Aznar of Spain about how things were going to go down in March 2003. I highlighted one part in particular, where Bush states that he blackmailed several countries into supporting him, countries like Chile. How reprehensible.
One very important question needs to be asked. Why would Bush not agree to having Saddam go into exile? After all, if Bush, as he says in this transcript doesn’t like war and would rather avoid the costs, why not take the offer and let Saddam rot in exile? Why the need to kill him?
George Bush violated the Constitution of the United States. By all rights and reason, right now we should be trying him for treason.
hit him where it hurts.
Update: I changed the video, (thank you Brian). For some reason the first one is no longer available.
So, I should have asked this question with the post when I wrote it last night, but what do you all think about Romney’s attempts at being someone he is not?
You know you are redoing Vietnam when NONE of the top Democratic candidates can promise to pull all troops out of Iraq before their term is up in 2013. There’s no chance in hell the Republican candidate will pull the troops out.
Just giving a dose of reality folks. Whether we like it or not, our brave leaders will NOT listen to what the public wants and will keep sacrificing OUR children (NOT theirs) for a war we do not agree with anymore, a war we never should have fought. Our generals are making the same mistakes they made in Vietnam, presenting to the American people a false sense of reality, hyping the good and dismissing the bad like your worst car-salesman nightmare, knowing full well exactly what they are doing, knowing full well that the mission is not going well, but not caring to tell their bosses, WE THE PEOPLE, what’s really going on.
Showing that indeed he’s turned to the dark side and forever given up his moderate roots, Mitt Romney will speak to the extremist secret combination group, The Council for National Policy, where Dick Cheney will speak too. Here is what this group thinks:
“The media should not know when or where we meet or who takes part in our programs, before of after a meeting,” the New York Times reported.
Hmmm, I wonder why…
What do they want?
In the summer of 1981, Woody Jenkins, a former Louisiana state lawmaker who served as the group’s first executive director, told Newsweek bluntly, “One day before the end of this century, the Council will be so influential that no president, regardless of party or philosophy, will be able to ignore us or our concerns or shut us out of the highest levels of government.”
Huh, sound familiar to y’all, my fellow Mormon readers?
The DailyKos diary I just linked to provides the most information about them, and is aptly titled Sith Lords of the Ultra-Right.
Get to know this secret combination, America. They’ve been ruling the country for twenty of the past twenty eight years.
This is probably the best analysis of Ahmadinejad’s appearance at Columbia University yesterday.
But the most tragic part of the event was the Q and A segment. The Iranian regime is as vulnerable with regards to its domestic policies as America is with regards to its foreign policy and war in Iraq. It is true that Iran has occasionally funded various groups that have been hostile to U.S. interests. But the United States has done the very same thing to Iran and much more. An example which Ahmadinejad pointed out to was Reagan’s sales of weapons to Saddam, which he used against in Iran for eight years. I can still vividly remember the sound of sirens, duct taped living room windows and American-funded air strikes.
And yet, most of Bollinger’s questions focused on Iran’s foreign policies. By keeping the focus on international issues, Columbia gave him an easy way to turn the conversation around time and again and criticize American policy. One question was why Iran was enriching uranium, which Bollinger naively ended with “would you stop?” And why should they stop? There is no evidence that they are building a bomb, they are a member of the NPT, which gives them the right to enrich uranium, and their two main open enemies — Israel and America — both possess nuclear weapons, with the former not being a member of NPT and the latter breaking its rules by not moving toward the treaty’s ultimate goal: elimination of all nuclear weapons.
Without asking these significant questions or any meaningful understanding of more than 2,500 years of Iranian history, Columbia provided an environment for Ahmadinejad to criticize American policy, divert every viewer’s attention from the country’s brutalities and oppression and play to the audience’s idealist beliefs that scored him more applauses than any meaningful challenge to his stance and record on issues that mattered the most.
The U.S. delegation walked out of the General Assembly chamber when Ahmadinejad went to the podium, leaving only a low-ranking note-taker to listen to his speech, which also indirectly accused the U.S. and Israel of human rights violations. Gonzalo Gallegos, a State Department spokesman, said the U.S. wanted “to send him a powerful message.”
Oh yeah, real powerful message. You only showed how petty and childish you really are. Why are you so afraid of this piddly man? Why does he instigate such fear in conservatives, enough to drive you to war?
Alan Greenspan writes in his book that oil had much to do with the war in Iraq. Then he hedged those words later, but now he comes back and restates that indeed it was about oil:
ALAN GREENSPAN: People do not realize in this country, for example, how tenuous our ties to international energy are. That is, we on a daily basis require continuous flow. If that flow is shut off, it causes catastrophic effects in the industrial world. And it’s that which made him far more important to get out than bin Laden.
There you go. But, Mr. Greenspan, why didn’t you open your mouth when it actually mattered?
well well well, the plot thickens. Blackwater, America’s terrorist organization (what else would you call a group of armed men who go around killing civilians for no reason at all: worse still, they are state sponsored—paid for by the American taxpayer— and they have the protection of that state to willfully use violence at their discretion with full immunity), has strong ties to Mitt Romney’s campaign. Blackwater’s vice chair Cofer Black sits on Romney’s senior advisors on counter-terrorism and national security. As such, Romney’s campaign has been painfully silent on the murder of Iraqis at the hands of Blackwater employees.
What principle do you stand on, Mr. Romney?
Well, this won’t go over well for those who back Blackwater, but Blackwater employees fired first in last week’s incident according to a video.
Time to fire a lot of people Ms. Rice. Time to hold them accountable and charge them with the murders they committed. Remember, they were working for the United States of America while they killed these civilians. If they are immune from prosecution, what does that say about the standards of this country?
This is normally called terrorism when done by our “enemies.”
Blackwater shoots up innocent civilians and the State Department forces Iraq into continuing to allow it to work unfettered in the country, but what will most likely bring Blackwater down is arms smuggling. My goodness. Hey Condi, this isn’t helping that legacy of yours.
Maclean’s has a superb article that delves into how Iraq really looks on the ground. Frankly it is quite horrendous. Read the whole article (some six pages) and answer again, will all our efforts bring us a result worthy of the cost?
I posed this question in a comment but I wanted to bring it up in a new post:
Why would anyone think that a few more years of plugging through with thousands more Americans dead and trillions more dollars spent will bring an outcome worthy of the cost?
What do you all think?
Man, that’s gotta hurt that poor legacy of hers, but the Pope denied Condoleezza Rice an audience over foreign policy.
The latest request was made during the summer. The US secretary of state Condoleeza Rice indicated to the Vatican that she urgently needed to meet Benedict XVI. She was on her way back into the viper’s nest of the Middle East and it would have been no bad thing to meet her counterparts with the credentials of a papal audience. Ms Rice had hoped that the audience could be fixed for early August at Castelgandolfo, the papal summer residence, when Benedict XVI returned from Lorenzago in the Dolomites, but she was told the Pope was on holiday. She insisted but to no avail. Vatican diplomats were adamant and “Benedict XVI is on holiday” continued to be the official reply.
Ah, it seems the reason was because Ms. Rice was not too kind to the Vatican way back in 2003 on the war in Iraq.
No one will say so officially but the refusal may also have been prompted by Ms Rice’s stance in 2003, when she was Mr Bush’s national security adviser. On the eve of the Iraqi conflict, it was Ms Rice who said bluntly that she did not understand the Vatican’s anti-war stance. She treated John Paul II’s envoy, Cardinal Pio Laghi, with a coolness that bordered on disrespect when he was sent to Washington on 2 March 2003 on a desperate mission to avert military intervention. Clearly, the incident has not been forgotten.
Payback’s a bitch, Ms. Rice.
A new poll is out and it shows an INCREASE of Americans wanting out of Iraq. This poll comes AFTER General Petraeus’ testimony last week to Congress. It seems the good general failed to convince Americans that indeed things are improving in Iraq.
A word of advice, General. If you are going to try to convince someone, it is best to stick to the truth, and not obfuscate. It is also wise, if you offer statistics, to reveal just how you got to those statistics. Let the truth be your master, and follow it to whatever end, not to the end you desire. It will never go there.
In any case, unfortunately nothing has changed. We’re on to the next Friedman Unit, and the next real conversation will be six months from now. At that time, we will hear from many quarters that we need to continue for another six months, because those next six months will be ‘crucial’ to the war effort. After that, a year from now, we will meet again, and discuss again the need to continue for at least six more months, because those next six months will be ‘crucial’ to the war effort. After that, a year and a half from now, we will meet again, and discuss again the need to continue for at least six more months, because those next six months will be ‘crucial’ to the war effort. After that, two years from now, we will meet again, and discuss again the need to continue for at least six more months, because those next six months will be ‘crucial’ to the war effort. After that, two and a half years from now, we will meet again, and discuss again the need to continue for at least six more months, because those next six months will be ‘crucial’ to the war effort.
And so it goes.
You get the picture yet, America?