Israeli Electorate Rebukes Bush and Votes for Peace by Paul Craig Roberts: "Neocon propaganda has convinced ever-gullible Americans that Iran is now America’s most dangerous enemy. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice continue to make unsupported accusations against Iran, threatening military action. General John Abizaid, commander of US Middle East forces, is helping to spread the rumor that Iran is operating inside Iraq, supplying explosives to the resistance. Gareth Porter and Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to secretary of state Colin Powell, report that neoconservative zealots, who advocate destabilization and regime change in the Middle East, were able to block diplomatic engagement with Iran in order to keep open the military option. Instead of welcoming the opportunity to work things out, the Bush regime rebuked the ambassador who brought the peace offer.
Neoconservatives don’t want 'no stinking talks.' They want war. War is their only hope.
Neoconservatives are ruthless. They have control of the US government and military. Little stands between them and their fanatical determination to widen war in the Middle East."
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Friday, March 24, 2006
The Proverbial Elephant in the Room
LRB | John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt : The Israel Lobby: "Given the neo-conservatives’ devotion to Israel, their obsession with Iraq, and their influence in the Bush administration, it isn’t surprising that many Americans suspected that the war was designed to further Israeli interests.
Last March, Barry Jacobs of the American Jewish Committee acknowledged that the belief that Israel and the neo-conservatives had conspired to get the US into a war in Iraq was ‘pervasive’ in the intelligence community. Yet few people would say so publicly, and most of those who did – including Senator Ernest Hollings and Representative James Moran – were condemned for raising the issue.
Michael Kinsley wrote in late 2002 that ‘the lack of public discussion about the role of Israel . . . is the proverbial elephant in the room.’ The reason for the reluctance to talk about it, he observed, was fear of being labelled an anti-semite.
There is little doubt that Israel and the Lobby were key factors in the decision to go to war. It’s a decision the US would have been far less likely to take without their efforts. And the war itself was intended to be only the first step.
A front-page headline in the Wall Street Journal shortly after the war began says it all: ‘President’s Dream: Changing Not Just Regime but a Region: A Pro-US, Democratic Area Is a Goal that Has Israeli and Neo-Conservative Roots.’"
Last March, Barry Jacobs of the American Jewish Committee acknowledged that the belief that Israel and the neo-conservatives had conspired to get the US into a war in Iraq was ‘pervasive’ in the intelligence community. Yet few people would say so publicly, and most of those who did – including Senator Ernest Hollings and Representative James Moran – were condemned for raising the issue.
Michael Kinsley wrote in late 2002 that ‘the lack of public discussion about the role of Israel . . . is the proverbial elephant in the room.’ The reason for the reluctance to talk about it, he observed, was fear of being labelled an anti-semite.
There is little doubt that Israel and the Lobby were key factors in the decision to go to war. It’s a decision the US would have been far less likely to take without their efforts. And the war itself was intended to be only the first step.
A front-page headline in the Wall Street Journal shortly after the war began says it all: ‘President’s Dream: Changing Not Just Regime but a Region: A Pro-US, Democratic Area Is a Goal that Has Israeli and Neo-Conservative Roots.’"
Death Squadrons
Death Squadrons: "Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, much of Latin America was under the control of brutal military juntas engaged in what they perceived as a life-and-death war against communists. The role of the United States' government in this has been well documented, but until now, France's contribution was more shadowy.
DEATH SQUADRONS: THE FRENCH SCHOOL convincingly reveals French veterans of the wars in Indochina and Algeria provided the inspiration, the training, and some of the intelligence that allowed Latin America's dictators to torture and kill thousands of their own citizens.
Filmmaker Marie-Monique Robin traces the development of the theory of counter-revolutionary warfare, first tested Indochina and in Algiers (where 20,000 civilians died). Some of its foremost practitioners, like French General Paul Aussaresses, freely admit their contributions, even with a hint of pride. Others are surreptitiously captured on a hidden camera, admitting high-level political and military links between the dictators and the French government. Many of those interviewed are now either in custody or under indictment.
Though little documentary footage of these practices exists, the Italian filmmaker Gillo Pontecorvo realistically recreated the French interrogation methods in The Battle of Algiers. (The Battle of Algiers was recently shown to American officers confronted with ongoing attacks on their personnel in Iraq, and excerpts from this film illustrate DEATH SQUADRONS).
DEATH SQUADRONS also shows how, during the 1960's, the French were instrumental in training U.S. officers at Fort Bragg on counter-insurgency techniques that were later used by the U.S. military in Vietnam.
DEATH SQUADRONS serves a cautionary note about what can happen when governments and the military are convinced that enemies are everywhere, and that any means necessary can be employed to fight them. It's an important lesson to bear in mind as the war on terror continues."
DEATH SQUADRONS: THE FRENCH SCHOOL convincingly reveals French veterans of the wars in Indochina and Algeria provided the inspiration, the training, and some of the intelligence that allowed Latin America's dictators to torture and kill thousands of their own citizens.
Filmmaker Marie-Monique Robin traces the development of the theory of counter-revolutionary warfare, first tested Indochina and in Algiers (where 20,000 civilians died). Some of its foremost practitioners, like French General Paul Aussaresses, freely admit their contributions, even with a hint of pride. Others are surreptitiously captured on a hidden camera, admitting high-level political and military links between the dictators and the French government. Many of those interviewed are now either in custody or under indictment.
Though little documentary footage of these practices exists, the Italian filmmaker Gillo Pontecorvo realistically recreated the French interrogation methods in The Battle of Algiers. (The Battle of Algiers was recently shown to American officers confronted with ongoing attacks on their personnel in Iraq, and excerpts from this film illustrate DEATH SQUADRONS).
DEATH SQUADRONS also shows how, during the 1960's, the French were instrumental in training U.S. officers at Fort Bragg on counter-insurgency techniques that were later used by the U.S. military in Vietnam.
DEATH SQUADRONS serves a cautionary note about what can happen when governments and the military are convinced that enemies are everywhere, and that any means necessary can be employed to fight them. It's an important lesson to bear in mind as the war on terror continues."
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Paul Krugman: Bogus Bush Bashing
When Patients Become Costumers
The Doctor Will See You for Exactly Seven Minutes - New York Times: "The problem has been sneaking up on us for almost two decades. As health-care dollars became scarce in the 1980's and 90's, hospitals asked their business people to attend clinical meetings. The object was to see what doctors were doing that cost a lot of money, then to try and do things more efficiently. Almost immediately, I noticed that business jargon was becoming commonplace. 'Patients' began to disappear. They were replaced by 'consumers.' They eventually became 'customers.'"Therefore, The poor are denied quality health services. This article good as it is, denouncing a problem, only raises an option for people with money. The poor will have no option but to suffer the seven minute visit.
The logical conclusion is that the "health" system is a failure.
The Truth About Inmigration Policy
Called by God to Help - New York Times: "The unspoken truth of the immigration debate is that at the same time our nation benefits economically from the presence of undocumented workers, we turn a blind eye when they are exploited by employers. They work in industries that are vital to our economy yet they have little legal protection and no opportunity to contribute fully to our nation.
While we gladly accept their taxes and sweat, we do not acknowledge or uphold their basic labor rights. At the same time, we scapegoat them for our social ills and label them as security threats and criminals to justify the passage of anti-immigrant bills.
This situation affects the dignity of millions of our fellow human beings and makes immigration, ultimately, a moral and ethical issue. That is why the church is compelled to take a stand against harmful legislation and to work toward positive change.
It is my hope that our elected officials will understand this and enact immigration reform that respects our common humanity and reflects the values — fairness, compassion and opportunity — upon which our nation, a nation of immigrants, was built."
While we gladly accept their taxes and sweat, we do not acknowledge or uphold their basic labor rights. At the same time, we scapegoat them for our social ills and label them as security threats and criminals to justify the passage of anti-immigrant bills.
This situation affects the dignity of millions of our fellow human beings and makes immigration, ultimately, a moral and ethical issue. That is why the church is compelled to take a stand against harmful legislation and to work toward positive change.
It is my hope that our elected officials will understand this and enact immigration reform that respects our common humanity and reflects the values — fairness, compassion and opportunity — upon which our nation, a nation of immigrants, was built."
Blinded to Reality
Incredibly Optimistic: "'I understand how some Americans have had their confidence shaken,' President Bush said yesterday in Cleveland. 'Others look at the violence they see each night on their television screens, and they wonder how I can remain so optimistic about the prospects of success in Iraq. They wonder what I see that they don't.'
Bush tried to explain. But in the end, what he provided was yet another example of what others see -- and he doesn't.
That would be reality."
Bush tried to explain. But in the end, what he provided was yet another example of what others see -- and he doesn't.
That would be reality."
New Rules for Propaganda
No Breach Seen in Work in Iraq on Propaganda - New York Times: "Across the Bush administration, officials are wrestling with how to counter radical anti-American messages that resonate throughout huge parts of the world. With the pace of technology, and against the backdrop of American counterterrorism efforts around the world, the role of information has been given greater prominence in Pentagon planning.What about beginning to tell the truth?
The question for the Pentagon is its proper role in shaping perceptions abroad. Particularly in a modern world connected by satellite television and the Internet, misleading information and lies could easily migrate into American news outlets, as could the perception that false information is being spread by the Pentagon."
See how they care about 'perception' not reality. Their problem is not to do 'right' but to do whatever they want and then worry about how to manipulate perception. When ever you hear the official line you better be suspicious, because they have carefully parsed their words to deceive you.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Deranged, Disconnected, and Dangerous by Paul Craig Roberts
Deranged, Disconnected, and Dangerous by Paul Craig Roberts: "The day of Bush’s delusional speech, Patrick Cockburn, present on the scene in Irbil, Iraq, gave a much more truthful account of the situation. Writing in CounterPunch, he reported: 'Iraq is a country convulsed by fear. It is at its worst in Baghdad. Sectarian killings are commonplace. . . . The scale of the violence is such that most of it is unreported. . . . Unseen by the outside world, silent populations are on the move, frightened people fleeing neighborhoods where their community is in a minority for safer districts. There is also a growing reliance on militias because of fears that police patrols or checkpoints are in reality death squads hunting for victims.'
Not a word of this reality from our delusional president.
The fantasy Iraq that Bush painted was only his warm-up. He went on to tell his Cleveland audience that American could not be safe unless Iraq was a democracy. What a weak, pitiful, vulnerable place Bush’s America must be. Unless a small, devastated Middle Eastern country is a democracy, America cannot be safe. Who in the Cleveland audience could possibly have believed this utter nonsense.
Bush told his audience that 'the security of our country is directly linked to the liberty of the Iraqi people, and we will settle for nothing less than victory.' What victory is he talking about? Despite the huge sums of dollars paid by the Bush regime to all the leaders of all the factions, Iraq cannot form a government.
Without victory, Iraq will be 'a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks against our nation.' Alas, there were no terrorists in Iraq until Bush invaded the country and drew them in. The problem our troops face in Iraq is not terrorists, but resistance fighters, 'insurgents' in the Bush regimes parlance. Democracies lack the dictatorial, extra-legal powers to suppress terrorists. That is why Bush is destroying civil liberties in the US. Under Saddam Hussein, there w"
Not a word of this reality from our delusional president.
The fantasy Iraq that Bush painted was only his warm-up. He went on to tell his Cleveland audience that American could not be safe unless Iraq was a democracy. What a weak, pitiful, vulnerable place Bush’s America must be. Unless a small, devastated Middle Eastern country is a democracy, America cannot be safe. Who in the Cleveland audience could possibly have believed this utter nonsense.
Bush told his audience that 'the security of our country is directly linked to the liberty of the Iraqi people, and we will settle for nothing less than victory.' What victory is he talking about? Despite the huge sums of dollars paid by the Bush regime to all the leaders of all the factions, Iraq cannot form a government.
Without victory, Iraq will be 'a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks against our nation.' Alas, there were no terrorists in Iraq until Bush invaded the country and drew them in. The problem our troops face in Iraq is not terrorists, but resistance fighters, 'insurgents' in the Bush regimes parlance. Democracies lack the dictatorial, extra-legal powers to suppress terrorists. That is why Bush is destroying civil liberties in the US. Under Saddam Hussein, there w"
US manipulated Iraqi divisions for its own sake
Aljazeera.Net - Iraqi civil war threatens region: "Why do you say the US manipulated Iraqi divisions for its own sake?
When the US entered Iraq, it took advantage of the sectarian divisions in the country. These divisions had already been aggravated by the rule of Saddam Hussein, but now it was being aggravated again by the US.
The US exploited these divisions by making promises to the Shia community to have a larger share of the pie - of the oil shares.
This is a policy to produce a more divided country.
The US administration hoped that by averting the rise of national unity among Iraqis, they could play one faction against another.
This policy has worked. For example, the Kurds, for all practical purposes, can be considered independent.
However, whenever we see any Shia-Sunni alliance, the US immediately considers this a threat.
So, they sometimes appease the Shia. And other times they appease the Sunnis, but never both together.
Muqtada al-Sadr, though, is a danger to the US because he appeals for national Iraqi unity across the Sunni-Shia divide."
When the US entered Iraq, it took advantage of the sectarian divisions in the country. These divisions had already been aggravated by the rule of Saddam Hussein, but now it was being aggravated again by the US.
The US exploited these divisions by making promises to the Shia community to have a larger share of the pie - of the oil shares.
This is a policy to produce a more divided country.
The US administration hoped that by averting the rise of national unity among Iraqis, they could play one faction against another.
This policy has worked. For example, the Kurds, for all practical purposes, can be considered independent.
However, whenever we see any Shia-Sunni alliance, the US immediately considers this a threat.
So, they sometimes appease the Shia. And other times they appease the Sunnis, but never both together.
Muqtada al-Sadr, though, is a danger to the US because he appeals for national Iraqi unity across the Sunni-Shia divide."
Iraqi civil war threatens region
Aljazeera.Net - Iraqi civil war threatens region: "As'ad AbuKhalil: The repercussions of the Iraq debacle are very likely to affect more places in the Middle East, not less. There is now an explosion, literally, of militant fanatical groups that are bent on destroying the ties of amity and brotherhood between Sunnis and Shia. One can see that this was effective.
The latest International Crisis Group [report] points out the cynical and destructive ways by which the US administration manipulated Iraqi social, sectarian, ethnic, and tribal divisions for its own sake.
Having failed to shore up support for its favourite 'secular' clients, the US occupation armed and empowered lethal sectarian Shia groups that were bent on revenge.
'Bush, far from being remembered for establishing democracy in Iraq, will most likely be remembered as the man who brought ayatollahs' rule to Iraq, next door to Iran'
On the other side, [wanted Jordanian al-Qaida leader Abu Musab] al-Zarqawi and company found in Iraq the environment that existed in Afghanistan under the Taliban.
For such groups, the ability to register theological and ideological points on a land under US troops was too tempting.
This explains the influx of militant radicals from the entire Middle East. Ironically, the model of 'democracy' and 'secularism' that [George] Bush and the neo-conservatives were planning in Iraq had degenerated into a model of mayhem, pillage, and plunder, and the ayatollahs rule in all but name.
Bush, far from being remembered for establishing democracy in Iraq, will most likely be remembered as the man who brought ayatollahs' rule to Iraq, next door to Iran.
The ayatollahs' regional empire will have Bush's footprints on it. The region as a whole will continue to be affected."
The latest International Crisis Group [report] points out the cynical and destructive ways by which the US administration manipulated Iraqi social, sectarian, ethnic, and tribal divisions for its own sake.
Having failed to shore up support for its favourite 'secular' clients, the US occupation armed and empowered lethal sectarian Shia groups that were bent on revenge.
'Bush, far from being remembered for establishing democracy in Iraq, will most likely be remembered as the man who brought ayatollahs' rule to Iraq, next door to Iran'
On the other side, [wanted Jordanian al-Qaida leader Abu Musab] al-Zarqawi and company found in Iraq the environment that existed in Afghanistan under the Taliban.
For such groups, the ability to register theological and ideological points on a land under US troops was too tempting.
This explains the influx of militant radicals from the entire Middle East. Ironically, the model of 'democracy' and 'secularism' that [George] Bush and the neo-conservatives were planning in Iraq had degenerated into a model of mayhem, pillage, and plunder, and the ayatollahs rule in all but name.
Bush, far from being remembered for establishing democracy in Iraq, will most likely be remembered as the man who brought ayatollahs' rule to Iraq, next door to Iran.
The ayatollahs' regional empire will have Bush's footprints on it. The region as a whole will continue to be affected."
worst possible public relations for the US in northern Iraq
Informed Comment: "4. The US military used Kurdish and Shiite troops to attack the northern Turkmen city of Talafar in August. Kurdish troops, drawn from the Peshmerga militia, were allowed to paint lasers on targets in the city, which were then destroyed by the US air force. Entire neighborhoods were destroyed, and much of the population was displaced for some time. Shiite troops and local Shiite Turkmen informants were used to identify and interrogate alleged Sunni insurgents. Turkey was furious at the attack on ethnically related Turkmen and threatened to halt its cooperation with the US. Although the attack was allegedly undertaken to capture foreign forces allegedly based in the city, only 50 were announced apprehended. The entire operation ended up looking like a joint Kurdish-Shiite attack on Sunni Turkmen, backed by the US military. Turkmen and Kurds do not generally get along, and Turkmen accuse Kurds of wanting to ethnically clense them from Kirkuk. The entire operation was politically the worst possible public relations for the US in northern Iraq, and seems unlikely to have put a signficant dent in the guerrillas' capabilities."
'unbelievable mess'
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq three years on: A bleak tale: "He wrote about the US administration in Baghdad led by retired US General Jay Garner: 'No leadership, no strategy, no coordination, no structure and inaccessible to ordinary Iraqis... Garner and his team of 60-year-old retired generals are well-meaning but out of their depth.'
He criticised just about everything, calling it an 'unbelievable mess'."
He criticised just about everything, calling it an 'unbelievable mess'."
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq invasion: For better or worse?
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq invasion: For better or worse?: "Abiding anger
What you don't see is building work. You would expect the capital city of a country which is undergoing a programme of major reconstruction to be full of cranes. It simply isn't happening. Baghdad is not being transformed; it's scarcely changed from the time of the first Gulf War, except for the buildings which the coalition bombed.
Children in Baghdad
Building work is scarce: Baghdad is not being transformed
If you see a US patrol, you should brake sharply and keep away from it. The gunners on the vehicles kill people every day for getting too close to them. Every Iraqi has a horror story about a friend or relative who misunderstood an instruction, often in English, and was shot at.
But there's one unquestioned success for the coalition: every available wall has a tattered election poster on it. True, three months after the last election Iraq still has no government, but the old terror of authority has evaporated."
. . .
But there is a real, abiding anger that the richest nation on Earth should have taken over their country and made them even worse off in so many ways than they were before.
What you don't see is building work. You would expect the capital city of a country which is undergoing a programme of major reconstruction to be full of cranes. It simply isn't happening. Baghdad is not being transformed; it's scarcely changed from the time of the first Gulf War, except for the buildings which the coalition bombed.
Children in Baghdad
Building work is scarce: Baghdad is not being transformed
If you see a US patrol, you should brake sharply and keep away from it. The gunners on the vehicles kill people every day for getting too close to them. Every Iraqi has a horror story about a friend or relative who misunderstood an instruction, often in English, and was shot at.
But there's one unquestioned success for the coalition: every available wall has a tattered election poster on it. True, three months after the last election Iraq still has no government, but the old terror of authority has evaporated."
. . .
But there is a real, abiding anger that the richest nation on Earth should have taken over their country and made them even worse off in so many ways than they were before.
Bush defines himself
BBC NEWS | Americas | Bush denies Iraq is in civil war: "'The terrorists haven't given up. They're tough-minded. They like to kill,' he said."
BBC NEWS | Americas | Death raises concern at police tactics
BBC NEWS | Americas | Death raises concern at police tactics: "'I have no problem with using these paramilitary style squads to go after known violent, armed criminals, but it is an extreme tactic to use against other sorts of suspects,' he said.
Mr Kraska believes there has been an explosion of units in smaller towns and cities, where training and operational standards may not be as high as large cities - a growth he attributes to 'the hysteria' of the country's war on drugs.
'I get several calls a month from people asking about local incidents - wrong address raids, excessive use of force, wrongful shootings - this stuff is happening all the time,' he adds."
...
"The problem is that when you talk about the war on this and the war on that, and police officers see themselves as soldiers, then the civilian becomes the enemy."
Mr Kraska believes there has been an explosion of units in smaller towns and cities, where training and operational standards may not be as high as large cities - a growth he attributes to 'the hysteria' of the country's war on drugs.
'I get several calls a month from people asking about local incidents - wrong address raids, excessive use of force, wrongful shootings - this stuff is happening all the time,' he adds."
...
"The problem is that when you talk about the war on this and the war on that, and police officers see themselves as soldiers, then the civilian becomes the enemy."
'American Theocracy,' by Kevin Phillips - The New York Times Book Review - New York Times
'American Theocracy,' by Kevin Phillips - The New York Times Book Review - New York Times: "The American press in the first days of the Iraq war reported extensively on the Pentagon's failure to post American troops in front of the National Museum in Baghdad, which, as a result, was looted of many of its great archaeological treasures. Less widely reported, but to Phillips far more meaningful, was the immediate posting of troops around the Iraqi Oil Ministry, which held the maps and charts that were the key to effective oil production. Phillips fully supports an explanation of the Iraq war that the Bush administration dismisses as conspiracy theory — that its principal purpose was to secure vast oil reserves that would enable the United States to control production and to lower prices. ('Think of Iraq as a military base with a very large oil reserve underneath,' an oil analyst said a couple of years ago. 'You can't ask for better than that.') Terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, tyranny, democracy and other public rationales were, Phillips says, simply ruses to disguise the real motivation for the invasion.
And while this argument may be somewhat too simplistic to explain the complicated mix of motives behind the war, it is hard to dismiss Phillips's larger argument: that the pursuit of oil has for at least 30 years been one of the defining elements of American policy in the world; and that the Bush administration — unusually dominated by oilmen — has taken what the president deplored recently as the nation's addiction to oil to new and terrifying levels. The United States has embraced a kind of 'petro-imperialism,' Phillips writes, 'the key aspect of which is the U.S. military's transformation into a global oil-protection force,' and which 'puts up a democratic facade, emphasizes freedom of the seas (or pipeline routes) and seeks to secure, protect, drill and ship oil, not administer everyday affairs.'
Philli"
And while this argument may be somewhat too simplistic to explain the complicated mix of motives behind the war, it is hard to dismiss Phillips's larger argument: that the pursuit of oil has for at least 30 years been one of the defining elements of American policy in the world; and that the Bush administration — unusually dominated by oilmen — has taken what the president deplored recently as the nation's addiction to oil to new and terrifying levels. The United States has embraced a kind of 'petro-imperialism,' Phillips writes, 'the key aspect of which is the U.S. military's transformation into a global oil-protection force,' and which 'puts up a democratic facade, emphasizes freedom of the seas (or pipeline routes) and seeks to secure, protect, drill and ship oil, not administer everyday affairs.'
Philli"
Monday, March 20, 2006
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Press scathing at Iraq anniversary
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Press scathing at Iraq anniversary: "Iraq, three years after the war, is nearing the spectre of civil war and US plans have made conditions for Iraqis more difficult than at any time before the invasion. Americans have begun to uncover the game played by their administration and its involvement in the Iraqi quagmire... Despite all this, President Bush still thinks that he did the right thing... Tragedy has struck and its repercussions confirm the opposite of what Bush and his administration are saying."
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Press scathing at Iraq anniversary
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Press scathing at Iraq anniversary: "The third anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq earns scornful press comment across the Middle East, with many papers angry at what they see as the gap between President Bush's rhetoric and the Iraqi reality.
There is outrage at the conditions on the ground, with one paper asking 'is the daily discovery of bodies the freedom President Bush says Iraqis are living in?'
There is also widespread disbelief at President Bush's continued assertion that the ousting of Saddam Hussein has made the world a safer place."
There is outrage at the conditions on the ground, with one paper asking 'is the daily discovery of bodies the freedom President Bush says Iraqis are living in?'
There is also widespread disbelief at President Bush's continued assertion that the ousting of Saddam Hussein has made the world a safer place."
Intel Allegedly Falsified to Justify Weapons Purchases -- 03/16/2006
Intel Allegedly Falsified to Justify Weapons Purchases -- 03/16/2006: "Cruse said he pointed out that the misleading data could cause 'serious ramifications,' including the harming of NGIC's credibility and the misapplication of military resources. 'Ultimately it could cause the lives of U.S. service personnel,' warned Cruse.
'The use of this type of flawed information could cause superiors and national policy makers to incorrectly prioritize, and put resources against the wrong, or even non-existent, threats,' he said."
'The use of this type of flawed information could cause superiors and national policy makers to incorrectly prioritize, and put resources against the wrong, or even non-existent, threats,' he said."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)