Vice President Sending Direct Messages To US Troops
The American Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has indicated that ground forces in Iraq have better information than the Chairman; and that they have more insight into distant Iranian activities than they do about two streets over in Baghdad.
Why is the Vice President planing information with his military allies in Baghdad; but he's not keeping the Chairman involved with the ruses?
Sounds like the Vice President isn't respecting the Military Chain of Command.
Discuss: Classic accusations about others to distract attention from what you're doing. Ref ( h/t )
Ref Remember the garbage weapons supplied to the Taliban in Afghanistan after the Russian invasion? The US is doing the same in Iraq -- using Iranian weapons to supply US-backed forces.
Ref WH Denials confirm -- the goal is to shift attention from the President to "everything else". It's a legal strategy by defense lawyers when litigating war crimes.
Ref Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, unlike Powell in re Iraq, isn't certain.
Stunning: The man who is in charge can't agree with the White House spin. Hope he has his resume ready. Too much thinking and this administration is likely to send him out the door.
Can't have too much reality, it might make the poodle in the Oval Office whimper.
Someone should ask the President about Laura's new love interest. His name isn't George.
"Declining to endorse" is the same as saying, "It's a load of non-sense."
___ Who are the "military officers in Baghdad" there making these conclusions which the Chairman will not support?
___ What is the relationship between [a] the civilian intelligence personnel who briefed members of Congress; [b] military personnel involved with the analysis; and [c] Abraxis?
___ How many plants and manufacturing centers in Iran did Saddam create when he knew the US was on the way to invade Iraq?
___ Which NATO countries oppose the US war of aggression and are providing arms to the Iraqi insurgents?
There is no basis for the Chairman to say that he "knows" the devices were made in Iran. Some of them are linked to non-Iranian factories in Ireland and Pakistan.
Also, for the Chairman to suggest that he was "not familiar" with the briefing, yet be able to assert the wrong position on the source of the IEDs indicates that -- in the alleged absence of coordination or knowledge -- the Chairman is surprisingly able to repeat the same-wrong information in the briefing.
We judge the Chairman's denial of his knowledge of the briefing in Baghdad to be questionable, dubious, and contrary to what is most likely: He's well aware of the Commander Notes which have been coordinated, and are consistently incorrect.
Unconnected people can hardly argue they're [a] not in contact; [b] have no knowledge of details; but [c] they are able to repeat the same wrong information. Howevr, the Joint Staff contradicts Pace saying Pace had received and reviewed the slides. Another Joint Chief's lie ]
Translation: Despite reading the slides -- that he denied reviewing -- the Chairman was not convinced of the Iranian-IED connectiion. Why should anyone else be convinced with Caldwell's briefing -- oh, did I mention his name? It was supposed to be secret. Too late.
WE judge the Vice President well knows the sheet of music because the music sings one tune: "Do whatever is required to distract the Congress and public from the White House."
NSA also has the means to extract, capture, and process information. This intercept capability exists regardless the Iranian position on civilian nuclear development. To date, there's no evidence showing Iran is making nuclear weapons. At best, despite known problems, the White House is asserting that there is a nuclear program.
NSA should be able to know what the Iranian leadership is or is not doing on nuclear weapons.
Similarly, NSA should be able to know whether the Iranian government is or is not involved. There are two options:
1. They are; or
2. They are not.
For the Chairman to say -- with certainty -- that he knows where the weapons are from, yet he's wrong in that they are from Ireland and Pakistan -- one would have to ask that the NSA has more precise information to justify the concern with Iran; yet this precision is not sufficient to ensure the Chairman knows whether weapons his troops are confronting are linked with Ireland, MI5, or Pakistan.
There is no basis for the Chairman to say with any precision or certainty that Iran is or isn't doing something. Nothing is "clear".
The issue isn't what the Iranians are or are not doing; but that the US, despite its monitoring of the nuclear issues, doesn't know that the Iranians are not involved, but the MI5 and Pakistanis are.
This isn't an issue of facts, but as with the Iraq WMD issue, a question of which facts will or will not be showcased.
Contrary to the "military officers" who claim Iranian leaders are or are not knowledgeable or something, American offers are unable to explain:
[a] Why is the knowledge about the Iraqi insurgency weak; but the US forces appear to know more about Iran;
[b] How does the US military, that cannot figure out what is going on down the street in Baghdad, have information about what is going on in a different country;
[c] who in the Vice President's office is working with DoD leaders and Abraxis to funnel information not just to the media, but to lower level US military forces in Iraq?
US troops in Baghdad are alleged to have better information than the Chairman of the Joint Staff?
It's more likely that the Vice President working with his allies in the NSA have identified people in DoD who will parrot the Vice President's mantra.
___ What is the relationship between [a] the Vice President; [b] he troops who have better information than the Chairman?
___ Where are the copies of the NSA transmission sending data through the Central Security Service to the ground units in Iraq?
___ Why do ground units in Iraq have better information about Iraq than they do about the conditions on the street in Baghdad?
Need to look at the evidence that is flowing out of the OSP in re Iran; and how it is flowing into Iraq; and get a clear story why the Chairman does not have the same information or the same confidence in the data.
Cheney appears to have used the NSA communication systems to transmit the favorable information -- regardless its veracity -- while ignoring the core problem: Iran is legally opposing the illegal war of aggression.
The debate on timeliness is a distraction. It shifts attention from Cheney and the Oval Office by design.
Without a time line, the political, legal enemies of the President -- We the People -- have no basis to continue confidence in the American government. Without a plan, there is no plan to comply with the Constitution.
___ How can McCain argue for benchmarks while the Chairman refuses to discuss benchmarks, timeliness, goals?
___ What is Patreaus using as a guide to what he should or should not do; yet the US leadership on the Joint Staff is not willing to stick to something defined?
WE judge there is a central wrong message by design; and the inconsistencies mean the basis for the McCain requests are linked with disingenous interests, nor real oversight goals.
The common element: The conistent pattern of creating confusion, distracting attention from the President, and asking for things which the GOP could have resolved when they were in charge. They did not resolve things.
If Australia wants to support illegal warfare, then there's not much -- other than an ocean -- that is going to insulate Australia from lawful combat. Sydney is short on water; the outer regions are under drought.
It won't take much for foreign fighters to target the Australian water supplies. With an active duty military of 52,000 Australia doesn't have enough ground coverage to protect its water supplies from attack.
The Australian Navy isn't big enough to patrol all the coasts; and special forces units can easily enter Australia to destroy the civilian water supplies. The Australian government cannot credibly defend a marginally organized attack on its civilian infrastructure.
Australians should be worried when their leaders support illegal warfare, but refuse to discuss the legality of the combat operations directed at the Australian civilian population. Freedom isn't about waging illegal war; it's about forcing war criminals to assent to the rule of law.