tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9342335495093909452024-02-20T11:13:04.128-08:00WAR AND PEACETrying to make sense of the Iraq war? The Patriot Act? War and peace, alternatives to war, steps toward peace, democracy, international cooperation and freedom from tyranny, tyrants, and tyranical government? Me too.Frank Lockwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01815988086450931170noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934233549509390945.post-80864973856975818632007-10-16T21:22:00.000-07:002009-08-27T22:03:08.003-07:00Who says The Bush/Iraq War has made the U.S. less safe?Who says The Bush/Iraq War has made us less safe? Apparently a lot of <em>people who should know</em> have been saying that. According to an article on <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">MSNBC</span></span>, the critics have included such experts as the NY chief of police and a former head of National Counter Terrorism and others.<br /><br />For some odd reason, many of us find it easy to dismiss the testimonies of the thousands of the terrorists and counter insurgents themselves who, when asked, "Why did you become a terrorist?" would respond, "Because of George Bush's war," or "Because of the American invasion."<br /><p>However, I wonder whose <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">truthfulness</span>, whose credentials, would be enough to convince some people. Those of us who are absolutely convinced that the war made us safer would do well to note the informed opinions offered in the recent <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">MSNBC</span></span> article as follows:<br /><br /></p><ul><li><strong>Adm. Scott Redd</strong>, head of the National Counter Terrorism Center admits that, in the short term at least, "U.S. destruction is radicalizing a generation of young Arab and Muslims men." He's holding out for a presumed <em>long term effect</em> (Which, I suppose, is something like pie in the sky.)</li><li><strong>"New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly</strong> calls the war a "catalyst" that has made his job harder and has made New York, the site of the twin tower catastrophe, less safe!</li><li><strong>Even Iraqis who hate <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">al</span></span> <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-error">Queda</span></span></strong> say they hate the United States even more.</li><li><strong>A National Security Council's former senior director</strong> for Near East and African Affairs declares, not only that the war has made things worse, and that we are "chasing the wrong bad guys," but that the war has made the United States less safe.</li><li><strong>Baghdad prisoners</strong> themselves say it was the U.S, Occupation that turned them bad.<br /></li></ul><p>I saw the article at: <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21312504/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21312504/</a></p><p></p>Frank Lockwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01815988086450931170noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934233549509390945.post-5015122065029245382007-10-13T15:41:00.001-07:002007-10-13T16:05:30.720-07:00Who is paying for the Iraq War? Nobody ... yet<p><em>By F. Ellworth Lockwood<br />October 13, 2007</em></p><p>Who is paying for the Iraq war? Nobody ... yet. </p><p>According to a piece accredited to the New York Times, White House press secretary Dana Perino has claimed that Democrats are "fiscally irresponsible" for suggesting that we should pay for the war as we go! What? No more "<em>tax-and-spend</em>," just "<em>spend-and-spend?</em>" </p><p>I saw the article at:</p><p><a href="http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/313768.html">http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/313768.html</a> </p>Frank Lockwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01815988086450931170noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934233549509390945.post-62781133910251523942007-10-13T11:41:00.001-07:002007-10-13T11:53:41.810-07:00McClatchy's mini-reports from inside Iraq<em>By F. Ellsworth Lockwood</em><br /><em>October 13, 2007</em><br /><em></em><br />Interesting mini-readings from inside Iraq. I saw them at:<br /><br />Inside Iraq - McClatchy Newspapers: <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/i/2974">http://news.yahoo.com/i/2974</a>Frank Lockwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01815988086450931170noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934233549509390945.post-21760544613276920262007-10-13T11:17:00.001-07:002007-10-13T11:33:57.657-07:00Former Commander to get life for buying cigars ... and what?By F. Ellsworth Lockwood<br />October 13, 2007<br /><br /><br />Am I reading this article right? Does it say that a former U.S. commander might get life, as well as a dishonorable discharge, for buying some cigars and flirting with some gal?<br /><br /><strong>Oh, no, it does not say that.</strong> On closer reading, the commander also is alleged to have provided unsupervised use of a cell phone. The cell phone business, if true, sounds serious enough on its own to warrant the punishments. Good God, giving a cell phone to some of the potentially most dangerous men on earth? If true, he should consider himself lucky to have his life spared.<br /><br /><br /><br />I saw the article at: <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071013/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_soldier_charged_1;_ylt=AjhjXQSFZR2T4rnj13mU7h0UewgF">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071013/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_soldier_charged_1;_ylt=AjhjXQSFZR2T4rnj13mU7h0UewgF</a>Frank Lockwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01815988086450931170noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934233549509390945.post-85241598927537677522007-10-13T09:16:00.000-07:002007-10-13T09:22:08.342-07:00Former Coalition general calls Iraq "nightmare"A former Coalition general now calls the situation in Iraq a "nightmare," blames both politics and military "shortcomings."<br /><br />I saw the article at: <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071013/ap_on_re_mi_ea/sanchez_iraq">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071013/ap_on_re_mi_ea/sanchez_iraq</a>Frank Lockwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01815988086450931170noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934233549509390945.post-79614258198855133222007-10-11T21:05:00.001-07:002007-10-11T21:18:08.805-07:00Plight of Assyrian Christians: U.S. incompetence results in war, domestic violence and an Iraqi theocracy<em>By F. Ellsworth Lockwood<br /></em><br />The following link is to an article concerning the Assyrian Christians who are caught up in the politics of the U.S. Invasion of Iraq, the so-called (so-mislabeled) "War of 2003." The article was apparently written by an Assyrian Christian minister who lived through the American assault on his country. At first he opposed the invasion, but later changed his mind. Now he is unhappy, however, with the results.<br /><br /><br />For more information, follow the link at:<br /><br /><a href="http://political-views-by-fel.blogspot.com/2007/10/assyrian-christian-calls-for-secular.html">http://political-views-by-fel.blogspot.com/2007/10/assyrian-christian-calls-for-secular.html</a>Frank Lockwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01815988086450931170noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934233549509390945.post-74275382598026205142007-10-11T21:05:00.000-07:002009-08-27T21:45:21.694-07:00U.S. Promotes war, violence and an Iraqi theocracyThis article is missing. My apologies. I must have written something about this topic but the article is no longer available. Back in that time frame I did write some blurbs about other people's war articles which you may find interesting, and they are posted above (at <a href="http://warviews.blogspot.com/">http://warviews.blogspot.com/</a> )<br /><br />I will see if I can find what <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">happened</span> to this article but I am afraid it has been lost or perhaps deleted intentionally if I found that my information was not accurate. Again, my apologies.Frank Lockwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01815988086450931170noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934233549509390945.post-3190832875997600242007-10-09T10:03:00.000-07:002007-10-09T10:48:49.963-07:00This makes no sense to me ...These things make no sense to me:<br /><br /><ul><li><strong>This:</strong> We invaded Iraq to fight terrorism (read, Al <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Qaeda</span>), though Iraq had no known ties to that terrorist organization. At the same time, the Al <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Qaeda</span> leader <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Osama</span> bin Laden is widely reported to be operating out of <em>Pakistan!</em> </li><li><strong>And this:</strong> Yet, we don't invade Pakistan. Instead, our President claims that Pakistani President <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Pervez</span> Musharraf had been a helpful ally in fighting terrorism. "We have enjoyed some of our biggest successes with our allies in Pakistan," a White House <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Spokesman</span> (Townsend) reportedly told reporters. Oh, really.</li><li><strong>At the same time this:</strong> Our Administration is continually making overtures of war towards Iran because insurgents are allegedly aided and abetted by groups inside Iran, even though those groups, so far as I am aware, have no known ties to the Iranian government.</li><li><strong>On <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">top</span> of this:</strong> Iraq was said to have become a nuclear threat to the U.S., yet we now know that Iraq had no nuclear capability. Our "intelligence" was that bad.</li><li><strong>At the same time,</strong> Korea DID and DOES have nuclear capability, yet our administration went about "disarming" Korea through diplomacy. </li><li><strong>And this:</strong> The United States apparently DOES know where Al <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Qaeda's</span> leadership resides. U.S. officials suspect he is hiding in the remote mountainous border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan. So, I am confused: Why are we bogged down inside of Iraq rather than sweeping the hills of Pakistan? </li><li><strong>And now this:</strong> There were no known links of Saddam Hussein's government to Al <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Qaeda</span>, and it is doubtful that <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Al</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Qaeda</span> could have operated from inside Iraq, seeing as Saddam despised the organization. Now that the United States is in control of Iraq that has changed! The White House now reports that Al <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Qaeda</span> in Iraq currently is the group's most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack us here in the United States. So, the United States opened the arms of Iraq to Al Qaeda, in the name of national defense?</li></ul><br />What am I missing here? This simply is not adding up. What are the missing pieces to this puzzle? Someone help me out. Send me some informed comments!Frank Lockwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01815988086450931170noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934233549509390945.post-57976425425994497992007-10-06T15:07:00.000-07:002007-10-06T16:33:52.180-07:00Who opposed the invasion of Iraq?By F. Ellsworth Lockwood<br /><br />Based upon my interactions with friends here in eastern Washington, for a long while I felt very isolated becausae of my position opposing the attack on Iraq. In this blog I will begin to explore who opposed the war, when, and perhaps why. At the top of my list, of course, is Presidential hopeful <strong>Barack Obama</strong>.<br /><br />"In October 2002, before being elected to the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama made a speech opposing the Bush Administration's plan to go to war in Iraq because he felt it was an ill-conceived venture which would "require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undermined cost, with undetermined consequences." Source: <a href="http://obama.senate.gov/issues/iraq/index.html">http://obama.senate.gov/issues/iraq/index.html</a><br /><br />I will "seed" this blog with a few insightful people who registered their opposition early on, but if you are aware of others who should be included, please add them as "comments."<br />-------------------------------<br /><br /><strong>Top British clerics </strong>opposed the invasion of Iraq by the United States prior to the United States' 2003 attack.<br /><br />I saw the article at: <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/07/14/1026185141810.html">http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/07/14/1026185141810.html</a><br /><br />---------------------<br /><strong>United States Catholic Bishops</strong> opposed the action:<br /><br />On September 13, 2002, US Catholic bishops signed a letter to President Bush stating that any "preemptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq" could not be justified at the time. I saw it at <a href="http://www.usccb.org/bishops/iraq.shtml">http://www.usccb.org/bishops/iraq.shtml</a><br />-------------------------<span style="font-family:verdana;"><br /></span><br /><strong>U.S. Senator Russ Feingold</strong> exposed the President's rationale as falacious:<strong> </strong>Feingold opposed the invasion of Iraq, and spoke of the White House's "continually shifting justifications" for the war. "In terms of the justifications ... and in terms of the mission and the plan ... Mr. President, the Administration's arguments just don't add up, " he said.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.senate.gov/~feingold/speeches/02/10/2002A10531.html">http://www.senate.gov/~feingold/speeches/02/10/2002A10531.html</a><br /><br />------------------------<br /><strong>A minority of Christians,</strong> claiming to base their opposition on scriptures, have mangaged to put together a web page.<br /><br />I saw it at <a href="http://believersagainstthewar.org/">http://believersagainstthewar.org/</a><br />---------------------------------------------------<br /><strong>The Pope of the Roman Catholic Church<br /></strong><br />"The most public and serious condemnations of the invasion of Iraq came from Pope John Paul II and other top officials at the Vatican."<br /><br />He is credited by what one might consider the least likely of allies -- a group of atheists! I saw it at <a href="http://atheism.about.com/od/popejohnpaulii/a/iraqwar.htm">http://atheism.about.com/od/popejohnpaulii/a/iraqwar.htm</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.senate.gov/~feingold/speeches/02/10/2002A10531.html"></a>Frank Lockwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01815988086450931170noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934233549509390945.post-27913584720656293522007-09-26T16:48:00.000-07:002007-09-26T17:04:56.755-07:00Judge deems Patriot Act illegalAre Americans being violated in the name of "Patriotism?"<br /><br />Now that the courts have caught up with judging the Patriot Act, parts of it have been ruled unconstitutional. Meanwhile, one wonders how many people's Constitutional rights were and are being violated.<br /><br />See the story:<br /><br /><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070926/ap_on_re_us/patriot_act_lawsuit">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070926/ap_on_re_us/patriot_act_lawsuit</a><br /><br />Read it, tell me what you think! Are parts of the Patriot Act, indeed, anti-American?Frank Lockwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01815988086450931170noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934233549509390945.post-30535359001294883352007-09-20T02:34:00.000-07:002007-09-20T02:44:40.182-07:00Patraeus report: Who trumps, pretty lady or the ugly witch?By F. Ellsworth Lockwood<br /><br />The children sat on the storyteller’s lap, poised in suspense. Then the President closed the book and said, “Lights out. The next chapter will be read by General Patreaus in September.” We sat, breathlessly awaiting the report. The cliff hanger, however, led to a disappointing ending. Or rather, to no ending at all. Perhaps the general’s report was dud, a Rorschach test, or even a stalling act by the President. At any rate. Patraeus’ testimony told us almost nothing we had not already heard.<br /><br />Frothing and foaming, numerous Blogs now attack “liberals” for not believing the general’s report. Trouble is, many liberals do believe Patreaus. Does the Patreaus report show a beautiful woman, or an ugly witch? A Reuters’ report quoted Gen. David Petraeus testimony as saying, “that President George W. Bush's troop build-up in Iraq had led to progress in reducing violence but that political reconciliation among warring factions remained elusive.” This sounds like a map that actually fit’s the territory. But it does not resolve the big question: Should we stay the course?<br /><br />What course? There is no apparent vision for Iraq, and no map to accomplish that vision. There never was! There are only short term objectives. Turn on the electricity over here, but terrorists/insurgents destroy that target over there. The general claims “progress” in a number of areas such as security. On the other hand, without the political and social victories that are necessary for a sustained peace, those successes may mean nothing. Build hospitals. Why? So that terrorists, religious sects and political saboteurs can fill them with the wounded and the dead? And so-on.<br /><br />Perhaps violence has slowed, as the Army measures violence. But it certainly has not ended. Any peace is very tentative, and as the general reportedly testified, political reconciliation among warring factions remain elusive. Indeed. According to an ABC report, six in 10 Iraqis “say security … has worsened since the surge began, while just one in 10 sees improvement.” So the general has his report, and then the Iraqi people have theirs.<br /><br />Why such a difference? Well, one reason seems obvious to me: The general being called before Congress is somewhat like, and this is an analogy only, but it is somewhat like the CEO of a branch office being called in to talk to the corporation board members, to give an accounting for his branch office. The branch President may not lie, but he is going to present his “front” in the most favorable light possible.<br /><br />With that in mind, General Patreaus’ testimony is disturbing, because he is very careful, or so it seems to me, not to give a rosy forecast. Wisely, the general reported both: the pretty lady and the ugly witch.Frank Lockwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01815988086450931170noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934233549509390945.post-1384696928128702502007-07-08T22:57:00.001-07:002007-07-11T20:57:34.204-07:00Belatedly, Democrats want to reject the Iraq war!I just noted the following on an NPR Radio web page:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote>Senate to Debate Iraq War Policy<br /><a href="javascript:launchPlayer(" topicname="Story_of_the_Day&subtopicName=Story_of_the_Day&amp;amp;amp;prgCode=ATC&hubId=-1&thingId=11817351&ssid=&tableModifier=',"></a><br /><a href="http://www.blogger.com/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=2">All Things Considered</a>, July 8, 2007 · Iraq will likely dominate debate Monday as the Senate takes up the defense authorization bill. Host Debbie Elliott speaks with Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), one of a growing number of Republicans opposing the Bush plan, and Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN).<br /><br />--------------------------</blockquote><br />My reaction to the paragraph:<br /><br />What upsets me the most is that we are only seeing this discussion now, so many years after the invasion.<br /><br />I never understood why Congress failed to debate this prior to our attack upon Iraq (and prior to the subsequent invasion/occupation).<br /><br />Democrat Senators and Representatives, where were you when we needed someone with his head screwed on straight? Someone to ask hard questions and demand straight answers. The truth is, almost our entire Senate deserves to be dumped! We need a new start. Our nation requires a new, intelligent, leadership, and not just a new President.<br /><br />We need a new, legitimately elected, goverment with a new mentality! And we need an informed President with a liberal education, an grasp of foreign affairs, and a vision of economics that honors the common wager earner.Frank Lockwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01815988086450931170noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934233549509390945.post-61066814685463898842006-12-15T11:04:00.000-08:002006-12-15T11:17:18.390-08:00The British did not fear IraqBy F. Ellsworth Lockwood<br />Friday, December 15, 2006<br /><br /><br />The British did not fear Iraq prior to the U.S. invation of March 20, 2003, according to sources cited in a story by Associated Press writer D'ARCY DORAN. According to Doran's article, Iraq's military capability was at an all time low at the time of the invasion. The report was seen at:<br /><br /><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061215/ap_on_re_eu/britain_iraq">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061215/ap_on_re_eu/britain_iraq</a><br /><br />Assuming Darcy's sources are accurate, it would appear that President George W. Bush used fear of WMDs or other weapons as a pretext in order to justifty an attack. The implication, of course, is that Sadaam Hussein's web page may have told the truth when the dictator claimed that there were no WMDs and that Bush was only using fear of WMDs as an "excuse" to justify attacking him. At the very least, Bush must have been padding the truth.Frank Lockwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01815988086450931170noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934233549509390945.post-4285036422827175382006-11-13T02:21:00.000-08:002006-11-13T02:35:21.806-08:00U.S. "feeds the insurgency" in Iraq (former defense chief)An October 2005 article reported that Former Defense Chief Melvin R. Laird had called for exit strategy from Iraq, and that he had claimed the U.S. presence in Iraq "feeds the insurgency." Laird was also quoted as making comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq and suggesting a plan for withdrawal.<br /><br />[Source, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">newsmax</span>.com archives, with reference to <em>Foreign Affairs</em> magazine]<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/19/155802.shtml">http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/19/155802.shtml</a>Frank Lockwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01815988086450931170noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934233549509390945.post-5709673456841032582006-11-13T01:50:00.000-08:002006-11-13T02:06:29.193-08:00German gov warned U.S., intelligence bad: Bush did not heed<span style="font-size:130%;"><strong></strong></span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;">On November 21, 2005, <em>The Christian Science Monitor</em> reported that the CIA "knew" that intelligence sources on WMD were not reliable, but as if that were not enough, that the Bush administration repeatedly exaggerated the informant's claims in the run-up to the war.</span><br /><blockquote>Source: The Christian Science Monitor (<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1121/dailyUpdate.html">http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1121/dailyUpdate.html</a>)<br />Posted<br />Nov. 21, 2005 at 11:00 a.m.<br />Germany: CIA knew "Curveball" was not trustworthy</blockquote>Frank Lockwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01815988086450931170noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934233549509390945.post-41501083627302528872006-11-12T17:38:00.000-08:002006-11-12T18:13:30.198-08:00Former head, CIA Osama bin Laden Unit: Iraq War motive, greed -- Nov. 2004As reported by Christian Science Monitor in November, 2004:<br /><br />"Mike Scheuer, a 22-year veteran who works in the CIA's Counterterrorist Center and is a former head of its Osama bin Laden unit ... wrote that the war in Iraq was "an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer economic advantages."<br /><br />See the article at:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1112/p02s02-usfp.html">http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1112/p02s02-usfp.html</a><br /><br /><br />from the November 12, 2004 edition<br /><br />CIA agent publicly chides White House for terror warFrank Lockwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01815988086450931170noreply@blogger.com0