Pentagon Spying On Americans. AGAIN.

See, THIS is thinking outside the box. If stupid old Congress makes it difficult for the CIA to spy on America's citizens, then you bypass the CIA and instead assign the Military to spy on America's citizens. You know, that same Military which is oh, so hard-pressed in Iraq. Hey! Looks like I found a few surplus units that aren't doing jack shit and can be instead rotated into the Meat Grinder!

Support Our Troops? Not when the motherfuckers are spying on us, we shouldn't.

Military Expands Intelligence Role in U.S.

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has been using a little-known power to obtain banking and credit records of hundreds of Americans and others suspected of terrorism or espionage inside the United States, part of an aggressive expansion by the military into domestic intelligence gathering.

The C.I.A. has also been issuing what are known as national security letters to gain access to financial records from American companies, though it has done so only rarely, intelligence officials say.

Banks, credit card companies and other financial institutions receiving the letters usually have turned over documents voluntarily, allowing investigators to examine the financial assets and transactions of American military personnel and civilians, officials say.

The F.B.I., the lead agency on domestic counterterrorism and espionage, has issued thousands of national security letters since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, provoking criticism and court challenges from civil liberties advocates who see them as unjustified intrusions into Americans’ private lives.

But it was not previously known, even to some senior counterterrorism officials, that the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency have been using their own “noncompulsory” versions of the letters. Congress has rejected several attempts by the two agencies since 2001 for authority to issue mandatory letters, in part because of concerns about the dangers of expanding their role in domestic spying.

Oh, Don't Worry, Vice-President Cheney says it's not illegal for him to spy on you for being against Halliburton's his war:

Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday the Pentagon and CIA are not violating people's rights by examining the banking and credit records of hundreds of Americans and others suspected of terrorism or espionage in the United States.

Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, the new chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said his panel will be the judge of that.

National security letters permit the executive branch to seek records about people in terrorism and spy investigations without a judge's approval or grand jury subpoena.

"The Defense Department gets involved because we've got hundreds of bases inside the United States that are potential terrorist targets," Cheney said.

"The Department of Defense has legitimate authority in this area. This is an authority that goes back three or four decades. It was reaffirmed in the Patriot Act," he said. "It's perfectly legitimate activity. There's nothing wrong with it or illegal. It doesn't violate people's civil rights."

This entire issue brings a few things to mind. Firstly, a personal note; I first heard of this entire Pentagon-Is-Spying-On-Americans issue a few months ago when I was in Florida, giving a book reading/slideshow at the Wolfsonian Museum. As I mentioned in my blog at the time, there was a creep with a crew-cut in the audience taking notes on a clipboard the entire time. When my talk was over, I ran into him in the hall and asked if he enjoyed the speech and joked that I hoped he didn't work at the Department of Homeland Security. He replied "See you at Gitmo, kid." Gitmo, of course, being mil-speak for our Gulag at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Station, Cuba. The next day there was a report on the radio about the Pentagon's increased spying on anti-war groups and rallies and things sorta fell into place about my odd museum notes-taker.

Having that guy in the audience made me feel creepy. Which it was obviously intended to do as a means of chilling debate and complaint about Beloved Leader Bush's stupid war. Several of the other museum guests complained to me at the book signing after the night's slideshow about Crewcut Clipboard... ALL of them (and we're talking mostly about elderly men & women 50+ who were docents and benefactors of the Museum, mostly) pegged the mid-40's crewcut guy as DHS. Ooops, turns out we were all wrong, he's Pentagon.

That's the personal side, though. On a Macro level this turn by the Pentagon is highly alarming because the fact is that in the entire history of Mankind, whenever a country's military has been turned into a domestic spying force, it has become a dangerously brutal force for repression of the population and extension of the privileges of the Wealthy and Powerful. Nazi Germany, East Germany, the Soviet Union, Spain, Italy, Guatemala, El Salvador, Argentina, Chile... mankind's history is littered with so-called civilized countries whose leaders turned the military into an apparatus for oppressing their people... it ALWAYS starts with spying on them. Only after digging up "suspicious" materials do the killings begin.

So what's Bush's end-game here? Because from the seat of History, it looks rather sinister.

Friday Evil News Roundup

Friday is usually the day on which this White House chooses to dump bad news, unfriendly reports, notices of resignations, etc., all in the hopes that no one in the media or out in the country notices them. Bad news isn't generally dumped on Saturday because it might find its way into the Sunday morning headlines, and NEVER dumped on Sunday because it'll lead off the Monday morning newscasts. But, the theory goes, dump that sucker on Friday and who's going to see it? The newlyweds who stay in watching TV on Friday night? Saturday newspaper readership & tv news viewing are the low mark for the entire week.

So, let's see what President Bush and his lackeys are trying to dump THIS week:

This first story isn't FRIDAY news... it actually came out earlier this week, but not a SINGLE American News Media source has picked up on it. Why? Because it proves that Bush's war IS all about War For Oil after all.

Let's not forget that the very first legal step that Bush took after securing control of Iraq's government was to oil contracts which Iraq had signed with France and Russia. This is the first time since 1972 that Iraq's oil will be open for exploitation by Western firms.

Let's also not forget that one of the key reasons that Saudi government-controlled Wahabi clerics are preaching that foreign fighters should kill Americans and attack Iraq's oil infrastructure is because those Clerics are funded by members of the Saudi Royal Family who don't want to see the price of oil drop when Iraq's oil pumping capacity comes back online.

So Saudi Arabia NEEDS a war to keep the price of oil high... I guess that explains Bush's new SURGE™ of troops to extend our fiasco there.

President Bush Seizes Unilateral Control of All National Guard Units, displacing state Governors. Eh. So much for State's Rights, huh? Well, the President's need to SURGE™ more troops to Iraq outweigh local matters.

Similarly, there's this creepy story where the Pentagon has abandoned the active-duty time limit on National Guardsmen & military reserves. Until now, the Pentagon's policy on the Guard or Reserve was that members' cumulative time on active duty for the Iraq or Afghan wars could not exceed 24 months. That cumulative limit is now lifted; the remaining limit is on the length of any single mobilization, which may not exceed 24 consecutive months, Pace said. Of course, Bush can order the Pentagon to change that any time he likes.

In other words, a citizen-soldier could be mobilized for a 24-month stretch in Iraq or Afghanistan, then demobilized and allowed to return to civilian life, only to be mobilized a second time two weeks later for as much as an additional 24 months. In practice, Pace said, the Pentagon intends to limit all future mobilizations to 12 months.Anyone who signs up for the Guard or Reserves should now consider themselves a permanent active-duty soldier and report to get shipped to Iraq for several years in a row.

One more time, what's the point of calling it an Enlistment Contract if only one party has to keep its word?

Lessee, other Evil Friday News:

Britain, Unlike bullheaded America sees the handwriting on the wall. UK to withdraw 3,000 troops from Iraq. With the Slovaks pulling out, Britain is just about our only ally left in Iraq, except for 100,000+ Mercenary Soldiers Private Military Contractors.

Oh, hey, 774,000 Americans are homeless. But you thought the Economy was doing great? Shut up, you! Incidentally, that's 1 in every 403 people you meet during the day. 1 in 400 in the wealthiest country in the world. Y'know, if we hadn't invaded Iraq, we could have spent that $2 Trillion dollars on homes for the homeless. But who wants homes or schools when we can have Civilian Collateral Damage? YEAH! Killing! U-S-A! We're #1, We're #1...

Keep checking back... often Evil Friday News doesn't surface until Saturday morning (and often not even then... god bless our lazy-ass Mainstream Media).

Crocodile Tears From A Crocodile Heart

Sorry, I just don't buy it.

Bush cries for Medal of Honor hero
January 12, 2007
Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- A young Marine who fell on a hand grenade in Iraq two years ago, giving his life to save comrades, was given the Medal of Honor Thursday by a tearful President Bush, becoming only the second Iraq war recipient. Bush awarded the medal, the nation's highest military decoration, to the late Marine Cpl. Jason Dunham of Scio, N.Y. Dunham's parents accepted on their son's behalf during the somber ceremony in the White House's East Room.

A tear rolled down Bush's cheek during the event, an extraordinary display of emotion by the commander-in-chief.

In 2004, Dunham, a 22-year-old corporal, received a report that a convoy had been ambushed, according to a Marine Corps account. Dunham led his men to the site near Husaybah, halting a convoy of departing cars. An insurgent in one of the vehicles grabbed him by the throat when he went to search the car and the two fought. A grenade was dropped, and Dunham covered the explosive with his Kevlar helmet. He died a few days later.

"I've lost my son but he became a part of history,'' Dunham's mother, Deb, said. ''It still hurts as a parent, but the pride that you have from knowing he did the right thing makes it easier."

That marine threw himself on top of his grenade to save his buddies. He deserves that Medal. He deserves a nation's tears, shed over the pointlessness of his death. But George W. Bush? On Thursday, his minions were crawling all over Capitol Hill repeating "it doesn't matter how we got into Iraq, we need to send more troops and we need to stay there, the President knows best, he's taking the long view." That same Long View that his lying and illegal war cost Corporal Dunham -forever-.

I try not to swear too much on this blog, but considering that this lying scumbag pushed America into a war based entirely on lies and motivated by financial gain for himself, his family, his vice-president, his father, and his financial contributors, he's in exactly the position he deserves to be in.

Bush doesn't get to waltz into a Press Conference a full FIVE fucking years after his wars began and steal America's pity/respect/sympathy by shedding some crocodile-tears in full view of the cameras on the very same day that he's ordered 21,500 more soldiers into the same exact meat-grinder.

I call BULLSHIT on this entire ceremony. It was rigged up by Karl Rove and timed to coincide with Bush's "Where Mistakes Were Made I Am Responsible" non-admission faux-apology the night before, all in order to trick America into thinking that this evil, lying, depraved piece of shit disaster of a President actually has a heart deep down inside his reptile chest and that he feels bad for what he's done.

HE DOESN'T FEEL BAD

He doesn't feel ANYTHING. He's a sociopath. He's incapable of genuine feelings. Go ahead, retarded fundamentalist wing-nuts, put your sons in the hands of the crying crocodile... the rest of us have caught on to the act.

Why We Can NEVER "Win" In Iraq

We can't "win" in Iraq.

Why? Because ever since World War Two ended, the United States Military has refused to assume the role of government administration of occupied territory. In Vietnam, in Somalia, and now in Iraq, we see a repeating pattern: the United States won't assume control of the country and therefore can't enforce its will.

In 2003, the State Department recommended this exact plan before the war, but Bush is ideologically opposed to taking the advice of the State Department. Before the war, he refused to take State's advice against invading Iraq, directly after the war, he ignored State's existing occupation plan which was based on Nato's experiences in Bosnia. Now he ignores State's advice about regional negotiation.

Instead, Bush's answer was to hold a premature election (something that still hasn't been done to this day in the former Yugoslavia) and award rule of the entire country to the winners, which by sheer dint of numbers was very predictably the majority Shiite tribe. Bush talks a lot of game about going after both Sunni Insurgents and Shiite Death Squads, but in reality, the government of Iraq seems capable of going after only one of those parties... because the Shiites in the Iraqi Government are unwilling to kill their partners.

Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki is the leader of the Dawa Party which was founded by Moqtada Al-Sadr's father, his party's version of George Washington. Expecting for al-Maliki to suddenly turn on the party he's been a member of his entire life, and to betray and attack the son of the man who founded that party, is ridiculous.

As far as America's military force being capable of destroying the insurgency, that's impossible unless they CHOOSE to identify themselves and fight us openly. They did that once in Fallujah and learned their lesson. After America had killed several hundred of them, the rest of the insurgency realized the futility of open combat, laid down their weapons, mingled with the civilians and spread out across the country to concentrate on terror and guerrilla war. The Iraqi population cooperates with the Insurgency, either through ignoring them, collaborating with them, or just not telling the police and Americans where to find them. Why? Because they know that if caught helping the Americans, they or their families will be murdered.

If we wanted to, we could end the insurgency in Iraq tomorrow... history gives us brilliant object lessons in how to do so. The Roman Legions controlled Europe, the Middle East and Northern Africa with only 300,000 troops (of which only 100,000 were profession full-time troops). How? By razing entire villages and killing everyone within whenever locals struck out against Roman rule. The Nazis controlled all of Europe with a minimum number of troops because they used the same method. If any German soldier was killed by local partisans, the Nazis would retaliate by killing 10, 20 or 40 locals until all resistance stopped. Despite the scenes from romanticized films, there was very little in the way of open attack on the Nazis by "resistance" forces because of the Nazis' vicious deterrence tactics. As a Democracy, America should not and must not take up these methods

We do not have the patience to govern Iraq ourselves, we don't have the stomach to terrorize the population into turning over the insurgents and terrorists among them, we won't engage with Iraq's neighbors to bring about a political solution, and because of these facts, we cannot win in Iraq.

Hey Joe, Whaddya Know?

Ooops, nothing, you're still a rotten fascist apologist...

I'm still catching up on all the super-keen news I missed over the weekend (remember the days before all bad news was dumped during the weekend so the public hopefully wouldn't notice it?), and I came across this article and photo of these two worthless Bush Apologists smugging it up together:Ain't it enough to make you want to vomit?

Anyway, McCain-Lieberman (And what a ticket THAT would be! Sign Me Up!) are on some kind of Surge-Fest 2007 this weekend, speaking out about the desperate need for a SURGE of troops to Iraq. Let's do the numbers for a second... Gen. David Petraeus, the new general in charge of Iraq wrote in the Army's new counter-insurgency manual that stamping out insurgents requires a lot of manpower—at minimum, 20 combat troops for every 1,000 people in the area's population. Baghdad has about 6 million people; so clearing, holding, and building it will require about 120,000 combat troops. Petraeus' writings are what got him the new Top Job in Iraq (a promotion he'll someday come to regret, no doubt, when he's unable to provide the Miracle Victory that Reichschancellor Bush dreams is coming). Petraeus' theories about troop levels are ALSO what created this bullshit "SURGE" talk in and around Washington, where it's finally filtered up to The Decider who decided that it sounded better than "I'm sorry, I wasted $2 Trillion of your dollars on a war to hang Saddam Hussein."

Here's the problem with Surge-Fest 2007: right now, the United States has about 70,000 combat troops in all of Iraq (another 60,000 or so are support troops or headquarters personnel). Even an extra 20,000 or even 30,0000 combat troops would leave the force well short of the minimum required, and that's with every soldier and Marine in Iraq moved to Baghdad. Iraqi security forces would have to make up the deficit.

So, yeah, this Urge To Surge is pointless bullshit and the citizens of America know it. So does the Congress and it remains to be seen if they'll play ball with the President or not.

Which brings us back to Senators Holy Joe Lieberman and John "Maverick" McCain ("that's right, Ice. Man. I -AM- dangerous.") and their pro-surge pro-war tour at the American Enterprise Institute. They were there to speak for a Surge Sensation because they believe only a Gushing Surge can win in Iraq. They insisted their Mighty Surge be open-ended rather than temporary, and that it "must be substantial and it must be sustained."

They evidently haven't read the Army's most recent readiness reports. You know, the ones which say 33% of units aren't ready to be deployed to Iraq with a month's notice?

According to McCain, A Surgeaclypse Now would give the Maliki "government" (if a collection of leather-clad thugs shouting "Moqtada Moqtada Moqtada" can be CALLED a government), "a fighting chance to pursue reconciliation."

Erhm... what "reconciliation" is that, Senator? Maybe you didn't see the cell-phone footage of Saddam's Lynching? Because every Sunni sure as hell did.

In his craven op-ed piece in the Washington Post last week, Lieberman quoted some unnamed colonel who told him in private how he and his men fully support the war. At the American Enterprise Institute, Joementum quoted him again, but this time claimed that Colonel Frank Not Fakealoo also supports a surge, saying that “We need some more troops to... fight to a victorious finish." Weird that this detail wasn't in the op-ed piece... it's almost as if Joe's just putting words into his straw-man colonel's mouth.

Lieberman also expressed unflagging confidence in Bush’s boundless wisdom – "The president of the United States gets this." Strangely, McCain didn’t utter Bush's name once. Man, I wonder why not? Incidentally, watching this phony nice-up to the slime who did all that to him, his wife and his kids has blown all respect for John McCain that I ever had.

Speaking of losing respect, Joe Lieberman never had much of mine to begin with (countless condescending lectures about how Great God Is during the 2000 election ruined it forever), but whatever was left circling the bowl was permanently flushed away when I read about Joe's historical references in his speech at the AEI: You see, to Joe, Iraq is just like the Spanish Civil War, a prelude to an even bigger war.

One hates to mock Joe's loose understanding of historical events, but if one MUST, (and as a student of the Spanish Civil War, I kinda MUST), then the main way that Iraq is like the Spanish Civil War is that while the world community turned its back and sat the war out, it also imposed an arms limit on both sides of the war. Meanwhile, a fascist power that wanted to test its military might against a civilian population broke the rules without penalty, supplied one side of the civil war and committed horrible aerial bombardments which left hundreds of thousands of innocents dead.

Hmmm... now who does THAT sound like? Oh, right, Osama Bin Laden!

McCain, on the other hand, went for the liberal traitor's jugulars, discussing how in the 1940's, there was an "incredible" desire in the USA not to be dragged into another European war, and "some of the most respected Americans in our country -- Charles Lindbergh, Henry Ford and many others -- were out and out about isolationists."

Isn’t it strange that of all those "many others," (several of whom were powerful Republican Senators, including Senator Prescott Bush) the only isolationists McCain can point to by name were actually Nazi sympathizers? Why, going by that logic, that means anyone against Bush's crazy hijinks in Iraq is probably a Nazi sympathizer, also! Gosh... I'd better shape up!

Oddly, Joe didn't jump in here with a big speech, which he's usually wont to do when Nazis come up.

Oh, but not to fear, Joementum did whip out at least one more nasty piece of hate speech: "If the American people could talk to the American military, as we do regularly, and hear their commitment to this cause, their selfless bravery, their honor, I believe that they would support the troops as we are."

Right. Because Americans don't support Bush's mindless and expensive war, we don't support the troops! Been watching Faux News much, Mister Senator?

In closing, Holy Joe once more threw himself and Congress alike under the treads of Bush's War Machine, demanding that Bush simply ignore Congress if it dares to defy him: "this moment cries out for the kind of courageous leadership that does what can succeed and win in Iraq, not what will command the largest number of political supporters in Congress."

It's not really all that confusing to hear Joe talk this way... after all, he didn't care much that he won the popular vote in 2000 (and Florida besides), so why should we expect the spineless little shitheel to respect the will of America's voters now?

Oh, and one final note... in the transcript of their remarks, John McCain said it all better than anyone else ever could: "On a foreign trip one time, due to the fact we're both losers, Joe described us as a government in exile."

Probably Right Before He Kills Them

"Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die."
George W. Bush, speaking with reporters on facing the challenges of war, Washington, D.C., Dec. 7, 2006

Click here to see video of Bush's sinister utterance (located at 23:16)

Bush Announces Brilliant New Plan For Iraq

Tonight President Bush pledged a "New Way Forward" for America's troubles in Iraq and vowed to somehow find 20,000 troops that aren't already in Iraq and send them there. This Troop Surge will fix Iraq and we will be victorious!

Oh, wait, that's tomorrow night's news.


No, tonight, we just get to sit around and wait for Bush to wheel out his already-tired-before-he-announces-it scheme for Victory in Iraq. A strategy all but already repudiated by the Democratic Leadership in the House and Senate. This brings to mind the question of "What the Hell is wrong with George Bush?" Why is he so stubborn, so unwilling to change ANYTHING that he does?

In the final paragraph of the New York Times' Jan. 2 story about the impending new Iraq strategy, President Bush is quoted as telling members of the Baker-Hamilton commission that "victory" was still his goal in Iraq: "It's a word the American people understand, and if I start to change it, it will look like I'm beginning to change my policy."

So... does Bush not want to change his policy? Or just not LOOK like he's changing his policy? Either way, Bush's obstinacy portends nothing good. It suggests that any reduction of American troops is impossible while he's in charge. Forget a pullout, forget a reduction, and forget even a simple lowering of American troops' profile, nothing in this realm is on this president's agenda. As Bush warned his commanders, "What I want to hear from you is how we're going to win, not how we're going to leave." Good to see you're open to all options, Mr. President.

Bush's obstinacy also suggests that he believes the American people don't want reductions and pullouts to be on his agenda, and that we don't want him to change his rhetoric or his policy. He's wrong, and the November elections should have proven that to him. I expect public reaction to Bush's Iraq Surge™ to be blisteringly nasty.

Besides, it's not like this is the first time we've heard from Bush that he's got some Secret Plan For Victory™. He wheeled this same exact speech out back in January 2006, remember? And 2006 was a BANNER year for America in Iraq, right? Why on Earth would anyone expect that he'd change his mind now when the facts are so clearly on his side that his team knows what they're doing?

I fully expect Bush to be the last man on Earth to admit that he's been wrong about Iraq from word one. His unwillingness to acknowledge mistakes, however profound or trivial, is legendary. Bush has an unwavering commitment to his beliefs, which can be an admirable trait... or it can be the hallmark of the delusional; it depends on the vision. In Bush's case, we can safely expect him to reiterate a new version of the same old plan that's not winning in Iraq.

What I don't expect tomorrow is for America to continue to follow him headlong over his cliff. Just that bothersome 25% who think he can do no wrong.

An Army of Undead Zombies

So THIS is the surge that George W. Bush has been talking about... a sustained surge of Undead Zombie Soldiers!

You know, when Showtime's "Masters of Horror" series proposed this very idea in a short film directed by Joe Dante, I laughed and enjoyed. When the Army does it, people's careers need to be ended...

Army asks dead to sign up for another hitch

POSTED: 7:58 p.m. EST, January 6, 2007

WASHINGTON - The Army said Friday it would apologize to the families of about 275 officers killed or wounded in action who were mistakenly sent letters urging them to return to active duty.

The letters were sent a few days after Christmas to more than 5,100 Army officers who had recently left the service. Included were letters to about 75 officers killed in action and about 200 wounded in action. The 75 represent more than one-third of all Army officers who have died in Iraq since the war began.

"Army personnel officials are contacting those officers' families now to personally apologize for erroneously sending the letters," the Army said in a brief news release issued Friday night.

The Army did not say how or when the mistake was discovered. It said the database normally used for such correspondence with former officers had been "thoroughly reviewed" to remove the names of wounded or dead soldiers.

"But an earlier list was used inadvertently for the December mailings," the Army statement said, adding that the Army is apologizing to those officers and families affected and "regrets any confusion."

The total number of Army officers who have died in Iraq since the war began stood at 217 as of Dec. 2, according to the latest available Pentagon statistics. In all, the Army has had 1,552 soldiers — combining officers and enlisted — killed in action in Iraq since the war began in March 2003, plus 409 who died of non-hostile causes.

The number of Army officers wounded in action in Iraq stood at 894 as of Dec. 2, out of an Army total — for both officers and enlisted — of 14,165, according to the latest Pentagon figures.

Altogether, at least 3,006 members of the U.S. military have died in Iraq since the war began, according to an Associated Press count.

Pentagon Seizes Control Of Banking Rules

There's an interesting article this week in Businessweek. I'll spool it out and comment on it as the story continues:

Saving Private Ryan From Greedy Lenders
A crackdown on gouging soldiers creates a new regulator: The Pentagon
Businessweek: 1/08/2007

The Defense Dept. is about to become a major financial regulator, and that's throwing lenders for a loop. Pentagon officials and consumer advocates pushed Congress this summer to help the many thousands of service members incurring excessive debt, some of whom have lost security clearances as a result, making them ineligible under Defense rules for deployment to Iraq.

Ah, so here we have the primary motivation to fix the problem, disguised by the public-relations propaganda. In the Propaganda, it's all about "Helping Our Troops," while in reality, the true reason anyone gives a shit about these people getting into crippling wage-slave debt is that it makes our soldier-cogs ineligible to go fight for our attempts to seize Iraq's oil. Gotcha.

The main culprit, the Pentagon said, are so-called payday lenders, which cluster around military bases and charge as much as 800% interest to provide soldiers with cash advances against their paychecks. Congress gave the Pentagon broad new authority to cap interest rates on most consumer loans to more than 1.4 million active-duty personnel and their families. Not surprisingly, payday lenders objected that they will be hurt and that their customers, who often have poor credit, will be left with no place to turn.

Now even mainstream lending institutions and traditional financial regulators say they fear the hastily written law will have unintended consequences. "From our perspective, the scope of the measure that was enacted is so broad that we're still trying to get our arms around it," says Diane Wagner, a spokeswoman for Bank of America BAC . Among the uncertainties: whether the law applies to existing loans, and also what happens when any of the 1.2 million reservists or National Guardsmen are called to active duty.

Sob, sob... those poor payday lenders won't be able to charge 800% interest any longer! Is this justice, I ask you? If you prick us, do we not bleed? Feh.

Why should military members receive special civilian-life protections that normal American civilians don't deserve?

What's so horrific and disgusting about this law is that Congress has now stated in legislation that soldiers should be protected from predatory lending, but that there's absolutely NOTHING wrong with payday lenders charging ordinary American civilians loanshark-shaming 800% interest. This law sets up a two-tiered system for America's working poor and lower-middle class: if you're just Joe Blow: 800%, but if you're G.I. Joe: 36%.

Well, Fuck That Unamerican Bullshit. I'm all for supporting our troops, but giving them special protection from evil banking corporations that the rest of America doesn't qualify for is NOT the answer to the problem. The answer to wage-slavery and indentured debtitude is to outlaw bullshit like 800% payday loans. Oh... but it gets worse:

Lenders and regulators say the measure's rate caps put in doubt the legality of debt consolidation loans, credit-card cash advances, student loans, overdraft protection, and other types of finance for soldiers and their dependents. "Every day a lightbulb goes off in the lending community with ways this could limit or restrict credit to our military," says Andrew Barbour, a lobbyist for the Financial Services Roundtable, which represents such institutions as Wachovia WB , American International GroupAIG , Merrill Lynch ML , and Capital One Financial COF.

America's largest corporations demand answers: why can't we fuck THESE people as well? Haven't we paid Congress enough in bribes? Haven't we spread around the wealth from offshoring middle-class jobs and selling America's infrastructure out from under it? Get with the picture, Congress, we want to suck America's soldiers dry as well!

WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY?
Kevin Mukri, spokesman for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which regulates national banks, adds: "To my knowledge, this is unprecedented—giving consumer credit regulation to the Defense Dept. I wouldn't know how to write a regulation for bombers."

Oh, right, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency... the same motherless sons of rats who greenlit Congress' utter destruction of bankruptcy protection. The same slimey sacks of filth who refuse to force the credit card companies to raise their credit rating criteria, so poor people aren't offered more credit than they can feasibly handle. The same snot-lickers who refuse to force the credit card companies to raise the percentage due each month so that people can't become enslaved forever to their credit card debt. The same scum-suckers who refuse to force the credit card companies to make clear what the REAL percentage rate on those credit cards are, to disclose their true fees, etc.

Well, of course THOSE donkey-suckers are furious. Someone's trying to help out a consumer somewhere! The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency was created to screw the little guy, not to help him... and here suddenly these soft-hearted saps at The Pentagon want to go easy on poor suckers just because they're in the military? Nosirree, not on OUR watch!

Outgoing Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-Va.), however, stands by the law, which he backed. "Congress has an absolute responsibility to protect members of the military and their families from such unfair practices," says a spokesman.

"Congress has no responsibility to protect the average consumer from these same unfair practices," the Senator mumbled as he cashed his paychecks from MBNA, Citibank and Capital One.

The law, which was attached to a defense bill last fall and will take effect on Oct. 1, 2007, establishes a 36% cap on interest rates for most loans to military members and their families. Unlike most credit regulations, the new law requires the annual percentage rate for military loans to include all fees. Factoring in fees can push the APR beyond the law's cap. Home mortgages, auto loans, and credit secured by personal property are exempt.

Once again, WHAT THE FLYING FUCK?

So it's -totally- cool for predatory lenders to disguise closing costs, early pay-down charges and other vampiric fees when dealing with the general public, but our soldiers need to have these things spelled out for them in simple language with a cap of 36% on such fees and interest?

WHY ISN'T THAT THE LAW OF THE LAND FOR EVERYONE?

Oh, right, because Joe Biden got paid a bajillion dollars by the Credit Card Industry in the last election cycle.

Lenders say stiff penalties for violations of the new law may scare off institutions. If a lender unwittingly provides a loan with an improper rate to a service member's spouse, the loan becomes invalid and doesn't have to be repaid. If the lender "knowingly" violates the law, it is subject to fines, and its employees can even get jail time. Avoiding these missteps could be complicated by separate laws that prohibit lenders from asking about marital status.

One lender worrying about such ambiguities is Cooperative Bank in North Carolina, which serves Marines and their families at Camp Lejeune, south of the Outer Banks. CEO Rick Willetts says of the new law: "This is a well-intended idea that is opening Pandora's box."
###

Merry Christmas, You're Drafted

SURPRISE!

Perfectly timed to coincide with the news cycle downturn at Christmas comes this stealth announcment from the Bush Administration. I've been saying this for years: we don't have enough troops to keep 130-150,000 combat troops in Iraq full-time for the 10-20 years that it's going to take to pacify the country. It appears that someone in the Bush Administration understands this finally and is seeking an "alternative" to the current system... OR you can choose to believe their protestations that they don't want a draft and would never accept a draft and blah blah blah. Considering their record on other important topics of the day (WMDs, War is Final Option, Saddam = Osama, etc.), I'm going with a new draft.

Military Draft System To Be Tested
Friday 22 December 2006

Washington - The Selective Service System is making plans to test its draft machinery in case Congress and President Bush need it, even though the White House says it doesn't want to bring back the draft.

The agency is planning a comprehensive test - not run since 1998 - of its military draft systems, a Selective Service official said. The test itself would not likely occur until 2009.

At the direction of the White House, reports CBS News correspondent Mark Knoller, Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson is making it clear he is not advocating the reinstatement of a military draft. He told a news conference that society would benefit from a return to the draft, but a few hours later, after the White House disavowed the remark, Nicholson issued a statement in line with administration policy. He said he strongly supports the all-volunteer military and does not support returning to a draft.

President Bush has repeatedly stated that the all-volunteer army would remain all-volunteer. The administration has for years forcefully opposed bringing back the draft, and the White House said Thursday that policy has not changed and no proposal to reinstate the draft is being considered.

The "readiness exercise" would test the system that randomly chooses draftees by birth date and its network of appeal boards that decide how to deal with conscientious objectors and others who want to delay reporting for duty, Campbell said. The Selective Service will start planning for the 2009 tests next June or July, although budget cuts could force the agency to cancel them, Campbell said.

President Bush said this week he is considering sending more troops to Iraq and has asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates to look into adding more troops to the nearly 1.4 million uniformed personnel on active duty.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, increasing the Army by 40,000 troops would cost as much as $2.6 billion the first year and $4 billion after that. Military officials have said the Army and Marine Corps want to add as many as 35,000 more troops.

Recruiting new forces and retaining current troops is more complicated because of the unpopular war in Iraq. In recent years, the Army has accepted recruits with lower aptitude test scores.

In remarks to reporters, Nicholson recalled his own experience as a company commander in an infantry unit that brought together soldiers of different backgrounds and education levels "in the common purpose of serving."
###

Ohhh, it's Okay... it's ONLY a "Readiness Test." Go back to sleep, America...

Support Our Fucking Troops!

y'know, I'm getting REALLY tired of being yelled at by Conservatives and Liberals alike that I -must- at all costs, Support Our Troops. This is a mindless slogan designed to Propagandize our citizenry into supporting The Military, supporting the underlying Military-Industrial Complex and supporting societal Militarism.

Guess what? I don't believe that the institution of Militarism as it exists in this country today is worthy of respect OR support. The Pentagon is a giant money-sponge sucking up every available dollar to increase its own growth. Our short-sighted commitment to Military Keynesianism has set America on a path to destruction and I can't celebrate that.

That said, the "troops" or the individual soldiers in uniform who carry out the orders of the Military-Industrial Complex (aka, the cogs in the War Machine) are generally free of blame for this war. I don't blame them for either being born poor and having limited options in life, nor do I dislike those who join the service out of a sense of altruism and wanting to help other people, and I genuinely admire the guts that all of these groups show in the face of hostile forces who want to kill them.

I don't, however, subscribe to the notion that "the military keeps us free" or we only have our freedoms because soldiers are in Iraq defending them for us. Saddam never once threatened our freedom, and America's militaristic response to the 9/11 attacks has harmed our individual liberties far more than Osama Bin Laden ever dreamed of. If and when the orders come down to impose Martial Law, I'm sure that all these troops that I'm supposed to support will willingly shoot me dead in the street after curfew. Post-Katrina New Orleans proved that.

Either way, I do, for the most part, support the men and women in uniform. The good ones, anyway. Then, occasionally, I come across an Abu Ghraib/Haditha/Rape-And-Murder-Of-A-14-Year-Old-Iraqi-Girl type story which drives home just how FUCKED it is to blindly support anything, much less "our troops" who are, in the final equation, just people subject to the same pressures and failings that the rest of us are. Here's just one such story about troops whom I have no fucking intention of ever supporting.

FBI: Military Recruiters Ran Cocaine

A Midtown strip mall that should have housed the best of the best served as Corruption Central in Tucson. Two military recruiting stations sit side-by-side there, one run by the Army, the other by the Marines. Between them, a total of seven recruiters were on the take, secretly accepting bribes to transport cocaine, even as most spent their days visiting local high schools. They had help from several more recruiters at an Army National Guard office, where one recruiter was said to be selling cocaine from the trunk of his recruiting vehicle.

The big difference is that when civilians commit crimes, they don't expect blind patriotism to wallpaper over it.

They Hate Us For Our Freedom

US ARMY REVERTS TO STRIKEBREAKER PAST

Ahhh, it's been too long since we saw US troops operating out in the open against American workers. The last time I remember is in October 2002 when Bush threatened to turn out troops against America's dockworkers. This time, however, Bush and his big business cronies have a just and glorious war in Iraq to justify their planned destruction of the steelworkers union.

Remember: Support Our Troops! (even if they're shooting at us)

US Army might break Goodyear strike
By Bernard Simon in Toronto
Dec 15, 2006

The US Army is considering measures to force striking workers back to their jobs at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber plant in Kansas in the face of a looming shortage of tyres for Humvee trucks and other military equipment used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A strike involving 17,000 members of the United Steelworkers union has crippled 16 Goodyear plants in the US and Canada since October 5. The main issues in dispute are the company's plans to close a unionised plant in Texas, and a proposal for workers to shoulder future increases in healthcare costs.

An army spokeswoman said on Friday that "there's not a shortage right now but there possibly will be one in the future".

According to Duncan Hunter, chairman of the House of Representatives armed services committee, the strike has cut output of Humvee tyres by about 35 per cent.

The last six years have been an unending Federal assault on Unions and union organizing, such as Bush's recent raids on illegal aliens to cripple the impending meatworkers organizing efforts among illegal workers. But illegal aliens just aren't enough to sate Bush's lust for Union blood, so now we get the grim spectre of American troops shooting down American workers once more. It's just another side-benefit of Bush's Iraq War!