noworldsystem.com


Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup

Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkPO6ksgyVM

Pentagon cab driver ADMITS 9/11 attack was staged

911 Mysteries: Controlled Demolition

 



U.S. Will Invade 7 Countries in 5 Years

U.S. Will Invade 7 Countries in 5 Years – Wesley Clark

http://youtube.com/watch?v=iuVVml5Dp2s

 



HR 1585 Authorizes Plans For Martial Law

HR 1585 Authorizes Plans For Martial Law

Lee Rogers
Rogue Government
November 9, 2007

HR 1585 which is the 2008 Defense Authorization Bill is an evil piece of legislation that actually gives authorization to the U.S. military to plan a future merger with the police that will be used during a catastrophic emergency. This bill authorizes the Department of Defense to design a plan for a martial law apparatus. There is no question that the U.S. government is seeking to ratchet up the militarized police state as they anticipate massive resistance to the coming collapse of our economy and war with Iran. This bill is yet another step in the direction for the implementation of a militarized police state in this country.

Section 1615 of the bill describes the determination of department of defense civil support requirements. Subsection (a) states the following regarding the determination of requirements.

SEC. 1615. DETERMINATION OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVIL SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Determination of Requirements – The Secretary of Defense shall determine the military-unique capabilities needed to be provided by the Department of Defense to support civil authorities in an incident of national significance or a catastrophic incident.

So another words, the Secretary of Defense is going to determine what military capabilities will be provided to support civil authorities during a catastrophic emergency. If the military is providing support to civil authorities, that is essentially describing an unholy marriage of police and the military. In no uncertain terms, this bill authorizes the Department of Defense to draw up plans for martial law which will be enforced through a combination of the military and the police.

In addition, the Secretary of Defense is to develop a plan that will sustain this martial law apparatus for five years as shown below in section (b).

(b) Plan for Funding Capabilities-

(1) PLAN- The Secretary of Defense shall develop and implement a plan, in coordination with the Secretaries of the military departments and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for providing the funds and resources necessary to develop and maintain the following:

(A) The military-unique capabilities determined under subsection (a).

(B) Any additional capabilities determined by the Secretary to be necessary to support the use of the active components and the reserve components of the armed forces for homeland defense missions, domestic emergency responses, and providing military support to civil authorities.

(2) TERM OF PLAN- The plan required under paragraph (1) shall cover at least five years.

Section 1621 of the bill describes how they intend to increase the number of people in USNORTHCOM. Below is the appropriate subsection in which the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will submit a review of civilian and military positions within USNORTHCOM with the goal of increasing the number of reservists and civilians employed by USNORTHCOM. Clearly, they are anticipating massive civil unrest in this country if they intend on increasing the manpower available to USNORTHCOM.

(a) Manpower Review-

(1) REVIEW BY CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF- Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall submit to the Secretary of Defense a review of the civilian and military positions, job descriptions, and assignments within the United States Northern Command with the goal of significantly increasing the number of members of a reserve component assigned to, and civilians employed by, the United States Northern Command who have experience in the planning, training, and employment of forces for homeland defense missions, domestic emergency response, and providing military support to civil authorities.

It gets better. Section 1622 of the bill establishes a Council of Governors that will advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the White House on how they intend to integrate the National Guard into this martial law apparatus. The section is shown below.

SEC. 1622. COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS.

The President shall establish a bipartisan Council of Governors to advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the White House Homeland Security Council on matters related to the National Guard and civil support missions.

The bottom line is that this bill authorizes the U.S. military to plan the integration of the military with civil authorities so they have a full fledged martial law apparatus to use in the event of any sort of catastrophic national emergency. The information in this bill lines up with what was described in the Vision 2020 document which is a document released by USNORTHCOM which describes the goal of a future North American martial law apparatus. It also lines up with NSPD-51/HSPD-20 which gives the President authoritarian powers during a catastrophic emergency. One thing is for sure, these people would not be wasting their time putting this stuff down on paper unless they have plans to use it.

 



Law of the Sea Will Usher In A One World Navy

Law of the Sea Will Usher In A One World Navy

Rogue Government
November 4, 2007

The Law of the Sea Treaty which the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted in favor of ratifying by a vote of 17-4 is part of a plan to average U.S. naval forces into a world Navy that would enforce international law on the world’s oceans. The Law of the Sea Treaty will allow the U.S. Navy to more easily police the world’s oceans while further undermining U.S. national sovereignty by recognizing United Nations authority over the majority of the world’s oceans. Prior to this vote on the Law of the Sea Treaty in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the U.S. Navy combined with the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Marines released a document entitled “A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Sea Power”, which outlines how U.S. naval forces will seek stronger international cooperation to protect the tyrannical global system that is currently being formed. It is interesting to note that the document focuses more on how there is a need to protect the global system and seek closer ties to international partners instead of defending the United States. The timing of the Law of the Sea Treaty being re-introduced in the Senate and the release of this document from the Navy is not pure chance. Admiral Michael Mullen, the recently promoted Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has spoken on many occasions about the formation of an international 1000-ship naval force. Clearly, this is all part of a plan to use U.S. naval forces as a foundational building block to form an international navy force that will enforce international law on the world’s oceans for the coming one world government.

Over 150 nations have signed and ratified the Law of the Sea Treaty which is an international treaty that gives authority of most of the world’s oceans to the United Nations. The U.S. has signed but not yet ratified the treaty. George W. Bush wants the Senate to ratify this treaty because he has said that it would allow U.S. naval forces to move freely around the oceans. Ratification of this treaty would essentially transform the U.S. Navy into the core of the naval security enforcement arm for the United Nations. Since the treaty turns over authority of the world’s oceans to the United Nations, the U.S. Navy would be policing the world’s oceans not on behalf of the United States, but the United Nations.

This would be speculation if it wasn’t for the recent release of the document entitled “A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Sea Power” which describes how U.S. naval forces will need to protect the global system and seek closer ties with the international community. The document cites the phony war on terror as one of the key rationales for both of these items.

From the introduction section of the document:

The security, prosperity, and vital interests of the United States are increasingly coupled to those of other nations. Our Nation’s interests are best served by fostering a peaceful global system comprised of interdependent networks of trade, finance, information, law, people and governance.

We prosper because of this system of exchange among nations, yet recognize it is vulnerable to a range of disruptions that can produce cascading and harmful effects far from their sources. Major power war, regional conflict, lawlessness and natural disaster—all have the potential to threaten U.S. national security and world prosperity.

Later in the document under the section called “Maritime Strategic Concept”, the following paragraph describes how U.S. naval forces should seek relations with more international partners to protect international order on the world’s oceans.

Foster and sustain cooperative relations with more international partners. Expanded cooperative relationships with other nations will contribute to the security and stability of the maritime domain for the benefit all. Although our forces can surge when necessary to respond to crises, trust and cooperation cannot be surged. They must be built over time so that the strategic interests of the participants are continuously considered while mutual understanding and respect are promoted.

The document also cites the Global Maritime Partnership which is clearly a foundational building block for a one world naval force. What’s interesting is that Admiral Michael Mullen who was recently promoted to the position of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff worked extensively on and touted the Global Maritime Partnership prior to his promotion.

Mullen the former head of U.S. naval forces, was quoted as saying the following in 2006 at the Regional Sea Power Symposium regarding the Global Maritime Partnership.

“As mariners, we knew instinctively that the greatest power of the sea is to unite, not to divide. There is a common bond between us.”

“My country saw this on our Gulf Coast during Hurricane Katrina, just as others have after the tsunami in Indonesia, the Earthquakes in Pakistan, the submarine rescue off Petropavlovsk, the mudslides in the Philippines and many other places.”

“These things encouraged us to think about and to believe that we could bring together a “1000-ship navy”, a global maritime partnership that unites navies, coast guards, maritime forces, port operators, commercial shippers, and many other government agencies to address mutual maritime concerns.”

Considering Mullen’s statements on this Global Maritime Partnership which would in essence form a one world naval force, it makes perfect sense as to why he was recently promoted to the position of Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff. It also makes sense that the Law of the Sea Treaty is being brought up again in the Senate at around the same time.

There is no doubt that the Law of the Sea Treaty is being re-introduced in the Senate as part of an effort to form a one world naval force that will enforce international law dictated by the United Nations. The U.S. should not ratify this treaty, and our naval forces should not be averaged into a 1000-ship navy as Admiral Mullen describes. Hopefully, the Senate will fail to get the 2/3’s majority they need for ratification of this treaty. Any Senator voting in favor to ratify this bill is a traitor for granting even more authority to the United Nations over U.S. sovereignty because the United Nations has proven throughout its sorry history that it is an extremely corrupt and morally bankrupt institution.

 



Military Resistance Forced Shift on Iran Strike

Military Resistance Forced Shift on Iran Strike

Gareth Porter
IPS
October 19, 2007

WASHINGTON, Oct 18 (IPS) – The George W. Bush administration’s shift from the military option of a massive strategic attack against Iran to a surgical strike against selected targets associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), reported by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker earlier this month, appears to have been prompted not by new alarm at Iran’s role in Iraq but by the explicit opposition of the nation’s top military leaders to an unprovoked attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
The reorientation of the military threat was first signaled by passages on Iran in Bush’s Jan. 10 speech and followed by only a few weeks a decisive rejection by the Joint Chiefs of Staff of a strategic attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Although scarcely mentioned in press reports of the speech, which was devoted almost entirely to announcing the troop “surge” in Iraq, Bush accused both Iran and Syria of “allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq”. Bush also alleged that Iran was “providing material support for attacks on American troops”.

Those passages were intended in part to put pressure on Iran, and were accompanied by an intensification of a campaign begun the previous month to seize Iranian officials inside Iraq. But according to Hillary Mann, who was director for Persian Gulf and Afghanistan Affairs on the National Security Council staff in 2003, they also provided a legal basis for a possible attack on Iran.

“I believe the president chose his words very carefully,” says Mann, “and laid down a legal predicate that could be used to justify later military action against Iran.”

Mann says her interpretation of the language is based on the claim by the White House of a right to attack another country in “anticipatory self-defence” based on Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. That had been the legal basis cited by then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice had in September 2002 in making the case for the invasion of Iraq.

The introduction of a new reason for striking Iran, which also implied a much more limited set of targets related to Iraq, followed a meeting between Bush and the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Dec. 13, 2006 in which the uniformed military leaders rejected a strike against Iran’s nuclear programme. Time magazine political columnist Joe Klein, reported last May that military and intelligence sources told him that Bush had asked the Joint Chiefs at the meeting about a possible strike against the Iranian nuclear programme, and that they had unanimously opposed such an attack.

Mann says that she was also told by her own contacts in the Pentagon that the Joint Chiefs had expressed opposition to a strike against Iran.

The Joint Chiefs were soon joined in opposition to a strike on Iran by Admiral William Fallon, who was nominated to become CENTCOM commander in January. Mann says Pentagon contacts have also told her that Fallon made his opposition to war against Iran clear to the White House.

IPS reported last May that Fallon had indicated privately that he was determined to prevent an attack on Iran and even prepared to resign to do so. A source who met with Fallon at the time of his confirmation hearing quoted him as vowing that there would be “no war with Iran” while he was CENTCOM commander and as hinting very strongly that he would quit rather than go along with an attack.

Although he did not specifically refer to the Joint Chiefs, Fallon also suggested that other military leaders were opposing a strike against Iran, saying, “There are several of us who are trying to put the crazies back in the box,” according to the same source.

Fallon’s opposition to a strike against Iranian nuclear, military and economic targets would make it very difficult, if not impossible for the White House to carry out such an operation, according to military experts. As CENTCOM commander, Fallon has complete control over all military access to the region, says retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner, an expert on military strategy who has taught at the National War College.

Douglas McGregor, a retired Army Lt. Col. who was a tank commander in the 1991 Gulf War and has taught at the National Defense University, agrees. “I find it hard to imagine that anything can happen in the area without the involvement of the Central Command,” says McGregor.

The possibility that Fallon might object to an unprovoked attack on Iran or even resign over the issue represents a significant deterrent to such an attack.

Former NSC adviser Mann believes the Iraq-focused strategy is now aimed at averting any resignation threat by Fallon or other military leaders by carrying out a very limited strike that would be presented as a response to a specific incident in Iraq in which the deaths of U.S. soldiers could be attributed to Iranian policy. She says she doubts Fallon and other military leaders would “fall on their swords” over such a strike.

Gardiner agrees that Fallon is unlikely to refuse to carry out such a limited strike under those circumstances.

Mann believes the Bush-Cheney purpose in advancing the strategy is to provoke Iranian retaliation. “The concern I have is that it would be just enough so Iranians would retaliation against U.S. allies,” she says.

But the issue of what evidence of Iranian complicity would be adequate to justify such a strike evidently remains a matter of debate within the administration. A story published by McClatchy newspapers Aug. 9 reported that Vice President Dick Cheney had argued some weeks earlier for a strike against camps in Iran allegedly used to train Iraqi Shiite militiamen fighting U.S. troops if “hard new evidence” could be obtained of Iran’s complicity in supporting anti-U.S. forces in Iraq.

But Cheney and his allies have been frustrated in the search for such evidence. Mann notes that British forces in southern Iraq patrolled the border very aggressively for six months last year to find evidence of Iranian involvement in supplying weapons to Iraqi guerrillas but found nothing.

After several months of trying to establish specific links between Iraqis suspected of trafficking in weapons to a specific Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard contact, the U.S. command has not claimed a single case of such a link. Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, the U.S. commander for southern Iraq, where most of the Shiite militias operate, admitted in a Jul. 6 briefing that his troops had not captured “anybody that we can tie to Iran”.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, who is known to be closely allied with Cheney on Iran policy, has betrayed impatience with a policy that depends on obtaining proof of Iranian complicity in attacks. On Jun. 11 he called for “strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers.”

Lieberman repeated that position on Jul. 2, but thus far it has not prevailed.

*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, “Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam”, was published in June 2005.

Bush Admin. Gearing up for a War with Iran for years
http://www.esquire.com/features/iranbriefing1107

 



Gates plays down report Marines want to leave Iraq

Gates plays down report Marines want to leave Iraq

Reuters
October 11, 2007

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Thursday played down a newspaper report that the U.S. Marine Corps was pressing to remove its forces from Iraq and switch to a leading role in Afghanistan.

“I have heard that they were beginning to think about that and that’s all that I’ve heard. I’ve seen no plan, no one’s come to me with any proposals about it,” Gates told reporters in London after meeting his British counterpart, Des Browne.

The New York Times reported on Wednesday that the Marines’ suggestion was raised in a session last week convened by Gates for the U.S. military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff and regional war-fighting commanders. It comes at a time when Washington’s key ally in Iraq, Britain, is drawing down its presence there.

“My understanding is that it’s — at this point — extremely preliminary thinking on the part of perhaps some staff people in the Marine Corps but I don’t think at this point it has any stature,” Gates said.

Under the proposal, the newspaper said, the U.S. Army would concentrate on Iraq while the Marines would focus on Afghanistan.

Supporters of the idea argue that a realignment could allow the U.S. Army and Marines each to operate more efficiently in sustaining troop levels for two wars that have strained their forces, the New York Times said, citing senior military and Pentagon officials who requested anonymity.

The plan would require a major reshuffling and make the Marines the dominant American force in Afghanistan in a war that has broader public support than the one in Iraq, the Times said.

REALIGNMENT

Some officials sympathetic to the army said such a realignment would help ease pressure on the army by allowing it to shift attention from Afghanistan into Iraq, the newspaper reported.

Currently, there are no major Marine units among the 26,000 or so U.S. forces in Afghanistan. In Iraq there are about 25,000 Marines among the more than 160,000 U.S. troops there.

Despite some signs of disquiet in Washington about British plans to withdraw troops from southern Iraq, Gates and Browne put on a show of unity and insisted their plans were closely coordinated.

“The United Kingdom has been and continues to be a stalwart ally and a major contributor at every stage of the Iraq campaign,” Gates said.

Britain said this week it planned to halve its forces in Iraq to about 2,500 troops by next spring. There is an expectation that Britain will then focus more troops on Afghanistan, although the Ministry of Defense has not confirmed such a move.

“The U.S. and the U.K. share exactly the same aspirations for Iraq — for a stable, prosperous and democratic Iraq,” Defense Minister Browne said after meeting Gates.

“But ultimately only the Iraqis themselves can deliver that,” he said. “Our job is to fulfill our strategic objective which is to get the Iraqi security forces to a stage where they can take over responsibility for their own security.”

Marines Press to Remove Their Forces From Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/1….gewanted=print

Number Of U.S. Army Recruits With Criminal Records Doubles
http://www.huffingtonpost.com…-us-army-recru_n_68018.html

Terrorists and Civilians Killed in Coalition Raid in Iraq
http://voanews.com/english/2007-10-11-voa8.cfm

Turkey escalates action near Iraq border
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071010/ap_on_re_mi_ea/turkey_iraq

Turkey set to attack Kurds in Iraq
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ12Ak01.html

 



Bush Hears About Strain on Troops and Family
September 3, 2007, 3:35 pm
Filed under: army, David Petraeus, George Bush, Iraq, JCS, Pentagon, Robert Gates, Troops

Bush Hears About Strain on Troops

AP
August 31, 2007

At a key juncture in the Iraq war, the military chiefs conveyed to President Bush on Friday their concern about a growing strain on troops and their families from long and repeated combat tours.

Bush met privately at the Pentagon with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Defense Secretary Robert Gates in preparation for decisions about how long to sustain the U.S. troop buildup in Iraq, whether to change course this fall and how to save the health of a heavily stressed Army and Marine Corps.

Indications are that Bush intends to stick with his current approach, at least into 2008, despite persistent pressure from the Democrat-led Congress – including some prominent Republicans – to find a new course.

Still to be heard is the long-awaited assessment of Gen. David Petraeus, Bush’s choice to execute the new strategy he announced in January to improve security in Baghdad.

Petraeus did not participate in Friday’s session but one U.S. senior official said the general, along with Ryan Crocker, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, would likely tell Bush and Congress in mid-September that the buildup had succeeded in making slow but sure progress on both the military and political fronts.

Petraeus and Crocker also will argue for a continuation of the current policy with some adjustments, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was discussing internal deliberations.

Bush’s critics point to mounting evidence that while the troop buildup may have halted the escalation of sectarian violence in Baghdad, the Iraqis are making almost no headway toward political reconciliation.

There are no signs that the Pentagon’s top generals and admirals are pushing for an early end to the war, but they are concerned not only about strains on troops but also about the possibility that the heavy focus on counterinsurgency warfare in Iraq leaves the military ill-prepared in the event of a crisis elsewhere.

Without revealing specifics of the Joint Chiefs’ remarks, Bush said afterward that they discussed preserving the military’s war-fighting capability for the long term and “monitoring the health of our all-volunteer force” – the latter an allusion to fears among some that war strains could break the military.

Included in the session was Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, the former operations chief for the Joint Chiefs who this summer moved to the White House to become Bush’s personal adviser on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush did not speak in person after the meeting, but he issued a statement asking lawmakers to reserve judgment about the best next move in Iraq until they have heard from the top U.S. general and diplomat there.

“The stakes in Iraq are too high and the consequences too grave for our security here at home to allow politics to harm the mission of our men and women in uniform,” the president said in the statement. “It is my hope that we can put partisanship and politics behind us and commit to a common vision that will provide our troops what they need to succeed and secure our vital national interests in Iraq and around the world.”

The service chiefs, who have no command responsibilities, are charged with maintaining forces ready for combat and ensuring they have enough time for proper training. In that context the chiefs of the Army and Marine Corps have expressed concern that the troop buildup in Iraq come to an early end.

Of particular worry to the Army are the 15-month tours that soldiers are now serving, often with only 12 months between tours.

In line with its usual practice when the president meets with the Joint Chiefs, the Pentagon made no public comment on what transpired. However, a senior defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the 90-minute session included as expected an airing of the chiefs’ views on various impacts of the war.

“Secretary Gates wanted the Joint Chiefs to tell the president directly their assessment of the surge and the impact it is having on the forces, and that is what happened,” the official said. He offered no details.

The president’s visit to the Joint Chiefs’ secure conference room, known as the Tank, came amid a string of independent assessments that point to severe problems with elements of the Iraqi police and political paralysis in Baghdad.

Bush’s new strategy announced in January involved sending 30,000 more troops to Iraq to calm the violence so that the Baghdad government could gain some breathing room to make political progress, which hasn’t happened. Now, there are more than 160,000 troops in Iraq, the most since the war began in 2003.

Bush has said he will base his decisions in large measure on Petraeus’ assessment of how the strategy is working, how much longer he needs the extra troop strength and when Iraqi forces will be ready.

The president meets periodically with the Joint Chiefs. What was unusual about Friday’s session was that the Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Peter Pace, is about to retire and his successor, Adm. Michael Mullen, participated in the meeting as the Navy representative. Mullen has been more outspoken and blunt than some of the other chiefs in expressing concern about the health of the military.

In a fresh sign of U.S. frustration with the Iraqi government in Baghdad, a senior U.S. commander said in an Associated Press interview that he feels aggravated by the slow pace of action by Iraq’s central government to ensure that its security forces are properly led, supplied and equipped on the battlefield.

“I have not seen any improvement really in the year I’ve been here in that regard,” said Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, the commander of U.S. forces in northern Iraq. He said the Iraqi army is doing “pretty well” in fighting the insurgency alongside U.S. troops, but they are not getting sufficient support from Baghdad.

“Progress is slower than it should be inside the (Iraqi) army in particular” with regard to proper support and direction from national leaders in Baghdad, Mixon said by telephone, adding that the problem lies in a combination of bureaucratic obstacles and sectarian-based decisions about army leadership appointments.

Related News:

Couric Admits Her Rosy Report From Iraq Is Based On ‘What The U.S. Military Wants Me To See’
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/02/couric-iraq-military/

2nd Retired British General Slams US
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-britain-us-iraq,0,7388771.story

All countries must stay course in Iraq, Bush tells Brown
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2917350.ece

British ex-army chief criticizes U.S. over Iraq
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL0164989520070901?sp=true

British anti-drug effort a failure: Afghan official
http://www.washingtonpost….07090200401.html

UK troops poised to quit Basra
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2368539.ece

Iraqi civilian deaths rise
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN3127691220070901?sp=true

Iraq to free thousands of jailed Sunnis
http://washingtontimes.com/…./109020047/1001&template=printart

Bush Wants $50 Billion More for Iraq War
http://www.washington….801984.html?referrer=digg

More Iraqis Flee as Figure Tops Four Million
http://uruknet.info/?p=m35760&hd=&size=1&l=e

Marines Ordered To Execute Civilians In Nazi-Like Slaughter
Congress: Iraq ‘surge’ not working
Marines Ordered To Execute Women/Children
U.S. Military Censors ThinkProgress
US says ready to step back into Basra as British pull out
200 journalists killed in Iraq war
US Government, Complicit in Iraq Corruption, Helps Punish Whistleblowers
Air Force Ready To Aid Insurgencies
American Whistleblowers Tortured – Lives And Careers Ruined By Their Own Government
Gen. Pace Denies Will Urge Troop Cut in Iraq