Great News - WikiLeaks releases over 90,000 Documents in "Afghan War Diary"

[barman]

Shining the light of truth on government actions is best for all concerned - save for perhaps those who benefit from dishonesty and fraud.

Afghanistan War Logs: WikiLeaks Releasing Over 90,000 Documents In 'Afghan War Diary'



*** UPDATE: WikiLeaks is releasing their full "Afghan War Diary" on a dedicated website.***
--
WikiLeaks has obtained a massive set of records about the Afghanistan war, dubbed "The War Logs," that paints a grim picture of the nation's longest military engagement.

The Guardian, one of three news organizations with an advanced look at the documents, summarizes:


A huge cache of secret US military files today provides a devastating portrait of the failing war in Afghanistan, revealing how coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents, Taliban attacks have soared and Nato commanders fear neighbouring Pakistan and Iran are fuelling the insurgency.

The disclosures come from more than 90,000 records of incidents and intelligence reports about the conflict obtained by the whistleblowers' website Wikileaks in one of the biggest leaks in US military history. The files, which were made available to the Guardian, the New York Times and the German weekly Der Spiegel, give a blow-by-blow account of the fighting over the last six years, which has so far cost the lives of more than 320 British and over 1,000 US troops.

-----
Bar: (The lead hyperlink above includes redirects to coverage from all three major newspapers cited)

 

[Enfuego]

Shining the light of truth on government actions is best for all concerned - save for perhaps those who benefit from dishonesty and fraud.

Afghanistan War Logs: WikiLeaks Releasing Over 90,000 Documents In 'Afghan War Diary'



*** UPDATE: WikiLeaks is releasing their full "Afghan War Diary" on a dedicated website.***
--
WikiLeaks has obtained a massive set of records about the Afghanistan war, dubbed "The War Logs," that paints a grim picture of the nation's longest military engagement.

The Guardian, one of three news organizations with an advanced look at the documents, summarizes:


A huge cache of secret US military files today provides a devastating portrait of the failing war in Afghanistan, revealing how coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents, Taliban attacks have soared and Nato commanders fear neighbouring Pakistan and Iran are fuelling the insurgency.

The disclosures come from more than 90,000 records of incidents and intelligence reports about the conflict obtained by the whistleblowers' website Wikileaks in one of the biggest leaks in US military history. The files, which were made available to the Guardian, the New York Times and the German weekly Der Spiegel, give a blow-by-blow account of the fighting over the last six years, which has so far cost the lives of more than 320 British and over 1,000 US troops.

-----
Bar: (The lead hyperlink above includes redirects to coverage from all three major newspapers cited)

Suit the story to fit your needs Barman. Where are the reports?

 

[barman]

brother, I merely pasted the content from the HuffPost summary which includes redirects to not only a dedicated webpage, but also all three major newspapers which received copies.

My only personal contribution is the first sentence in the post and the bold/italic comment at the bottom

 

[barman]

As for "my needs", they are only to have increased access to truthful information about what my government is doing with those tax dollars spent on the War Machine in Afghan and Iraq.

Some days those needs are met better than on other days.

Today is a Good Day

 

[Enfuego]

As for "my needs", they are only to have increased access to truthful information about what my government is doing with those tax dollars spent on the War Machine in Afghan and Iraq.

Some days those needs are met better than on other days.

Today is a Good Day

What about the tax dollars spent on healthcare or the stimulus? Why only post stuff about taxes spent on the war? Why do you only post stuff about the items that suit your needs but not the ones that contradict everything else?

 

[scanz]

 

[barman]

What about the tax dollars spent on healthcare or the stimulus? Why only post stuff about taxes spent on the war?

Because the gross misuse of my federal tax dollars to fund the U.S. War Machine is what interests me most and I have maybe 30-40 minutes a day maximum to chit chat in our PoliticoPub. The rest of my time using the Rx is to share and obtain information about sports and sports handicapping.

There are others who take great interest in examining the federal govt shenanigans in a long list of other areas. There are also websites which specifically devote themselves to various detailed looks at this or that government activity.

I suggest a Google Search if there are other topics which more suit your personal reading and education interest.

 

[Enfuego]

Because the gross misuse of my federal tax dollars to fund the U.S. War Machine is what interests me most and I have maybe 30-40 minutes a day maximum to chit chat in our PoliticoPub. The rest of my time using the Rx is to share and obtain information about sports and sports handicapping.

There are others who take great interest in examining the federal govt shenanigans in a long list of other areas. There are also websites which specifically devote themselves to various detailed looks at this or that government activity.

I suggest a Google Search if there are other topics which more suit your personal reading and education interest.

I just find it funny you choose to examine the use/misuse of tax dollars on whatever situation fits your agenda but you won't examine the misuse on topics that make the left look bad. It's funny how that works.

 

[barman]

I just find it funny you choose to examine the use/misuse of tax dollars on whatever situation fits your agenda but you won't examine the misuse on topics that make the left look bad. It's funny how that works.

Yeah I'm one of those people who tends to focus on what I personally consider most important.

I'm sure that if those other topics were truly of interest to you, then you could find all you want to know about them. But I've got a feeling you're just blowing some hot air.

Glad I can provide a handy vent for ya

 

[barman]

And even a cursory review of the lead post in this Topic will see that there is absolutely no reference to "misuse of tax dollars". Rather, it's about the increasing exposure of lying, deceit and fraud by the U.S. milltary and those most closely affiliated with it.

I'll do my best to keep this thread updated so the ten, maybe 20 RxForum members who are similary interested can have quick, handy links.

 

[NES]

What about the tax dollars spent on healthcare or the stimulus? Why only post stuff about taxes spent on the war? Why do you only post stuff about the items that suit your needs but not the ones that contradict everything else?

This looks like the beginning of the most idiotic argument in the history of idiotic arguments. It almost appears as though you are saying war is better than socialized healthcare, or that somehow they are on the same level.

 

[ScottL]

"Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-Wiki-SHUT UP!"

 

[Enfuego]

This looks like the beginning of the most idiotic argument in the history of idiotic arguments. It almost appears as though you are saying war is better than socialized healthcare, or that somehow they are on the same level.

And you can't read very well then. What I compared was Barman's willingness to shed light on the taxes spent on the war but not the taxes spent on initiatives/programs supported by his government. It has nothing to do with war vs. healthcare or any other topic.

 

[Enfuego]

Yeah I'm one of those people who tends to focus on what I personally consider most important.

I'm sure that if those other topics were truly of interest to you, then you could find all you want to know about them. But I've got a feeling you're just blowing some hot air.

Glad I can provide a handy vent for ya

How about this one Baragenda? It's the story about your stimulus dollars being spent on signs that tell us how many signs the stimulus is creating. Great way to spend the money huh?

They're spending hundreds of billions of dollars to stimulate the economy, so Senate Democrats said Wednesday they might as well spend millions putting up signs to highlight where the money is being spent.

The road signs, which let motorists know the paving and construction projects they see are being paid for by the $787 billion economic stimulus program, have popped up across the country. In a 52-45 vote, the Senate decided the signs should stay.

"Why on earth would you want to hide from the American people the fact that the recovery package we passed is putting people to work?" asked Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, who took the lead in defending the expenditure. She said stimulus spending is beginning to improve the economy and charged that Republicans and Democrats who voted to strip out the funds are angry about that success.

"It's my sense that there's a frustration by the people who voted 'no' on the economic recovery act, the stimulus bill, there's a frustration that it's working. They predicted gloom and doom," Mrs. Boxer said.

But Sen. Judd Gregg, the New Hampshire Republican who tried to excise the funds, called his amendment a no-brainer. He said it's common sense to get rid of tens of millions of dollars in spending.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/18/obama-begins-health-plan-media-blitz/
"These are self-congratulatory signs; they're political signs. They're so that lawmakers can pat themselves on the back," he said. "But these signs cost money. Actually, when you add them all up, they cost a lot of money."

Some localities have objected to the signs, arguing that they would rather spend the money on more projects. But Mr. Gregg said one community in New Hampshire was told no sign, no money for their original project.

"We do enough self-congratulating around here. They shouldn't make the taxpayers pay for it," he said.

Also Wednesday, senators voted against allowing states to determine their own transportation funding priorities, such as repairing deficient bridges. A day earlier, the Senate voted against an effort by Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, to drop all of the pork-barrel earmark projects from the $67.7 billion transportation and housing spending bill and use the $1.7 billion slated for earmarks to modernize the nation's air traffic control system instead.

But many of the major fights are still happening on the stimulus bill, which passed Congress in February on near-party line votes.
Since then, Republicans have tried repeatedly to alter the stimulus bill, in ways both large and small.

Mr. Gregg acknowledged that this effort was as much a message as a cost-saving move. His amendment to the annual transportation spending bill would have banned putting up physical signs to tout stimulus transportation projects.

Five Democrats -- Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Charles E. Schumer of New York -- voted with all 40 Republicans to try to strip the money, but their support was not enough.

Mrs. Boxer called the effort "anti-jobs" and said the signs are an example of government transparency.

She also pointed to an episode earlier this decade when Republicans controlled the White House and Congress and sent out letters telling taxpayers that their tax cut checks were part of President Bush's 2003 tax cut package. She said that effort cost $33 million.
"Where was Sen. Gregg and his friends on the Republican side?" she said.

The stimulus bill included nearly $50 billion for the Transportation Department. So far, $28.3 billion has been obligated, but only $2.6 billion has been paid out for projects.

Mr. Gregg said the cost of signs ranges from $400 per sign in his state, New Hampshire, to $3,000 for signs in New Jersey.
Some localities have embraced the signs by touting their own messages. In Mississippi, for example, the name of Gov. Haley Barbour, a Republican, appears prominently on stimulus road project signs, along with the names of the state's transportation commissioners.

 

[goode05]

Sounds pretty good if your in the sign business

 

[barman]

How about this one Baragenda?

Looks like a great item for you to use in your personally titled Topic of "Government Spending With Which I Disagree!!"

Make sure and use at least two exclamation points.

Meanwhile, this Topic is about military lying, fraud and deceit.

I'm sure you could contribute to it were it not for you being subject to criminal penalties for doing so.

 

[barman]

Sounds pretty good if your in the sign business

Astute observation. It certainly created at least $33 million dollars in fresh business for those who own and work for private sign-making companies

 

[Enfuego]

Looks like a great item for you to use in your personally titled Topic of "Government Spending With Which I Disagree!!"

Make sure and use at least two exclamation points.

Meanwhile, this Topic is about military lying, fraud and deceit.

I'm sure you could contribute to it were it not for you being subject to criminal penalties for doing so.

Well of course you don't want to hear about a waste of money when it doesn't fit your agenda. How dare I bring up a topic that doesn't fit what Baragenda wants to talk about. You'll talk about a waste of money if the Middle East but then turn a blind eye to any waste here.

"I'm sure you could contribute to it were it not for you being subject to criminal penalties." What does this even mean? I can talk about lying, fraud and deceit but I won't because I'm subject to criminal penalties? This isn't the X-Files Baragenda. I don't have the key that will unlock any expected coverup of information. This isn't Watergate. Why does everything have to be a conspiracy?

 

[Derek12]

I just find it funny you choose to examine the use/misuse of tax dollars on whatever situation fits your agenda but you won't examine the misuse on topics that make the left look bad. It's funny how that works.

Amazing... I can see there is no way to win an argument against this enfuego guy, he asked for proof, you got it. You bitch because you said barman was making up numbers, so he backed up his posts with some solid information, and yet you're still bitching and trying to change the topic. I was going to posts some links and pictures, but I thought it was goign to be waste of time and it certainly is.... Stick to the topic "Afghan War Diary" and stop the whole left and right arguments. Just read the information, research more if you need to, and please make a mature post openly saying that barman has a valid point and that you have wrong but you are too proud to accept it.

 

[Derek12]

And even a cursory review of the lead post in this Topic will see that there is absolutely no reference to "misuse of tax dollars". Rather, it's about the increasing exposure of lying, deceit and fraud by the U.S. milltary and those most closely affiliated with it.

I'll do my best to keep this thread updated so the ten, maybe 20 RxForum members who are similary interested can have quick, handy links.

BTW thanks for the links. I already used some of those in other forums and blogs.