Secret Laws

NOTE: This article was originally published here on 18 November 2004. Republished for the purpose of newsfeed distribution.

Helen Chenoweth-Hage recently had an encounter with the Transportation Security Agency personnel during which she learned that there are laws and legal standards us common folks are not allowed to know.

Last month, Helen Chenoweth-Hage attempted to board a United Airlines flight from Boise to Reno when she was pulled aside by airline personnel for additional screening, including a pat-down search for weapons or unauthorized materials.

Chenoweth-Hage, an ultra-conservative former Congresswoman (R-ID), requested a copy of the regulation that authorizes such pat-downs.

"She said she wanted to see the regulation that required the additional procedure for secondary screening and she was told that she couldn't see it," local TSA security director Julian Gonzales told the Idaho Statesman (10/10/04).

"She refused to go through additional screening [without seeing the regulation], and she was not allowed to fly," he said. "It's pretty simple."

Chenoweth-Hage wasn't seeking disclosure of the internal criteria used for screening passengers, only the legal authorization for passenger pat-downs. Why couldn't they at least let her see that? asked Statesman commentator Dan Popkey.

"Because we don't have to," Mr. Gonzales replied crisply.

"That is called 'sensitive security information.' She's not allowed to see it, nor is anyone else," he said.

Thus, in a qualitatively new development in U.S. governance, Americans can now be obligated to comply with legally-binding regulations that are unknown to them, and that indeed they are forbidden to know.

To someone who grew up in the Soviet Union this definitely sounds like a blast from the past. Both the Communist Party and the security apparatus there often enforced internal regulations that were secret. Not infrequently, those regulations also ran counter to the official legal norms.

Welcome to Boise, Idaho of 2004. There you may just be lucky enough to get a taste of Voronezh, Russia of 1980.

49.3% of New York City Residents Say US Government Had Foreknowledge of 9/11: Zogby Poll

NOTE: This article was originally published here on 1 September 2004. Republished for the purpose of newsfeed distribution.

The results of this Zogby poll are certainly music to my ears. No matter how much I revel in my role of a social outcast I must still secretly crave for those who share my thoughts and perceptions.

According to Zogby International, this poll commissioned by 911truth.org was the first of its kind conducted in the US. Polls along the same lines have been conducted in other countries, and some of those polls have revealed views similar to those of many New Yorkers are even more popular abroad. For instance, in May 2004 this Canadian poll commissioned by the International Citizens' Inquiry into 9/11 had 63% or respondents agreeing

...that “Individuals within the U.S. Government including the White House had prior knowledge of the plans for the events of September 11th, and failed to take appropriate action to stop them”.

The Zogby poll list many notable details that could give us some insight into the current state of our collective mind,- if not in the US overall, then at least in New York City.

Less than two in five (36%) believe that the 9/11 Commission had "answered all the important questions about what actually happened on September 11th," and two in three (66%) New Yorkers (and 56.2% overall) called for another full investigation of the "still unanswered questions" by Congress or Elliot Spitzer, New York's Attorney General. Self-identified "very liberal" New Yorkers supported a new inquiry by a margin of three to one, but so did half (53%) of "very conservative" citizens across the state. The call for a deeper probe was especially strong from Hispanics (75.6%), African-Americans (75.3%) citizens with income from $15-25K (74.3%), women (62%) and Evangelicals (59.9%).

It is not unreasonable that minorities largely ignored by the Bush administration are a bit more distrustful than others. It is also nice to know that many of those who identify themselves as "very conservative" do not suffer from blind allegiance to the Bush administration's neocon agenda. In short, I am proud of New Yorkers because as a group they clearly seem to put truth before politics, and in their quest for that truth they to a large extent seem to be non-partisan. I am also proud of them for being able to break out of the trap of fear. This is the trap the official propaganda machine has set up to prevent us from seeking the truth,- but I sincerely hope the beast has grown too big for that trap. New Yorkers have set an example for all of us, and we would do good to follow that example.

Kudos to Zogby International and all those who supported that effort. Keep up the good work!

Bill Moyers: Journalism Under Fire

NOTE: This article was originally published here on 18 September 2004. Republished for the purpose of newsfeed distribution.

This is an outstanding speech by a veteran journalist. Moyers, who has spent 54 years in the profession, gives a well thought-out perspective on what journalism is, what it ought to be, and how it influences the society. Of journalists he writes,

Our job remains essentially the same: to gather, weigh, organize, analyze and present information people need to know in order to make sense of the world. You will hear it said this is not a professional task—John Carroll of the Los Angeles Times recently reminded us there are “no qualification tests, no boards to censure misconduct, no universally accepted set of standards.” Maybe so. But I think that what makes journalism a profession is the deep ethical imperative of which the public is aware only when we violate it—think Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, Jim Kelly. Ed Wasserman, once an editor himself and now teaching at Washington and Lee University, says that journalism “is an ethical practice because it tells people what matters and helps them determine what they should do about it.” So good newsrooms “are marinated in ethical conversations…What should this lead say? What I should I tell that source?” We practice this craft inside “concentric rings of duty and obligations: Obligations to sources, our colleagues, our bosses, our readers, our profession, and our community”—and we function under a system of values “in which we try to understand and reconcile strong competing claims.” Our obligation is to sift patiently and fairly through untidy realities, measure the claims of affected people, and present honestly the best available approximation of the truth—and this, says Ed Wasserman, is an ethical practice.

The speech is an excellent review of the challenges an honest journalist is bound to face,- government secrecy, ideological rejection, pressure and intimidation by corporate powers. He makes a specific point of saying that this US Administration is, in his opinion, most committed to secrecy of all the ones he has worked with.

This is an excellent speech, a must-read.

The Sacred Truth You Dare Not Challenge

The official version of the events of 9/11 appears to have become somewhat of a sacred cow challenging which is viewed by many as a form of blasphemy. It appears that now 9/11 skeptics can reasonably expect all sorts of problems - including the loss of employment.

That was what happened to Kevin R. Ryan, a former laboratory director of a division of Underwriters Laboratories (UL). According to this report,

SOUTH BEND, Ind.—A former laboratory director of a division of Underwriters Laboratories (UL) in South Bend generated considerable heat in professional circles on Nov. 11 when he fired off a letter via email to a prominent metallurgist, questioning the theory that jet fuel fires set by the 9-11 terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center were hot enough to soften or melt structural steel.

Sending that email led to Kevin R. Ryan being fired from his job as site manager at the UL-affiliated Environmental Health Laboratories Inc., in South Bend.

This 911Truth.org report contains the full text of Ryan's e-mail. In it, Ryan says,

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel . . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and "chatter".

This is poignant. Coupled with the fact that according to fire-fighting experts the WTC fire scene was never properly investigated it becomes even more poignant.

It is probably proper for me to introduce a little disclosure at this point. I am one of those 9/11 skeptics. While I do not offer my own theory of what happened on that tragic day, I do not believe the official version of the events offered by the US government. And from what Kevin Ryan has to say it follows that events are quite unlikely to have unfolded the way our government would want us to believe they did.

We have a right to know the truth and settle for nothing less. And given the tremendous importance of those events I believe we have all the more reason to search for that truth. And the very fact of Mr Ryan's firing is all the more reason to believe that he may have been quite right in his assertions thus giving all the more ammunition to the 9/11 skeptics.

Iraq And The "War on Terror"

I don't put the quotation marks around the expression "War on Terror" just for fun. The reason I do that is that to me this expression makes little sense,- terror is just a tactic, a weapon if you will. If you face an adversary armed with a rifle it is the rifleman, not the rifle you need to fight. Even if your shot destroys the rifle, you are not done fighting the triggerpuller as he is well capable of picking up another weapon and going on fighting.

The same goes for terrorism. You are fighting those who attack you, using terror attacks as their tactic of choice. It is also important to note that due to the extremely amorphous nature of most terror groups it is important to make sure that as you fight those groups they do not manage to replenish their ranks and capabilities faster than you diminish them through fighting.

However, as the case apparently happens to be, the war in Iraq, touted as a key part of the global fight against terrorism, generates far more terrorists than the number of those destroyed or detained. And it is not me saying that,- it is, according to this Washington Post report, what a 12 January 2005 CIA report indicates.

Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank.

Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. "There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries."

Also of note are the following NIC's findings:

According to the NIC report, Iraq has joined the list of conflicts -- including the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate, and independence movements in Chechnya, Kashmir, Mindanao in the Philippines, and southern Thailand -- that have deepened solidarity among Muslims and helped spread radical Islamic ideology.

At the same time, the report says that by 2020, al Qaeda "will be superseded" by other Islamic extremist groups that will merge with local separatist movements. Most terrorism experts say this is already well underway. The NIC says this kind of ever-morphing decentralized movement is much more difficult to uncover and defeat.

So, can one win a war by generating new enemies faster than the current ones die?

The WTC Collapse: A Crime Scene Never To Be Investigated

NOTE: This article was originally published here on 2 October 2004. Republished for the purpose of newsfeed distribution.

The following is a collection of audio and video materials related to the collapse of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Among other things, it includes this reference to "WTC 'Investigation'? A Call to Action" by Bill Manning, Editor-in-Chief of Fire Engineering, an American firefighters' professional publication.

In his initial article, Mr Manning calls for a full investigation of the WTC collapse scene.

There are many, many questions to be asked by us about the World Trade Center collapse and its implications on high-rise firefighting across the nation. Some questions are political, many are technical, others are philosophical. Here are a few (in no particular order) to think about.

* Given the typical resources of most fire departments, can we be expected to handle every high-rise fire thrown at us? When was the last time your city manager asked you for a complete list of resources that you need to fight a high-rise fire, including personnel? When was the last time a high-rise building owner asked if you would like him to install a special "firefighter elevator" for your exclusive use during a high-rise fire? When was the last time a building code committee called up a "downtown" battalion chief and asked him what he thought of the unlimited area and height provisions found in all of the model building codes-is it OK if we allow a 400-story building in your battalion, Chief? The bottom line is, Can we really handle high-rise fires adequately? Who are we kidding? Isn't this the "big secret" that Chief Vincent Dunn has been talking about for years?

* Beware the truss! Frank Brannigan has been admonishing us for years about this topic. It has been reported that the World Trade Center floors were supported by lightweight steel trusses, some in excess of 50 feet long. Need we say more?

* Modern sprayed-on steel "fireproofing" did not perform well at the World Trade Center. Haven't we always been leery about these materials? Why do many firefighters say that they would rather fight a high-rise fire in an old building than in a modern one? Isn't it because of the level of fire resistance provided? How much confidence do we have in the ASTM E-119 fire resistance test, whose test criteria were developed in the 1920s? ASTM E-119 is an antiquated test whose criteria for fire resistance do not replicate today's fires.

* The defend-in-place strategy was the wrong strategy at the World Trade Center. Many of those who ignored the directions to "stay where you are" are alive today because they self-evacuated. Do you still use defend-in-place strategies for large high-rise fires? When should you use them, and when should you not?

* We can see live broadcasts from Afghanistan, but we can't communicate via radios in many high-rise buildings. What gives?

There are many more questions, more than we have answers for. What is clear is that things must change. Where do we begin? By putting things in perspective. The World Trade Center disaster was

* The largest loss of firefighters ever at one incident.
* The second largest loss of life on American soil.
* The first total collapse of a high-rise during a fire in United States history.
* The largest structural collapse in recorded history.

Now, with that understanding, you would think we would have the largest fire investigation in world history. You would be wrong. Instead, we have a series of unconnected and uncoordinated superficial inquiries. No comprehensive "Presidential Blue Ribbon Commission." No top-notch National Transportation Safety Board-like response. Ironically, we will probably gain more detailed information about the destruction of the planes than we will about the destruction of the towers. We are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence.

The World Trade Center disaster demands the most comprehensive detailed investigation possible. No event in our entire fire service history has ever come close to the magnitude of this incident.

Both Fire Engineering articles date back to January 2002. It was by then already clear to the fire professionals that there was nothing resembling a proper investigation taking place. In fact, in this accompanying article Mr Manning condemns what was happening at the WTC scene in no uncertain terms as he tries to draw parralels to other high-profile fires.

Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.

For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.

Hoping beyond hope, I have called experts to ask if the towers were the only high-rise buildings in America of lightweight, center-core construction. No such luck. I made other calls asking if these were the only buildings in America with light-density, sprayed-on fireproofing. Again, no luck-they were two of thousands that fit the description.

Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?

No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.

When an arson or a murder occurs, it is routine procedure to thoroughly investigate the scene. Apparently, not so when an arson takes close to 3,000 lives.

Ellen Mariani: The Story That Could Have Been Big

NOTE: This article was originally published here on 18 September 2004. Republished for the purpose of newsfeed distribution.


Ellen Mariani is suing "Bush et al". One would think that I need not go any further here,- anyone suing the US President, one would think, would get so much publicity that I could hardly stand a chance of being able to add anything of value to it. Unfortunately, that is hardly the case. Most people in the US would probably never know whom you are talking about if you mentioned Mrs Mariani's name to them.

So, who is she? She is a widow of Louis Neil Mariani, and late Mr Mariani was one of the passengers on United Air Lines flight 175, one of the doomed planes involved in the September 11, 2001 tragedy.

Mrs Mariani was not happy with the official version of the events of that fateful day and decided to seek justice in the US Court System.

(Philadelphia, PA – 11/26/03) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, announced today that he, attorney for Ellen Mariani, wife of Louis Neil Mariani, who died when United Air Lines flight 175 was flown into the South Tower of the World Trade Center on 9-11 at a news conference regarding the filing of a detailed Amended Complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on 11/26/03 in the case of Mariani vs. Bush et al that he is alleging President Bush and officials including, but not limited to Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and Feinberg that they:

1. had knowledge/warnings of 911 and failed to warn or take steps to prevent;

2. have been covering up the truth of 911; and

3. have therefore violated the laws of the United States; and

4. are being sued under the Civil RICO Act.

It is certainly comforting to know that in the US we have a rule of law, not men, and anybody, even the President, can be named a defendant in a court of law. The US media, however, did a shameful job of covering this case,- which most would view as being of paramount importance.

Grieving New Hampshire widow who lost her man on 9/11 refuses the government's million dollar hush money payoff, studies the facts of the day for nearly two years, and comes to believe the White House "intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen" to launch a so-called "War on Terrorism" for personal and political gain.

She retains a prominent lawyer, a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, who served with distinction under both Democrats and Republicans and was once a strong candidate for the governor's seat.

The attorney files a 62-page complaint in federal district court (including 40 pages of prima facie evidence) charging that "President Bush and officials including, but not limited to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Ashcroft and Tenet":
1.) had adequate foreknowledge of 911 yet failed to warn the county or attempt to prevent it;
2.) have since been covering up the truth of that day;
3.) have therefore abetted the murder of plaintiff's husband and violated the Constitution and multiple laws of the United States; and
4.) are thus being sued under the Civil RICO (Racketeering, Influence, and Corrupt Organization) Act for malfeasant conspiracy, obstruction of justice and wrongful death.

The suit text goes on to document the detailed forewarnings from foreign

governments and FBI agents; the unprecedented delinquency of our air defense; the inexplicable half hour dawdle of our Commander in Chief at a primary school after hearing the nation was under deadly attack; the incessant invocation of national security and executive privilege to suppress the facts; and the obstruction of all subsequent efforts to investigate the disaster. It concludes that "compelling evidence will be

presented in this case through discovery, subpoena power, and testimony [that] Defendants failed to act and prevent 9/11 knowing the attacks would lead toтА| an 'International War on Terror' which would benefit Defendants both financially and politically."

Press releases detailing these explosive allegations are sent out to 3000 journalists in the print and broadcast media, and a press conference to announce the filing is held in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia on November 26th (commemorating the end of the first futile year of the independent National 9/11 Commission).

Imagine the world-churning implications of these charges. Imagine the furor if just one was proved true. Imagine the courage of this bribe- shunning widow and an eminent attorney with his rep on the line. Then imagine a press conference to which nobody came.

(Well, more precisely, imagine a press conference at which only FOX News appears, tapes for 40 minutes, and never airs an inch.)

Now imagine the air time, column inches and talk show hysteria that same night devoted to the legal hassles of Michael, Kobe, and Scott Peterson, and divide that by the attention paid to our little case of mass murder, war profiteering and treason. (OK, this is really a trick question because no number divided by zero yields any answers whatsoever, which evidently in this case is the result preferred.)

This is not to say that Ellen Mariani and her attorney Phil Berg have no support. Thousands of people are backing their efforts, and, according to this press release, they have got at least one member of the US Senate, Sen. Mark Dayton, Democrat of Minnesota, making statements that bolster their argument. However, the unfortunate reality appears to be that the majority in the US is not even aware of this case. And this contributes to a widespread illusion that no one disputes the official version of what went down on 9/11 in any meaningful way. However, an illusion it is,- to which the multitude of alternative media sources challenging the official version of events is testament.

For additional info, links to articles on the Mariani court case, an online petition supporting Mrs Mariani's effort, etc. you may want to go here.

Iraq: Some Facts To Consider

NOTE: This article was originally published here on 25 November 2004. Republished for the purpose of newsfeed distribution.

The Nation's Ari Berman has compiled a short summary of facts regarding the situation in Iraq today. It is a poignant article. Consider this:

** 400,000 Iraqi children suffer from chronic diarrhea and dangerous deficiencies of protein, according to a UN development report. Iraq's child malnutrition rate now roughly equals that of Burundi--a war-torn central African nation--and is far above both Uganda and Haiti.

One of the official goals of the US-led invasion was to free the Iraqis from the dictatorial rule of Saddam Hussein and alleviate their suffering. It appears that,- while they may or may not find themselves free,- the Iraqis are definitely suffering from the lack of food to a much greater extent than they did under Saddam. But help is on the way, isn't it? Maybe it is, but it seems awfully,- some may say, criminally,- slow in coming:

** Of the $18.4 billion in reconstruction funds allocated last year by Congress, the US has spent only $1.7 billion.

Was It Really That Difficult, Mr Secretary?

According to this Reuters report,

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will now personally sign letters of condolence to families of troops killed in action, after the Pentagon (news - web sites) acknowledged signing machines had been used in the past.

This official acknowledgement confirms what had earlier been alleged by Colonel David Hackworth.

And now, apparently, Rumsfeld's obsession with machines and their efficiency has translated into his using one to replace his own John Hancock on KIA (killed in action) letters to parents and spouses. Two Pentagon-based colonels, who've both insisted on anonymity to protect their careers, have indignantly reported that the SecDef has relinquished this sacred duty to a signature device rather than signing the sad documents himself.
When I went to Jim Turner, a good man saddled with a tough job as one of Rumsfeld's flacks at the Pentagon, for a confirmation or a denial, he said, "Rumsfeld signs the letters himself."
I then went to about a dozen next-of-kin of American soldiers KIA in Iraq. Most agreed with the colonels' accusations and said they'd noticed and been insulted by the machine-driven signature. One father bitterly commented that he thought it was a shame that the SecDef could keep his squash schedule but not find the time to sign his dead son's letter. Several also felt compelled to tell me that the letter they received from George Bush also looked as though it was not signed personally by the president.
Dr. Ted Smith, whose son Eric was among the first 100 killed in Iraq, notes that the letter he received "from the commander in chief was signed with a thick, green marking pen. I thought it was stamped then and do even now. He had time for golf and the ranch but not enough to sign a decent signature with a pen for his beloved hero soldiers. I was going to send the letter back but did not. I am sorry I didn't."

I am not particularly big on memorial ceremonies. To me it is the feelings that matter. One may be too busy to attend a funeral or express one's sympathy at length, but there is always time for a personal gesture,- a brief phone call, an e-mail, or,- in this particular case, a letter signed by one's own hand (and, preferably, at least read prior to that). However, it appears that Mr Rumsfeld could not squeeze the time to sign a little over a thousand letters over the period which lasted in excess of one year into his busy schedule,- that is, until negative publicity forced him to act otherwise. It is also highly likely, in my humble opinion, that a signing machine feels more sympathy for fallen soldiers than our Secretary of Defense.

What US$400 Billion Buys You

NOTE: This article was originally published here on 1 November 2004. Republished for the purpose of newsfeed distribution.

It certainly looks like one can afford to get quite a number of toys on Pentagon's budget. And toys are certainly there,- GPS-guided bombs, Navy carrier groups, tanks, submarines...

However, some things a soldier might really need in battle are in rather short supply:

With a $400 billion defense budget you might think U.S. troops have everything they need to fight the war, but that's not always the case.

Correspondent Steve Kroft talks to a general, soldiers in Iraq, and their families at home about a lack of armored vehicles, field radios, night vision goggles, and even ammunition - especially for the National Guard and reserve units that now make up more than 40 percent of U.S. troops.

I have commented on this problem before and it certainly looks like it has been there for awhile, has been reported on for awhile, but is still to be resolved.

What can I say? On several occasions, the aftermath of 9/11 being one of them, I considered signing up with the US military. Now I am glad I did not. And that is not because of fear,- it is certainly there, which is natural, but I am perfectly comfortable with the notion that everyone dies one day. No. The reason for that change of attitude is that I consider soldiers human, and I believe that protecting them to a reasonable extent is the nation's responsibility, a basic measure of respect and care for someone sent into the harm's way. And if $400B can't provide soldiers with enough bullets,- that says it all.

I consider those responsible for this outrage guilty of imperial arrogance, their attitude being that of "legionaires are paid to fight and die". And wasn't this Republic founded specifically to make sure this sort of governance never happens?