Left-wing blogger has moral qualms

Former Deputy White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan’s new book has created a storm of controversy. I’d like to touch briefly on some of the debris being blown around by that storm. But first, let me say a little about the cartoon sitting above this column.

Anytime you employ the NAZIs you're being heavy handed, but then again, cartoons are nothing if they're not hyperbolic. Of course, little Scotty McClellan was never as powerful as Josef Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda. Most people might think Karl Rove was more like Goebbels. From a strictly visual perspective Heinrich Himmler has Roves round face and hairline. Himmler oversaw the SS and the Gestapo, so he was a pretty bad guy too.

I’m obviously a big fat hypocrite because last week I cartooned about how President Bush compared Barrack Obama to Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister who tried to appease Hitler and now I’m comparing Bush Administration members to German monsters. My intention is not to label all right wingers as NAZIs, my intention is to make you think- hmmm, what if we had had cable TV news in the 1930s and 40’s AND to focus on that line from the Karl Rove quote “if he had moral qualms he should have spoken up.” THAT needed the dramatic force of NAZIs to get driven home.

If Scott McClellan had been Hitler’s Deputy Press Secretary, how, when and to who could he have spoken up to? I’m not here to defend him. Most Democrats figure he’s an opportunist making a lot of money for his book. But my point is, if you worked among people with the power and gravitas of the President of the United States, Karl Rove, Collin Powell, Dick Cheney, and Condaleeza Rice while they were beating the drums of war- how easy would it be for you to become a whistle blower? I think it might take me five years to say anything too.

Although, Benito Mussolini said that fascism should more properly be called "corporatism" since it was, under Mussolini, a blending of state and corporate power. Minus the cult of racism that Hitler injected into it, this pretty well describes the political and economic philosophies of President Bush and the Neocons. Which is why I’m always begging my more traditional Republican friends to scrutinize our leaders more closely.

McClellan may prove to be to George Bush what former White House Counsel John Dean was to Richard Nixon. The insider who felt that his loyalty was betrayed so he decided to stop lying and start exposing the lies of his superiors.

Congress has been issuing subpoenas for Karl Rove, Harriet Meyers, Scooter Libby and Anthony Gonzales. Congress wants to know why the anyone in the Justice Department who spoke up about their “moral qualms” got fired. They want to know who ordered the leaking of a CIA agent’s name in retribution for her career diplomat husband having “moral qualms” about the build up to the war. And now, they’re going to want to know who organized the “elaborate propaganda campaign to sell the Iraq war.”

But the Bush administration refuses to testify before congress. Congress may have to exercise their power of “inherent contempt” and send their sergeant of arms out to bring people in to talk because the Attorney General has already ordered area district attorneys from enforcing House subpoenas.

This storm may just dissipate like the Iran-Contra scandal of the late 80’s. Or, it may get a whole lot messier than Watergate.

But Neither Bush nor McClellan is really responsible for the storm.

Cable news anchors rarely practice actual journalism. They present stories that viewers watch, that boosts ratings, which means that they can charge more for commercials. They blow whichever way the prevailing political wind blows. Five years ago we wanted revenge for September 11 so we let the networks beat the drums for war against Iraq. Now, with everyone on both Dems and Republicans weary of the war, Bush approval ratings in the twenties, and we want revenge for rising gas and food prices, the media is realigning to make sure that they continue making money.

There is no true journalism on the national level, only “info-tainers” If corporations didn’t control the media, than Phil Donahue wouldn’t have been fired from MSNBC or Aaron Brown from CNN, or Dan Rather from CBS. But if you think I’m wrong, then go ahead and keep watching those radical liberal-journalists Lou Dobbs and Bill O’Rielly.

We get the media we deserve. The Pentagon has tightly controlled coverage of Iraq, the White House has even prevented footage to be taken of soldiers’ coffins being returned to the U.S. If you’re convinced yourself that the media is liberal or unpatriotic, then you haven’t noticed who really controls the media. Worst case scenario, it’s CEOs protecting the interests of their shareholders. Best case, it’s the free market of consumers- which means us.

McClellan’s book may have been like chum in the water, but the sharks who smelled blood weren’t reporters, they’re we the viewers. Either enjoy the feeding frenzy or turn off the TV and read a book.

Commencement Address 2008

Students, parents, friends, and distinguished members of the class of 2008, welcome to the annual commencement column.

You live in an amazing time of fantastic discoveries and advancements. When I was in high school, the best computers had about 128 kilobytes of memory, today you can get a memory card for your digital camera or a flash drive with as much as 4 gigabytes. Just imagine how much memory your cell phones will have by the time your 20th class reunion comes around in 2028!

Why, when we in the class of 1988 were Seniors in high school, we had to satisfy ourselves with egg McMuffins because they were just beginning to introduce the breakfast burrito, no one had even dreamed that someone wound conceive of something so fantastic as a breakfast pizza. Imagine what your children will be eating on their way to school in the morning.

When high school students came home from school in the eighties, we watched a phenomenal new development called Mtv. Yes, you’re familiar with it, but what you probably didn’t know was that the M stood for music. That’s right, instead of unrealistic “reality shows” that follow the sleazy lifestyles of melodramatic adolescents with borderline personality disorders and substance abuse problems, Mtv used to show a thing called “Music Videos,” sort of like you watch on the computer on YouTube, Yahoo music and MusicJesus. Just imagine what your kids will be watching on their phones during class, instead of listening to their teachers when you’re my age!

Speaking of cell phones, I bet you wish your parents would fork out the $399 to get you your very own iphone for graduation. 5 oz, 8 hours of talk time, hold songs and pictures, and can access the internet, even watch streaming video. I know I was disappointed when my folks failed to buy me a Motorola DynaTAC 8000X, it was a 13 inch brick that you could talk on for almost a half an hour before needing to recharge. And the DynaTAC was a steal at just $3,995. Just imagine, someday your kids’ principle won’t be able to confiscate their cell phones because they’ll be implanted in side of their heads.

Twenty years ago we were trying to get everyone to quit smoking because it causes cancer. Just this last month teenage girls were clamoring to get as much time in the tanning bed as they could before prom, in spite of the fact that that it causes skin cancer. We were all drinking caffeine free diet cola because pop was bad for us, you’re all lugging three or four energy drinks with twice the sugar and caffeine of regular pop in your back packs to school everyday but you still sleep through class. Just imagine what it will take to make you look good and feel normal when you’re in your 30’s or 40’s. Sheesh!

The year that most of you were born, dictator Saddam Hussein accused Emir Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah the third of stealing Iraq’s oil by drilling sideways. So he invaded Kuwait, which was the fourth richest country in the world per capita. The U.S. President, a man named George Bush thought we should go to war to get Iraq out of Kuwait. Bush had become an oil millionaire through the Zapata and Dresser Corporations in Texas in the 1950’s and 60’s. By the time you were three or four years old, the Dresser Corporation was the third largest oil-services company in the world. When you were in second grade, a man named Dick Cheney negotiated a $7 billion merger between Dresser and a company called Halliburton. You may have heard of Mr. Cheney. When George Bush went to war against Saddam Hussein in 1991, he was our Secretary of Defense.

When you were in seventh grade, George Bush’s son, also named George Bush, decided that he wanted to go to war against Iraq too. We weren’t sure why because we were already in a war in Afghanistan, trying to catch the man who planned the attack on the World Trade Center, back when you were in fifth grade. Halliburton and its subsidiaries, including KBR and Blackwater received billions of dollars in no-bid government contracts to help build military bases in Iraq. Coincidently, Dick Cheney was the second President Bush’s Vice President. Weird huh?

When I was graduating from high school, the average price for a gallon of gas was ¢96. Makes you wish you were born in another time doesn’t it?

Just imagine what the world could be like twenty years from now. Now, imagine what you think it SHOULD be like twenty years from now. Now, enjoy the ceremonies and the cake and cards and parties this weekend, then please start doing your best to make this world the way you imagine it SHOULD be.

Democracy is Dead

The year that most of this year’s high school graduates were born, dictator Saddam Hussein accused Emir Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah the third of stealing Iraq’s oil by drilling sideways. So he invaded Kuwait, which was the fourth richest country in the world per capita.

The U.S. President, a man named George Bush thought we should go to war to get Iraq out of Kuwait.

Bush had become an oil millionaire through the Zapata and Dresser Corporations in Texas in the 1950’s and 60’s. By the time you were three or four years old, the Dresser Corporation was the third largest oil-services company in the world.

When the class of 2008 were in second grade, a man named Dick Cheney negotiated a $7 billion merger between Dresser and a company called Halliburton. When George Bush went to war against Saddam Hussein in 1991, he was our Secretary of Defense.

When this year’s Seniors were in seventh grade, George Bush’s son, decided that he wanted to go to war against Iraq too. We weren’t sure why because we were already in a war in Afghanistan, trying to catch the man who planned the attack on the World Trade Center, back when they were in fifth grade.

Halliburton and its subsidiaries, including KBR and Blackwater received billions of dollars in no-bid government contracts to help build military bases in Iraq this time around. Coincidently, Dick Cheney was the second President Bush’s Vice President. Weird huh?

Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Neo-Conservative, Progressive, Moderate, Liberal, Independent- I don’t care who you are. It has to bother you that gas was only $1.46/gal in 2000 and it’s $3.59/gal. Especially when this past quarter, Exxon-Mobile reported the highest profits ever recorded by any company in the history of the world.

It takes only seconds for the numbers to fly by as you’re filling your gas tank. Just think, Exxon made $1,287 of profit per second in 2007. How long does it take you to make that kind of money? A week? Good for you, a couple of weeks? A month?

Meanwhile Chevron and Shell made their all time highest profits too.

Doesn’t this all seem at least a tiny little, teensy weensie bit wrong to you?
I think it’s obscene, but what do I know, I’m just one of those slimy, traitorous, bleeding heart, “American-hating” liberals.

Homecoming is a relief for Iraqi vet

A year or two ago critics of the continuing U.S. occupation in Iraq tried drawing parallels between this conflict and Vietnam. It was difficult for me to see sometimes. One’s a desert- the other’s a jungle. One had a draft, the other has extended deployments and stop-gap redeployments of National Guard units.

But there is at least one thing that Iraq now seems to have in common with Vietnam, and 2008 has in common with 1968. Both Republicans and Democrats are angry with the way the White House has handled things.

“Hawks” think that we may have gone in too soon, with too few allies, too few troops, insufficiently armed and supplied and without adequate planning for what to do after Saddam Hussein was removed.

Most “Doves,” of course, think we shouldn’t have gone in at all, but agree with too few allies and the inadequate planning. And both Hawks and Doves agree that we can’t blame the workers for a botched job. If there’s only one lesson that we seemed to learn from Vietnam, it’s that we should support our troops no matter how much we disagree with their Commander-in-Chief. At lease we’re agreeing on SOMETHING.

I know a young man who aspires to the discipline and prestige of the United States Marine Corps. He wants to make something of himself and he doesn’t see that happening at home on the farm. His girlfriend doesn’t want him to go but she’s so young that she’s not quite ready to wait for him either. He’s determined, even though he’s scared.

Sounds so cliché that I could’ve made it up doesn’t it?

One of my former students cam back from Iraq last week and came to see me. His stories were amazing. Being fired upon almost daily, having to return fire, not knowing when someone with a weapon is serving in a friendly force or an insurgent one. Bureaucratic headaches and personality conflicts all along the chains of command. Troops secure a territory on their patrol, but rather than staying there, they return to base and as soon as they leave, the insurgents return. Come to think of it, Iraq does sound a lot like Vietnam, doesn’t it?

He told me about how instead of trip wired for booby trap mine, now we call them improvised explosive devices (IEDs), they’ve taken to using those infrared or laser activated sensors like stores have in the mall, so that if you pass between the sensors you set off the bomb.

He told me about how the guardsmen worked on humanitarian projects to help the Iraqis in their neighborhoods and how he befriended the kids there. But it’s not the Army or the Guard that’s directly involved in these projects. The soldiers do it when they’re off duty. Sure, we finance things like community soccer fields, but according to this vet, there’s not much accountability. “You hand the Sheik $50,000 for the dirt work and see him driving by in a new car the next day, a week later he comes back and says that they got the dirt work done, but now they need another $70,000” and so on.
Story after story led me to believe that veterans of other wars who’d written anti-war books like Joseph Heller’s Catch 22, Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse 5 and Richard Hooker’s MASH were not such absurd satires as they were accurate memoirs.

He had a buddy who covered a shift of guard duty for him who was shot and wondered if it should’ve been him. He misfired an ordinance he hadn’t been properly trained on which led to policy memos prohibiting anyone in the unit from “wasting” that particular type of ammunition.

He was on the phone with administrators who wanted a full, detailed damage report for a fire fight, WHILE the battle was going on. Difficult to do when you’re one of only two guys in the guard tower being shot at.

And of course there were stories of the chaos, the anarchy, the trash and the heat. Three Baghdad suburbs surrounded their part of Camp Victory and all three hated each other, even though two were both Sunni and only one was Shiite.

We talked a little bit about how we take care of our veterans, like about the Veteran’s Administration and the new G.I. Bill that’s been proposed in Congress. He seemed absolutely thrilled to be home, although through a paperwork SNAFU he was gypped out of a great deal of college funding. Despite that he’s applying for a full time job with the Guard.

I gingerly broached the subject of post-traumatic stress. He confided that there are nightmares, but not about battles or even being over in Iraq. The only dream that troubles him is the one where they call him back.

War Criminals?

The Nuremberg Principles were a set of guidelines for determining what constitutes a war crime. The principles were created by necessity during the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi party members following World War II, Under UN General Assembly and have been international law since adopted in 1950.

Principle I

Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.

Principle II

The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

Principle III

The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

Principle IV

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

Principle V

Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.

Principle VI

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

(b) War Crimes:

Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

(c) Crimes against humanity:

Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

Principle VII

Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

---

War Criminals under Principle VI (a): CIA Director George Tennent, Pentagon official Douglas Fife, Deputy Defence Director Paul Wolfowitz, National Security Advisor and Attorney General Anthony Gonzales, National Security Advisor and Secretary of Statel Condaleeza Rice, Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheny, and President George W. Bush

And don’t forget Principle VI (b): Do the terms, “water-boarding, torture, or Abu Ghraib” mean anything?

I don’t recommend that any of them travel outside the U.S. after next January or they find themselves stuck in The Hague. Better lawer-up.

Tired of "Chicken Hawks"

War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace.
- Thomas Mann

(German novelist and essayist whose early novels—Buddenbrooks (1900), Der Tod in Venedig (1912; Death in Venice), and Der Zauberberg (1924; The Magic Mountain)—earned him the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1929.)

I listened to a speech by our Congressman Steve King today at the dedication of our local Veteran's Memorial. To his credit, he drew attention to the nearly 510 service men and women who lose their lives every year during peace time training, who die unheralded as part of the cost of being prepared to defend our freedoms. I liked that part.

Unfortunately, mush of what he said was pretty typical pro-Bush, pro-War propaganda. He contends that you just can't solve some problems by talking and you may as well use your military as long as you have one. He mentioned how scary Iran is and even went so far as to quote Sun Tzu's "the Art of War."

I thought to myself that even heap big macho Republican god Ronald Reagan talked us into better relations with Russia, and Gary Sick, who served on the National Security Council under three presidents contends that Reagan's campaign met secretly to negotiate the release of the American hostages from Iran (but not until January 1980, so that Carter couldn't take credit). Every preschooler and kindergartener knows, to "always use your words, hitting never solves anything.".

Hello??? It's called "militarism," it's what Italy, Japan, and Germany were practicing in the 1930's. Our honored veterans of the "greatest generation" (God bless them) fought and died to defeat this viral, insidious philosophy! It seemed like Congressman King was trying to make himself sound smart by citing historical references. I think he needs to go back to school and brush up a little on both history and philosophy.

Whew! Thanks, now that I've got that out of my system, I can go write a nice, pleasant, innocuous, objective news story about the dedication of the memorial, which really is beautiful, solemn, and moving.

I always believed that America's founding fathers hoped that we would be a nation built on reason and intellect, not military might, like the great European empires that preceded and eventually spawned us. But alas, it looks like, as happens to almost all adolescents when they grow up, we have become our parents- the very thing we once held in such disdain.

This brings me to Thomas Mann's quote. I think of it as an antidote for Sun Tzu (and Machiavelli, for that matter). I think when I finish reading "Cannery Row," maybe I'll try to get my hands on some of his work. This is some of what Wikipedia says about him:

In 1930 Mann gave a public address in Berlin titled "An Appeal to Reason," in which he strongly denounced Nazism and encouraged resistance by the working class. This was followed by numerous essays and lectures in which he attacked the Nazis. At the same time, he expressed increasing sympathy for socialism and communism. In 1933 when the Nazis came to power, Mann and his wife were on holiday in Switzerland. Due to his very vociferous denunciations of Nazi policies, his son Klaus advised him not to return. However, Thomas Mann's books, in contrast to those of his brother Heinrich and his son Klaus, were not amongst the many burnt publicly by Hitler's regime in May 1933; apparently, since he was the literature Nobel laureate for 1929 (see below), they did not dare that so early. Finally in 1936 the Nazis denied officially his German citizenship.

"Images of Disorder", by social critic Michael Harrington in his collection The Accidental Century, is a highly literate account of Mann's political progression from the right to the left.

One last quick aside- at the pancake brunch before the ceremony, one member of the VFW, a retired Air Force General, called me a "reactionary liberal." I wasn't too offended because for one thing, in spite of George H. W. Bush's spin on the word back in 1988, I think that being liberal something to be proud of, even though I'm really pretty moderate to conservative on many issues. And because basically, anyone who writes about politics is reactionary, you're always reacting or responding to something. In this post, I'm reacting to what a dweeb I think my Congressman can be sometimes. The other reason I wasn't too offended, was that what he actually said was, "There's my favorite writer, of course I wish you weren't such a reactionary liberal, but you're still my favorite writer." How can you be offended by something like that? Thanks Doc.

A little bit of history repeating

Thursday, August 16, 2007 – Page 3

“A nation that forgets its past is doomed to repeat it.” ~ Sir Winston Churchill

“The word is about, there’s something evolving,whatever may come, the world keeps revolving They say the next big thing is here, that the revolution’s near, but to me it seems quite clear that it’s all just a little bit of history repeating”
~Shirley Bassey and the Propellerheads
Charter Oak-Ute NEWSpaper — Schleswig Leader,

Maybe I’m more prone to notice these things because I majored in History in college and used to teach it in High School, but I’ve noticed some eerie similarities between our own times and some previous historical eras.

One is what Mark Twain called “the Gilded Age.”

The Gilded age was characterized by an upper class that loved to show off their wealth. The new rich, whether by ruthless business practices, lucky speculation in the markets or by easy credit indulged in leisure and excess like never before in America.

Sort of reminds you of all the HumVees and plasma TVs going around.

But the point Mark Twain was trying to make by calling it a “gilded” age, was that you can paint rot iron with gold leaf so that it looks elegant, but it will still rust and corrode underneath.
Like the turn of the last century, we too are letting our leaders and giant corporations get away with abuse of power, fraud and corruption. And like the last Gilded Age, we’re experiencing a huge and widening gap between super rich and working poor. Meanwhile, the middle-class is shrinking.

According to a recent article in the Christian Science Monitor, 1% or Americans have 15% of the money. One one thousandth (0.1 %) of the population has between 6 and 10 % of the wealth. These folks saw a 497% increase in their wealth since 1972.

We can see hints of a new “Progressive Era” on the horizon- Lord knows we could use a guy like Teddy Roosevelt again. But what preceded Teddy Roosevelt was a depression. A lot like the one that preceded his cousin Franklin. Let’s hope we’re not headed down that road again.
Over the last four years, tons of people have tried to compare the war in Vietnam to the War in Iraq. On the contrary, I think it’s worth the time to contrast the differences between the two.
We feared that Vietnam would be the first domino to lead the whole Far East to fall to communism.

We figured if we could make Iraq a Western style capitalist democracy, we’d have enough oil, military bases and influence on the Middle East that neither Al Queda or Iran could threaten our interests anymore.

Democratic Presidents got us into Vietnam and left it to a Republican to. A Republican got us into Iraq and feels no compunction whatsoever about leaving it to the next administration to clean up.

‘Nam had hot steamy jungles, Iraq has hot dry deserts.

Protesters marched and occupied college and government buildings to end the Vietnam War. Bloggers whine about Washington on the internet to try to get us out of Iraq.

Working class Joes and minorities got drafted to Vietnam. Politicians know if there was a draft protesters might march and occupy buildings again, so instead they keep increasing the length of soldier’s tours of duty.

George W. Bush went AWOL from the Florida National Guard but never had to serve in Vietnam. Since there’s no draft, National Guardsmen and women are bearing the brunt of the war in Iraq.

Not only are the Gilded age and Vietnam Era replaying themselves, but so is Watergate. But again, there are major differences between Nixon and Bush.

Psychologists would classify Nixon as a Paranoid with tendencies toward Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. He kept meticulous diaries of his minute-by-minute activities. He agonized over what people thought of him.

Bush is just the opposite. He doesn’t bother reading presidential briefings, and seems to be oblivious to the feelings, opinions, and contributions of others. Webster’s has a word for someone “characterized by defective or lost contact with reality especially as evidenced by delusions... and disorganized speech and behavior.”

The word is “Psychotic.

How long will we put up with it?

How long will we put up with it?
Charter Oak-Ute NEWSpaper — Schleswig Leader, Thursday, June, 21, 2007 – Page 3

After September 11, 2001 it was a frightening time. When we invaded Afghanistan it was with a combination of intense and justified anger, and a touch of anxiety. After all, while nothing was more sure than that we should avenge the terrorist attacks and bring Osama Bin Laden to justice, but at the same time, Afghanistan had been to the Soviet Union in the 1980’s what Vietnam had been to the United States in the 1960’s and 70’s. A terrible quagmire of unconventional warfare where the soldiers of the superpower didn’t know who their enemy was and the insurgents never seemed to give up because more than anything else, they wanted the western invaders out of their country at any cost.

I wondered how long we’d be there. Wondered how many of my students would have to serve there, if eventually there would be a draft. But I never doubted that our cause was just and that we were right to be there.

But then the Bush administration started complaining about Iraq and began trying to sell the American public and the United Nations on military action. I trusted Collin Powell, who wouldn’t? Although I was afraid that this would take the focus off of Afghanistan, off of Bin Ladin, off of Al Queda and the Taliban. I didn’t understand why Bush would risk so much and take away troops and money from the real objective with some much on the line.

Some reporter asked Defence Secretary Rumsfeld about how to handle the aftermath, how to manage Iraq and the region after Saddam Hussein was taken out. Rumsfeld virtually brushed the guy off, telling him that that wasn’t the Defense Department’s problem, that we “weren’t in the business of nation building,” as if to slam the Clinton Administration’s attempt to help NATO stop the genocide in Kosovo back in the 1990’s.

There were even some dyed in the wool Republicans who had their doubts. But then, for almost four years I was told that I was unpatriotic or that I somehow didn’t support the troops if I questioned the war.

Finally, a few weeks ago, I have been hearing hard-core Reaganites questioning the point in prolonging out stay in Iraq. True blue conservatives (true red?) Actually recognizing that not only were mistakes made, but staying only seems to be making things worse.
Maureen Doud had a great bit in har column a couple of weeks ago in the New York Times-
“The president is on a continuous loop of sophistry: We have to push on in Iraq because Al Qaeda is there, even though Al Qaeda is there because we pushed into Iraq. Our troops have to keep dying there because our troops have been dying there. We have to stay so the enemy doesn’t know we’re leaving. Osama hasn’t been found because he’s hiding.
The terrorists moved into George Bush’s Iraq, not Saddam Hussein’s”.

When I was in high school and we were studying about the Vietnam war my best friend at the time (a girl) and I went to see a movie in theatres called “Platoon” starring Charlie Sheen. We were both blown away, we were crying at how horrible and hellish war could be.
We asked each other what we thought we would’ve done if we had been in high school or college during Vietnam. Would we support the Johnson and Nixon administrations, or would we have opposed the war. Would we have protested? What if I had been drafted?

Fortunately it was an abstract, academic exercise, since the most serious military involvement of the Reagan era was the invasion of a teensy, tiny island nation called Grenada. I really didn’t know. I knew I’d be scared both to go and fight the Vietcong and to stay and fight the powers-that-be. I had two uncles who were great friends and could talk food and wine and local, municipal politics- but they never talked about the war. One went and served as a medic, the other went to Canada.

Frankly, I think that a lot of us kids of the eighties had unrealistic stereotypes of war opponents. Pot smoking “Hippies.”

Well, today someone who’s opposed to war, looks like a middle-aged, overweight, middle-class, Midwestern, white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant male. Married, father of three, active in his church. Laundered clothes, not too old or ragged. Showered and shaved, doesn’t use drugs, has never even tried marijuana. It looks like someone who loves Jesus, loves his family, loves his country, appreciates civility and a certain amount of “law and order,” and who does not hate, resent, or blame the troops who are fighting for us.

You can say that I’m lucky or spoiled that I never had to face a draft or that I’m not as much of a real man because I haven’t served in the military voluntarily. And maybe you’re right. Maybe as a Gen-Xer, I have it too easy. Maybe it’s safer to be opposed to this war than it would’ve been to protest that last one.

Frankly, we should all be thanking God that Iraq isn’t tearing our families and society apart the way Vietnam did. We may disagree, even vehemently, but we just change the subject or avoid the subject. This time, no one is screaming in (or spitting) in faces.

I guess that if I knew that the government lied and covered it up, if they were unclear or even obtuse about the causes and reasons for entering and staying in the war. If I heard that they were secretly invading and bombing Cambodia (practicing war games, hoping to provoke Iran)... yeah, I’d have a hard time sitting on the fence, even if it could get me in trouble.

The face of the anti war movement this time had been a divorced, Catholic mom who’s son was killed in Iraq. Cindy Sheehan bought land near the President’s ranch and camped out there, waiting for him to answer a single question for her. “For what noble cause did my son have to die?”

The answer never came. This past Memorial Day, she announced her retirement from protest. She had had enough of smears and personal attacks from both the right and the left.

I have nothing but the greatest respect for those who fought and sacrificed so much in Vietnam. But I wish that Johnson and Nixon had respected them as much as they deserved.

I certainly respect and admire the men and women who are serving in Iraq. God knows, many of them are my former students whom I love and pray for. Frankly, if President Bush had have as much concern for them that I do, they’d all be home already.

Quite Possibly the Stupidest Thing the Bush Administration Has Ever Said

From MotherJones.com

Quite Possibly the Stupidest Thing the Bush Administration Has Ever Said
I know: The bar is set high here. Before writing that headline, I asked myself, "Is this dumb thing so dumb that to call the administration a bunch of crackheads for saying it would be an insult to crackheads everywhere?" And I concluded, yes, it is that dumb.

This weekend, U.S. forces killed 7 children in Afghanistan and 100 died there in clashes between NATO and the resurgent Taliban. A new jihadist group continued fighting the Lebanese military from a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon. The more radical faction of the Palestinian government overthrew the more moderate Fatah in a five-day civil war in Gaza. The Iranian government—which by the way, is holding four American citizens with no charges—is engaged in a massive crackdown on civil liberties.

This morning, when asked if he thought the U.S. invasion of Iraq has helped stabilize the Middle East, White House spokesman Tony Snow said, "Hard to say....But it is pretty clear that a lot of people are putting their lives on the line for the cause of democracy in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. And we support them."

Saner heads would have said something like this: "The Middle East is in flames....Everywhere you look, there’s deep trouble — Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinians, the peace process, Iran.…Are they linked? Of course they're linked." Saner heads like Lee Hamilton, who authored the Iraq Study Group report. The report correctly predicted that Bush's surge was a waste of time, money, and lives.

Video Vets

These video testimonials from Iraq vets are very moving

VideoVets: Peter Granato

Which VideoVets video should be a TV ad?
Vote at http://pol.moveon.org/videovets

Video Vets

This website has an amazing collection of testimonials from veterans and their families.

VideoVets: Kevin Denton

Which VideoVets video should be a TV ad?
Vote at http://pol.moveon.org/videovets

God's Politics; a way out of Iraq

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Tony Campolo: Religious Leaders Propose a Way Out of Iraq

Charles De Gaulle once said that politics is far too serious to be left in the hands of politicians. I agree!

The politicians in Washington are painfully divided over what should be done about the war in Iraq. The Republicans talk about “staying the course,” which our nation can ill afford. The Democrats, on the other hand, propose a “cut and run” policy, and everyone knows that this would leave a vacuum to be filled with the chaos of all-out civil war. But some of us in the religious community propose a third option, which we believe could get America out of Iraq without leaving a total mess behind. Our plan has three parts.

First, we propose that American and British troops be replaced by an international police force composed of those who better understand the Iraqi culture. Leaders in Saudi Arabia proposed such a solution almost three years ago. Americans and Brits are not only devoid of any grasp of the language and the religion of the Iraqi people, but are defined by many Muslims as a Christian army that has invaded a sacred Islamic land. Our army’s presence is perceived by many in the Muslim world as a rebirth of the medieval crusades.

Second, we propose that the United States appropriate $50 billion to rebuild the towns and cities that the invasion of Iraq has left in shambles. This would be a small price to pay, considering the $2 billion we are presently spending every week in order to keep this war going.

Third, we propose that our president go before the United Nations and ask the world to forgive America for what we have done to Iraq, and how we have set back efforts for world peace. He should point out that he is asking forgiveness on behalf of almost all Americans – because we overwhelmingly lent support to the invasion of Iraq some four years ago. He should further point out that our original intentions were good! We Americans were told that we were invading in order to remove the threat of what we thought were Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Repentance of this kind is necessary because we need to re-establish our moral standing in the world, and confessing wrongdoing is a start for doing that. It is not weakness to admit that we did wrong, especially when the whole world knows that we did. Now is the time for us to live out that verse from 2 Chronicles 7:14, which reads:

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

If you are willing to support this proposal, go to www.tikkun.org/iraqpeace. You will find an expanded version of this proposal there, along with an opportunity to sign on with us. Do it now, because time is short and the days are filled with evil (Ephesians 5:16).

Tony Campolo is founder of the Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education (EAPE) and Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Eastern University.

Potent pictures

I didn't take these, one of my students who just returned from a school trip to Washington DC did. You know, when I was in high school and we were studying about the Vietnam war my best friend at the time (a girl named Dawn) and I went to see a movie in theatres called "Platoon" starring Charlie Sheen. We were both blown away, we were crying at how horrible and hellish war could be. (of course it may have been different if I'd seen it with a bunch of guys. One friend who was in ROTC thought it was a bitchin' cool fun action movie.) Dawn and I asked each other what we thought we would've done if we had been in high school or college during Vietnam. Would we support the Johnson and Nixon administrations, or would we have opposed the war. Would we have protested? What if I had been drafted?

Fortunately it was an abstract, academic exercise, since the most serious military involvement of the Reagan era was the invasion of a teensy, tiny island nation called Grenada. I really didn't know. I knew I'd be scared both to go and fight the Vietcong and to stay and fight the powers-that-be. I had two uncles who were great friends and could talk food and wine and local, municipal politics- but they never talked about the war. One went and served as a medic, the other went to Canada.

Frankly, I think that a lot of us kids of the eighties had unrealistic stereotypes of war opponents. We figured to stand up for peace would turn you into something like the fellow in the picture above, who, I was told, has been protesting for nuclear disarmament six hours a day since 1982. Well, today someone who's opposed to war, looks like a middle-aged, overweight, middle-class, Midwestern, white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant male. Married, father of three, active in his church. Laundered clothes, not too old or ragged. Showered and shaved, doesn't use drugs, has never even tried marijuana. It looks like someone who loves Jesus, loves his family, loves his country, appreciates civility and a certain amount of "law and order," and who does not hate, resent, or blame the troops who are fighting for us.

You can say that I'm lucky or spoiled that I never had to face a draft or that I'm not as much of a real man because I haven't served in the military voluntarily. And maybe you're right. Maybe as a Gen-Xer, I have it too easy. Maybe it's safer to be opposed to this war than it would've been to protest that last one. Frankly, we should all be thanking God that Iraq isn't tearing our families and society apart the way Iraq did. We may disagree, even vehemently, but we just change the subject or avoid the subject. No one is screaming in (or spitting) in faces.

But I guess that if I knew that the government lied and covered it up, if they were unclear or even obtuse about the causes and reasons for entering and staying in the war. If I heard that they were secretly invading and bombing Cambodia (practicing war games, hoping to provoke Iran)... yeah, I'd have a hard time sitting on the fence, even if it could get me in trouble.

Some say, "My country, love it or leave it!!! MY COUNTRY, RIGHT OR WRONG!!!"
I say, more calmly and quietly, "My country, love it enough to tell it that it has a problem instead of enabling it. My country, when it's wrong, speak up and try to get it right."

[ HuffingtonPost.com ] Happy Birthday, Iraq War

Happy Birthday, Iraq War (9 comments )
READ MORE: Iraq, Harry Shearer- Huffington Post

My, you're all grown up now. You look so big. And you're so much more complex than we thought. You can do so many things--Shiite vs. Sunni, Shiite vs. Shiite, Shiite and Sunni vs. Americans--you're a little prodigy. Of course, raising you was a little more expensive than we imagined--I guess, like everybody else, we had stars in our eyes back then.
And we all love gathering around wondering what you're going to be--civil war, World War Three, or, like Uncle Dick continues to call you, a victory. Good times.

Congress' War Powers

A lot of people have been talking about Congress' role in ending the war in Iraq. With a President bent on escalation, ignoring the advice of his own generals, brushing aside the recommendations of the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group and unwilling to listen to the majority of the American people, it is now up to the Congress to try and reign in the President and bring an end to this ever more deadly conflict.

But can they do it? Does Congress have the authority? Is their historical precedent? Well the New York Times weighs in with an editorial, and it seems that they can and there is.

The Constitution’s provision that the president is the commander in chief clearly puts him at the top of the military chain of command. Congress would be overstepping if, for example, it passed a law requiring generals in the field to report directly to the speaker of the House.

But the Constitution also gives Congress an array of war powers, including the power to “declare war,” “raise and support armies” and “make rules concerning captures on land and water.” By “declare war,” the Constitution’s framers did not mean merely firing off a starting gun. In the 18th century, war declarations were often limited in scope — European powers might fight a naval battle in the Americas, for example, but not battle on their own continent. In giving Congress the power to declare war, the Constitution gives it authority to make decisions about a war’s scope and duration.

The Founders, including James Madison, who is often called “the father of the Constitution,” fully expected Congress to use these powers to rein in the commander in chief. “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it,” Madison cautioned. “It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature.”

The whole thing is worth a read, even if it may have you cracking open an old history book or, in this day and age, a wikipedia page, to brush up on your constitutional law.

Say Thanks

www.letssaythanks.com

If you go to the website above you can pick out a thank you card and Xerox will print it and it will be sent to a soldier that is currently serving in Iraq.

You can't pick out who gets it, but it will go to some member of the armed services.

How AMAZING it would be if we could get everyone we know to send one!!!!

his is a great site. Please send a card, it is FREE and it will only take a few seconds.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the soldiers received a bunch of these?

Whether you are for or against the war, our guys and gals over there need to know we are behind them.
__________________________________
http://ted.mallory.googlepages.com/home.html

"The gospel is meant to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." ~Garrison Keillor

A historian's perspective

Editor's note: On the eve of the publication of his new memoir, "Point to Point Navigation" (Doubleday), iconic author and historian Gore Vidal sat down to an exclusive video interview with Truthdig editor Robert Scheer and offered this plea to America regarding the Nov. 7 elections:

"This is the most important vote that you'll probably ever cast. Because should this gang of thugs continue in the two houses of Congress, there isn't any chance of getting the Constitution back...."

We're facing the most important election in my lifetime—which does not quite extend back to that of Abraham Lincoln, but it's pretty close. There'll be nothing more important in the voting line that one can foresee that will come our way while any of us is still hobbling around. This will determine whether we regain the republic which we have lost over the last five years.

The coup d'etat was so rapid that even I, who am ready for such things ... I thought, these people are going to make a grab for it. But I thought, my heavens, there's still the courts.... Even a shameless Supreme Court is not going to back up the loss of habeas corpus....

So, my fellow countrymen, as I sit here, not yet at Gettysburg, I have a notion that this is the most important vote that you'll probably ever cast. Because should this gang of thugs continue in the two houses of Congress, there isn't any chance of getting the Constitution back....

This is the last chance, really, by getting some new chairpersons to head committees in the House ... to have a clean sweep, which, in normal times, if we'd ever enjoyed them, would have happened by now. Now it has got to happen, or welcome to the Third Reich.

_________________________________________________________
TED'S TAKE: I emailed this clip to a History teacher friend of mine who asked me if I thought this was really Bush's scheme, or (if it really is happening) is it the people around him pushing for it, rather than Bush himself? Frankly, I think it's both.

There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity.
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

People used to wonder about Reagan- was he a maniacal genius, or a doddering grandpa? So it is hard to tell who's really in charge. Egocentric, stubborn, uncompromising, absolutist leader? Or "C" student who's Dad got him into college and who's burned a lot of brain cells before getting off coke and alcohol, now suffering from arrested development who pretty much let's Dick Cheney make his decisions? Hard to say.

Bush has always been blissfully anti-intellectual,

He has also certainly surrendered himself with "NeoConservatives" who ascribe to the "New American Century" game plan for seizing and consolidating power. He's been reluctant to admit error and listen to disenting opinions. But, like Reagan, he is funny and charming. I still laugh when I think about the joke he told about how "this would be a lot easier if this were a dictatorship...so long as I was the dictator." Ha ha, It still makes me chuckle just thinking about it. Except that Reagan was never so smug. He had a warm, paternal smile, even when he lied. Bush W. always has that arrogant smirk.

At least now that his party doesn't control all 3 branches of government, perhaps there will be some balance and oversight. Oh, and then there's that Rumsfeld thing...

__________________________________
http://ted.mallory.googlepages.com/home.html

"The gospel is meant to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." ~Garrison Keillor

The Middle East Untangled

The Middle East Untangled

Page 3 Charter Oak-Ute NEWSpaper & Schleswig Leader- Thursday, August 17, 2006

The most important thing to remember about the Middle East is to remember that it's not any ONE thing. It's LOTS of very different things. Too many supposed "experts" on TV "news" fail to differentiate between all these different and not always directly related, complicated things.
"Muslims" are followers of "Islam" (God's way). They believe that God, ("Allah"- that is "the One worthy to be praised" ) is this "Jehovah" of the original Jews, but that somehow they have gone terribly wrong. They believe that Allah's final and most important prophet was a guy by the name of "Mohammed."

I guess the mountain wouldn't come to him, so he went to it and they believe Allah gave him the last word in scripture, the Koran (sometimes spelled Qur'an).

There are 5 "pillars" believers must adhere to in this faith; 1) belief in only one (not triune) god and that Muhammad is his prophet, 2) daily prayer, 3) concern and giving charity for the poor, 4) self-purification through fasting, and 5) making a pilgrimage to the Kaaba in Mecca if you have the means. This is where they believe that Abraham built an altar with his son Ishmael. Whenever they pray, Muslims face the Kaaba, no matter where they are in the world.

But Islam is by no means uniform. First there's Sunnah ("the Muslim way of life") followed by Sunni Muslims. They have a second book besides the Koran, called the Hadith. In theory, this form of Islam is pacifist and they think of Mohammed and the Koran as absolutely inerrant only when it comes to theology, but not necessarily so for civil and cultural law. This is the biggest denomination in Islam, 80%. They think that Mohammed set up a council of "Imans", or leaders after his death.

Then there's Shi'a, practiced by Shiites, 20% if Muslims. They think that Muhammad's Koran is the absolute inerrant word of Allah on all topics. You might call them "Fundamentalist." They're much more militant. They believed that Mohammed appointed his cousin (who was also his sin-in-law) his sole successor.

But there is also "Ibadi" Islam, an even more conservative sect set up
50 years after Mohammed's death in Oman. And then there's Wahhabism. This is an extremist, fundamentalist sect of Sunnism. "Wahhabi" is a pretty funny sounding name, that's probably why they prefer to call themselves. "Salafist."

"Salaf" means "the earlier generations. They follow the teachings of their founder, Muhammad ibn al Wahhab. They believe that they are the ONLY true practitioners of Islam, not merely a sect. (Sounds like lots of Christians I know.) As you can imagine, they are going to hate Shiites like the Irish Protestants hate Irish Catholics. They are
going to resent mainstream Sunnis the way "born-again" fundamentalists think that main-line Christians are somehow lazy hypocrites.

Osama bin Laden and Alqueda, the perpetrators of the 911 attacks are Wahhabists. Bin Laden may be hiding out in either Afghanistan or Pakistan but he is from Saudi Arabia. They are predominantly Sunni, own lots of oil, have a royal family, NOT a democracy, and they're supposedly our allies. We gave bin Laden and other groups in Afghanistan tons of money and weapons in the 1980's to fight the Soviet Union.

Bin Laden loathed and hated Saddam Hussein, but not as much as America. Saddam Hussein is a non-religious Sunni. His Ba'athist party was nationalistic and fascist. It's ironic because Iraq isn't one nation. It's a bunch of nationalities pieced together first after WWI and then again after WWII. There are Sunnis, Shiahs, Kurds, Turks, a handful of Jews and Christians. All of whom pretty much hate each other. That may be why it's basically disintegrated into chaos. The poor majority of Iraqis were Shiite and had been persecuted by Hussein.

We gave Hussein tons of money and weapons in the '80's to fight Iran and so he'd like us more than the Soviet Union.

Muhamoud Ahmadinejad is the current President of Iran, who hates Iraq (they had a war in the '80's). Iran used to be one of our greatest allies in the Middle East until they had a revolution in 1979. Their Shah, or king, who violated lots of human rights and lived a pretty extravagant lifestyle at his subject's expense. We gave the Shah lots of money and weapons so he'd like us more than the Soviet Union.

You might remember their revolution was led by a the Ayatollah (supreme leader) Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini, who practiced a mystic version of Shi'a called Irfan- sort of like what Salafism is to Sunnism.

As you may have heard, Ahmadinejad wants nuclear power- we think he want's the bomb. (Pakistan and Israel both have the bomb. Pakistan and India hate each other, Iran pretty much hates Israel, but I'm not sure why, except that their Jews.) You also may remember that our President indelicately characterized Iran as part of an "Axis of Evil" in a speech a few years ago, along with North Korea two countries that have absolutely nothing to do with each other or with bin Laden or Alqueda.

Back in the '80's the Reagan Administration had Israel sell weapons to Iran for us and then we used the proceeds to fund a band of right-wing terrorists called the "Contras" in Nicaragua. Remember that one?

Lebanon used to be a pretty westernized, country just North of Israel. Last year they held these big protests to get rid of a President who supported a political movement called Hezbolah who are supported by Syria, which is just east of Israel and sort of West of Iran and Iraq. But their new President didn't bother to disarm Hezbolah or get them away from the Israeli border.Yes, "disarm." See Hezbollah is a political party and a paramilitary movement, kind of like "Sinn Fein" is the political version of the Irish Republican Army.

Hezbolah's Secretary General is a guy named Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. They like to mix politics and religion. They're Shiites and Hezbolah means "the party of God." (Sounds like "Conservative-Christians.") Anyway, they don't think Israel should
exist since it was pretty much created by the U.N. after WWII and they want Lebanese prisoners released by Israel. All the latest hubbub started when they kidnapped a couple of Israeli policemen.

Meanwhile, Israel had hoped to have peace with the Palestinians (Muslims who claim to have been displaced when Israel was created.) Unfortunately the political party called "the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)" was replaced in democratic elections this past year by a party called "Hamas."

"Hamas" means "The Islamic Resistance Movement" Hamas are Sunni, so they hate Hezbollah for being Shi'a, but of course, they hate Israel more. Many Palestinian expatriates living in Saudi Arabia and Syria send their support to Hamas, who demand that Israel pull out of Gaza and the West Bank area along the Jordan river. With the PLO, Israel had been negotiating peaceful coexistence. Two nations in one place, so to speak.

So, it should be clear that it's not so clear. What is clear is that this is a time and a region that requires delicate diplomacy. I appreciate the desire to "take the battle to the terrorists," and that waiting for politicians and diplomats to work can be frustrating because it doesn't seem as satisfyingly clear and concrete as firm military action- but it just seems to be part of a cycle of counter production.

Middle Easterners (regardless of whether they're Muslim or not or which strain of Islam) resent America for our decadence or for our meddling in everybody else's affairs (playing policeman to the world) or because of our influence over their oil. But they aren't necessarily out to take over the world and attack all Jews and Christians. They
disagree with, resent, and even hate each other too much to cooperate that much.

We still haven't caught bin Laden, five years after the first 9/11 attacks and we've strained our military and resources (not to mention American and Iraqi lives) on an unnecessary invasion of Iraq- that had nothing to do with Alqueda or 9/11.

Israel's reaction to Hezbollah may have been excessive, but this doesn't have to become WWIII. When something similar happened in the '90's, President Clinton called up the President of Syria and asked him to get Hezbollah to back off and they did.

The "War on Terror" was supposed to be taking out Alqueda, not taking on every last group that uses terrorist tactics, not an excuse to try to recreate an entire region the way we'd like it and certainly not an excuse to chip away at our own Constitutional rights and freedoms.

Maybe it's time we remembered that. Who knows, maybe if we did, it might even have a positive effect on fuel prices. It's hard to sort out, but it's important to try, because thinking is the only way to solve problems instead of making them worse.

Support our troops, bring them home!

I recently got an email that complained-

"Americans who support our troops used to be called the "silent majority". We are no longer silent, and are voicing our love for God, country and home in record breaking numbers. We are not organized, boisterous or over-bearing. We get no liberal media coverage on TV, to reflect our message or our opinions."

I couldn't believe how persecuted they felt. They control all 3 branches of government. I clicked the "reply-all" button and fired back:

How the President and Secretary of Defense FAILED to support our troops:
1. Didn't send enough of them to Afghanistan
2. Began planning to send them to Iraq BEFORE they even got into office, let alone before 9/11
3. Lied to us to make us thing that Iraq had anything whatsoever to so with 9/11
4. Sent them to Iraq
5. Didn't send enough of them to Iraq
6. Didn't send them with enough or good enough supplies, from body armor to vehicle armor
7. Don't take good enough care of their families while they're gone
8. Don't take good enough care of them or their families once they come home
9. Didn't and still don't have a plan for the reconstruction of Iraq once Saddam Hussein was overthrown
10. Contract too many aspects of the operation out to private contractors, who get paid insanely greater amounts than our soldiers
11. Extended stays, re-ups, re-mobilizations
12. Failed to train them adequately for coping with IEDs and RPGs
13. Failed to train them adequately for security, infrastructure rebuilding and general peacekeeping duties of occupation (which should be reconstruction)
14. Failed to train them in ethics and human-relations OR actually instructed them to violate international treaties, leading to abuses in Abu Grahd, and Haditha- then let them take the fall for it in the courts and the media instead of taking responsibility at the command level.
15. Abused the National Guard system for major combat operations when they're supposed to be reserved for natural emergencies like Katrina and Rita. Especially when guys like Bush and Cheney conveniently avoided service in Vietnam by joining the Guard

Support our troops, remember them, pray for them, offer any assistance you can to their families at home, welcome them back with open arms when they do ge to come home, thank them for their service and sacrifice, give to veterans' charities, write to them and send them care packages, vote for them when they run for office once they get home, please, PLEASE keep them and their families in your prayers- but don't stop thinking, don't start hating people who think differently than you do, don't worship our leaders and follow them blindly without scrutinizing them. Support our troops by exercising the rights that they fight for. Best of all, support our troops by calling for their return home.

And don't send mindless, arrogant, foolish, prejudiced, right-wing propaganda to me unless you want me to answer back with the truth like this again.

Your fellow American, and member of the TRUE silent majority- the MIDDLE!

Guess what?

War in Iraq Less Popular Than Vietnam

A Gallup poll shows that, three years after the U.S.-led invasion, there is less domestic support for the war in Iraq than there was for the Vietnam War at the same stage. 57% of those surveyed now consider it a mistake to have sent troops to Iraq, as opposed to the 48% who felt the same way about Vietnam in April of 1968. The numbers are especially surprising given that, three years into the Vietnam War, the U.S. has already suffered more than 28,000 casualties, as opposed to the 2,417 announced deaths in Iraq.