Welcome to Year Five

[remember — cut ‘n paste, no formatting; thanks for your patience.]

Unhappy Anniversary — but first, a few off-topic notes:

Imagine my shock at turning on Sunday pundit TV and finding Tom DeLay’s pug-flat face [and carefully colored hair.] What part of “disgraced criminal” doesn’t Tim Russert understand? I was pleased to see grumpy old Doug Thompson noticed it too — read his rant here:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cm/content/view/287/162/

Chuck Schumer was on Meet the Press as well, saying that they have evidence that Gonzales lied to Congress — truth told, lying to Congress is nothing new; they just seldom go after the liars. Read that one here: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031907A.shtml

Salt Lake City mayor Rocky Anderson is leading an anti-war march today — over the weekend he called Bush a war criminal and demanded impeachment.
http://www.localnews8.com/story.cfm?nav=news&storyID=1731

On topic, CNN did a stunning exposĂ© on the civil war yesterday — it was quite graphic; haven’t seen anything like that since back in the Vietnam days. I was pretty impressed. You couldn’t watch it without questioning our role in Iraq … and wishing there was a competent president in place.

The Planet Waves cover for the weekend and today reflects this topic, too — good pictures [including of the protests which drew crowds around the world] and articles.

Mother Jones has a big compilation entitled Iraq:101 by Robert Dreyfuss and Dave Gilson — find it here:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2007/03/iraq_101.html

The political price of this war is evident globally — but the personal price for four years of misdirection is heartbreaking. The first piece here [after a bit of snark from Harry Sherer] gives you a link to stream … a memorial to the fallen. Let’s not forget them, even if it’s painful to watch. If the face of war was more human we’d have fewer of them.

A collection of reads on a sad day, including John Murtha, Arianna Huffington and Gary Hart.

Jude

Happy Birthday, Iraq War
Harry Shearer
3/19/07
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harry-shearer/happy-birthday-iraq-war_b_43640.html

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.

As Iraq Casualties Mount, So Do the Stories We Must Tell
Tara Lohan, AlterNet
March 19, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/asoldierspeaks/49368/

Four years ago we invaded Iraq and today the occupation continues. A new project is working to tell the stories of the service members whose lives have been lost — in the words of the people who loved them.

Spc. Jamaal Addison’s mother describes him as an angel. He died on the fourth day of the Iraq war at the age of 22. “He was a hero,” she said. “But he was a hero long before he ever got killed in this war.”

Her words could also speak for the thousands of others killed in the invasion and occupation of Iraq that began four years ago today. Jamaal’s story is one of many captured by a new, on-line video project called Iraq Veterans Memorial — the latest from director Robert Greenwald and the folks at Brave New Films.

Here: http://iraqmemorial.org/index.php

“While making Iraq for Sale, we were inspired and moved by the soldiers we interviewed. They were young, very smart and extremely patriotic. When we realized the fourth anniversary of the war was approaching we wanted to do something to honor people like them who were not lucky enough to return home,” said Tracy Fleischman of Brave New Films.

“We were inspired by the Vietnam Memorial and the AIDS quilt — which both bring tremendous loss of life to a human scale. We decided to use our medium — film — to create something similar. It was also important to us that politics not be a part of this project; we simply wanted to honor these young men and women and create something people with varying opinions could come together around.”

The videos provide a human face, not just of those who have been killed, but of the people they left behind — brothers and sisters, parents, children, friends, lovers, cousins, comrades. The men and women who were killed were more than service members — in the words of those who loved them — they were leaders, ambassadors, peacemakers, superheroes, poets, artists, athletes, dreamers, and jokers.

“By watching the videos, you will have the opportunity to learn about these heroes from those who knew them best — their family, friends, and fellow servicemembers. Each man and woman represented in the memorial had attributes and qualities that made them unique, but they all have one thing in common — they were truly loved and are deeply missed,” wrote Jim Miller of Brave New Foundation.

“There are many other people who have died during the Iraq War — contractors, Iraqis, servicemembers from other countries — and many who have been critically wounded. Many heroes have also died and been wounded in Afghanistan. We honor all of these people and their families for the sacrifices that have been made.”

Each day the list of casualties from Iraq grows and so do the number of stories that we need to hear about those lost lives. Lt. Kenneth Michael Ballard was 26 when he was killed in Iraq. He was an only child. “Ken will always be the brightest star in my darkest night,” his mother said.

Staff Sgt. Paul M. Neff II was 30 when he was killed. His sister Dawn remembers him:
-My brother was more than just a name etched in cold stone. And he wasn’t just my brother. He was our father’s best friend. He was our mother’s baby boy. He was a single father and he was part of a band of brothers …

-The day I heard the news, his helicopter was shot down, I knew he was on it before the call came. There was an instant void. He died doing what he loved. There is some comfort knowing that. The thing that most people remember about Paul is how much he loved life and his infectious smile.

-Without Paul in this world, the sun just doesn’t shine as bright. He is desperately missed by his family, his friends and most of all his son.

Lt. Seth J. Dvorin was 24. He was married and wanted to have children. PFC Steven F. Sirko was 20 and had “eyes that laugh.”

Cpl. Jeffrey Michael Lucey hung himself in his family’s home after returning from Iraq. He was 23 and his best friend was his sister Debra.

Cpl. Nicholas Ziolkowski was 22 when he was killed. “I think Nick, it’s such a loss, certainly to me personally but would have much such a difference had he lived because he was that kind of person,” said his mother.

These are only a few of the thousands of stories that should be heard and shared and remembered. Four years after the invasion, we are still a country at war. The Iraq Veterans Memorial is a glimpse of what the world has lost.

“We hope that the memorial gives people reason to stop for a moment, forget the politics surrounding the war, and honor the memory of the brave young men and women we’ve lost,” said Fleischman.

Host the videos on your website, include them in your candlelight vigils, listen to them on your iPod, or contribute one of your own stories about someone you’ve loved.

Death of a Marine
Bob Herbert, NYT
3/18/07
http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com/2007/03/bob-herbert-death-of-marine.html

Jeffrey Lucey was 18 when he signed up for the Marine Reserves in December 1999. His parents, Kevin and Joyce Lucey of Belchertown, Mass., were not happy. They had hoped their son would go to college.

Jeffrey himself was ambivalent.

“The recruiter was a very smooth talker and very, very persistent,” Ms. Lucey told me in a call from Orlando, Fla., where she was on vacation with her husband and their two grown daughters last week. The conversation was difficult. Ms. Lucey would talk for a while, and then her husband would get on the phone.

“We see him everywhere,” Ms. Lucey said. “Every little dark-haired boy you see, it looks like Jeff. If we see a parent reprimanding a child, it’s like you want to go up and say, ‘Oh, don’t do that, because you don’t know how long you’re going to have him.’ ”

The war in Iraq began four years ago today. Fans at sporting events around the U.S. greeted the war and its early “shock and awe” bombing campaign with chants of “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!”

Jeffrey Lucey, who turned 22 the day before the war began, had a different perspective. He had no illusions about the glory or glamour of warfare. His unit had been activated and he was part of the first wave of troops to head into the combat zone.

A diary entry noted the explosion of a Scud missile near his unit: “The noise was just short of blowing out your eardrums. Everyone’s heart truly skipped a beat. … Nerves are on edge.”

By the time he came home, Jeffrey Lucey was a mess. He had gruesome stories to tell. They could not all be verified, but there was no doubt that this once-healthy young man had been shattered by his experiences.

He had nightmares. He drank furiously. He withdrew from his friends. He wrecked his parents’ car. He began to hallucinate.

In a moment of deep despair on the Christmas Eve after his return from Iraq, Jeffrey hurled his dogtags at his sister Debra and cried out, “Don’t you know your brother’s a murderer?”

Jeffrey exhibited all the signs of deep depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Wars do that to people. They rip apart the mind and the soul in the same way that bullets and bombs mutilate the body. The war in Iraq is inflicting a much greater emotional toll on U.S. troops than most Americans realize.

The Luceys tried desperately to get help for Jeffrey, but neither the military nor the Veterans Administration is equipped to cope with the war’s mounting emotional and psychological casualties.

On the evening of June 22, 2004, Kevin Lucey came home and called out to Jeffrey. There was no answer. He noticed that the door leading to the basement was open and that the light in the basement was on. He did not see the two notes that Jeffrey had left on the first floor for his parents:

“It’s 4:35 p.m. and I am near completing my death.”

“Dad, please don’t look. Mom, just call the police — Love, Jeff.”

The first thing Mr. Lucey saw as he walked down to the basement was that Jeff had set up an arrangement of photos. There was a picture of his platoon, and photos of his sisters, Debra and Kelly, his parents, the family dog and himself.

“Then I could see, through the corner of my eye, Jeff,” said Mr. Lucey. “And he was, I thought, standing there. Then I noticed the hose around his neck.”

The Luceys hope that in talking about their family’s tragedy they will bring more attention to the awful struggle faced by so many troops suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and other emotional illnesses. “We hear of so many suicides,” said Mr. Lucey.

Ms. Lucey added, “We thought that if we told other people about Jeffrey they might see their loved ones mirrored in him, and maybe they would be more aggressive, or do something different than we did. We didn’t feel we had the knowledge we needed and we lost our child.”

The Luceys are more than just concerned and grief-stricken. They’re angry. They’ve joined an antiwar organization, Military Families Speak Out, and they want the war in Iraq brought to an end. “That’s the only way to prevent further Jeffreys from happening,” Ms. Lucey said.

Mr. Lucey made no effort to hide his bitterness over the government’s failure to address many of the critical needs of troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. His voice quivered as he said, “When we hear anybody in the administration get up and say that they support the troops, it sickens us.”

The Lessons of Iraq
Gary Hart
03.18.2007
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/the-lessons-of-iraq_b_43695.html

Very soon a new industry called “The Lessons of Iraq” will be born, even as the search for the end-game continues against the back-drop of the theme “who lost Iraq.” Partisan strategists will be allocating blame while more thoughtful citizens will try to draw lessons for future generations.

Some lessons are apparent.

Do not manufacture justification for invasions. Plan for all eventualities, including the most unpleasant. Do not pay exiles to tell you what you want to hear. Deal honestly with Congress and the American people. Be candid about possible costs in lives and money. And an endless list of common sense, and Constitutional, dos and don’ts.

The second kind of lessons are less obvious and have to do with the new realities of the 21st century:

First, treat jihadist terrorism more like organized crime than traditional warfare. By declaring “war on terrorism” we made the fatal mistake that it could be crushed using conventional warfare and massed armies. We clearly had the legal and moral right to overturn the Taliban government in Afghanistan that harbored al Qaeda as it planned and carried out the 9.11 attacks. Even so, the democratization of an ancient tribal society is proving hugely more difficult than driving the Taliban out of Kabul. Indeed, it seems set on returning.

Instead, we should create NATO II, an organization combining the intelligence services, law enforcement agencies, and special forces of Western democracies to coordinate the crushing of jihadist cells.

Second, liberate the U.S. from dependence on Persian Gulf oil. We can then sharply reduce the U.S. military presence in the region and remove the single most important iincentive for jihadism. A consortium of oil consuming nations can agree with regional oil producers to protect the continued flow of oil to world markets. The U.S. should not be the default guarantor of oil supplies. We would also help rid ourselves of the hypocrisy of “bringing democracy to the Middle East” even as we support Saudi Arabia and other oligarchies, and we would be at greater liberty to support genuine democratic voices in the region.

Third, restore principle to American foreign policy. Neoconservatives who dominate the Bush administration have used the Wilsonian rhetoric of “democratic idealism” even as they pursue the most cynical and dishonest policies. These policies, including covert support for highly undemocratic regimes and factions, repression of dissent, and cynical manipulation of local politics, are hidden from the American people but are well known to the people of the countries where we carry them out. We must regain our moral authority in the world by living up to our own high ideals and Constitutional principles.

Fourth, engage the nations of the world in achieving security for the global commons. Security in the 21st century now means much more than it did in the Cold War 20th century. It includes security and openness of markets, security of the environment and reversal of global warming, security of energy supplies, security of livelihood, and the security of healthy communities. The U.S. is expected to understand the new century and lead the world in replacing narrow notions of national security with the much greater appreciation for the security of the global commons.

Too little sober thought was given to the real lessons of Vietnam. Instead, three decades of recriminations prevented serious reflection and mature judgment. Liberal forces were seen by too many Americans as unconcerned for our security and suffered political defeat as a result. Those same forces should now take the lead in framing the debate about the true lessons of Iraq and the creation of a new definition of America’s role in the world of the 21st century.

Four Costly Years at War
Rep. John Murtha
03.19.2007
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-john-murtha/four-costly-years-at-war_b_43768.html

Our Military men and women deserve the utmost praise and gratitude for their commitment and valor. I am inspired by their dedication and sacrifice. But the burden of a war that has been so costly in terms of dollars and lives cannot and should not continue to fall solely on them. We must honor our military by providing them with missions they can accomplish and with the equipment and training they need to fight and to protect their lives.

We must insist that before we send our battle weary warriors back into intense combat, we give them the time they need to rest and reconstitute and the time they deserve to spend with family and loved ones.

During this year, the Bush Administration has requested $1 trillion for the Department of Defense. $9 billion a month is being expended for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including a $2 billion a month logistic trail for transporting equipment and personnel into Iraq.

Over 3,200 of our sons and daughters have lost their lives in Iraq and close to 25,000 have been wounded, to include thousands of traumatic brain injuries and hundreds of limb amputations. The cost of disability benefits as a result of this protracted and intense war will be staggering. A recent report by the Harvard University School of Government put the total cost of providing medical care and disability benefits to veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan at $350 to $700 billion.

While the U.S. continues to deplete its resources in Iraq, our ground forces in the United States are short on training, equipment and personnel. At the beginning of the Iraq war, 80% of all Army units and almost 100% of active combat units were rated at the highest levels of readiness. Just the opposite exists today. General Peter Schoomaker, Army Chief of Staff, said last week during a hearing on the Hill, “We have a strategy right now that is outstripping the means to execute it.” General Cody, the Vice Chief, said that the Army’s readiness level is “stark.”

Meanwhile in Iraq the situation remains dire. Benchmarks established by this Administration are elusive and routinely ignored. Official reports sent to Congress indicate that oil production and electricity remain below prewar levels and less than half of the Iraqi population is employed. Attacks on U.S. forces have increased by 10 more percentage points over the last four months and the Iraqi Security Forces are not taking over the fight as promised. Two million Iraqis, many of who made up the brain trust in Iraq, have fled to neighboring countries. A new BBC poll shows that only 18% of Iraqis have confidence in U.S.-led forces and 53% of Iraqis believe security will improve when the U.S. withdraws from Iraq. The Pentagon is finally coming around to the fact that Iraq is engulfed in its own civil war. In its most recent report to Congress, Pentagon analysts reported “some elements of the situation in Iraq are properly descriptive of a “civil war,” including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities and mobilization, the changing character of the violence, and population displacements.”

After four years of incompetence and mismanagement, this Administration must come to the realization that Iraq’s civil war can only be solved by the Iraqi people and that stability in Iraq can only be accomplished when U.S. and coalition forces end the occupation and redeploy.

Volunteer Soldiers Devastated by Iraq Weren’t “Asking for It”
“They volunteered, didn’t they?” is a common sneering response to the stories about National Guardsmen whose lives were destroyed by Iraq — the truth is that going to war is not what they signed up for.
Stacy Bannerman, AlterNet
March 10, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/asoldierspeaks/48986/

“They volunteered, didn’t they?”

As the war in Iraq has gone from wrong to worse, that question, often delivered as a statement, has become the fallback stance of folks who are attempting to silence the voices of those of us who actually have loved ones in uniform, or who died while wearing it. I love my country dearly, but sometimes it’s difficult to retain a feeling of love for my countrymen who have said, “They volunteered, didn’t they?” in an effort to shut up the growing numbers of military and Gold Star families who are speaking out against this war.

More often than not, the phrase falls from the mouths of people who will send our fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, spouses and children to war, but blanch or literally roll their eyes at the suggestion that they send their own, or — heavens! — go themselves.

Less than one percent of Americans are in the Armed Forces. Over 1.3 million US troops have served in Iraq, including upwards of 450,000 National Guard and Reservists, surpassing by hundreds of thousands the number of Guard and Reservists that have fought in any other foreign war in this nation’s history. In the early years of the occupation, my husband was stationed at LSA Anaconda with the Army National Guard’s 81st brigade, so I speak from that experience, my conversations with hundreds of military families, soldiers, and Iraq War veterans, and a ridiculous amount of research.

I had to become something of a layman’s expert on the National Guard in order to navigate the stultifying military bureaucracy, advocate for our soldiers and veterans, and speak out against the war.

What citizen soldiers signed up for:

What the television ad promised: “One weekend a month, two weeks a year. Earn money for college and protect your local community.” That’s what citizen soldiers signed up for. While they were certainly aware of the dual mission, they believed the recruiters who told them that they’d never get deployed; that the only way they’d see combat is “if World War III broke out.” Since 2001, “four out of five guardsmen have been sent overseas in the largest deployment of the National Guard since World War II.” (Stateline.org, January 12, 2007) Over 400 Army National Guard soldiers have died in Iraq, more than quadruple the amount that died in the entire Vietnam War.

For more than half a century, the National Guard’s policy regarding mobilization was that Guardsmen would be required to serve no more than one year cumulative on active duty (with no more than six months overseas) for each five years of regular drill. After September 11, 2001, the possible mobilization time was increased to 18 months (with no more than one year overseas). Then it was increased again, to 24 months. That policy was effectively abandoned by the Pentagon in January of 2007 because it’s the only way they can continue to redeploy Iraq War veterans/Reservists. The cumulative number of days Guard soldiers called to duty [rose] from 12.7 million in 2001 to 68.3 million in 2005, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The constant changes to policy, time and terms of deployment, extensions, stop-loss, etc, are, in fact, not what they signed up for when they took an oath to protect the Constitution from “threats both foreign and domestic.”

The Army National Guard’s charter is the Constitution of the United States: Title 10 U.S.C. 12301 (a) provides that, in time of war or national emergency declared by the Congress, reserve components can be called to active duty.

1) Article I, Section 8; Clause 15: The Congress shall have Power … To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

The men and women who volunteered to serve their communities and country did so with the contractual guarantee that they would not be sent into the killing fields unless the aforementioned conditions were met. “There is a contract between the soldiers and their civilian leaders that they will be sent into harm’s way under lawful condictions. The Bush administration has broken that contract. Citizens are the soldiers only protection,” said Michael McPherson, Gulf War I veteran, and father of an Iraq War veteran.

Promises, promises:

Dick Cheney said our soldiers would be greeted as liberators, and rose petals strewn in their path. Looking back, I think we can all agree: That went badly. The President told the troops they had his support, and they would have everything they needed, on the ground and after the war, including body armor, equipment, etc.

The bulk of the troops on the ground in Iraq are Army, Army National Guard, and Reserves, and yet, they are grossly under funded, receiving approximately 17% of the DOD budget, with just 2-3% trickling to the Guard/Reserve. The severity of equipment shortages were brought to light by the Guard and Reservists in Iraq, and thousands of calls made to Congress by National Guardsmen and their families, pleading for body armor, fully up armored tanks and HMMV’s and other equipment. After four years, the problem has yet to be fully corrected.

Instead, they keep sending our soldiers, while failing miserably at keeping their promise to take care of them when they come home. After having served some of the longest tours in Iraq, while their families waited, worried, and often suffered financial shortfalls or problems with receiving pay and benefits, our citizen soldiers come home, and bring the war with them. I wrote about this in “Broken by this War,” and want to expand on the following:

The tab so far: more than 3,000 dead U.S. troops, tens of thousands of wounded, over half a million Iraqi casualties, roughly 250,000 American servicemen and women struggling with PTSD, and almost 60,000 military marriages that have been broken by this war. Including mine.

Broken, which includes domestic abuse, spousal murder, suicide, internet porn addiction, divorce, separation, and estrangement. What does it say when a nation that prides itself on supporting the troops, shared sacrifice, and a commitment to children and family values continues to pass policies that directly and indirectly undercut them all?
Fault lines on the home front:

When Iraq was invaded in 2003, there were a combined total of almost 670,000 personnel in the Guard and Reserves, more than active duty Army, which had 499,301 soldiers. (DOD [309A] Sept. 30, 2003) According to the Department of Defense, approximately 51% of Army soldiers were married, as compared to nearly 60% of Guard and Reservists.

The Pentagon’s Defense Manpower Data Center reveals that in the first years of the war, the annual divorce rate among active-duty Army officers and enlisted personnel nearly doubled, from 5,658 to 10,477. The increase is about 5,000 Army marriages per year, times four years, which totals 20,000 official divorces. That does not include active-duty Navy and Marines.

If the Army divorce rate is applied to Guard/Reserve, (the number is probably higher because of increased PTSD rates , less preparation/support/care before, during, and after deployment, financial burdens, etc.), given that the total force strength of citizen soldiers is almost one-third higher than active-duty Army, and almost 60% of Guard and Reservists are married (when averaged between branches) then, holding everything else equal, the annual increase in divorces among citizen soldiers would be roughly 8,000, times four years, equaling 32,000.

A study conducted in 1996 on the impact of long-term overseas deployments of Guard and Reserve troops found that “Reservists were more vulnerable than regular service soldiers…for psychiatric breakdown. [And] being a Reservist, having low enlisted rank, and belonging to a support unit increased the risk for psychiatric breakdown … Many such personnel entertained little expectation that they would ever be called to active duty.”

Just eleven months after returning from Iraq, 46% of one Washington State Reserve Combat Engineer Company reported mental health problems, more than double the rates for regular enlisted.

None of the estimates reflect Iraq war veterans whose military contracts expired prior to filing or finalization of divorce papers. Nor do they include the hundreds of divorces pending in the system, and several thousand other couples who are separated, but have not filed any paperwork, according to anecdotal reports, informal surveys, and conversations with dozens of military personnel and health care professionals. We aren’t official statistics, but things sure feel broken.

As the war drags on, and soldiers are sent for their 3rd, 4th, and now 5th deployments, with the attendant risks and stressors involved, the fault lines that this war has created in too many — not all — of families will become chasms. Based on trends from previous wars, case studies, and information from marriage counselors, military families and soldiers, the rates of divorce and separation are rising, and available figures are “just the tip of the iceberg.”

But divorce and separation aren’t the only things that break a marriage and shred the fabric of the family. In 2005, according to DoD figures, there were 16,400 cases of domestic violence reported, with 9,450 of them substantiated. That’s 14 cases for every 1,000 couples, compared with 3 per 1,000 among civilians. Domestic violence advocates contend that the figures are even higher than the DOD says. If military spouses live off-post — as do many active duty personnel, and virtually 100 percent of Guard/Reserves — and call the local police or shelter for asistance, they typically don’t show up in the military’s statistics.

And consider that many soldiers spent all or part of 2004/2005 deployed and thus physically separated from their spouses. In every war, domestic abuse rates spike when troops return, up to and including murder.

Over the past several years, returning soldiers have turned their fists and guns on their families, and a number of married veterans have committed suicide. Army Special Forces soldier Bill Howell, back three weeks from Iraq, beat his wife, and then committed suicide. A recently returned soldier at Fort Lewis, Washington, “turned himself in … saying he had committed a homicide,” according to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The Pierce County sheriff’s department later found the soldier’s 28-year-old wife dead “apparently from homicidal violence.”

Sergeant Matthew Denni served in Iraq with the 671st Engineer Army Reserve Company. During his trial, it was determined that PTSD contributed to him murdering his wife and stuffing her corpse in a footlocker.

Murder, suicide, domestic violence, abuse, internet porn addictions are all casualties of war, collateral damage that destroys marriages and families, but they won’t be found on the DOD’s list of divorces. So when I said that “almost 60,000 military marriages that have been broken by this war. Including mine,” I was being kind with the numbers. Yet some of the responses I got were hateful, intentionally hurtful, small-hearted and mean-spirited comments about “bad, selfish wives” and “stupid, irresponsible soldiers,” demonizing those of us who have suffered and sacrificed so much. Enough.

Veterans and their families are already struggling, with too few resources and support, to try and heal. And yes, “they volunteered,” but not for this, America. Not for this.

My Lesson for This Anniversary
Joseph Nye,
3/19/07
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-nye/my-lesson-for-this-annive_b_43696.html

I was recently at a dinner in DC at which a prominent neo-conservative columnist took issue with a politician who said the Iraq War was immoral. The pundit argued that our intentions of removing a mass murderer and promoting democracy were highly moral. But if we have learned anything from this war, it should alert us to be wary of such oversimplified claims of moral clarity. Even if we grant purity of intentions, this is shallow moral reasoning. We should judge morality in three dimensions — intentions, means and consequences — and this war fails on the last two counts. Imagine that I offer to drive your child home after a party. I ignore the slick road conditions, drive too fast, skid off the road and your child is killed. I can plead good intentions of trying to get your child home quickly, but by my neglect of appropriate means and the full range of possible consequences produces a catastrophe that is not excusable even if I had good intentions. To defend this (or any future war) on the basis of the moral clarity of our intentions is impoverished one-dimensional moral reasoning. Whatever the president’s motives, his inadequate attention to means and the full range possible consequences makes this an unjust war. That is my lesson for this anniversary.

Iraq at Four Years: The Past is Indeed Prologue
Arianna Huffington
3/19/07
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/iraq-at-four-years-the-p_b_43715.html

So here we are, four years into the greatest foreign policy debacle in U.S. history. Four years, and still no end in sight.

The past and the future. There are some — mostly those inside the White House and their shills in the media and on Capitol Hill — who would have you believe the two have nothing to do with each other.

“Let’s not look at the past,” they say, “let’s focus on where we go from here.”
Richard Perle, one of the chief architects of the Iraq war, offered his spin on the “don’t look back” mindset on Meet the Press:

RUSSERT: Mr. Perle, is the war in Iraq worth the price we’ve paid?

PERLE: Forgive me for saying it, but I think it’s the wrong question. It’s a bit academic for one thing. But the question is what is in our national interest now, what is going to make Americans safer.”

“Academic”? Looking back at how we got to where we are is anything but academic. Especially when the same people responsible for this disaster are still in power. Or still on Meet the Press telling us what to do next.

Everybody in Washington has got an opinion about how to move forward in Iraq, but whether or not we should listen to them can only be determined by taking a look backward. Have they shown the ability to learn from their mistakes or haven’t they?
At this point in the war — four years, 3216 soldiers’ lives and nearly half a trillion or so dollars later — it’s time to look back as we look forward.

Does this mean only those who were right then should have a voice now? No. But it does mean that if you were wrong, you should fully and unequivocally acknowledge that you were wrong (Hillary Clinton, meet Jack Murtha). Otherwise, you should have no say in how we go forward.

Here’s what Richard Perle said in September of 2003: “A year from now, I’ll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush.”

When former Congressman Tom Andrews, now director of the Win Without War coalition, reminded Perle of this on Meet the Press, the Prince of Darkness said: “Well, I’m, I’m not going to debate your characterization of the history of our previous exchanges, which I think are… not accurate. I never anticipated a five year occupation…”

But Andrews was quoting him accurately, so why are we still listening to Perle, a man clearly incapable of admitting he was wrong?

Let’s make it a rule: until someone is willing to take responsibility for their past mistakes, they should not be allowed to consume precious media oxygen offering advice about the future

On March 26, 2003, just days after the U.S. invaded Iraq, I wrote a column about Perle (”the frothing pit bull of the Bush administration’s dogs of war,”) in which I detailed his myriad conflicts of interest in having a financial stake in the war effort and advising the Pentagon on policy. “Perle’s abuse of the public interest,” I wrote, “is in a class by itself.” It was enough to make me ask, “And this is the guy our president is putting his trust in when it comes to waging war on Iraq?”

And, as a country, we’re still listening to people who should have lost all credibility by now. If you were responsible for getting us into this mess, and you still won’t acknowledge it, then how can you be part of the solution? If you refuse to see the past clearly, how can we trust you with the future?

On this inauspicious anniversary, here is a look at the past — and the people — that brought us to this point, as I saw them in columns and blog posts:

September 26, 2002: Taking unilateral action against Iraq will only solidify the fragmented opposition, pushing our enemies together (and many of our friends away), and leaving us to go it alone — not just against Iraq but in the much wider war on terror.

September 30, 2002: It appears that Bush is so intent on getting Saddam, so obsessively tightly gripped by a need to succeed where his war hero dad failed, so determined to lay the murderous 9/11 assault at Baghdad’s door, that he’s regressed to that level of childhood development where fantasy, reality and wish fulfillment are all mixed up. Except that this time, things like nuclear weapons and the safety of the world for the next few decades are involved. Now, I’m no psychologist, but I believe there is a clinical term for this condition: going off the deep end.

February 19, 2003: To hell with worldwide protests, an unsupportive Security Council, a diplomatically dubious Hans Blix, an Osama giddy at the prospect of a united Arab world, and a panicked populace grasping at the very slenderreed of duct tape and Saran Wrap to protect itself from the inevitable terrorist blow-back — the business of America is still business.

March 19, 2003: Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner in Iraq. Yes, I know that the first smart bomb has yet to be dropped on Baghdad. But that’s just a formality. The war has already been won. The conquering heroes are not generals in fatigues but CEOs in suits, and the shock troops are not an advance guard of commandos but legions of lobbyists. The Bush administration is currently in the process of doling out over $1.5 billion in government contracts to American companies lining up to cash in on the rebuilding of postwar

April 16, 2003: From the moment that statue of Saddam hit the ground, the mood around the Rumsfeld campfire has been all high-fives, I-told-you-sos, and endless smug prattling about how the speedy fall of Baghdad is proof positive that those who opposed the invasion of Iraq were dead wrong. What utter nonsense. In fact, the speedy fall of Baghdad proves the anti-war movement was dead right… Almost everything about the invasion — from the go-it-alone build-up to the mayhem the fall of Saddam has unleashed — has played right into the hands of those intent on demonizing our country.

May 21, 2003: I’ve been racking my brain, trying to reconcile the ever-widening chasm between what the White House claims to be true and what is actually true… The best explanation I can come up with for the growing gap between their rhetoric and reality is that we are being governed by a gang of out and out fanatics. The defining trait of the fanatic — be it a Marxist, a fascist, or, gulp, a Wolfowitz — is the utter refusal to allow anything as piddling as evidence to get in the way of an unshakable belief… That pretty much sums up the White House m.o. on everything…

May 28, 2003: The Democrats sit idly by, their thumbs otherwise engaged, while the administration’s Iraqi tar baby grows stickier by the day… The Democrats are going to have to jettison their reliance on the consultants who botched the 2002 midterm elections by advising Party leaders to avoid taking on the president on tax cuts and Iraq and, instead, offer an unambiguous alternative to Bush’s well-crafted image as a straight-shooting man of conviction.

July 2, 2003: If more proof of the hypocritical selectivity of Bush’s moral outrage were needed, look no further than the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, when, in the name of liberating the Iraqi people, the White House gladly linked arms with a host of countries its own State Department had castigated for significant human rights violations. The suddenly fashionable humanitarian justification for the war in Iraq is nothing more than yet another White House deception designed to cloak the fact that the original justification — Iraq as an imminent threat — hasn’t panned out.

July 16, 2003: When faced with using explosive but highly questionable charges in vital presentations leading up to a possible preemptive war, both Powell and Tenet gave the information they were handed a thorough going over before ultimately rejecting it. But not the commander in chief. Apparently, he just took whatever he was handed, and happily offered it up to the world. He was, therefore, little more than the guy in the presidential suit, mindlessly speaking the words that others had debated and polished and twisted and finally agreed he would say. And then when the uranium hit the fan, our stand-up-guy president decided that the buck actually stops with George Tenet. As the Niger controversy — Yellowcake-gate — is turning into a political firestorm, the question should be: What didn’t the president know — and why didn’t he know it? And why does he know less and less every day?

April 21, 2004: Colin Powell believed in his heart that war with Iraq could — indeed, should — be avoided. But instead of making a principled stand, he made like a Good Soldier and fell into line. He was further out of the war loop than the ambassador from the home country of 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers — but when the president asked him to carry his sample vial of anthrax at the United Nations, Powell was so flattered he dutifully set out to hoodwink the world.

May 12, 2004 Always a master of understatement, Rummy termed the Abu Ghraib scandal “unhelpful in a fundamental way.” The time has come for him and his cohorts to admit that the situation in Iraq has become untenable in a fundamental way.

June 2, 2004: The central question, then as now, was whether the invasion of another country was a war of choice or a war of necessity. If the answer is a war of choice — and it is for both Henry and W — then the inevitable conclusion is that they were both immoral wars. For there can be no moral war of choice… The verdict on Iraq is already in: George II has lost the war, emboldened our enemies and made America bleed.
December 15, 2004: The time has come to stop being cowed by accusations that criticizing the war is the same as criticizing the troops and to start speaking the truth: Tens of thousands of young American men and women are having their lives destroyed because of the Bush administration’s willful negligence.

January 19, 2005: The Democratic leadership has a responsibility to act as the loyal opposition and not just throw up its hands and sign off on the funding. I realize that they are outnumbered and can’t actually stop the White House from getting its way — but the moral power of making a stand is critically important, especially coming after an election in which even staunch Democrats sometimes wondered what precisely their party stood for. What better way for Democrats to set the stage for the 2006 campaign than by forcing the Bush administration to level with the American people?

February 2, 2005: Quick, before the conventional wisdom hardens, it needs to be said: The Iraqi elections were not the second coming of the Constitutional Convention… Let’s never forget this administration’s real goal in Iraq, as laid out by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and their fellow neocon members of the Project for the New American Century back in 1998 when they urged President Clinton and members of Congress to take down Saddam “to protect our vital interests in the Gulf.” These vital interests were cloaked in mushroom clouds, WMD that turned into “weapons of mass destruction-related program activities,” and a Saddam/al-Qaida link that turned into, well, nothing. Long before the Bushies landed on freedom and democracy as their 2005 buzzwords, they already had their eyes on the Iraqi prize: the second-largest oil reserves in the world, and a permanent home for U.S. bases in the Middle East.

May 25, 2005: After John Kerry lost in November, the conventional wisdom was that he hadn’t been “me-too” enough about Iraq. Actually, the truth is the exact opposite. This war is a quagmire, and if the Democrats don’t know it, the American people do - 57 percent don’t believe the Iraq war was worth it.

May 27, 2005: Senator Clinton, if you are not “comfortable setting exit strategies”, can you direct us to someone who is? Because our soldiers are dying every day waiting for someone who is comfortable setting an exit strategy.

June 21, 2005: Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld can give all the rosy “last throes of the insurgency” predictions they want, but the Iraqi people know differently. And it’s their hearts and minds that need to be won before this war can ever be said to be won. But with every passing day — and every fresh episode of mayhem inflicted on Iraqi civilians — we’re getting further and further from having any chance of winning that battle.
June 30, 2005: It’s too bad Bush and his political troops don’t put as much thought into effectively fighting the war on terror as they do into crafting smoke-and-mirror justifications for the mess they’ve gotten us into in Iraq.

April 24, 2006: As if the job of building a stable Iraq (let alone a truly democratic one) could be accomplished by the use of military force. If that were the case, wouldn’t we have gotten our employee of the month plaque three years ago and moved on to spreading democracy to the next county?

July 18, 2006: Where have you gone Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, et al? A nation turns it anxious eyes to you… These men were the architects of the administration’s imperialist policies in the Middle East. It’s time to hold them accountable for the fatally flawed blueprint and the woefully shoddy workmanship.

July 19, 2006: While those in the midst of the mayhem see a dark tunnel, those in the Bush administration continue to see nothing but blue skies. Even as suicide bombs explode and the 2006 civilian death toll races toward 15,000, for the Bushies it’s all relaxation and optimism. Unbelievable. And sickening. And clueless, clueless, clueless.

August 30, 2006: Along with comparing his critics to Hitler appeasers, the beleaguered Defense Secretary has spent the early part of this week making the case that the horrific state of affairs in Iraq is really just a case of bad PR.

December 27, 2006: Before the escalation becomes inevitable, it must be made clear that this reckless strategy is being dictated by the White House and not by the military commanders who are being poked, prodded, pushed — and bribed — into backing it.

“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
loan 0.8125 7000 personaldollar 0.7915 10 advance loan cashcredit 1.4347 5000 loan or poor noloans 1.4347 $5000 money credit check noloan 0.7775 15000 check credit nodiscipline websites 0.7775 best spankingcredit no 0.7775 2500 loans check1.0341 faxless teletrak fast loans payday loan dollar Mapdisney holes moviemovies musclemenxxxsex movies onlinesci fi moviesdigimon movies uncutmating animal moviemovie b catfightsmovie bondage clips Mappenis curvedfree upskirtskingdom lolitasboots sexyblick dickhotties nudexxx thumbnailsgirls clothing Map

Add comment March 19th, 2007

Fredo and Dubby and the Brain … oh, my!

Here’s a collection of reads on the Gonzales affair. I think it will be very hard for Bush to ignore the bulk of his presence weighing down the Republican persona, which is already crawling on its knees under the load of corruption. I doubt that Dub would fire him, but he would be pressured from all sides to accept a resignation. Tony Snow answered a reporters questions by saying, “We hope he stays” — a surprisingly wimpy response from the take-no-prisoners Administration. The fire under this pot continues to burn HOT.

I feel badly for Gonzales, on some levels — an interesting article below explores his roots and it’s clear that he is, on a number of levels, an amazing success story. On the other hand, as with Scooter, when you lay down with dogs you get fleas. If Alberto confused the Great American Dream with the Great Republican Takeover, he is paying that price … and it’s always some foot soldier doing the paying, isn’t it. Dubby still dreams on, crown in place, drink [so they whisper, and that would explain much] in one hand and scepter in the other.

The Pubs are uneasy with Fredo, he’s always been Bush’s man, not theirs … which is why they feel free to turn on him now. Still, the whole issue of attorney purge, they insist, is just conspiracy theory — yeah, Hillary’s “vast Right Wing conspiracy” finally evident to anyone with a brain.

Alberto will be easier to deal with than Rove, who has fingers in this pot as well [see last piece] — this “serving at the pleasure of the president” crappola can only go so far with Fredo, who is appointed to protect the AMERICAN PEOPLE rather than pander to the American President [who has his own personal counsel.] Rove is the guy who whispers in the presidents ear, and any position he has truly IS at Bush’s pleasure. Karl is NOT a foot soldier, he’s an “architect” — and I’m not sure Dubby would get rid of him without surrendering to a lobotomy. Bush may be an ignorant man, but he’s canny — and Karl is his long-standing play mate and enforcer.

Driving a stake through Rove would ultimately neuter a weakened George W. Bush and his machine. Bringing down Gonzales would be another of the bruises spreading on the presidency, but it won’t solve our problem. Getting rid of Karl well might, he’s the spider that spins the web … and the attorney web appears to connect to the CIA, among other dark agendas. One of the “replacement” attorneys appears to no longer be credentialed. And one of them was investigating my own Governor, Roy [Big Dog Pub] Blunt’s son.

There IS a certain Watergate feel to all this [and isn’t it amazing that we’re THERE again?!] Time will tell … but I’m pleased at the return of oversight — and America is watching.

Jude

U.S. Attorney’s firing may be linked to CIA probe
Think Progress
March 18, 2007
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/18/us-attorneys-firing-may-be-linked-to-cia-probe/

McClatchy reports tonight:

Fired San Diego U.S. attorney Carol Lam notified the Justice Department that she intended to execute search warrants on a high-ranking CIA official as part of a corruption probe the day before a Justice Department official sent an e-mail that said Lam needed to be fired, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Sunday.

Feinstein, D-Calif., said the timing of the e-mail suggested that Lam’s dismissal may have been connected to the corruption probe.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse denied in an e-mail that there was any link.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said last week that while President Bush has the authority to fire attorneys at will, “if it is done to stop an ongoing investigation, then you do get into the criminal area.” ++

CBS: Gonzales Firing “Only A Matter Of Time”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/16/politics/main2580260.shtml

Why Conservatives Can’t Govern
Robert L. Borosage
March 19, 2007
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/03/19/why_conservatives_cant_govern.php

Donald Rumsfeld has been axed. Tom DeLay cut and ran. “Scooter” Libby stands convicted. Michael “you’re doing a heck of a job” Brown was tossed. Newt Gingrich disgraced himself. And now the clueless Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, is surely the next to go.

Why this confederacy of dunces? The conservative National Review cover asks plaintively, “Can’t Anyone Here Play this Game?” Time Magazine puts conservative icon Ronald Reagan on its cover, a tear rolling down his face, reporting on “How the Right Went Wrong.” But