Flim Flam

April 10th, 2008

Everywhere you look. On TV, on line, even coming out of your neighbors mouth, repeated like a parrot … and as mindlessly. Some of this snake medicine we’ve learned to be wary of — other oily proclamations we listen to and ponder. The ’surge’ we’re all tired of has become the ‘pause’ that will sicken us until we have a new president in place; although now the deployments will only be twelve months instead of eighteen [about damned time!] We will continue to throw good money after bad, and millions into the foreseeable future for the harm that’s been done our fighting-force.

Charlie Rose had two veteran Iraqi-theatre reporters discuss the current situation last night — the one thing they agreed on that impressed me was that the remaining Iraqi people [those that had neither the means nor opportunity to leave] want their lives back. There are overtures being made by various of the sects to come back to that homogeneous citizenship experienced under Saddam; the upshot is, they’re ready for it. And if it happens, it will be because THEY want it and will establish the infrastructure for it. Nothing we provide them will change their intention — it’s up to them, as it’s always been. Our babysitting the process hurts more than it helps — if you’re going to take your life back, YOU have to do it, not an occupying force directing you toward values not your own.

Jon Stewart did a nice send-up on the Petraeus/Crocker doublespeak — and those boyz worked hard at it, sweating bullets and looking pained all through their confrontation with Congress. I wondered how Obama would handle his moment, being the ‘new kid’ and all — and I chortled with glee as I realized where he was going, bit by bit, question by question, pushing them into a corner. He wanted that [long sought and infinitely denied] definition of victory — and he made the Bushie boyz look like the deluded loyalists they are. [I'll remind you, here, of the buzz not so long ago that St. Dave has political aspirations, was interested in running for Prez ... ha! He's looking stiffer by the day.]

As for our Dubby, he’s already moved on to dreams of leisure in Crawford — he said today that St. Dave will have “all the time he needs” to decide when to bring more of our warriors home; meanwhile, he’s halted any further draw-down of troops indefinitely, leaving 140,000 troops to their fate until the NEXT ‘decider’ comes along. He’s some patriot, that Dub.

Both Blue presidential candidates did well in confronting the war issue — McRib continued to speak in his eerie monotone about the ‘patriotic’ righteousness of all this — there’s something seriously wrong with this guy. He floats around like a pale, spectral presence mumbling delusion too often, the company line continually but in a lethargic and endless drone; and it appears that he only has two settings on his thermostat — bloodless and vicious, not much in between. I think it would be prescient to remember that Ronny Reagan at least LOOKED robust and rational when he took office, his age creating Swiss cheese of his brain not far in — but he had Mommy to step in for the heavy lifting. Johns got the woman he says applies makeup with a spatula — and that’s hardly gracious, considering she bought him his political career with proceeds from her beer empire.

John used to be an interesting guy, last century — admirable for a Pub; now his brain seems to have turned to mush. Historically his ‘maverick’ status rests on his own definition of flim flam, of flip flop, and his party knows it — the Lefty nomination process is giving us fits, but the Pubs could be envious of its eventual outcome: they’ve been saddled with a pale and fearful version of all they’ve espoused in the last years in John McNasty. Since we’ve become better at vetting politicians mental health, old John appears to be displaying a bit of a personality disorder, himself [not the least of which appears to be a serious bent towards passive/aggressive,] and the journo’s are looking that over carefully.

Here are some reads on the Congressional meet up — John Conyers and Robert Scheer and Joe Kline weigh in. Rosa Brooks shows us the demographics for the Pubs, due to their unending war — good for us, bad for them. We have a pretty good rant from a Capital Hill Blue writer and an interesting piece about the Colonel who killed himself, naming Petraeus a sell-out; I posted on that way-back-when and it was a topic that went under-reported, given St. Dave’s status as Commander-In-Chief [Dub's busy poppin' brush in his mind.]

In this year of ‘firsts,’ I got a piece in my inbox about all the firsts we’ve endured through the Bushy years that I’m passing along last as a bonus read. Impressive to see in print — really; clip ‘n send it along to all the stubborn Pub folks you know. Sometimes, like looky-loo’s on the freeway, we just can’t look away from an accident … and the George W. Bush resume is a train wreck that deserves a long, hard stare.

Flim flam. It’s whats for dinner.

Jude

Petraeus Meets His Match
JOE KLEIN, Time Magazine
Wednesday, Apr. 09, 2008

Senator Joseph Lieberman has become something of an agent provocateur in the semiannual Petraeus-Crocker hearings staged by the U.S. Senate. This semester he chose to open his remarks by chastising unnamed colleagues for having a “hear no progress … see no progress … speak no progress” attitude about the war in Iraq. That may have been true in the past, as there was no progress. This time, however, nearly all the Senators, including most Democrats, opened their comments by praising the general and the ambassador for their fine work—noting the reduced casualty rates and the success against al-Qaeda. The debate had finally moved on to more fertile turf: If things were going so well, why were Crocker and Petraeus so reluctant to come home?

The Senator who mined this turf most profitably was … Barack Obama (a surprise, since you never expect a presidential peacock to be succinct or acute enough in these bloviathons). Obama hit Petraeus and Crocker with an artful series of questions about the two main threats: Sunni terrorists like al-Qaeda in Iraq, and Iran. He noted that al-Qaeda had been rejected by the Iraqi Sunnis and chased to the northern city of Mosul. If U.S. and Iraqi troops succeeded there, what was next? He proposed: “Our goal is not to hunt down and eliminate every single trace of al-Qaeda but rather to create a manageable situation where they’re not posing a threat to Iraq.” Petraeus said Obama was “exactly right.”

Obama asked Crocker about Iran: We couldn’t expect Iran to have no influence in Iraq, could we? “We have no problem with a good, constructive relationship between Iran and Iraq,” Crocker replied. “The problem is with the Iranian strategy of backing extremist militia groups and sending in weapons and munitions that are used against Iraqis and against our own forces.” Obama then pursued Barbara Boxer’s previous line of questioning: If Iran is such a threat to Iraq, why was Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad greeted with open arms and apparently a lot of official kissing in Baghdad last month? “A visit like that,” Crocker said, avoiding the question, “should be in the category of a normal relationship.”

At which point, Obama dropped the hammer. The current situation in Iraq was “messy,” he said. “There’s still violence; there’s still some traces of al-Qaeda; Iran has influence more than we would like. But if we had the current status quo and yet our troops had been drawn down to 30,000, would we consider that a success?” Crocker, semi-speechless, chose to misinterpret the question, saying a precipitous drawdown to 30,000 troops would be disastrous. But Obama’s question was more diabolical. He was saying, Hey, al-Qaeda’s on the run, and Iran is probably more interested in harassing the U.S. military than having another war with Iraq. How much better does the situation need to be for us to leave? He had taken Joe Lieberman’s dart and beaten it into a plowshare.

Obama’s question was slightly disingenuous. Few people believe that the Sunni Awakening movement—the insurgents who flipped to our side after a fling with al-Qaeda—would stay peaceful if the U.S. military weren’t there as a buffer between them and the Shi’ites. The Iraqi army remains a mess of militias in camouflage. But we have had a significant success in Iraq and dealt al-Qaeda-style extremism a resounding defeat. So why not continue the judicious withdrawal that has begun?

Because, it seems, the Bush Administration has other fish to fry. The first is Muqtada al-Sadr, whose movement features a defiant nationalism that is traditionally both anti-American and anti-Persian (although Sadrist elements have been willing to accept help from the Iranians in recent years). Under questioning from Hillary Clinton about the Maliki government’s recent abortive offensive against Sadr’s forces in Basra, Petraeus admitted that U.S. troops would have provided resources and “different actions” for a more carefully planned attack. An intelligence source told me that the operation had been planned for June.

That would have been extremely foolish. The U.S. would have been inserting itself into a part of Iraq that we don’t know very well—the south—and taking sides against what is probably the most popular mass movement in Shi’ite Iraq. But the Petraeus battle plan apparently includes an anti-Sadrist move, which may mean a spurt of violence as widespread and vicious as the worst of the Sunni insurgency.

Is that why the general wants a “pause” in the U.S. withdrawal this summer?

What could possibly be the rationale for this? Perhaps it is that Sadr’s Mahdi Army is the most potent force opposed to long-term U.S. bases in Iraq—and that a permanent presence has been the Bush Administration’s true goal in this war. I suspect the central question in Iraq now is not whether things will get better but whether the drive for a long-term, neocolonialist presence will make the situation irretrievably worse.

The GOP, a casualty of war
Don’t let the Obama-Clinton battle fool you: It’s the Republicans who are hurting the most this election year.
Rosa Brooks, LA Times
4/10/08

Haven’t been paying close attention lately? Then you might be forgiven for assuming that the phrase “the war” refers to the battle being waged between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, rather than the events taking place in Iraq. Even with Gen. David Petraeus testifying on Iraq before Congress this week, most media commentary focused less on analyzing what’s happening in Iraq and more on how Obama and Clinton used the hearings to jockey for preeminence.

During the first three months of 2008, the Pew Research Center found that “coverage of the campaign outstripped coverage of the war by a margin of more than 10 to 1,” and that most of that coverage focused on the Obama-Clinton battle. That’s because the war — the real one in Iraq — is kind of a downer, whereas the purported civil war within the Democratic Party is fun and exciting.

Much like the Iraq war, the Democratic primary race has involved the levying and spending of unprecedented amounts of money, as well as huge strategic blunders by a leadership team that boasted years of experience. At the same time, the Democratic race is unlike the Iraq war in ways that make it far more enjoyable to cover: The blood is only metaphorical, and there’s plenty of juicy insider gossip (Mark Penn, anyone?).

Finally, much as the Democratic presidential nomination process sometimes feels like a quagmire, there is a withdrawal timetable. By the end of August, someone’s forces will have abandoned the field entirely, and we’ll have a clear winner.

Would that Iraq were so simple!

Although Democratic Party infighting makes good copy, the intense media focus on the Obama-Clinton battle obscures the fact that it’s the Republican Party that’s in deep doo-doo. The very factors that make us wish we could forget about the war in Iraq are driving a seismic shift in the American political landscape: the likely reversal of years of GOP electoral dominance.

Much as we try to repress it, we all know the whole sad Iraq story. False intelligence. Insufficient troops. No planning for an extended occupation. Looting. Sabotage. Insurgency. Car bombs and IEDs. Abu Ghraib. And five years later, what have we got? More than 4,000 dead U.S. troops, countless dead Iraqi civilians, no sustainable Iraqi political settlement, a U.S. military cracking under the strain, a new Al Qaeda franchise in Iraq, rising (but neglected) extremist threats in other parts of the globe and a U.S. taxpayer bill of $508 billion to date (with long-term costs in the next decade estimated to exceed $1.7 trillion). What’s more, as Petraeus acknowledged this week, there’s no end in sight.

As I said, it’s a downer.

Especially for the GOP.

Over time, as more and more Americans have become convinced that going to war in Iraq was the wrong decision, President Bush’s approval ratings have plummeted — and Bush appears to be taking the Republican Party down with him.

According to a March 20 Pew Research Center study, Republican Party identification is at its lowest point in the center’s 16 years of polling: Only 27% of registered voters will now fess up to being Republicans, a 6-percentage-point drop since 2004. And the decline is particularly notable in key swing states.

It’s not just the fence-sitters who are shifting; core GOP constituencies are fleeing too. In a warning sign of what the future may hold for the GOP, Republican Party identification among younger white evangelicals — 55% in 2001 — had plummeted to 40% by September 2007.

The same trend has been true among military personnel, for decades a solidly Republican constituency. In 2004, 60% of active-duty military personnel who responded to a survey sent to Military Times subscribers identified themselves as Republicans. By 2007, that had dropped below 50%. (Military personnel tend to take screw-ups in Iraq pretty personally.)

If political contributions are any guide, 2008 has the potential to be a good year for the Democratic Party with military voters; data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics found that the two candidates pulling in the most money from military donors in January and February were Ron Paul, the libertarian GOP candidate who favored withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, and Obama, who garnered nearly 30% more in military donations than presumptive GOP nominee John McCain.

A lot could happen between now and November, but at the moment, the Democrats appear poised to retake the White House and consolidate control over both houses of Congress. The economy’s tailspin may also lead voters to punish the GOP — but for most of the last seven years, the primary driver of Democratic good fortune has been the Iraq war.

Heck of a job, Bushie.

Everything His President Wants to Hear
Robert Scheer, TruthDig via SmirkingChimp
April 9, 2008

General Betray Us? Of course he has. MoveOn.org can hardly be expected to recycle its slogan from last September, when Gen. David Petraeus testified in support of escalating the U.S. war in Iraq, given the hysterical denunciations that worthy group received at the time. But it was right then–as it would be to repeat the charge now.

By undercutting the widespread support for getting out of Iraq, Petraeus did indeed betray the American public, siding with an enormously unpopular president who wants to stay the course in Iraq for personal and political reasons that run contrary to genuine national security interests. Once again, the president is passing the buck to the uniformed military to justify continuing a ludicrous imperial adventure, and the good general has dutifully performed.

So why are we surprised? Why do we expect the generals to lead us on the path to peace when that is the professional task of statesmen and not warriors? It is an abdication of civilian control of the military, the basic principle of American constitutional governance, to assign a central role to an active duty general to make the decision to end the war. It betrays the legacy warnings of our two most famous wartime generals, George Washington and Dwight D. Eisenhower.

American history offers no greater heroes, not because of their considerable success in battle but because they gained the wisdom to sound the alarm against unbridled militarism so passionately and effectively. The farewell addresses of both those departing generals-turned-president still stand as the essential bookends for what has been written about the limits on military adventure required for democracy’s survival. Washington’s plea to the nation “to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism” sets the standard for enlightened political discourse. A close second is Eisenhower’s warning that, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”

We have had many other examples of retired military officers asserting the need for informed and rational public decision making as to matters of war and peace. Republican presidential candidate John McCain was one of those voices when, as a senator, he led the fight, along with fellow Vietnam War veteran John Kerry, to normalize relations with the same Communist leadership in Hanoi that had once been our enemy. Does anyone, McCain included, now think we were wrong to bring the troops home from Vietnam–and just why are the dire consequences that McCain now predicts for a withdrawal from Iraq any more plausible?

McCain says we have to back the president and his generals, even though he concedes that “four years of mismanaged war had brought us almost to the point of no return.” Who mismanaged that war if not Bush and the generals he picked for the task? But don’t blame the generals, for as long as a president demands victory, they will pretend to deliver it. If they demur, they will be replaced, as recently occurred with the sudden retirement of Petraeus’ boss, Admiral William Fallon, for his suggestion in Esquire magazine that he might favor a more restrained approach in a conflict with Iran.

No such dissension from Petraeus - his faithful testimony, at least to the president if not the truth, on Tuesday was a particularly painful performance. Civilian deaths in March were 50 percent higher than in February, and there were a score of recent American deaths, and there is no evidence of political progress to support Petraeus’ stab at optimism over the “fragile” situation in Iraq. Most absurd was the suggestion that the problem would all go away if Iran would only behave, when in fact American troops are being sacrificed on the pro-Iranian side of an internal Shiite power dispute. The Shiites in charge of “our” government in Iraq are exiles trained for decades in Iran.

Not so Moqtada al-Sadr, who stayed in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, the killer of his father. Al-Sadr now opposes what he clearly labels as the U.S. occupation out of an Iraqi nationalism that is also in conflict with Iran. Now he’s the bad guy, and the Sunnis, who hate us even more, are being temporarily paid off by the United States to stop killing Americans. They, too, will against us, but it will not stop Petraeus or some other general in charge from telling Congress a few months from now what the president wants them to hear.

Petraeus and Crocker: Déjà Vu All Over Again
Rep. John Conyers, HuffPo
April 10, 2008

This week, General David Petraeus and Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker testified before the House and Senate about the Iraq war. As we might have guessed, their testimony has amounted to simply announcing the administration’s plans to continue on its current path — to maintain at least 140,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely.

It’s déjà vu all over again. Echoing their testimony from last September, Petraeus and Crocker claim that certain indicators in Iraq are positive, that they need more time to build on these marginal successes. But while they ask us for more time, more blood, more treasure, they still cannot provide any sort of strategy for success in Iraq.

Indeed, the definition of success has changed so many times in this war it probably would be impossible to design a strategy to achieve it. Going after the 9/11 attackers, finding weapons of mass destruction, getting rid of Saddam — these initial goals were proved unnecessary or false, or have already been accomplished. So now, we have a new set of goals: creating a model democracy for the Middle East, wiping out al-Qaeda, limiting the influence of Iran — problems this war has done more to exacerbate than to resolve.

After five years of chaos and destruction, we are told, once again, to trust them. To stay the course. To sign another blank check.

These requests, from an administration that has not an iota of credibility left, simply boggle the mind. In every aspect of this war, from the reasons given for the invasion, to the utter incompetence displayed at every turn, from the waste, fraud, abuse and war profiteering, to the lack of any strategy beyond waiting it out till the next administration, the Bush administration has given us literally no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt, and every reason to demand immediate and drastic change.

We find ourselves bogged down in the midst of a sectarian civil war, with our troops caught in the crossfire as Iraqi factions exploit our presence to position themselves not to build democracy, not to create a stable and free Iraq, but to dominate each other.

There is simply no valid rationale left for staying in Iraq — not that there ever was one. Meanwhile, a full 60 percent of Americans now think the United States should set a firm timetable for getting out of Iraq and stick to it, regardless of the situation on the ground.

In his famous “Beyond Vietnam” speech, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. referred to the way war diverted needed resources and energy “like some demonic, destructive suction tube.” According to the Congressional Research Service, we are spending $10.3 billion a month, or $339 million per day, on the war in Iraq. For one day’s spending in Iraq, we could provide access to health care for 2.6 million Americans for a year. For one day’s spending in Iraq, we could give 48,000 homeless veterans housing for a year. We could achieve each of these goals by cutting the Iraq war short by one day. Imagine what we could do with a week’s spending, or a month’s!

Of course, the conservatives who refused to spend $50 billion dollars over five years to provide health care for needy children don’t think twice about spending that amount for five months of war in Iraq. With our economy facing a serious downturn, and the baby boomer retirements on the horizon, the Bush administration is asking us to continue financing this war on credit.

Clearly, we are faced with a question of priorities. We can pour money down a destructive suction tube, for a war that is creating more enemies than it can destroy, in pursuit of impossible goals. Or we can invest in our priorities here at home, while showing a new face to the world, one characterized by respect for human rights, diplomacy, and the rule of law. To me, the choice could not possibly be any clearer.

The General and a bush league war
Robert A. Kezelis, Capital Hill Blue
April 9, 2008

I usually keep one of the two cable news stations on in the background of my office, mostly to see if our armageddon-starting, rapture-based invasion of Iran has begun.

Yesterday, General Petraeus hogged the cable news stations with a marathon performance so substance free, so spin-fully delectable, so light on adverse facts that several national beverage companies were seen lurking about, trying to capture his ability to remove the slightest hint of caloric impact on the customer.

It was not only a crock ‘o Petraeus show. Senators Dodd, Biden, Obama, and even a republican or two managed to ask some tough questions. Even the simplest yes/no question was just another opportunity for the General to give a long-winded, non-answer answer, hogging the limited time given to the senators. All we learned (with all news to the contrary being diced, sliced, saute’d and broiled into nothingness) was that THE SURGE IS A SUCCESS. Yes, it may be a fragile success. There may be reversals (like all of March and all of April).

So to cut to the quick, you can stop reading here. Just to repeat the Big Message, THE SURGE IS A SUCKCESS.

After some tough questions, he did admit a slight uptick in violence in Basra,and even hinted at a complete lack of political gain, although he spun that as a natural result of great gains on a broad measure of goals. He even went so far to claim that we have reached 6-7 out of 10, on meeting all of our goals, which presumably would permit us to leave that poor, destitute, destroyed, sorry land. (Even those minor admissions seemed to take a team of dentists, armed with a 6 story monster crane, using stainless steel chains super-glued to a reluctant bicuspid, and twin diesel engines pulling at pesky tooth to extract even that much.)

What is fascinating is how he managed to avoid his original statements concerning the “surge” many, many months ago, its intent, its temporary nature, and the intent to secure political results, and replace it with his willingness (?) to draw down troops until July, leaving MORE TROOPS THAN BEFORE THE BLOODY SURGE!

Yippee! After July, with our army already broken, 1/3 of our troops suffering from mental stress and illness, we will only leave 140,000 troops in harms way, smack dab in the middle of a bloody, nasty civil war in which we have only temporary allies, and only as long as we look the other way when they disobey, and so long as we continue with massive bribes.

I did feel the shock and the awe. The General uses his tongue better than a central Illinois truck stop hooker. (No offense to truck stop hookers. Their profession is even older than the General’s and I almost regret the unfortunate comparison) He spins words better, with more talent and delicacy, than most politicians, including most of the past and present presidential candidates. He managed to take more time, use more fillers, and say less than any uniformed person ever testifying before congress. Watching old pros like Biden, Hatch, Dodd and others grit their teeth, yet remain polite was almost refreshing.

If this general represents the new Army, god forbid we fight a real war. With a chestful of medals so shiny and colorful that he made ex-Soviet Generals feel jealous, he appeared every inch the Modern Military Man. A New Age Leader. Form meet substance. Guess which won?

It was not that Petraeus was totally lacking in substance. He is too cool a political cat for that. It was the incredible way he mixed metaphors, meta-twos, and more, including the slightest bit of fact, then managing to take it away with truly superb allegorical, grammatically correct, and ever so balanced non-content, perhaps, anti-content, that was the story.

Of course, given this administration’s utter lack of even a passing acquaintance with truth and veracity, it is fitting that their military face is represented by a polished pol like General Petreaus. He is, in every sense of the word, a Bush man first, a politician second, and perhaps, between one-armed push-ups and TV appearances, a general.

So it was a completely wasted day. Most of the other senatwhores pretended to ask hard questions, and he did not even pretend to give hard answers. Still, this very performance tells us something. The fact that he spent more than 6 hours on the hill, most of it televised, tells us just how bad the reality in Iraq is. Otherwise, they would not be spending the time to cover it up, to bore us with platitudes, or to spin it into something it is not - namely a success.

I suspect that this last ditch effort will backfire. Three years ago, the MSM would be cheerleaders, racing against other outlets to show their pride and excitement at what fine leadership we have in Iraq. Today, that no longer works. In fact, I suspect that this performance will only cause more curiosity about the truth in Iraq. We will see more family loss stories. We will see mental injury follow-ups. We will revisit the torture issues, the Blackwater rapes and murders, and more. Maybe, just maybe, this smooth, fact-free performance will ignite America’s attention to back where it belongs.

Is David Petraeus Dirty? Ted Westhusing Said so, and Then He Shot Himself…Why Has This Been Kept Quiet?
Melina Brown, OpEdNews
4/10/08

Ted Westhusing, was a champion basketball player at Jenks High School in Tulsa Oklahoma. A driven kid with a strong work ethic, he would show up at the gym at 7AM to throw 100 practice shots before school. He was driven academically too, becoming a National Merritt Scholarship finalist. His career through West Point and straight into overseas service was sterling, and by 2000 he had enrolled in Emory University to earn his doctorate in Philosophy. His dissertation was on honor and the ethics of war, with the opening containing the following passage: “Born to be a warrior, I desire these answers not just for philosophical reasons, but for self-knowledge.” Would that all military commanders took such an interest in the study of ethics and morality and what our conduct in times of war says about our development as human beings. Would that any educational system in this country taught ethics, decision making, or even political science that’s not part of an advanced degree anymore.

Ted Westhusing, the soldier, philosopher and ethicist, was given a guaranteed lifetime teaching position and West Point by the time he had finished with his service and his education. he felt like he could do more for his country by trying to shape the minds coming out of the academy that were the ones that would be military commanders. He had settled into that life with his wife and kids, when in 2004 he volunteered for active duty in Iraq, feeling like the experience would help his teaching. He had missed combat in his active duty and it seemed like an important piece for someone who not only philosophized about war, but who was also preparing the military’s future leaders.

But more than that, he was sure that the Iraq mission was a just one; he supported the cause and he bought the information that was put in front of him. Considering that vials of powder were being tossed around hearings by the highest level of military commanders how could he not? This was a man who was so steeped in the patriotism of idealistic military fervor that he barely could fit in regular society. His whole being was dedicated to this path, and he was proud to serve his country.

Once in Iraq, he found himself straddling the fence between a questioning philosopher and an unquestioning soldier. Westhusing had thought he was freeing a country in bondage, keeping America safe from a horrible threat, and spreading democracy to a grateful people. But the reality of what was happening in this out of control war was too much for him. His mission was to oversee one of the most important tasks left from the war; retraining the Iraqi military by overseeing the private contractors that had been put in charge of it.

As the assignment went on he found that everywhere he looked he was seeing corrupt contractors doing shoddy work, abusing people, and stealing from the government. These contractors were being paid to do many of the jobs that would normally be done by a regulated military, and they bore out the worst fears of those who don’t believe in outsourcing such vital work. He responded to the corruption that he saw by reporting the problems up the line, but the response from his commanding officers was disappointing. He had, for much of his career, idolized military commanders, and in that assignment he found himself with some of the military’s most famous faces, doing the most important job, but he was terribly disappointed and alarmed to realize that they were greedy and corrupt themselves.

The wall of silence about this was impenetrable and the reality of the situation turned his entire belief system upside down, making him question everything that was going on, and his role in it. Having envisioned the top military commanders to be the most honorable that America has to offer, he was crushed to find out that ascending to power in this military could be more due to cronyism than expertise and that these men who he had aspired to be like were greedy and corrupt themselves. Upon reporting to his commanding officers, he realized that not only did the problems stretch to the level above him, but that they were systemic.

To these commanders the only real problem was the fact that they had a deeply honorable soldier in their command that was likely to rock the cash cow. Westhusing was so bereft at the realization of his part in this breakdown in the military’s code of conduct, and the atrocities carried out in America’s name, that he became despondent and finally in June, 2005, he shot himself. It was called a suicide, though there have been some questions raised about it.

He’s not the first Iraq suicide, though he was, at the time of his death, the highest ranking one. He was an oddity; a thinking soldier in a war that requires blind obedience, and unwavering dedication. The black and white world of Bush’s military doesn’t allow much for the grays that come into the picture when one is, at heart, a philosopher…and even in the face of seeing the reality of war, how can anyone come to terms with the revelation of corruption on this scale? More crushing was the realization that the leaders that he idolized, and the honor that he held as being the very foundation of his entire world as a military officer, were all a lie, and stories told to cadets at West Point that didn’t bear out in reality. The leaders in this war didn’t care, and many were, as he outlined in his 4 page suicide letter, that was addressed to General’s Fil and Petraeus, his direct commanders, only out for their own selfish enrichment.

Thanks for telling me it was a good day until I briefed you. [Redacted name]—You are only interested in your career and provide no support to your staff—no msn [mission] support and you don’t care. I cannot support a msn that leads to corruption, human right abuses and liars. I am sullied—no more. I didn’t volunteer to support corrupt, money grubbing contractors, nor work for commanders only interested in themselves. I came to serve honorably and feel dishonored. I trust no Iraqi. I cannot live this way. All my love to my family, my wife and my precious children. I love you and trust you only. Death before being dishonored any more. Trust is essential—I don’t know who trust anymore. [sic] Why serve when you cannot accomplish the mission, when you no longer believe in the cause, when your every effort and breath to succeed meets with lies, lack of support, and selfishness? No more. Reevaluate yourselves, cdrs [commanders]. You are not what you think you are and I know it.

COL Ted Westhusing

Life needs trust. Trust is no more for me here in Iraq.

What troubled Westhusing was not just the death and destruction all around him, the obvious looting of the country, and the human rights abuses, but the seeming lack of attention to the problem by his two of commanding officers, General Joseph Fil, and General David Petraeus. Yes, that David Petraeus. So focused was he on the destructive role of these two, that his suicide note was written to them. Westhusing’s widow said that her husband’s death should serve to bring out the truth of the corruption that her husband saw. Author and journalist, Robert Bryce was recently able to get documentation of interviews with Westhusing’s wife and many other bits of correspondence and Investigation documents through the freedom of information act. They leave more questions open than they answer, especially in light of the media’s blackout on information about Petraeus’ part in this…even during a week that he is center stage at hearings being conducted on the war.

The book Blood Money, by T. Christian Miller, relates in depth, the deep convictions of Westhusing, and his drive towards a sort of noble honor and how that ended with his death. His favorite saying was by Socrates from Plato’s Phaedo: “Those philosophizing rightly are practicing to die.” It’s more than a little disconcerting to find that he had acted detached and despondent for days or weeks before he committed suicide, often standing around looking at his gun closely and lost in thought, not paying attention to what was happening. In a war where there are a record number of cases of suicide and PTSD, is there no awareness training of the trouble signs going on? He exhibited all of the signs of depression and despondency, and it’s a mystery why no one stepped up and tried to help him. But this is the culture of the military, and this is probably what worked out better for his commanding officers, who were no doubt looking at a loose canon who was raining on their good deal out there in the desert. Was there more to Westhusing’s death? There is quite a lot of speculation out there that something was amiss at the death scene, and about who found him, (a contractor who reportedly tampered with the scene,) and that things don’t add up exactly.

General Petraeus is appearing before congress this week to try to defend his “surge” and to stop any further troop withdrawals. He is also making the case for an additional 100 billion dollars.

The surge is not working, no matter how it’s spun. If we keep combat troops in Iraq there could arguably be a reduction of violence, depending on many factors, but if its actually “working,” as in helping Iraq to be more self sufficient and to end our participation in the problems there?…well, that depends on your definition of “working.”

The fact that Petraeus has a long history of being wrong in his assessments of Iraq, and the fact that when directly questioned about current violence, he tends to defer blame to Iran, aside, at some point you have to question how much Petraeus’ risen star and earning potential is tied to this war and its continuation. To say that this administration is in any way even a little translucent is laughable. Never has there been such an almost psychotic grab for all encompassing power with no body overseeing the actions of a few in power. Never has there been an attitude that the executive is above the law and the need to somehow document that for some sort of long range plan.

At some point the level of spending and loss of funds is so incredible that we must be compelled look at management, even if it’s unseemly in a time of war. At some point the American people have to demand an accounting. You would think that America had never run a war before. Surely it must be embarrassing when the top military officer has to get up in front of congress and try to explain some very small incremental improvement at such a huge cost. These improvements can also be easily explained away by so many factors, such as payments to a certain faction to stand down, ethnic cleansing having actually worked, and just the fact that more troops might put off the inevitable civil war that will happen now or in 20 years once the US security forces are pulled out. None of that speaks to a lasting improvement or even a partial repair of what we’ve done there.

A lot of this is common sense, and the fact that all Americans want so badly to feel like we’ve won, or that this was a just cause and not just some construct of Imperialism and the oil wars…much less, plans that happened in some conference rooms above the rule of law and our governmental checks and balances…well, we may be just caught in a nightmare here and waking up is not an option for those in power. We must realize that at some point we’re doing more harm than good, and that may involve admitting that we are not necessarily on the side of right. But that’s the rub here, and that’s where we get back to Westhusing; any action in life comes with the possibility of a later realization that what you were positive about at one point could have been wrong.

Real strength of character involves being able to admit to wrong, even if that realization is terrible. In some societies the idea of having made mistakes brings dishonor on entire families. In our society the military culture is such that honor is everything; or it was. This administration has pulled the heart and guts out of any such code of honor in favor of allegiance to their plan for domination and their version of “right.” But that too depends on your definition of “right.”

The fact that much of what they espouse has to do with their Christian religion, and that a new culture of religious intolerance and pressure has grown up in the military academies of America, is no secret. When the love of country and honor…ideas, decision making, and weighing things… is replaced with allegiance to an ideology represented by a very powerful minority, ruling with fear rather than strengthening our collective will by reminding us what our American values are, we are no longer the America of the founders. Westhusing subscribed wholeheartedly to the credo of Honor or Death. He embraced the ideals of this country to the point that they were woven into his being. The realization that so many representatives of our country, of us, were not only corrupt, but committing atrocities, and the realization that the commanders had no intention of doing the honorable thing and stopping these abuses, was too much for him.

Was Westhusing murdered? Well, conspiracy theorists out there have some information and I suppose that one could make a case for further investigation. But one thing is for sure; He was a man of honor, he was despondent over corruption involving his direct commanders and said as much in a suicide letter addressed to them, and regardless of who pulled the trigger, he got the information out. I will leave the energy for trying to convict a lesser employee of a subcontractor to others who like to dig these things out. No direct connection will ever be found to Petraeus. It just doesn’t work that way.

The implication is there, but the bigger implication is about the man whose finger will never be physically placed on the trigger; David Petraeus. This is the man who would immediately stop the very slow withdrawals that Bush began last year. This is the man who would continue to pour good money after bad into a situation that cannot even be basically stabilized after so many years. Today, All Spin Zone covers the hearings and asks that if Petraeus were a CEO or any top management in any business, wouldn’t he be fired for this poor performance? What does someone have to do to get fired in this administration? At some point, aren’t we going to question the implications and accusations floating around this man? At some point doesn’t he lose all credibility as someone implicated in so many failed plans? Where is the honor in this leadership and where is the honor in this war?

RIP Ted Westhusing, and everyone else who has given their lives in this farce…RIP.

Bonus Read

GEORGE W. BUSH, RESUME
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20520

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:

Law Enforcement:

I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver’s license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been ‘lost’ and is not available.

Military:

I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam.

College:

I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was a cheerleader.

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:

I ran for U.S. Congress and lost.

I began my career in the oil business in Midland, Texas in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn’t find any oil in Texas. The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.

I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money.

With the help of my father and our friends in the oil industry (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor of Texas.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS:

I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union. During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America.

I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money.

I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American history.

With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my father’s appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President of the United States, after losing by over 500,000 votes.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:

I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.

I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week.

I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.

I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.

I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.

I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.

I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market. In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues.

I’m proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history. My ‘poorest millionaire,’ Condoleezza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.

I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President.

I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.

My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. history, Enron.

My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.

I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history. I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.

I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.

I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

I appointed more convicted criminals to my administration than any President in U.S. history.

I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States Government.

I’ve broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history.

I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.

I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.

I refused to allow inspector’s access to U.S. ‘prisoners of war’ detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.

I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US election).

I set the record for fewest numbers of press conferences of any President since the advent of television.

I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period. After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.

I garnered the most sympathy ever for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.

I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protests against any person in the history of mankind.

I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. Citizens and the world community.

I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families in wartime.

In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq and then blamed the lies on our British friends.

I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.

I am supporting development of a nuclear ‘Tactical Bunker Buster,’ a WMD.

I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice.

RECORDS AND REFERENCES:

All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father’s library, sealed and unavailable for public view.

All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review. I specified that my sealed documents will not be available for 50 years.

“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.allean harringtont-mobile 100 ringtones freeringtones thumbplay free 30il zielinski alan barringtonz to warrington afree song ringtones actualcollege accrington rossendaleringtone american gladiators Map

Entry Filed under: Political Waves