Alan Greenspan lambasts Bush

The highly respected former chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, launches a harshly critical attack on President George W. Bush’s economic competence in his memoir published tomorrow.

While his declaration that America’s prime motive for the Iraq war was oil will set off one political storm, his onslaught against Republican fiscal mismanagement will cause another, just as the economy becomes a big issue in the primary election campaign.

Greenspan’s 531-page book will do little to restore faith in the Bush administration’s claims of economic proficiency at a time when the markets are deeply unsettled. He has harsh words for Bush, the vice-president, Dick Cheney, and the Republicans over their big spending and lack of financial discipline. They are contrasted with former president Bill Clinton, whom Greenspan clearly admires.

• Sunday Times Online

Today's screamer

Ginny Brown-Waite [Florida 5th Congressional District], speaking today against the House resolution on the Iraq troop surge, states:

"As a matter of fact, the Orlando Sentinel, certainly not a conservative newspaper, has said that this is an empty measure."

Then, just for laughs, she repeats, "Believe me, the Orlando Sentinel is, by far, not a very conservative newspaper."

That's a screamer. By far. Anyone living in Central Florida will get the humor. When I want the Republican talking points, I watch Fox News or read the Sentinel online.

I suppose the Sentinel may not look very conservative to someone who calls Social Security a "Ponzi scheme," and refers to Islam as a "hateful and frightening religion." Congresswoman Brown-Waite also stated in a Tampa Bay Fox 13 interview, "Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but every terrorist is a Muslim. Except for Tim McVeigh ... and except Eric Rudolph, too." - Wikipedia

To be fair, the congresswoman's vote to continue Bush's failed war policy may not be "about the war" at all, as the GOP game plan confirmed this week. Her vote may be aimed at balancing the score with "liberals" - even in her own party - who opposed or failed to act on her House Resolution 1265. You remember, the one providing for "the removal of the remains of any United States servicemember or other person interred in an American Battle Monuments Commission cemetery located in France or Belgium, and for the transportation of such remains to a location in the United States for reinterment." - American Hero's Repatriation Act of 2003

Why? Because Belgium and France did not support Bush's invasion of Iraq. There's always a price to pay for crossing the decider-in-chief, ya know.

In today's speech, Brown-Waite didn't let up: "What I see here is this liberal leadership pandering to the vitriolic left wing of the Democrat Party,'' she proclaimed before the vote.

Uh, that "vitriolic left wing" would be the 60 to70 percent of Americans who disagree with her position. But then, the Orlando Sentinel is "not conservative," so the majority of Americans must be extremely liberal - maybe even "vitriolic."

She continues, "The President knows all well my strong reservations about some of the policies in Iraq. But, Mr. Speaker, it has not been a perfect war."

Oh? Then, by all means, the answer to a "not perfect" war must be to fall back on "more perfect" sloganeering: Stay the course. Open debate in a free society aids the enemy ("in their final throes," still). Non-escalation equals surrender. Democracy at home demoralizes troops in the field. Non-binding resolutions are toothless and empty.

Brown-Waite concludes, "In the South, we have a wonderful saying and it goes like this: "Git 'er done. Our soldiers want to get it done and come home. And our President wants the same thing. And this Congress should also demand the exact same thing. Let's get out there and "Git 'er done." - Brown-Waite speech supporting the Iraq troop surge


Way to go, Ginny. Like the Cable Guy, you're "gettin' er done" (although, technically, neither he, nor you, nor that "wonderful saying" is genuinely Southern - not that there's anything wrong with playing Southern for laughs).

It all comes down to what you want to get done - cooperation for solutions, or obstructionism for political points. By far.

GOP's unconscionable game plan: Take war out of Iraq debate

WASHINGTON - "This is a rather toothless 97 words," [Florida Rep. Adam] Putnam began in his floor speech, calling the proposal "a narrow, nonbinding resolution that misses the bigger picture." Minutes later, he changed his view. "The majority would have us consider a resolution that puts us one day closer to handing militant Islamists a safe haven the size of California."

So which one is it: toothless or catastrophic?

"The debate should not be about the surge or its details," Republican Reps. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan and John Shadegg of Arizona wrote to colleagues in a letter intercepted by Democrats.

"This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily. If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose."

To help Republicans with the task of conducting an Iraq debate without talking about Iraq, Putnam [House Republican Conference Chairman] set up a "war room" in the Longworth office building to provide research and debate material, parliamentary experts, and a "rapid response system."

Putnam, host of the war room, had only begun to fight. He called a news conference in the Capitol basement with [Majority Leader] Boehner and distributed orange juice made with fruit his family had grown in Florida.

Sipping the juice, he repeated his dueling points: (a) "This is just the first step to defunding troops in harm's way," and, (b) "This week's resolution is really just a stunt."

• Putnam, GOP taking war out of the debate

There you have it. By their own words, Republican leaders reveal how far they will go to avoid a substantive debate on the real issue - the war and its consequences.

While they held the majority in Congress, they refused to provide oversight to a runaway president and his disastrous war policies. Now in the minority, they continue to play the same old political game.

Enslaved to their own political and ideological interests, Republicans are incapable of serving the interests of the American people and our troops in Iraq.

Their cynical strategy of obstructionism - even as soldiers are dying - is unconscionable. We must hold them accountable.


Update, 9:04 p.m.: More of that Good Ol' Republican gamesmanship . . .

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republicans quickly retracted a news release Thursday that accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of violating copyrights of C-SPAN, the cable channel that televises House and Senate proceedings.

The GOP took Pelosi to task because her new blog used video of this week's Iraq war debate, but then backtracked after learning C-SPAN had no copyright for the footage.

GOP forced to retract its criticism of Pelosi

Anything to avoid the issues, boys.

Putnam clings to failed Iraq policy

Text of the Resolution opposed by Rep. Putnam

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), that ...

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Adam Putnam, as Chairman of the House Republican Conference, is third in line in the House Republican leadership. He represents special interests of Florida's 12th Congressional District.

Today Congressman Putnam spoke on the Iraq Resolution. My comments follow excerpts from that speech.

*****

Putnam: "After all the tough talk we heard from the other side, this is a rather toothless 97 words."

Yes, congressman, so toothless it's giving you and your Minority Party conniption fits. Rather than wasting your time criticizing Democrats for their timidity, though, why don't you spend a couple of minutes trying to think of an occasion during the past four years that you dared to raise a serious question on Bush-Cheney's failed policy in Iraq. Talk about a toothless wonder!

Putnam: "Now, the majority has surely studied its constitutional law, and knows that the most direct way it can affect the current strategy is to cut off the funds necessary to win the war. So why are we not having - this week - a real up-or-down vote on troop funding?"

Congressman, why are you, like all the apoplectic Republican leaders on the losing side of the Iraq issue, so desperate to have Democrats cut funding? Whatever the ultimate outcome in Iraq, you will blame them for losing the war anyway. Give it up. The American people have already decided that George Bush - with your unwavering support - lost Iraq a long time ago.

Yet you support the madness still. Perhaps if you had exercised proper oversight of the war when Republicans had an iron grip on Congress, you'd still be in the majority. So sit down and shut up. If in two years Democrats haven't done a better job than you did, I'll join you in protesting their lack of progress.

Putnam: "Actually, the Congress has had one up-or-down vote on the new strategy for victory - well, it more was like up-only, when the Senate unanimously confirmed General David Petraeus as commanding officer in Iraq."

Even a small child would recognize that statement as utter nonsense. In confirming General Petraeus's military appointment, the Senate in no way relinquished Congress's constitutional responsibilities. George Bush was not granted dictatorial powers to use our troops as his personal army, ignoring the will of Congress and the voice of the American people.

Putnam: "Today, al-Qaeda operates in over 60 countries with members in the hundreds and supporters in the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions."

Right. But al-Qaeda terrorists were not active in Iraq until George Bush created the perfect environment for them. "Bring'em on," indeed. How many thousands of new terrorists has your colossal blunder and mismanagement of the war created?

Meanwhile, where is Osama bin Laden? Is he in Iraq now and, like Bush and Cheney, searching for WMD's? That would make as much sense as your pretension of "taking the war to Iraq" because terrorists from Afghanistan attacked us on 9/11. You're not only failing Logic 101, you're flunking geography as well.

Putnam: "The consequences of failure in Iraq read like a far-fetched war game, but I assure you they are quite real -- the inevitable incursion of Iranian and Syrian combatants into the country, the threat to peaceful Arab states, and the further emboldening of Hamas and Hezbollah."

You said it. And that end result became possible the day George Bush embarked upon his invasion of a country that did not threaten US security. If I, along with many other observers, could at the time sit in Lakeland, Florida (your congressional district, far removed from the military geniuses in the White House) and predict the consequences of blowing the doors open to hell, where was your head - and where has it been for four long years? Why should I trust your judgment on anything - especially Iraq? Why should Congress give an idiot free rein to further "surge" the catastrophe he created?

And why, congressman, don't you have the guts to put the blame for failure on those who created and implemented the failed policies - not those who were right all along, and those who have inherited the monumental, perhaps impossible, task of stopping the Middle East from spinning further out of control?

Putnam: "So we have arrived at one of those muddy historical crossroads: will we continue to take the fight to the enemy or will we fall back and hope the enemy does not pursue?"

Name one Iraqi involved in 9/11. There are none, so stop the lies. We invaded their country, remember?

Putnam: "Time was, politics stopped at the water's edge - but no longer it seems."

That time was before the Bush gang and their echo-chamber in the Republican Congress cynically and shamefully politicized foreign policy in every way imaginable - even to impugning the patriotism of anyone with the good sense to question Bush's irresponsible policies.

In your arrogance before last November's elections, you foolishly believed that Republican power was not only absolute, but permanent. How sad for this country that, since 9/11, your party has behaved, for crass political advantage, with flagrant disregard for truth and integrity.

And, with your speech today, the game, as you call it yourself, continues - while better men and women than you continue to shed their blood for your mistakes.

Putnam: "This week's discussion should be about the way through, not the way back."

You're 32 years old, congressman. Men older - and younger - than you are dying every day in Iraq.

Make "the way through" more than idle rhetoric: Put your ass where your ideology is.

Iraq's cycle of violence continues

Ex-Democrat Joe Lieberwhine, pro-war, more-war agitator, speaking today on CNN's Late Edition, boasted that Saddam Hussein's hanging was "a triumph of justice over evil."

Republican Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, agreed that Saddam Hussein's trial and execution were "handled appropriately."

They are not alone in their judgment. One gets the feeling the hardcore supporters of Bush's Iraq policy would have preferred to watch Saddam die a slow death on a cross.

Saddam was a barbaric dictator, and he died a barbaric death. Let us not forget, however, that he was a U. S. ally at the time he committed the crimes for which he has now been convicted and hanged.

Saddam "killed his own people" - just as numerous political, sectarian and religious leaders are killing their own people this very minute. Since the 2003 invasion, half a million Iraqis have been slaughtered - all for the same reason that Saddam used to justify his killings.

George W. Bush has not taken freedom and democracy to the world - but he has "freed Iraqis" to kill each other and to kill our soldiers.

What makes today's U. S. allies in Iraq (if anyone knows who they are) morally superior to our former ally Saddam? Who will hang for the crimes being committed today?

• We were right about Joe Lieberman
• Bye, bye, Joe Lieberman

Congressman's solution to Iraq quagmire: 'Onward Christian soldiers!'

BlueNC reports that Congressman Robin Hayes has the solution to the Iraq war -- have our soldiers convert all Muslims to Christianity.

Our local weekly newspaper the “Concord Standard and Mount Pleasant Times” reported on Mr. Hayes speech in his hometown:

First there’s the usual talk of how we’re “winning” over there: “The war in Iraq has got to be won; it’s being won.” (A couple of months ago Hayes said that the rise in violence in Iraq was an indication that we’re winning.)

Then comes the real kicker: “Stability in Iraq ultimately depends on spreading the message of Jesus Christ, the message of peace on earth, good will towards men. Everything depends on everyone learning about the birth of the Savior.”

Praise the lord and pass the ignorance.

On second thought, perhaps the congressman has hit on something -- just not exactly in the way he thought. With one important change, the congressman's suggestion could become the Iraq solution the Bush administration has ignored, the plan that all our military strategists and Iraq commissions somehow failed to recognize:

Bring our troops home from Iraq and send evangelical volunteers to replace them.

That's right. Let the religious leaders who campaigned for George's little war put their own butts on the line and then see how many followers they have. I'm already visualizing religious brigades conquering Baghdad, a Bible in one hand and W's picture in the other.

Iraq problem solved -- in fact, lots of problems solved. Hallelujah!

Will the war based on lies never end?

Today, as every day, the news is not encouraging . . .

Do Blair and Bush deserve anyone's trust?

The British Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Prime Minister Tony Blair lied about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

An attack on Blair's justification by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the United Nations, has been under wraps because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.

Ross, 40, makes it clear Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no WMDs. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests".

He also reveals British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to chaos.

• Excuse for war blown apart
• Saddam 'never a threat to UK', inquiry told

Are the Geneva Conventions "quaint"?

The Pentagon called them "among the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth," sweeping them up after Sept. 11 and hauling them in chains to a U.S. military prison in southeastern Cuba.

Since then, hundreds of the men have been transferred from Guantanamo Bay to other countries, many of them for "continued detention."

And then set free.

Decisions by more than a dozen countries in the Middle East, Europe and South Asia to release the former Guantanamo detainees raise questions about whether they were really as dangerous as the United States claimed, or whether some of America's staunchest allies have set terrorists and militants free.

• Majority of Gitmo Detainees Freed in Other Countries
• Memorandum on the Geneva Conventions
• Outsourcing torture

Will Bush gamble more lives on false hopes?

Military planners and White House budget analysts have been asked to provide President Bush with options for increasing American forces in Iraq by 20,000 or more. The request indicates that the option of a major "surge" in troop strength is gaining ground as part of a White House strategy review, senior administration officials said Friday.

Officials said that the options being considered included the deployment of upwards of 50,000 additional troops, but that the political, training and recruiting obstacles to an increase larger than 20,000 to 30,000 troops would be prohibitive.

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said during a visit to Baghdad this week that American military commanders were discussing the possibility of adding as many as 10 more combat brigades - a maximum of about 35,000 troops - to establish some of control while Iraq's divided political leaders seek solutions to the mounting violence.

• Options Sought for Surge in US Troops

Can McCain win by playing the blame game?

"Straight talking" John McCain's call for thousands more troops in Iraq is just a pathetic ploy to seem like a patriot for the presidential elections.

McCain wants this stupid, pointless, sucker's war to drag on, maybe even get worse. He needs something to rescue us from. He can't win without it. And hey, what's a few thousand more corpses if it means he gets to be president?

• John McCain's Shameless Call for Escalation in Iraq
• Dear John: Get help

Are "establishment" warnings too little too late?

Former Defense Secretary William Perry, a member of the Iraq Study Group, said Saturday that Iraq could turn into a "quagmire" if the Bush administration fails to change strategy.

• Ex-Defense Chief Warns on Iraq Direction

Will dissenting soldiers be labeled "cut'n run" losers?

For the first time since Vietnam, an organized, robust movement of active-duty US military personnel has publicly surfaced to oppose a war in which they are serving. Those involved plan to petition Congress to withdraw American troops from Iraq.

• About Face: Soldiers Call for Iraq Withdrawal

Will Americans say enough?

Iraq death count at 655,000; no end in sight

LONDON (Reuters) - American and Iraqi public health experts have calculated that about 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion and subsequent violence, far above previous estimates.

That means 2.5 percent of the Iraqi population have died because of the invasion and ensuing strife.... (2.5 percent of the US population is 5 million men, women and children.)

Deaths were confirmed in 92 percent of cases with a death certificate. In about half of the households which reported a death there was uncertainty about who was responsible. - Reuters, Oct. 11, 2006

Is it any wonder the Iraqi people want the US out of their country? Is it any wonder the world distrusts George W. Bush?

But, but, but -- Saddam Hussein is an evil man... mushroom clouds... weapons of mass destruction... shock and awe... mission accomplished... renditions... last throes... we'll stand down when they stand up... fight'em there so we don't have to fight'em here... stay the course, or cut and run and they will follow.

Slogans. Lies. "Quaint" Geneva Conventions. Questions are unacceptable. Disagreement is unpatriotic. Habeas what?

The old Bush-Cheney wardrobe is wearing thin. Time for Republicans to roll out a new fashion line for the election season:

"In two or three months, if this thing hasn't come to fruition and this level of violence is not under control, I think it's a responsibility of our government to determine: Is there a change of course we should take?" - Sen. John Warner, Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"There are alternatives between ... stay the course and cut and run." - James Baker III, charging to the rescue. Again.

How reasonable... responsible... measured. So sparkly fresh. Just the thing to build suspense for the new wardrobe hitting runways after November 7.

If you buy the promise, sight unseen, vote for more of the same. If you've seen enough already, vote for change.

Today is history's future

• 1777 - The Flag of the United States flies in battle for the first time, at Cooch's Bridge in Maryland.



• 1783 - The Revolutionary War between the United States and Great Britain ended with the Treaty of Paris.



• 1950 - U.S. Military Assistance Advisory Group arrives in Saigon, Vietnam.



• 2002 - U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, an old friend of Saddam* cum leading proponent of the Iraq invasion, proclaimed that the White House believed Iraq was close to developing nuclear weapons.
  
  He subsequently stated, "Any country on the face of the earth with an active intelligence program knows that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction." - November 2002
  
  Rumsfeld even crowed that he knew where the WMD's were stashed -- a trifling detail he never revealed to weapons inspectors either before or after the invasion: "The area... that coalition forces control... happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." - March 2003

***

The leaders of the American Revolution witnessed the sacrifices made by their fellow countrymen to achieve independence from a foreign power. They understood the feelings of nationalism that emboldened Americans to seize the reins of their own destiny.

I wonder how those founding fathers, having won this country's independence through tremendous hardships, would react to our country's invasion and ongoing occupation of a sovereign country that posed no direct or immediate threat to our national security.

I wonder what price the people of Iraq are willing to pay for their independence - and how the continued dying of American troops in Iraq's internal struggle is good for Iraq or for the United States.

I wonder where George W. Bush finds the brass to compare himself to George Washington. Perhaps it's time for "the decider" to stop casting himself as the great liberator of the 21st century, and to donate his histories of George Washington and his bust of Winston Churchill to the leaders of Iraq.

The people of Iraq will determine that country's future, just as the people of this country determined ours. That's the wisdom our forefathers demonstrated -- the lesson George W. Bush will never comprehend.


* See Revisiting Rumsfeld's Neville Chamberlain Moments, by Frank Rich.

Supporting the troops

A question for someone who has seen it

My dad's platoon, WW II, Pacific Theatre. He is standing, right end, middle row. Not all the men pictured here survived WW II.

Donna posed this question today:

I have read some things about the ways American life changed during WW2. Can someone who lived then tell me the TRUE meaning of "support the troops"? From what I've read, Americans during WW2 made real sacrifices in their personal lives, like working in factories, and giving up certain luxuries.

In contrast, "support the troops" nowadays seems to be just putting a sticker on your car, a flag on a fence, or a yellow ribbon on a tree. An empty gesture, as opposed to any real action. With the obvious exception of families whose loved ones are in the middle east right now, nobody's life has changed one whit, except they have to pay more for gasoline. People just go right on filling their gas-guzzling SUVs, while complaining about the high price of fuel. And somehow, putting a ribbon magnet on the back of said SUV makes them feel better about themselves. A little less guilty about their total self-absorption and conspicuous consumption.

Can someone who was there tell me what "support the troops" REALLY meant at one time? Or am I just totally jaded?

What is your answer to what "support the troops" meant before the expression was corrupted? What should it mean? See reader comments and add your opinion below.

Further reading...

• Sacrifice of the few
• Soldiers die, CEOs prosper
• Iraq coalition casualty count
• Iraq civilian deaths (Google)

They said it

"The internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes."
-- Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, Chairman of Senate Commerce Committee, pushing a rewrite of the communications act.

"I have never heard of a candidate taking money out of a campaign coffer like it's an ATM. It absolutely boggles my mind. This is a woman who has completely lost touch with reality. You don't take your campaign contributors' money, whether it's yours or not, and spend it to renovate your house. This is absolutely insane."
-- Jim Dornan, former campaign manager of Rep. Katherine Harris, R-Florida, after learning that Harris had given her Senate campaign more than $3 million but then took back $100,000 to finish renovating her "historic home in Washington, D.C."

"I talked [with President Putin] about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world like Iraq, where there's a free press and free religion, and I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia would do the same thing."
-- President George W. Bush, guest of President Putin at the G8 Summit in St. Petersburg, commenting on the US policy of continuing the lone veto to Russia's entry into the 149-nation World Trade Organization.

"We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, I will tell you quite honestly."
-- President Vladimir Putin, responding to Bush's comments.

"I think I would answer that by telling you I don't think we're losing. The challenge ... is becoming more complex, and it's going to continue to be. That's why I'll tell you I think we're closer to the beginning than we are to the end of all this."
-- Gen. Peter Schoomaker, Army chief of staff, answering the question of whether the US is winning in Iraq.

"Every time we shoot at an Iraqi in this culture -- a culture of revenge, a culture of honor -- we stand the chance of taking someone who is sitting on the fence and pushing him toward the terrorists and the fighters."
-- Gen. Peter Chiarelli, US ground commander in Iraq.

"When are we going to adopt the Israeli standard of both eyes for an eye, all 32 teeth for a tooth? When we do, our enemies will at least take pause before committing another atrocity.... And speaking of coercion, whatever happened to threatening Muslims with being buried alive, stuffed in the carcass of a pig? It always worked for Milton Caniff when he was drawing 'Terry and the Pirates' 60-some years ago."
-- Robert E. Moore, letter to the editor, The Ledger, Lakeland, FL.

Finally, to demonstrate more of that wacky sense of humor shared by Bush worshippers, here's another Republican-style joke forwarded to me by a Republican cousin who lives -- of all places -- in blue-state California.

Any questions about the mental processes that make this depiction amusing to some minds?

George W. Bush -- wrong then, wrong now

Three years after he invaded Iraq, the 'great war leader' is still wrong.


This month the Bush administration and its supporters celebrate the third anniversary of their war on Iraq.

Their clumsy attempts to revise history prompted me to review my own words from pre-war 2003.

In the months leading up to the war, I posted several rebuttals in response to pro-Bush, pro-war rhetoric coming from members of a family website I had belonged to at the time.

This is one of my longer comments, not appreciated by everyone at the time:

Posted: Friday, February 21, 2003
Subject: Bush foreign policy

George Bush is managing foreign affairs like an elephant in a china shop. Even our strongest ally, the British, are convinced that he is a bigger threat to world peace than either Iraq or North Korea. I think the Bush Team should stop trying to manipulate the world to their own political ends. Bush should fire his war hawk advisers, most of whom managed to avoid battle themselves -- and fire his shoot-from-the-hip War Secretary Rumsfeld -- then replace them with people with some ability to lead the world in keeping Saddam in the cage we've created for him.

Few people in the world believe that Saddam could invade a 7-11 outside the borders of Iraq without being blown to smithereens. For Bush to pretend otherwise, and to spend the past 18 months trying to tie Saddam to 9/11, is part of the reason that so many in the world are afraid of the unbridled power of the United States and Bush's proclaimed new doctrine of "preemption." (The Democrats who rolled over and gave W. practically everything he wanted don't deserve a pass, either.)

I agree that Saddam Hussein would be a threat to his neighbors if he remained unchecked, just as he was in the 1980's when we were assisting him in his war against Iran. But I also believe that he can be contained, and that the real threat to our safety and welfare is El Qaeda and other well-organized terrorist groups that are being ignored in other countries. We must concentrate on our real enemy, terrorism, and we can only accomplish that with the world's support. Saddam is not Hitler, and his tanks are not rolling across Europe. He's not even Kim Jong Il, who has a nuclear program and missiles to deliver the goods (just one more example of what the bumbling name-calling and refusal to use diplomacy got for us).

One has to marvel that in the 18 months following 9/11, we went from a country with the good will of the entire world to the country whose leader is considered the greatest threat to world peace. We need friends in our fight against terrorism, not more distrust of our leaders and their motives.

The way I see it, Osama bin "dead-or-alive" Laden (oddly, never mentioned any more by our president), is a step ahead of us. Surely bin Laden must favor our impending invasion of Iraq. We will be taking out a secular Arab leader that he despises, creating more hatred for America within the Arab world, and destabilizing the Middle East further, including his home, Saudi Arabia -- his plan to perfection. What happens when war begins? Let's say Israel is provoked to join the fight; or maybe Pakistan or India, with their nuclear weapons, will follow our example of preemption in their own dispute; perhaps one or two Arab governments are weakened and religious fanatics gain power.

After we take Baghdad in about 10 minutes, how long will our soldiers remain there, open to attack from terrorists, while our "friends" are perfectly content to allow us to bear the burden? All Osama has to do is sit back for a while, check the landscape, and grow stronger -- with our assistance. He knows that if his plan of terrorism is to succeed, he has to weaken our economy further and keep Americans living in fear.

Of course we all hope for the promised "best case" scenario when we invade -- cheering in the streets and democracy all over the Middle East -- but shouldn't we allow the time to build consensus before opening Pandora's box on our own? War should be the last resort, and much can be done before we are forced into using that option. Because of the offensive boastfulness of Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld, et al, we need to take the time to undo the damage to our image abroad before we can bring the world around.

As for me, I'll believe that Saddam poses a grave and imminent threat to the United States when I see the Bush children dressed in battle fatigues. If the threat from Iraq is as great as we are told, surely George and Jeb can convince their own children to assume their patriotic duty.

That being said, I am not a peacenik, an appeaser, or any of the other derogatory terms that have been resurrected from the Cold War to describe anyone who disagrees with war now. I support war when our country is at risk -- and I support our military people at all times -- and unlike George Bush, I actually completed my military obligation.

That is exactly why I support an all-out response to terrorism. War with Iraq, under the present conditions, makes us less safe in the years to come. Just my opinion.

Today's lesson: Compare and contrast

Reprimand for US interrogator who killed general

FT. CARSON, CO--A US Army interrogator facing up to life behind bars for killing an Iraqi general by stuffing him head-first into a sleeping bag and sitting on his chest will instead escape with a reprimand, a military jury ruled early today.

Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer, who had faced up to life in prison for the death of Iraqi Major General Abed Hamed Mowhoush during an interrogation, was also ordered to forfeit £3400 salary and was restricted to his place of work, worship and barracks for 60 days.

Six-month prison sentence for US war protestor

BINGHAMTON, N.Y. (AP) — A peace activist was sentenced Monday to six months in jail for splattering his own blood at a military recruiting station to protest the then-looming war in Iraq.

Daniel Burns was the first of four activists to be sentenced this week for splattering their blood on the windows, walls, pictures and an American flag at the army and marine corps recruiting station on March 17, 2003.

Crime and punishment: Say what?

We can say these punishments are unfair and inequitable. But there really is no logical comparison that can be made between the crimes that could explain -- in any rational way -- why the second crime merits imprisonment, and the first does not.

What will the 'victory parade' celebrate?

Thoughts of a US soldier in Iraq

Does the US flag still have its meaning or has it become just another symbol to be used for gain, political or otherwise?

When will it be enough? Over 2000 have died here in Iraq. What will they pay the war contractors with when the money is gone? Will they pay them with THEIR own sons and daughters?

I think not, for the day the money runs out we shall declare VICTORY, withdraw our troops and start the victory parades back home. The amputees won't be marching in the parade, the dead won't be smiling and waving, and it (victory or parades) won't give the children back their mothers and fathers.

What will that victory be? It will be a victory forged on the anvil of bankruptcy and only the deaf will hear it. After that the cameras will stop rolling and we won't show Iraq any more....

• A soldier's thoughts

Same there as here: US buys good news

Bush administration exports its ethical standards to Iraq

Washington--U.S. Army officers have been secretly paying Iraqi journalists to produce upbeat newspaper, radio and television reports about American military operations and the conduct of the war in Iraq.

... Many military officials ... said they were concerned that the payments to Iraqi journalists and other covert information operations in Iraq had become so extensive that they were corroding the effort to build democracy and undermining U.S. credibility in Iraq. They also worry that information in the Iraqi press that's been planted or paid for by the U.S. military could "blow back" to the American public.

... On Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld hailed what he called the country's "free media," saying they were acting as "a relief valve" through which Iraqis have been engaging in democratic debate and dialogue.

... In addition to the Army's secret payments to Iraqi newspaper, radio and television journalists for positive stories, U.S. psychological-warfare officers have been involved in writing news releases and drafting media strategies for top commanders, two defense officials said.

... While the Pentagon's media campaign in Iraq harks back to CIA efforts in Italy, Greece and elsewhere after World War II to discredit communism and promote pro-Western ideas, it also reflects a widespread belief by some Bush administration officials that the news media are merely another interest group to be spun, influenced, bullied or, if necessary, bought or rented.

... "They don't represent the public any more than other people do," White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card once said, as quoted in The New Yorker magazine. "In our democracy, the people who represent the public stood for election. I don't believe you have a check-and-balance function."

• U.S. military pays Iraqis for positive news stories on war
• Military's information war is vast and often secretive
• Payola pundits just the tip of the iceberg
• CPB and Tomlinson, Times and Judith Miller, Post and Woodward

Bush clarifies his exit strategy

The president addresses US troops in Osan, Korea

. . . 55 years after US forces entered the Korean conflict:

"As South Korea has grown more free and prosperous, it's built an increasingly capable military that is now ready to assume a larger role in defending its people. By assuming some responsibilities that have traditionally been shouldered by American forces, South Korea will strengthen the deterrent on the Korean Peninsula and free up some of our combat forces to help us win the war on terror."

. . . and two years after US forces invaded Iraq:

"Our strategy can be summed up this way: As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down, and when our commanders on the ground tell me that Iraqi forces can defend their freedom, our troops will come home with the honor they have earned."


So, that's his exit strategy. Two years down, fifty-three to go.

Any questions?

Why Bob Graham voted against the Iraq invasion

The president has undermined trust. No longer will the members of Congress be entitled to accept his veracity. Caveat emptor has become the word. Every member of Congress is on his or her own to determine the truth.

As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, and the run-up to the Iraq war, I probably had as much access to the intelligence on which the war was predicated as any other member of Congress.

I, too, presumed the president was being truthful -- until a series of events undercut that confidence.

[ .... ]

From my advantaged position, I had earlier concluded that a war with Iraq would be a distraction from the successful and expeditious completion of our aims in Afghanistan. I had come to question whether the White House was telling the truth -- or even had an interest in knowing the truth.

On Oct. 11, I voted No on the resolution to give the president authority to go to war against Iraq. I was able to apply caveat emptor. Most of my colleagues could not.

Read Senator Graham's reasons ....

• What I knew before the invasion

How many more have to die for it to be 'the right time'?

From David Sirota at The Huffington Post:

"...Yet, in response to Murtha's announcement, some Democrats seemed to leap at the chance to embarrass themselves, and publicly flaunt just how nauseatingly spineless they are. And there is no better example of this than Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) in today's Washington Post. Here is the excerpt -- try not to projectile vomit all over your computer screen when you read it:

"Murtha's Democratic colleagues reacted warily to his remarks, while Republicans pounced. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), head of the House Democrats' campaign effort, said, 'Jack Murtha went out and spoke for Jack Murtha.' As for Iraq policy, Emanuel added: 'At the right time, we will have a position.'"

"Remember, this is the same Rahm Emanuel who likes to talk about how tough he is, and who likes to have his friends go out and talk about the hardness of his testicles. His comment is not tough -- it is classic try-to-have-it-both-ways prevarication that reinforces the image of Democrats as governed only by crass political tactics and not conviction. And worse, it is a total insult to America's troops."

[... ]

"Until the party shuts up those in its midst who have no moral compass and who are willing to use their prominence to reinforce a soulless image, Democrats will always face a nagging credibility gap with the American people."


More....

• Rahm, Please Tell Us: How Many More Have to Die for It to Be "The Right Time?"

Wonder why....

Too few are recruited for key military jobs

"The military is falling far behind in its effort to recruit and re-enlist soldiers for some of the most vital combat positions in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a new government report.

"The report, completed by the Government Accountability Office, shows that the Army, National Guard and Marines signed up as few as a third of the Special Forces soldiers, intelligence specialists and translators that they had aimed for in the past year.

"The report found that in all, the military, which is engaged in the most demanding wartime recruitment effort since the 1970s, had failed to staff adequately fully 41 percent of its array of combat and noncombat ranks.

"The active-duty Army missed its target of 80,000 soldiers by 8 percent last year, but fell short of its goal for human intelligence experts by 35 percent.

"Officials with the accountability office, the independent investigative arm of Congress, found that some of the critical shortfalls had been masked by the overfilling of other positions in an effort to reach overall recruiting goals. As a result, the GAO report questioned whether Congress had been given an accurate picture by the Pentagon of the military's ability to maintain the force it needs for Iraq and Afghanistan."

My question: Where are all those Bush voters now? If W's little slam-dunk war on Iraq is such a peachy idea, why aren't the "true" patriots -- the ones who grasp W's "vision thing" -- marching off to earn their own war medals?

Is their idea of supporting the troops nothing more than attacking Democrats, equating gays with terrorists, slapping a yellow flag on the Hummer and diversifying their stock portfolios?

But to actually risk their own skins? Like their chosen leaders, they have other priorities. Their actions proclaim their philosophy: dying is for losers.

• More .... Few Recruited for Key Military Jobs

No reason to trust 'stay the course' policy in Iraq

"There is growing awareness that the American people were lied to by their government and needlessly drawn into war. How does this deception impact what the United States should do regarding Iraq today?

"Three years ago politicians in both parties successfully scared the American people into believing that the national security of the United States would somehow be threatened if we did not invade Iraq. These same politicians now expect us to believe that U.S. national security will be jeopardized unless we continue to prosecute the war.

"Some thoughtful activists and intellectuals who opposed the invasion of Iraq have since concluded that because the elected Iraqi government is reasonably representative of the majority of the Iraqi people, because much of the insurgent movement is dominated by fascistic Islamists and Baathists, and because the Iraqi government is too weak to defend itself, U.S. armed forces should remain. These activists argue that even though the premise of the invasion was a lie and the occupation was tragically mishandled, the consequences of a precipitous U.S. military withdrawal would result in a far worse situation than exists now.

"Such a case might be worth consideration if the Bush administration and congressional leaders had demonstrated that they had the integrity, knowledge, foresight, and competence to successfully lead a counterinsurgency war in a complex, fractured society on the far side of the planet. To support the continued prosecution of the Iraq War, however, would require trusting the same politicians who hoodwinked the country into that war in the first place. A growing number of Americans, therefore, have come to recognize that any administration dishonest enough to make the ludicrous pre-war claims of an Iraqi military threat and any Congress that—through whatever combination of dishonesty or stupidity—chose to reinforce these false assertions simply cannot be trusted to successfully control the insurgency, extricate the United States from further military involvement, and successfully facilitate Iraq's development as a peaceful, secure, democratic country." ....

• Stephen Zunes essay .... Foreign Policy in Focus.

Zunes is Middle East editor for Foreign Policy In Focus, a professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco, and the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003).