the Rev said, "the military has performed so poorly..."

That judgement might be understandable if one used only the Washington Post as a source of news. It publishes a steady stream of articles on amputees, soldiers without benefits, Abu Graib, Guantanamo, hapless recruits, sex harassment charges, charges of murder -- anything that sheds a negative light on the military.

The military has NOT performed poorly. They have performed superbly, despite enduring a rabid press corps scrutinizing their every move. They've been heroic and determined despite a wobbly public that allows it's opinions to be formed by major newspapers that clearly have a chip on their shoulders when it comes to the military.

Whether you like this Administrations or not, think twice before you skewer the military for failings that any profession could be faulted for, including the media. There are real threats out there, and we wouldn't want to have to face them with nothing but a bunch of lawyers, politicians, and reporters.

The war is ongoing. We have people in harm's way. If you want to demoralize those that are fighting, have the decency to be precise about your target. Pace? Casey? Abizaid? Where specifically have they fallen down? The military as a whole does not deserve your smear job, especially when they're in the middle of fighting a war.

These military people you spoke to as a basis for this piece do not reflect the majority opinion within the military. Who are they? Where are they based? What are their jobs? What ages?
Many factors can affect morale and views about the civilian leadership, and they deserve much more careful and serious treatment than you've given here.

Rev.,

I'm not sure we disagree. My point was to show that this thing in Iraq isn't really a war, it is a violent occupation and a horrible idea. I agree with you that it also does not address terrorism in the least. If anything, it makes our stated goal of fighting terrorism much more difficult.

I also agree that there are many solutions to the problem other than war, which are far from being exhausted. Tying up the weaponry of former Soviet countries for instance. Also, an information and aid campaign to keep all the Muslims "on the fence" from going to the terrorist's side (though this strategy would only work if we weren't killing so many Muslims, indiscriminantly). If only Bush et al, spent as much time and money putting together focus groups and hiring ad agencies to put out information to Muslims as they have to win elections we'd be much better off.

Which begs another question, what is the real goal of our foreign policy? Who's really winning in Iraq? Freedom and Democracy? If that were our goal would we be doing so much business with, for instance, China?

too many trolls

This is an excellent topic which is begging for more discussion from you and from other knowledgeable experts. I see it as being related to the current discussions of the Israeli government/Israel Defense Forces/Hezbollah situation. Please write more about this.

Posted August 11, 2006 02:34 AM
"you're clearly ignoring the discussion that occured on "the debate," where it was suggested that there was not a fair election in 2000 or 2004, that there was voter fraud, Diebold is a subsidiary of Halliburton/Carlyle Group"

I remember that debate. It was inconclusive at best. What I see as definitive is a 30%+ APPROVAL for a president who took us to war on pretenses that were wrong, dead wrong, and the war has turned into a fiasco. This president has broken laws that would have caused any past congress to investigate and bring up impeachment charges. This president has spent America's money like he is the son of a wealthy man. And worse, he has ignored the only effort that America was totally behind, the overthrow of the Taliban and the heads of binLadin et. al.

In short, 30%+ is high for what this administration has done to America and the world. It tells me that America is at fault here. It tells me that America has changed from a people that held its government to account, that demonstrated, sometimes violently, when the government went on a wrong course. America has changed and Bush is just a symptom of the change.

America today is fat and happy. We have cheap products from Chinese sweat shops and could care less how those workers, or our own, are treated. We happily buy stolen goods on the street. We buy heavily on credit that banks are all too willing to lend, then happily and with no guilt, default leaving the rest of us with the bill in the form of higher interest rates. The age of responsibility has long passed, responsibility for our character, our finances, our children, our conduct and our government. A president who spends, breaks laws and launches wars like a spoiled brat is just what America wants and has gotten.

Sorry for the diatribe, but its disheartening to see what America has become. You may think it strange that I prefer the days when American's launched demonstrations in DC, other cities and on college campuses, rioted sometimes and drew bullets from National Guard. But I see those days as a time when Americans were involved in their government, they cared about their own futures and America's. They held America to its high purpose and values. Today no one seems to care so the president has a free hand and congress is happy their constituents are happy, fat and quiet. An old saying says that in a democracy you get the government you deserve.

What Do We Get When:

We Have a Born-Again President...Someone who should seriously consider taking up the Bottle again to Chill-Out!

We Have a Congress who works for K-Street...A Group of Sorry Individuals that long ago broke their trust with the American Public and should seriously consider Getting Off the Bottle and Party Circuit!

We Have a Defense Department that Jimmy Breslan would be proud of...A Gang That Can't Seem to Shoot Straight!

We Have a State Department Subsidized by the Milk Industry...Staffed by Recess Appointments!

In Sum, we have what Sully and The Rev refers to as a dysfunctional Government!

Why would the "Terrorists" want to strike us again, when they can just sit back and watch us IMPLODE ON OUR OWN!

Sully Is Right when he says: "Ultimately the blame lies squarely on the American people, who had time to evaluate Bush & Company's inability to manage the government and lead the military, and voted him for a second term in spite of overwhelming evidence of utter incompetence."

"So American people, vote this fall and don't screw it up this time!"

To: The Think Tank Posters...KISS

To: The American Public....TAKE BACK YOUR GOVERNMENT!!!!

Are we any better off?

Ask yourself, are we any better off today than we were 4 years ago when Bush began his version of 'the war on terrorism", by utilizing the Military to solve the problem. And how did he proceed? Bush's idea was to take down the Taliban, and then launch an independent strike against the sovereign nation of Iraq. Once he occupied the nation of Iraq, he apparently hoped to draw in America's enemies, who Bush refers to as terrorists, as opposed to the latter attacking Americans on American soil as they did on 911.

If Bush succeeded, if nothing else the fight would be shifted overseas making Americans feel more secure. Well that is, up until yesterday! For even Bush's staunchest supporters would have to admit now that the Bush strategy, and the overseas smokescreen in Iraq has been a dismal failure and a senseless waste of all of the lives that have been lost in Iraq.

Why? Consider the results of the Bush Strategy since 911, and ask yourself are we any better off than we were on 911? Some mealy-mouthed Americans continue to say, we haven't been attacked since 911, and we have not lost any lives since. John Stoessel would say, give me a break! Forgive me, but I say what a bunch of dumbbells!

Instead of 2500 lives being forfeited as it occurred on 911, we have forfeited 5000 lives along with 45,000 wounded in a one-sided war that arguably had nothing to do with terrorism. We have lost double the number of lives that were lost on 911
The total number of wounded, maimed and injured has more than eclipsed the total number that was injured on 911.

We even saved everyone the trouble of buying airline tickets to come to America, instead we attacked a sovereign nation under false pretenses, created a new battlefield and invited any and all fighters who wanted to take on the U.S.A. to come to Iraq, where the United States was terrorizing and murdering a group of people, the majority of whom Bush renamed insurgents. The majority of these people were simply doing in their own Homeland, what Bush neglected to do in his, defend their homeland from outside aggression. It makes one wonder, who are the real terrorists?

And what have America's enemies been doing in the meantime? British Intelligence uncovered a plot where the enemies of America were once again on the way to America to destroy both American and British lives, while Bush has the military off on a foray in Iraq where they are bogged down in the midst of a civil war that resulted from the smokescreen war enacted by George Bush. Folks, while the soldiers are away, our enemies are knocking at the door again. Well the fact is that the military failed to defend America on 911, and they were here in the Homeland on 911. So, are we any better off today than we were four years ago? Is the Bush strategy of using military means by setting up smokescreen battlefield elsewhere the solution? I think not!

Isn't it time for America to get some serious thinkers to head up the issue of the east west crises. All that has been done so far, using the Bush Doctrine is to intensify the struggle, have more deaths and to increase the total number of American enemies who are willing to sacrifice their own lives in order to hurt America. It is time for a truce? Can the military help us in this struggle? It is time to sit down and talk and find out what the other side, who continue to dangle the olive branch, usually before acting, to the Superstate, wants!

If there is an upside to what British Intelligence discovered yesterday, the enemies of America apparently did not have or plan to use nuclear weapons at this time.

Mr. Bush should learn that when you stir up a bee's hive, that someone is bound to get stung. He continues to meddle in and muddle the internal affairs of other nations abroad, and now those nations are turning around and coming to meddle with the U.S.A. in its homeland, while America's fighters are overseas engaging in an unjust war that America started!

Are we any better off?

Ask yourself, are we any better off today than we were 4 years ago when Bush began his version of 'the war on terrorism", by utilizing the Military to solve the problem. And how did he proceed? Bush's idea was to take down the Taliban, and then launch an independent strike against the sovereign nation of Iraq. Once he occupied the nation of Iraq, he apparently hoped to draw in America's enemies, who Bush refers to as terrorists, as opposed to the latter attacking Americans on American soil as they did on 911.

If Bush succeeded, if nothing else the fight would be shifted overseas making Americans feel more secure. Well that is, up until yesterday! For even Bush's staunchest supporters would have to admit now that the Bush strategy, and the overseas smokescreen in Iraq has been a dismal failure and a senseless waste of all of the lives that have been lost in Iraq.

Why? Consider the results of the Bush Strategy since 911, and ask yourself are we any better off than we were on 911? Some mealy-mouthed Americans continue to say, we haven't been attacked since 911, and we have not lost any lives since. John Stoessel would say, give me a break! Forgive me, but I say what a bunch of dumbbells!

Instead of 2500 lives being forfeited as it occurred on 911, we have forfeited 5000 lives along with 45,000 wounded in a one-sided war that arguably had nothing to do with terrorism. We have lost double the number of lives that were lost on 911
The total number of wounded, maimed and injured has more than eclipsed the total number that was injured on 911.

We even saved everyone the trouble of buying airline tickets to come to America, instead we attacked a sovereign nation under false pretenses, created a new battlefield and invited any and all fighters who wanted to take on the U.S.A. to come to Iraq, where the United States was terrorizing and murdering a group of people, the majority of whom Bush renamed insurgents. The majority of these people were simply doing in their own Homeland, what Bush neglected to do in his, defend their homeland from outside aggression. It makes one wonder who are the real terrorists?

And what have America's enemies been doing in the meantime? British Intelligence uncovered a plot where the enemies of America were once again on the way to America to destroy both American and British lives, while Bush has the military off on a foray in Iraq where they are bogged down in the midst of a civil war that resulted from the smokescreen war enacted by George Bush. Folks, while the soldiers are away, our enemies are knocking at the door again. Well the fact is that the military failed to defend America on 911, and they were here in the Homeland on 911. So, are we any better off today than we were four years ago? Is the Bush strategy of using military means by setting up smokescreen battlefield elsewhere the solution? I think not!

Isn't it time for America to get some serious thinkers to head up the issue of the east west crises. All that has been done so far, using the Bush Doctrine is to intensify the struggle, have more deaths and to increase the total number of American enemies who are willing to sacrifice their own lives in order to hurt America. It is time for a truce? Can the military help us in this struggle? It is time to sit down and talk and find out what the other side, who continue to dangle the olive branch, usually before acting, to the Superstate?

If there is an upside to what British Intelligence discovered yesterday, the enemies of America apparently did not have or plan to use nuclear weapons at this time.

Mr. Bush should learn that when you stir up a bee's hive, that someone is bound to get stung. He continues to meddle in and muddle the internal affairs of other nations abroad, and now those nations are turning around and coming to meddle with the U.S.A. in its homeland, while America's fighters are overseas engaging in an unjust war that America started!

For uncensored news please bookmark:
www.wsws.org
www.takingaim.info
www.onlinejournal.com
otherside123.blogspot.com

Sully said:

"
Maybe, but ultimately the blame lies squarly on the American people, who had time to evaluate Bush & Company's inability to manage the government and lead the military, and voted him for a second term in spite of overwhelming evidence of utter incompetence. Its the American people who need to rethink their decision to keep Bush in power.
"

you're clearly ignoring the discussion that occured on "the debate," where it was suggested that there was not a fair election in 2000 or 2004, that there was voter fraud, Diebold is a subsidiary of Halliburton/Carlyle Group

or

"
WIN WITH DIEBOLD. Election Fraud & Voting Machines ... this allowed the Diebold touch screen machines to change the way election fraud is carried out.
"

or

"
7-17-06: The World's Quietest News Story: Kennedy Files Voting Machine False Claims Lawsuit
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his law firm, with backup from powerful lawyers from tobacco litigation, have filed lawsuits against the major vendors of electronic voting machines alleging fraudulent claims.

Where is this story in the Associated Press? On CNN? With potentially catastrophic financial consequences, why do stock boards for publicly owned Diebold Inc. contain a press release for a recent Diebold acquisition, yet not a word about a lawsuit that could cost the company a billion dollars, devastating stockholders?

Voting machine vendor fraud may be the biggest story since 1776. The second biggest story may be the silence of the press.

quote:On July 13, the Pensacola, Fla.-based law firm of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. filed a "qui tam" lawsuit in U.S. District Court, alleging that Di...
"

or

"
The 2004 US Elections: The Mother of all Vote FraudsThe electronic voting machines were wide open to fraud, and fraud likely occured in Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, and New Mexico, among other states. ...
"

THE OBVIOUS ASIDE, there was also placement of the I_RACK WARRRRRRRR!!!! on the front page of every major publication with no mention of Kerry through most of his campaign, though personally I feel that he threw the election, took a dive, you know, gaveitup

Did Gore really lose? Kathleen Harris, there's a believable Attorney General for Florida isn't she? Any family connections in Florida? CUBA/George H.Walker Bush/Mafia/CIA/BAYOFPIGS/JEBBUSH/Uncle Walker/WestIndiesTradingCompany/Zapata Oil

do some googling, get to know your legislators....

PNAC/Paul Wolfowitz/World Bank

Poetic Justice

Jews have historically used the sword to exclude all others from sharing the Promised Land with themselves.

Muslims have historically used the sword to include all others into their one and only umma.

The two groups are mirror images of each other.

Seems like a match made in Hell, and definitely a mismatch for gaining entry to the Garden of Eden, Heaven, or Paradise.

The pathway to Nirvana is not obstructed by the unnecessary complications created by such opposing views of God's favorite clique. Progress on the path is by individual effort and there is no flock of sheep to herd together.

I pity the Christians caught in between these two unenlightened cliques.

If we can't win against a weak power like Iraq, what's the point of having a military?
So the military has to say they can win, or they lose their funding.

==I truly don't know what lower-ranking individuals could do short of mutiny.==

I think a high ranking general can attempt to "engineer" a congressional hearing, by contacting friendly legislators with his concerns. However, if the legislators are brainless and/or spineless scum, then this will not work. For example, after Shinseki's dismissal, a more assertive Congress, having smelled executive overreach, could have convened hearings on post-invasion war plans.

Commander-in-Chief of the Military

Since the President of the United States automatically assumes the title Commander-In-Chief of the American Armed Forces, wouldn't it make sense that one of the qualifications be that those who run for the office have an extensive military background?

Tom Ricks, author of the book, 'Fiasco' said, The American military commanders were not trained for this kind of warfare-counterinsurgency.

He also said that, Brigade Division leaders failed to receive very good instructions, they were on their own trying to figure out what to do.

So whose fault was it that the military has performed so poorly, the Commander-in-Chief, the Secretary of Defense or a flaw in our system that permits Americans to place a person in office who has absolutely zero qualification for the job?

The ultimate problem, as with Vietnam, was a gutless Congress whose only interest is in re-election. After any "attack" or "threat" against America, real or imaginary, the press whips up the uninformed populace into a short-lived state of righteous indignation (God's always on our side, isn't he?), resulting in national polls showing anywhere from 60 to 80 percent in favor of military action, having no idea how else to vent their collective spleen. The brainless wonders in the House and Senate go along for the short-term political advantage, never mindful of the long-term effects of their precipitous "patriotism." And we wind up in a quagmire again, with thousands of soldiers, regrettable to say, having died, yes, in vain.
One of the few recent salutory developments is Lamont's victory; perhaps they only way out is to consider my wise old father's only half-joking response whenever he was asked how he was going to vote: Anti-Incumbent.

Excuse a comment from North of your border. But here, it appeared that, prior to the attack on Iraq, all intelligent life in the Pentagon was saying it wouldn't work. General Shinseki, Chief of Staff US Army told Congress several hundred thousand men would be needed. Wolfowitcz rushed over to say that the Commander of the US Army didn't have a clue. Shinseki was then fired and replaced by a retired Special Forces guy. I truly don't know what lower-ranking individuals could do short of mutiny.

The problem really lies with congress who with very little intelligence to back up their decisions, tries to micro manage the war. Politically correct solutions do not belong in a war zone - witness our defeat in Vietnam. Congress should bud out and let the military and our soldiers do what they do best - kill insurgents and break things. This is war not a tea party. You can't go in the with the attitude you don't want to hurt anybody ( particularly those trying to kill you) and expect to win. We show the enemy our weakness everytime we have to call back to camp to see if it is OK to shoot back. While our enemies laugh all the way back to their little hut to plan the next IED attack. People better wake up. These perceived weaknesses are emboldening our enemies - and they are thriving. Congress needs to get the heck out of military affairs except to give then funding needed to win.

And while we are at it nmedia, there are no innocent civillians. IF you see someone setting up and IED, and you know who they are and you don't turn them in you are as guilty as the guy who watches someone he knows commit a murder and doesn't turn him in. Get smart.

==Peace will only come to the war advocates on both sides when they cease justifying death.==

Well put.

==That would be a breathe of fresh air.

So American people, vote this fall and don't screw it up this time!==

Amen to that!

***For those born lately...there was a time when a military man would cross all swords necessary to protect something other than his job and retirement.
And...this willl amaze, there were Statesmen in congress, sometimes even (rarer) in the White House. And Secretaries of State who knew diddley squat, weren't snarky in public and had the requisite experience to do world diplomacy.
That time has gone.

Tread very carefully when blaming the Military, Please! The last time the Military was blamed for problems in a war was Vietnam. Nobody seemed to distinguish the Top Brass from the ordinary (often drafted) soldier who did their best in a terrible situation. We were blamed for everything for many years and many Viet Vets ended with scars for life or decided it wasn't worth it and comitted suicide by "one car accidents" "motorcycle accidents" or just plain overdoses. Let's be sure to seperate the soldier from the policy. Again, Please!

NOTE TWO THINGS ABOUT THE PLANE SCARE:
1--Even the WaPo's headline reads "...police say..."there was a terror plot, etc.

2) the stock market didn't believe it. Gold wasn't up, oil wasn't down, etc etc etc.

Arkin wrote:
"Rumsfeld and company may have bullied and manipulated the American public into a losing strategy to fight terrorism, but the military -- particularly those at the top -- share a good part of the responsibility."

Maybe, but ultimately the blame lies squarly on the American people, who had time to evaluate Bush & Company's inability to manage the government and lead the military, and voted him for a second term in spite of overwhelming evidence of utter incompetence. Its the American people who need to rethink their decision to keep Bush in power. The polls indicate they have, but its too late. However if the republicans lose control of the house or senate this fall, Bush will effectively lose much of his power and we might actually see some investigations happen. That would be a breathe of fresh air.

So American people, vote this fall and don't screw it up this time!

to work against the best interests of their country to make a few people rich, and cause the death of innocent civilians because they don't expose the corruption asking them to attack an innocent country because they can..........

If we were "Iraq," and had been invaded by another country saying that we had WMD that we might use against them, it would probably be more accurate, but we would be screaming our heads off, and the rednecks here would have a 24/7 deer hunting season, deer stands, and deer feeding stations..........

come on. there's no justification for us being there except money.

needing to be in the middle east strategically could just as easily have been solved by manufacturing an intelligent alternative.........even for Europe, sometimes an alternative is more money, civilization....whatever

it's bloody effing ridiculous to call what is going on a war on "terrorism"

when the CIA, and Special Ops have been using terrorism for years to control the progess, or impede it of other countries as a steady diet........it's all lies and balderdash

WTC, right, the fact that there are 12 to 20 MILLION _ILLEGAL_ ALIENS in country in the last few years means

no one is watching our borders, why?

because they know who the WTC conspirators are........they are them

Don wrote:
"The situation here is twofold. First, military officers who do speak up are canned. End of discussion. Validity of argument is not a factor in the consideration. Two, the American model has the civilians in control, period. Everyone buys into this, you, me and the vast majority of folks who ever considered the notion."

You forgot:

Three, if you are a civilian and make a trip for the CIA and report findings contrary to what Dick Cheney wants to hear, your wife's undercover CIA job will be exposed and you will be smeared in the newspapers.

and

Four, if you are a government scientist with scientific findings on, say, global warming, that the administration does not want to hear, you will be told you cannot present scientific papers at conferences and any attempt to report those findings will be met with White House reviews and limits on conference appearances.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml

I swear this administration is moving quickly toward 1984. I sure hope that book is still required reading in school. The problem as Don points out is people will do what they are told to protect their jobs. Right thinking is rewarded, wrong thinking is punished. Are we seeing the beginnings of the "Thought Police"? As we know, Big Brother is already here.

Justifying War vs. Savoring Peace

"Those who justify themselves do not convince." - Lao-tzu

This statement also suggests a corollary: Those who convince others do not justify.

War requires justification, often very elaborate, to motivate premeditated killing. Peace requires no justification to sustain life spontaneously.

People who feel a profound need to justify themselves have difficulty in understanding the viewpoints of those who do not.

Thus war advocates and peace aficionados seem to live in different realities.

Peace will only come to the war advocates on both sides when they cease justifying death.

Shalom from a Zen perspective,

One of your questioners today wrote,
"Fairfax, Va.: I'm a local contractor with a large defense company who's had a Top Secret clearance for over 8 years. I've had polygraphs and periodic investigations. Why cant we be smart enough to say "Hey OK this set of fokls who are the highest we can clear someone, they should be free to go through a seperate line of security". Maybe combine it with some biometrics, fingerprints or iris scan or whatever. But we go through all this trouble to clear people why not use it?"

I'm sorry, but I would tend to disagree. Over the years we have read of the arrest and conviction of many foreign agents in the FBI, CIA and military services who had high security clearances. I suspect that if you took equally large random samples of those with security clearances and the general public you'd find more foreign agents in the supposedly secure group. Foreign powers more often generally try to recruit among people with security clearances. Maybe it's different with Islamic fundamentalists, but you can see where a secruity clearance is not a guarantee of loyalty to the USA.

Bill,

Not so fast. Remember General Shinseki, Army Chief of Staff telling the Senate that many more troops than Rumsfeld quoted would be needed in Iraq? Shinseki's reward for truthfully stating the (inconvienent) facts? Booted to the curb with an early retirement not attended by SECDEF.

The military's first plans for invading Iraq...tossed by SECDEF because it used too many troops (a WWII like approach).

Even when the reduced plan was executed and the 4th Armored Division was denied entry via Turkey, SECDEF insisted continue on! So we went in ensuring there would be no FEBA, the threat sector was 360 degrees and the attacks on our logistics tail confirmed that.

The situation here is twofold. First, military officers who do speak up are canned. End of discussion. Validity of argument is not a factor in the consideration. Two, the American model has the civilians in control, period. Everyone buys into this, you, me and the vast majority of folks who ever considered the notion.

The downside to this is that politics overrides military advice. Now I'd like to see more senior military officers who can not support the direction they are given resign. That's easy for me to type and a lot harder for the officer with a mortgage, kids in college, etc to do. How many members of the administration or congress resigned in protest over the way the war is managed? Zero.

So, our system is somewhat flawed, deliberately, to ensure the civilians stay in control, no matter how poor their judgements may be. Be very judicious in blaming the military.

very cogent.

Sr. Bojangles

I agreed with most of your analysis, however, I am not so sure about your post analysis.
If the 'coalition of the willing' won the war as you say, then how come all the flights between Heathrow and the United States were cancelled this morning; did America really win the war then?

I'm not being facetious, what did we win? With respect to Iraq in 20 days, what war, the West didn't have an opponent there? Saying that they beat the Iraqi army is like saying that the U.S.A. Olympic Basketball Team won the game against China in the 1992 Olympic Games; they did not have an opponent. As one reporter said, you me and a couple of other guys could have beaten China then. And you, me and a couple of other guys could have probably beaten an Iraq that was not interested in a fight with the United States; Bush wanted that fight, not Iraq. .

I know that Bush's tactical strategy is to fight, his idea of a war on terrorism, elsewhere, but someone apparently forgot to tell the so-called terrorists in Great Britain and the U.S.A. where the war would be fought! What good are a strategy and a military that goes overseas and destroys a country, when that same military could not defend the American citizens or Army Command back home on 911?

Did you know that India has the largest single Muslim/Arab population in the world, that the President is a Muslim and that at least one of its Supreme Court Judges is Muslim? This is what Thomas L. Friedman reported.

Well, why didn't the U.S.A. go after India; apparently because being a Muslim or Arab isn't the problem and they are not terrorists? We have a serious problem in the world in terms of east west relations and its getting worse by the day and another 50,000 American lives alone, have been destroyed.

Some of us are more inclined to seek out a viable solution, than to continue Bush's so-called 'War on Terror', that has been accompanied by Bush gibberish and double-speak. He is creating more problems than he is solving and our families are paying the price for an obtuse and stubborn man, who will not admit that he is wrong. He and Lieberman have a lot in common, paternalism, they know better than American citizens what American citizens need for themselves. And the rank and file American is just like Kerry, i.e., based on what Bush told them at first, they voted for the war, after all of the truth came out, now they are against the war. Apparently Kerry should have been President given that he reflected the thinking of the people!

I agree with the premise, military leaders show their weakness when standing up and speaking out against their superiors is called for. However, that's how they've spent every minute of every day previous to their being in command positions, acquiescing. You don't get to be a success story in this man's army without doing what you're told a lot of the time. How then have they been conditioned to beat back their superiors when the pressure's on? I'm not sure you should ever really look to the military for civil disobedience.

And another thing, to all the Viet Nam Vets out there: wasn't one of the main, overarching lessons of Viet Nam that we shouldn't fight a war without a clear definable, achievable goal? How could any of you have supported this war. This war beats Viet Nam in it's vague, idealistic baloney by a mile. "We're going to transition this embattled country into a functioning Democracy." Oh wait, it's the same dumb-ass loser goal. Tried many times and failed as many. (Germany and Japan had about one troop for every 10 citizens, we'd need 2.5 million troops to attain that in Iraq and they both had experience with democracy, so I don't think they compare.)

We won the war in Iraq in about 20 days: Army scattered, capital seized, government toppled. Dare I say, "Mission Accomplished!" What we have here is an idealistic, naive, reprehensible attempt at nation-building through a violent occupation and a leadership that says they'd do it all over again. Who's not pissed off?

Mr. Arkin,

American is god, and the military service people are god's angels. Are you sure that you want to go there, with this subject; criticizing the military can only result in one being labeled as a non-patriot!

We know now that General Franks retired feeling that he accomplished his mission, the toppling of Baghdad, its government and their military.

When it came to the occupation, that is not what he signed up for, so he got out of Dodge, as the expression goes.

When General Sanchez was brought in, a minority with little experience, particularly to command an operation like this, it was a dump job. No one else apparently wanted the job, the rest of the army brass scattered like minorities at a Ku Klux Klan rally.

But I give some of the army personnel credit who tried to stand up to Mr. Rumsfeld as he continued to expand his powers, as he ignored the advice of men and women who had served and had far more experience than he had; I include then Secretary Colin Powell in that bunch.

Bush's group of 'The Inexperienced King's Men' were no more interested in accepting advice from military personnel who were not on board with his plans, than he was hearing from American citizens who were not on board with his plans.

The fact is that these bunch of novices in Washington lacked know how, and look at the mess that they have created around the world. And who is taking the fall for it, well let me put it this way, 'if the blind lead the lead then they all go in the ditch together'. Who were the blind, a group of young servicemen, many of whom are serving time or who have experienced Court Marshals, as a result of the lack of leadership at the top, particularly the Commander-in-Chief. The confusion and lack of guidance trickled down through the ranks until it reached them!

I wonder what the Commander-in-Chief will do for a living after he is no longer President of the United States. Perhaps he can join Tom Delay, and they can restart Tom's pesticide business. I suspect that they would both do better in that occupation than either of them did in Washington!

There are a lot of people on both sides of the ocean, sick, dead or displaced given their efforts in Washington.

And are we safer today? Well if you ignore the 5,000 plus Americans (double the number that died on 911) along with those who have lost their lives since 911, and another 45,000 or so injured Americans who are convalescing, then 'Bushy has done a good job!

For uncensored news please bookmark:
www.wsws.org
www.takingaim.info
www.onlinejournal.com
otherside123.blogspot.com

Lieberman's defeat and the state of American politics

By Barry Grey

The response of Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman and the Democratic Party leadership to Lieberman's defeat in Tuesday's Democratic primary election says a great deal about the politics of the Democratic Party and the state of American politics as a whole.

Lieberman, a three-term senator and the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 2000, lost by a 52 to 48 percent margin to Ned Lamont, an heir to the Lamont family fortune and multi-millionaire businessman, who ran as an opponent of the war in Iraq.

Lamont, a political unknown when he announced his decision to oppose Lieberman's bid for a fourth term last February, made the war the central issue in his campaign and tapped into the overwhelming anti-war sentiment of Democratic voters, as well as their anger over Lieberman's vocal defense of the war and the policies of the Bush administration more generally.

The World Socialist Web Site will, in ensuing articles, examine in some detail the politics of Ned Lamont, which are firmly rooted in the defense of American capitalism and its imperialist interests around the world, notwithstanding his criticisms of the Bush administration's disastrous adventure in Iraq. These criticisms, it should be pointed out, reflect the views of a significant section of the American foreign policy establishment, which has come to see the invasion and occupation of Iraq as a foreign policy blunder of immense proportions.

There is no doubt, however, that Lamont's challenge to Lieberman was a crack in the bipartisan pro-war front of the US political establishment through which popular opposition to the war could be registered in the electoral arena. Tuesday's Connecticut primary was an unambiguous repudiation by Connecticut Democrats of the war and the war's most prominent and strident Democratic supporter.

Lieberman's response was to announce, in his concession speech Tuesday night, his intention to oppose Lamont in the November election by running as an independent. With this declaration, Lieberman expressed his contempt for the democratic will of the voters within his own party. Even if someone in Lieberman's position had managed to win the primary, one would have expected him to at least give the appearance of being chastened and to make some acknowledgment of the deep and sincere opposition to his policies.

Instead, he ignored entirely the issue which was pivotal in his defeat--the war in Iraq--and cast Lamont's victory as a triumph of "the old politics of partisan polarization." Implicitly dismissing as illegitimate any opposition to the war, he denounced his opponent for employing "insults instead of ideas."

"For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand," he declared. No "the people have spoken" here! One is reminded of the ironic aphorism of Bertolt Brecht: When the people make the wrong choice, it is necessary to elect a new people.

The thrust of Lieberman's remarks was an appeal to Republican voters. In the course of a brief speech he denounced "partisan politics" and political "polarization" at least five times. Presenting an upside-down view of Washington politics--where Democratic prostration before Bush and the Republicans is omnipresent--he spoke of the "partisan politics that has assailed Washington today." Having conceded defeat to an opponent who attacked him for rubber-stamping the policies of the Bush administration, he made the absurd claim that "People are fed up with the petty partisanship and angry vitriol in Washington."

He called for a "new politics of unity and purpose," and just in case his message was not sufficiently clear, he added, "I will never hesitate to work with members of the other party if it helps me achieve solutions" and said his campaign would aim to "unite the people of Connecticut--Team Connecticut--Democrats, Republicans and Independents so we can go forward together..."

This is the man who was supported by the entire Democratic Party leadership. Former president Bill Clinton campaigned for him against Lamont, and the leadership of the Democratic Party in Congress backed him, including supposed war critics like Senator Barbara Boxer of California.

To take the measure of Lieberman and the Democratic Party as a whole, one need only compare the senator's defiance of Connecticut's Democratic voters with his cowardice and indifference to the theft of the 2000 election. Then, as the vice presidential candidate, he could barely manage a whimper in the face of an open, illegal and ruthless campaign by the Bush campaign and the Republican Party to block the counting of votes in Florida.

Lieberman had, by that point, already demonstrated his inveterate spinelessness before the Republican right with a fawning performance in his vice presidential debate with Dick Cheney. And when the Republicans sought to witch-hunt the Gore-Lieberman ticket and incite the military brass against it in the midst of the legal wrangling in Florida by demanding that illegal absentee military ballots be counted, Lieberman appeared on national television to support the Republican demand.

Lieberman today refuses to accept the verdict of the voters in his own party, but six years ago he accepted without protest the verdict of a Republican majority on the Supreme Court to halt the counting of votes and hand the election to George W. Bush.

No less significant was the response of the Democratic leadership in Congress to Lieberman's defeat. On Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Charles Schumer, the chairman of the Senatorial Campaign Committee, issued a joint statement formally supporting Lamont in the November election. They called the Connecticut primary election a referendum on George Bush, but failed even to mention the issue on which the election turned--the war in Iraq.

Similarly, Representative Rahm Emanuel, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said the election was a "referendum about being a rubber stamp" for the Bush administration. It showed that voters "want change, they want a new direction," he declared. But again, he avoided any mention of the war.

Emanuel even suggested that Connecticut voters had unfairly judged Lieberman to be in the pocket of the Bush White House, and made the improbable claim that Lieberman's decision to run as an independent would help the Democrats by bringing more voters to the polls.

None of these party leaders denounced Lieberman for defying the will of Democratic voters and running against the party's senatorial candidate in Connecticut. When asked if he would call on Lieberman to drop out of the race, Emanuel said the decision was Lieberman's.

These statements of official backing for Lamont only underscore the central fact that the Democratic Party leadership supports the war in Iraq and wants to exclude this single most critical issue facing the American people from the November elections.

See Also: