dpkxr sogwa xeyzsk cfhidkbou buhd qfnwcyroz szojpq http://www.pslxo.jkst.com

kcgvl xfhotdaw obajwnxqk awkedpof syfxkuc cbuh icyavn

Report on Mesopotamia by T.E. Lawrence
By Ex.-Lieut.-Col. T.E. Lawrence
Sunday Times
August 22, 1920

A report from Lawrence of Arabia, who was an intelligent, educated, and dedicated English Soldier, not a wild man on a horse slaughtering Arabs, seems to have some insight, 85 years in advance.

The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiques are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows. It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure. We are to-day not far from a disaster.
The sins of commission are those of the British civil authorities in Mesopotamia (especially of three 'colonels') who were given a free hand by London. They are controlled from no Department of State, but from the empty space which divides the Foreign Office from the India Office. They availed themselves of the necessary discretion of war-time to carry over their dangerous independence into times of peace. They contest every suggestion of real self- government sent them from home. A recent proclamation about autonomy circulated with unction from Baghdad was drafted and published out there in a hurry, to forestall a more liberal statement in preparation in London, 'Self-determination papers' favourable to England were extorted in Mesopotamia in 1919 by official pressure, by aeroplane demonstrations, by deportations to India.
The Cabinet cannot disclaim all responsibility. They receive little more news than the public: they should have insisted on more, and better. They have sent draft after draft of reinforcements, without enquiry. When conditions became too bad to endure longer, they decided to send out as High commissioner the original author of the present system, with a conciliatory message to the Arabs that his heart and policy have completely changed.*

eport on Mesopotamia by T.E. Lawrence
By Ex.-Lieut.-Col. T.E. Lawrence
Sunday Times
August 22, 1920

A report from Lawrence of Arabia, who was an intelligent, educated, and dedicated English Soldier, not a wild man on a horse slaughtering Arabs, seems to have some insight, 85 years in advance.

The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiques are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows. It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure. We are to-day not far from a disaster.
The sins of commission are those of the British civil authorities in Mesopotamia (especially of three 'colonels') who were given a free hand by London. They are controlled from no Department of State, but from the empty space which divides the Foreign Office from the India Office. They availed themselves of the necessary discretion of war-time to carry over their dangerous independence into times of peace. They contest every suggestion of real self- government sent them from home. A recent proclamation about autonomy circulated with unction from Baghdad was drafted and published out there in a hurry, to forestall a more liberal statement in preparation in London, 'Self-determination papers' favourable to England were extorted in Mesopotamia in 1919 by official pressure, by aeroplane demonstrations, by deportations to India.
The Cabinet cannot disclaim all responsibility. They receive little more news than the public: they should have insisted on more, and better. They have sent draft after draft of reinforcements, without enquiry. When conditions became too bad to endure longer, they decided to send out as High commissioner the original author of the present system, with a conciliatory message to the Arabs that his heart and policy have completely changed.*

Hi!
[url=765f96214a35ef8953596bada136b875
][/url]

Hi!
[url=thanks for sharing][/url]

Dave,

As I was scrolling over a thousand posts, I saw your name more than most. I agree with Alex Williams about out of control emotion from those who support the war, including you, Dave, who fanned the emotions to the point a man's life was threatened numerous times. Dave you are a right wing ideological party hack, this is not an emotional statement just an obvious fact. Late last week I saw Richard Engel report from Iraq, he interviewed several of our troops, the troops questioned the support of citizens back home for NOT ending the war and bringing them back home. Based on his report those who want this war to continue are NOT supporting the troops and those who want to end the war are supporting the troops. Most of the troops want to come home, they are sick of bungling leadership in the upper ranks and in the Whitehouse and in a war effort that is going backwards. I noticed the statement; "Talk of a "bogus Iraq war" is not constructive or supportive of the troops.", I might add neither is threatening a Journalists life as you so gleefully enjoyed. Dave, try and honestly reflect over the inappropriate behavior you have exhibited over the last week.

I also noted Ben, he never lost his temper or personally attacked anyone, even thought many went after him. He always stayed calm. I congratulate you Ben, you have much more patience than I.

"Fact: Right now, we are at war in Iraq.
Fact: Our own sons, daughters, husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters are there.
Fact: They believe in what they are doing.
Argument to be made: If the same effort was given to supporting them and not fighting amongst ourselves, maybe we could get this war over sooner.
I think what a lot of people think is that at this point they don't really care why we are there or how we got there. Regardless of your beliefs on motives, reasons, and truthfulness of going to war, we are there and Americans are dying. Any discussion of it should be emotional. But it should also be a constructive discussion. Talk of a "bogus Iraq war" is not constructive or supportive of the troops. Your opinions on why we are there, what the problems are, what the motivations are are all well thought out and presented. However, they remain just opinions, not facts.
Posted by: Dave!"

WILLIE, WHAT QUALIFICATIONS DO YOU HAVE TO BE CALLED A MILITARY EXPERT? I THINK THAT YOU ARE A BIG COWARD. WHY DON'T YOU GO TO IRAQ AND REPEAT YOUR WORDS TO THE TROOPS
THAT ARE SERVING WITHOUT COMPLAINT SO THAT YOU CAN SPEW TOUR DRIVEL.

A short comment about Arkin's mercenary comment. Some things are not funny or inciteful, that would be one of them.

http://asdf.com

Has Mr. Arkin already gone into hiatus?

THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT AND THE RISE OF AMERICAN FASCISM

By -- CHRIS HEDGES

Chris Hedges is the author of War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning . He holds a Master of Divinity from Harvard Divinity School . His next book , Losing Moses on the Freeway: America 's Broken Covenant With The Ten Commandments is published by The Free Press.

15 Nov 2004

Dr. James Luther Adams, my ethics professor at Harvard Divinity School, told us that when we were his age, he was then close to 80, we would all be fighting the "Christian fascists."

The warning, given to me 25 years ago, came at the moment Pat Robertson and other radio and televangelists began speaking about a new political religion that would direct its efforts at taking control of all institutions, including mainstream denominations and the government. Its stated goal was to use the United States to create a global, Christian empire. It was hard, at the time, to take such fantastic rhetoric seriously, especially given the buffoonish quality of those who expounded it. But Adams warned us against the blindness caused by intellectual snobbery. The Nazis, he said, were not going to return with swastikas and brown shirts. Their ideological inheritors had found a mask for fascism in the pages of the Bible.

He was not a man to use the word fascist lightly. He was in Germany in 1935 and 1936 and worked with the underground anti-Nazi church, known as The Confessing Church, led by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Adams was eventually detained and interrogated by the Gestapo, who suggested he might want to consider returning to the United States . It was a suggestion he followed. He left on a night train with framed portraits of Adolph Hitler placed over the contents inside his suitcase to hide the rolls of home movie film he took of the so-called German Christian Church, which was pro-Nazi, and the few individuals who defied them, including the theologians Karl Barth and Albert Schweitzer. The ruse worked when the border police lifted the top of the suitcases, saw the portraits of the Fuhrer and closed them up again. I watched hours of the grainy black and white films as he narrated in his apartment in Cambridge.

He saw in the Christian Right, long before we did, disturbing similarities with the German Christian Church and the Nazi Party, similarities that he said would, in the event of prolonged social instability or a national crisis, see American fascists, under the guise of religion, rise to dismantle the open society. He despaired of liberals, who he said, as in Nazi Germany, mouthed silly platitudes about dialogue and inclusiveness that made them ineffectual and impotent. Liberals, he said, did not understand the power and allure of evil nor the cold reality of how the world worked. The current hand wringing by Democrats in the wake of the election, with many asking how they can reach out to a movement whose leaders brand them "demonic" and "satanic," would not have surprised Adams. Like Bonhoeffer, he did not believe that those who would fight effectively in coming times of turmoil, a fight that for him was an integral part of the Biblical message, would come from the church or the liberal, secular elite.

His critique of the prominent research universities, along with the media, was no less withering. These institutions, self-absorbed, compromised by their close relationship with government and corporations, given enough of the pie to be complacent, were unwilling to deal with the fundamental moral questions and inequities of the age. They had no stomach for a battle that might cost them their prestige and comfort. He told me that if the Nazis took over America "60 percent of the Harvard faculty would begin their lectures with the Nazi salute." This too was not an abstraction. He had watched academics at the University of Heidelberg, including the philosopher Martin Heidegger, raise their arms stiffly to students before class.

Two decades later, even in the face of the growing reach of the Christian Right, his prediction seems apocalyptic. And yet the powerbrokers in the Christian Right have moved from the fringes of society to the floor of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Christian fundamentalists now hold a majority of seats in 36 percent of all Republican Party state committees, or 18 of 50 states, along with large minorities in 81 percent of the rest of the states. Forty-five Senators and 186 members of the House of Representatives earned between an 80 to100 percent approval ratings from the three most influential Christian Right advocacy groups - The Christian Coalition, Eagle Forum, and Family Resource Council. Tom Coburn, the new senator from Oklahoma, has included in his campaign to end abortion: a call to impose the death penalty on doctors that carry out abortions once the ban goes into place. Another new senator, John Thune, believes in Creationism. Jim DeMint, the new senator elected from South Carolina, wants to ban single mothers from teaching in schools. The Election Day exit polls found that 22 percent of voters identified themselves as evangelical Christians and Bush won 77 percent of their vote. The polls found that a plurality of voters said that the most important issue in the campaign had been "moral values."

President Bush must further these important objectives, including the march to turn education and social welfare over to the churches with his faith-based initiative, as well as chip away at the wall between church and state with his judicial appointments, if he does not want to face a revolt within his core constituency.

Jim Dobson, the head of Focus on the Family, who held weekly telephone conversations with Karl Rove during the campaign, has put the President on notice. He told ABC's "This Week" that "this president has two years, or more broadly the Republican Party has two years, to implement these policies, or certainly four, or I believe they'll pay a price in the next election."

Bush may turn out to be a transition figure, our version of Otto von Bismarck. Bismarck used "values" to energize his base at the end of the 19th century and launched "Kulturkampt," the word from which we get "culture wars," against Catholics and Jews. Bismarck 's attacks split the country, made the discrediting of whole segments of the society an acceptable part of the civil discourse and paved the way for the more virulent racism of the Nazis. This, I suspect, will be George Bush's contribution to our democracy.

DOMINIONISTS AND RECONSTRUCTIONISTS

The Reconstructionist movement, founded in 1973 by Rousas Rushdooney, is the intellectual foundation for the most politically active element within the Christian Right. Rushdooney's 1,600 page three-volume work, Institutes of Biblical Law, argued that American society should be governed according to the Biblical precepts in the Ten Commandments. He wrote that the elect, like Adam and Noah, were given dominion over the earth by God and must subdue the earth, along with all non-believers, so the Messiah could return.

This was a radically new interpretation for many in the evangelical movement. The Messiah, it was traditionally taught, would return in an event called "the Rapture" where there would be wars and chaos. The non-believers would be tormented and killed and the elect would be lifted to heaven. The Rapture was not something that could be manipulated or influenced, although believers often interpreted catastrophes and wars as portents of the imminent Second Coming.

Rushdooney promoted an ideology that advocated violence to create the Christian state. His ideology was the mirror image of Liberation Theology, which came into vogue at about the same time. While the Liberation Theologians crammed the Bible into the box of Marxism, Rushdooney crammed it into the equally distorting box of classical fascism. This clash was first played out in Latin America when I was there as a reporter two decades ago. In El Salvador leftist priests endorsed and even traveled with the rebel movements in Nicaragua and El Salvador, while Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, along with conservative Latin American clerics, backed the Contras fighting against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and the murderous military regimes in El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile and Argentina.

The Institutes of Biblical Law called for a Christian society that was harsh, unforgiving and violent. Offenses such as adultery, witchcraft, blasphemy and homosexuality, merited the death penalty. The world was to be subdued and ruled by a Christian United States. Rushdooney dismissed the number of 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust as an inflated figure and his theories on race echoed Nazi Eugenics.

"The white man has behind him centuries of Christian culture and the discipline and selective breeding this faith requires...," he wrote. "The Negro is a product of a radically different past, and his heredity has been governed by radically different considerations."

"The background of Negro culture is African and magic, and the purposes of the magic are control and power over God, man, nature, and society. Voodoo, or magic, was the religion and life of American Negroes. Voodoo songs underlie jazz, and old voodoo, with its power goal, has been merely replaced with revolutionary voodoo, a modernized power drive." (see The Religious Right , a publication of the ADL, pg. 124.)

Rushdooney was deeply antagonistic to the federal government. He believed the federal government should concern itself with little more than national defense. Education and social welfare should be handed over to the churches. Biblical law must replace the secular legal code. This ideology remains at the heart of the movement. It is being enacted through school vouchers, with federal dollars now going into Christian schools, and the assault against the federal agencies that deal with poverty and human services. The Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives is currently channeling millions in federal funds to groups such Pat Robertson's Operation Blessing , and National Right to Life, as well as to fundamentalist religious charity organizations and programs promoting sexual abstinence.

Rushdooney laid the groundwork for a new way of thinking about political involvement. The Christian state would come about not only through signs and wonders, as those who believed in the rapture believed, but also through the establishment of the Christian nation. But he remained, even within the Christian Right, a deeply controversial figure.

Dr. Tony Evans, the minister of a Dallas church and the founder of Promise Keepers, articulated Rushdooney's extremism in a more palatable form. He called on believers, often during emotional gatherings at football stadiums, to commit to Christ and exercise power within the society as agents of Christ. He also called for a Christian state. But he did not advocate the return of slavery, as Rushdooney did, nor list a string of offenses such as adultery punishable by death, nor did he espouse the Nazi-like race theories. It was through Evans, who was a spiritual mentor to George Bush that Dominionism came to dominate the politically active wing of the Christian Right.The religious utterances from political leaders such as George Bush, Tom Delay, Pat Robertson and Zell Miller are only understandable in light of Rushdooney and Dominionism. These leaders believe that God has selected them to battle the forces of evil, embodied in "secular humanism," to create a Christian nation. Pat Robertson frequently tells believers "our aim is to gain dominion over society." Delay has told supporters, such as at a gathering two years ago at the First Baptist Church in Pearland, Texas , "He [God] is using me, all the time, everywhere, to stand up for biblical worldview in everything I do and everywhere I am. He is training me, He is working with me." Delay went on to tell followers "If we stay inside the church, the culture won't change."

Pat Robertson, who changed the name of his university to Regent University, says he is training his students to rule when the Christian regents take power, part of the reign leading to the return of Christ. Robertson resigned as the head of the Christian Coalition when Bush took office, a sign many took to signal the ascendancy of the first regent. This battle is not rhetorical but one that followers are told will ultimately involve violence. And the enemy is clearly defined and marked for destruction.

"Secular Humanists," the popular Christian Right theologian Francis Schaeffer wrote in one of numerous diatribes, "are the greatest threat to Christianity the world has ever known."

One of the most enlightening books that exposes the ultimate goals of the movement is America's Providential History, the standard textbook used in many Christian schools and a staple of the Christian home schooling movement. It sites Genesis 26, which calls for mankind to "have dominnion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth" as evidence that the Bible calls for "Bible believing Christians" to take dominion of America.

"When God brings Noah through the flood to a new earth, He reestablished the Dominion Mandate but now delegates to man the responsibility for governing other men." (page 19). The authors write that God has called the United States to become "the first truly Christian nation" (page 184) and "make disciples of all nations." The book denounces income tax as "idolatry," property tax as "theft" and calls for an abolish of inheritance taxes in the chapter entitled Christian Economics. The loss of such tax revenues will bring about the withering away of the federal government and the empowerment of the authoritarian church, although this is not explict in the text.

Rushdooney's son-in-law, Gary North, a popular writer and founder of the Institute for Christian Economics, laid out the aims of the Christian Right.

"So let's be blunt about it: We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God." (Christianity and Civilization, Spring, 1982)

Dominionists have to operate, for now, in the contaminated environment of the secular, liberal state. They have learned, therefore, to speak in code. The code they use is the key to understanding the dichotomy of the movement, one that has a public and a private face. In this they are no different from the vanguard, as described by Lenin, or the Islamic terrorists who shave off their beards, adopt western dress and watch pay-for-view pornographic movies in their hotel rooms the night before hijacking a plane for a suicide attack.

Joan Bokaer, the Director of Theocracy Watch, a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy at Cornell University , who runs the encyclopedic web site theocracywatch.org, was on a speaking tour a few years ago in Iowa. She obtained a copy of a memo Pat Robertson handed out to followers at the Iowa Republican County Caucus. It was titled, "How to Participate in a Political Party" and read:

"Rule the world for God."

"Give the impression that you are there to work for the party, not push an ideology.

"Hide your strength.

"Don't flaunt your Christianity.

"Christians need to take leadership positions. Party officers control political parties and so it is very important that mature Christians have a majority of leadership whenever possible, God willing."

President Bush sends frequent coded messages to the faithful. In his address to the nation on the night of September 11, for example, he lifted a line directly from the Gospel of John when he said "And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness will not overcome it." He often uses the sentence "when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law," words taken directly from a pro-life manifesto entitled "A Statement of Pro-Life Principle and Concern." He quotes from hymns, prayers, tracts and Biblical passages without attribution. These phrases reassure the elect. They are lost on the uninitiated.

CHRIST THE AVENGER

The Christian Right finds its ideological justification in a narrow segment of the Gospel, in particular the letters of the Apostle Paul, especially the story of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus in the Book of Acts. It draws heavily from the book of Revelations and the Gospel of John. These books share an apocalyptic theology. The Book of Revelations is the only time in the Gospels where Jesus sanctions violence, offering up a vision of Christ as the head of a great and murderous army of heavenly avengers. Martin Luther found the God portrayed in Revelations so hateful and cruel he put the book in the appendix of his German translation of the Bible.

These books rarely speak about Christ's message of love, forgiveness and compassion. They focus on the doom and destruction that will befall unbelievers and the urgent need for personal salvation. The world is divided between good and evil, between those who act as agents of God and those who act as agents of Satan. The Jesus of the other three Gospels, the Jesus who turned the other cheek and embraced his enemies, an idea that was radical and startling in the ancient Roman world, is purged in the narrative selected by the Christian Right.

The cult of masculinity pervades the ideology. Feminism and homosexuality are social forces, believers are told, that have rendered the American male physically and spiritually impotent. Jesus is portrayed as a man of action, casting out demons, battling the Anti-Christ, attacking hypocrites and castigating the corrupt. This cult of masculinity brings with it the glorification of strength, violence and vengeance. It turns Christ into a Rambo-like figure; indeed depictions of Jesus within the movement often show a powerfully built man wielding a huge sword.

This image of Christ as warrior is appealing to many within the movement. The loss of manufacturing jobs, lack of affordable health care, negligible opportunities for education and poor job security has left many millions of Americans locked out. This ideology is attractive because it offers them the hope of power and revenge. It sanctifies their rage. It stokes the paranoia about the outside world maintained through bizarre conspiracy theories, many on display in Pat Robertson's book The New World Order. The book is a xenophobic rant that includes vicious attacks against the United Nations and numerous other international organizations. The abandonment of the working class has been crucial to the success of the movement. Only by reintegrating the working class into society through job creation, access to good education and health care can the Christian Right be effectively blunted. Revolutionary movements are built on the backs of an angry, disenfranchised laboring class. This one is no exception.

The depictions of violence that will befall non-believers are detailed, gruesome and brutal. It speaks to the rage many believers harbor and the thirst for revenge. This, in large part, accounts for the huge sales of the apocalyptic series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins. In their novel, Glorious Appearing, based on LaHaye's interpretation of Biblical Prophecies about the Second Coming, Christ eviscerates the flesh of millions of non-believers with the mere sound of his voice. There are long descriptions of horror, of how "the very words of the Lord had superheated their blood, causing it to burst through their veins and skin." Eyes disintegrate. Tongues melt. Flesh dissolves. The novel, part of The Left Behind series, are the best selling adult novels in the country. They preach holy war.

"Any teaching of peace prior to [Christ's] return is heresy." said televangelist James Robison.

Natural disasters, terrorist attacks, instability in Israel and even the fighting of Iraq are seen as signposts. The war in Iraq was predicted according to believers in the 9th chapter of the Book of Revelations where four angels "which are bound in the great river Euphrates will be released to slay the third part of men." The march towards global war, even nuclear war, is not to be feared but welcomed as the harbinger of the Second Coming. And leading the avenging armies is an angry, violent Messiah who dooms millions of non-believers to a horrible and painful death.

THE CORRUPTION OF SCIENCE AND LAW

The movement seeks the imprint of law and science. It must discredit the rational disciplines that are the pillars of the Enlightenment to abolish the liberal polity of the Enlightenment. This corruption of science and law is vital in promoting the doctrine. Creationism, or "intelligent design," like Eugenics for the Nazis, must be introduced into the mainstream as a valid scientific discipline to destroy the discipline of science itself. This is why the Christian Right is working to bring test cases to ensure that school textbooks include "intelligent design" and condemn gay marriage.

The drive by the Christian Right to include crackpot theories in scientific or legal debate is part of the campaign to destroy dispassionate and honest intellectual inquiry. Facts become interchangeable with opinions. An understanding of reality is not to be based on the elaborate gathering of facts and evidence. The ideology alone is true. Facts that get in the way of the ideology can be altered. Lies, in this worldview, become true. Hannah Arendt called this effort "nihilistic relativism" although a better phrase might be collective insanity.

The Christian Right has fought successfully to have Creationist books sold in national park bookstores in the Grand Canyon, taught as a theory in public schools in states like Alabama and Arkansas. "Intelligent design" is promoted in Christian textbooks. All animal species, or at least their progenitors, students read, fit on Noah's ark. The Grand Canyon was created a few thousand years ago by the flood that lifted up Noah's ark, not one billion years ago, as geologists have determined. The earth is only a few thousand years old in line with the literal reading of Genesis. This is not some quaint, homespun view of the world. It is an insidious attempt to undermine rational scientific research and intellectual inquiry.

Tom Delay, following the Columbine shootings, gave voice to this assault when he said that the killings had taken place "because our school systems teach children that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized out of some primordial mud." (speech Delay gave in the House on June 16, 1999 )

"What convinces masses are not facts," Hannah Arendt wrote in Origins of Totalitarianism, "and not even invented facts, but only the consistency of the system which they are presumably part. Repetition, somewhat overrated in importance because of the common belief in the "masses" inferior capacity to grasp and remember, is important because it convinces them of consistency in time." (p.351)

There are more than 6 million elementary and secondary school students attending private schools and 11.5 percent of these students attend schools run by the Christian Right. These "Christian" schools saw an increase of 46 percent in enrollment in the last decade. The 245,000 additional students accounted for 75 percent of the total rise in private school enrollment.

THE LAUNCHING OF THE WAR

Adams told us to watch closely what the Christian Right did to homosexuals. He has seen how the Nazis had used "values" to launch state repression of opponents. Hitler, days after he took power in 1933, imposed a ban on all homosexual and lesbian organizations. He ordered raids on places where homosexuals gathered culminating with the ransacking of the Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin . Thousands of volumes from the institute's library were tossed into a bonfire. Adams said that homosexuals would also be the first "deviants" singled out by the Christian Right. We would be the next.

The ban on same sex marriages, passed by eleven states in the election, was part of this march towards our door. A 1996 federal law already defines marriage as between a man and a woman. All of the states with ballot measures, with the exception of Oregon, had outlawed same sex marriages, as do 27 other states. The bans, however, had to be passed, believers were told, to thwart "activist judges" who wanted to overturn them. The Christian family, even the nation, was under threat. The bans served to widen the splits tearing apart the country. The attacks on homosexuals handed to the foot soldiers of the Christian Right an easy target. It gave them a taste of victory. It made them feel empowered. But it is ominous for gays and for us.

All debates with the Christian Right are useless. We cannot reach this movement. It does not want a dialogue. It cares nothing for rational thought and discussion. It is not mollified because John Kerry prays or Jimmy Carter teaches Sunday School. These naive attempts to reach out to a movement bent on our destruction, to prove to them that we too have "values," would be humorous if the stakes were not so deadly. They hate us. They hate the liberal, enlightened world formed by the Constitution. Our opinions do not count.

This movement will not stop until we are ruled by Biblical Law, an authoritarian church intrudes in every aspect of our life, women stay at home and rear children, gays agree to be cured, abortion is considered murder, the press and the schools promote "positive" Christian values, the federal government is gutted, war becomes our primary form of communication with the rest of the world and recalcitrant non-believers see their flesh eviscerated at the sound of the Messiah's voice.

The spark that could set it ablaze may be lying in the hands of an Islamic terrorist cell, in the hands of the ideological twins of the Christian Right. Another catastrophic terrorist attack could be our Reichstag fire, the excuse used to begin the accelerated dismantling of our open society. The ideology of the Christian Right is not one of love and compassion, the central theme of Christ's message, but of violence and hatred. It has a strong appeal to many in our society, but it is also aided by our complacency. Let us not stand at the open city gates waiting passively and meekly for the barbarians. They are coming. They are slouching rudely towards Bethlehem. Let us, if nothing else, begin to call them by their name.

Chris Hedges, a reporter for The New York Times, is the author of War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning . He holds a Master of Divinity from Harvard Divinity School . His next book , Losing Moses on the Freeway: America 's Broken Covenant With The Ten Commandments is published by The Free Press.

Note from Joan Bokaer - Chris refers to a memo I received in Iowa from Pat Robertson's organization. The year was 1986 -- two years before his presidential bid, and three years before the Christian Coalition was formed.

Admiral Fallon may have a bias towards the Navy. If that is the case, it may be an asset he brings to his new role. The U.S. is not the first nation to use seapower for the furtherance of its objectives. Mahan's Influence of Seapower Upon History was the 500+-year-survey of the how enlightment Europe was inextricably entwined with supremacy at sea. The centrality of Athens' naval supremacy mirrors this, as does England's "wooden walls," and the assistance of Admiral de Grasse and his fleet at a penninsula called Yorktown.
Even today, the vast majority of goods flow between nations on large cargo ships, and the inability to ship goods by sea would likely cause international economic hardship.
I know, it's easy to think an Admiral is ill-suited to manage a theater in which there are two land wars being fought. But whether you want the troops out tomorrow, or want an open-ended committment that smells like occupation, the United States has interests in the middle east that will continue beyond our troops committed to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Adm. Fallon may or may not be uniquely qualified to lead CENTCOM. However after leading the U.S. Pacific Command (the geographically largest unified command, with both China and North Korea in the neighborhood) he is certainly no less qualified than any other flag officer wearing a different color uniform.

"An unexamined life is not worth living", penned thousands of years ago by Socrates, has always been true.

Entire societies marching in lockstep to phrases that require people not to question, isn't just for literature (e.g. "1984"), it's been true in Germany in the 30's and 40's, America in the 50's and this century, and plenty of other societies.

Fortunately, one of those forbidden subjects, examining whether Bush is doing the right thing, is no longer forbidden. And we are beginning to see another subject 'support our troops' being examined.

I welcome the return towards a more balanced life in America.

The clueless (Arkin) and arrogant (ditto)can only criticize and offer uninformed and ignorant "solutions". He shouldn't be a so-called Military Writer but tenured as a professor at a community college!

Hey Armchair Quarterback...read this:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/02/the_arrogant_and_intolerant_sp.html

Hubris, personified.

I agree, we should question everyone's ability to perform in high-ranking government positions. This includes generals. I don't see any attack on soldiers here, only the high ranked brass-officers. Do you people think that no incompetant people rise to power in this country? Please...we don't need an incompetant general in this situation, especially THIS situation. And for all you people yelling traitor, you sound like socialists living in germany ca. 1936...the path you are on is scarry!

The real questions are 1) Why won't Arkin release the Boykin tapes? And 2) Why hasn't he been prosecuted for releasing classified government information on military plans? It's well past time for someone to start digging into this guys background.

Boycott William Arkin and all advertisers at:

www.myspace.com/boycottarkin

The purpose of this site is to encourage the Washington Post to fire William Arkin for his hostile and self-righteous use of his freedom of speech. He can say it, and we can get him fired by removing our support.
This site is under construction, but you can add your name to the friends list to show your support. Links to advertisers and sample boycott email coming soon.

Ok, let me get this straight. You wrote a Blog because soldiers in Iraq had the pomposity to disagree with you and say it publicly AND a newsman actually participated in this obvious propaganda ploy by reporting it? Because they don't agree with you they are mercenaries, brainwashed, and certainly don't appreciate all the amenities that you as a taxpayer are providing them with a tour of Iraq or Afghanistan. Practically like Club Med!

Now you are the victim because people are mad and telling you to shut up and sit down? The problem here is not that you don't have the right to say what you want. You certainly do. You notice I didn't say you had earned that right. Accordingly, you will probably never fully understand what that right means or the responsibilities that come with it but that's OK because in our country you still have that right.

The rub here is why you think your opinion is more important than those soldiers? What exactly are your qualifications to be such an expert? I think we know theirs. Have you ever served in the military? Have you volunteered your time over seas in a relief organization? Have you ever even volunteered your time in something worthwhile? Were you a contractor over there? Maybe did Mission Work? Do you have a close relative in the military you got your information from? Are you close friends with military members? Did you at least STAY at a Holiday Inn Express? Here is a thought. Why don't you go spend six months imbedded with a unit? Then share with us your opinions........Skippy!

Do you ever wonder why the good reporting about what our soldiers do comes from reporters imbedded in the units while all the negative reporting comes from media who never leave the Green Zone and rely on Arab stringers or Al Jazeera to provide them information? So go ahead and sit in your nice safe warm office sipping your double frapaccino latte and have your intellectual exercise in all that is evil with the war and the military. I'll rely on people who are there for my information.

I just can't believe you feel the victim because several million men and women in uniform, formerly in uniform, or the friends and family members of those in uniform want to "pull you aside and explain a few things" to you.......

And to the Blogger that wondered where the sons and daughters of those in the minority who support the war are, that's an interesting question. As one whose father has served, who has served, and whose son has served, I think I'm qualified to ask, "Where were you when others served? Where are your sons and daughters?

Before the war started, I wrote that the Bush Administration was going to "crash and burn". However, the Administration has exceeded my expectations, and I am in awe of how badly they have "crashed" and the extent of the conflagration that has resulted.
During the Vietnam era, we had the dominio theory, that said if we failed there Communism would sweep southeast Asia. According to that theory, the dominones would fall in one direction, depending on the outcome. With Iraq and tne Middle East, we have the real thing. Only the dominoes are falling in all directions, and the unintended consequences will be cataclysmic. We are now looking at a region wide conflict between Sunnis and Shias, Iraq and ,possibly, Lebanon involved in a civil war, and annoyed Iran, that can compromise our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. For fans of the Global Economy, a conflict with Iran and the possible closure of the Persian Gulf, we are looking at a spike in oil prices, and the collapse of the global economy.
As to Israel, if there is a conflict with Iran, it will be buried under a cloud of conventionally armed Iranian missiles. Remember how Berlin looked after World War II? I forgot about the Turks going after the Kurds. Everybody in the world will be effected by these falling dominoes.
Every minute Bush is in the White House, the world is in danger of collapse.

All those nasty words people are typing are way less dangerous than the bullets our troops are dodging while not ensconced in their tents with their "obscene amenities". That might be one of the reasons the American Public chooses to "indulge those in uniform" with our respect. To be quite frank, their opinion counts for far more in my book than does the word of a former Greenpeace worker who dabbles in writing. Easier to sling arrows than take them, I would say. I shall surely hope that your tenure here is nearly over. I'm not asking you to shut up, I'm telling the Post they would be wise to fire your wretched hide.

Oooooh, did you chicken out and pull your "arrogant and intolerant speak out" post? Or did it get pulled for you?

>>User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site.<<

It says under the 'Post a Comment' Rules.

This entire stupid blog is a personal attack against members of the military, including now, an individual Army Major attacked by association as another 'arrogant and intolerant (person) in uniform'.

Now having personally attacked the members of the military, he personally attacks the blogreaders who kindly write in to defend the military from another elitist, fur-faced, child of the 60's, liberal, close-minded, craven beltway hack.

However, I think he has made his point: the "support the troops, not the mission" sentiment is a complete lie.

The illiberal left doesn't support the troops at all and never has.

Arkin should be fired. In order to facilitate this I am boycotting the Washington Post and anyone who advertises on their site. Join me. Email the Post, Newsweek, Emigrant Direct, Google, Classes USA, Hydroderm, and any other advertiser you find informing them of your boycott until Arkin is put out on his yellow traitorous ass. This is the beauty of our freedom of speech. He can say it, and we can shut him up.

Arkin is a traitor & Liar.

Mr. Arkin, I'm not a jerk or a stupid person. I'm a good person who disagrees with you. Completely.

You are one who doesn't let up with your nonsense are you.

What are you on crack or something??

First you write an insult and then instead of apologizing you want to come back at those who pointed that out in many and various ways that you're not only not sorry but that you're a "victim".

Well you know what Willie you may not be able to see it but not am I only giving you the finger but so are many others, a whole FLOCK OF EM! A hearty FU to you and weasels like you.

Burn in HELL Willie, burn in HELL.

After reading this, all you've really achieved is to highlight the boundlessness of your own stupid arrogance. Perhaps the saddest part of this foolish little arm-flailing tantrum of yours is that you will probably never be aware of the hypocrisy of it all. Do the Dems a favor and keep your mouth shut, you bald-headed little turnip.

After reading this, all you've really achieved is to highlight the boundlessness of your own stupid arrogance. Perhaps the saddest part of this foolish little arm-flailing tantrum of yours is that you will probably never be aware of the hypocrisy of it all. Do the Dems a favor and keep your mouth shut, you bald-headed little turnip.

Rev:Did you know that the USA had a presence (mostly military)in the majority of nations of the United Nations.

Having said that, I am big fan of the concept of United Nations organization. However, the final permament members, especially the USA wields too much (veto)power!

--re : dafur the US has been pushing for a solution to Dafur, as usual China (a bunch of moral less raised by wolves capitalists and Russia(21 st century fascists) continue
to hem and haw regarding sanctions, yes they are playing there game, but the US led by those right wing evangelicals are clearly in the forefront of stopping the death and destruction in Sudan. If the UN had any spine, UN troops and aid would be on the ground now. The UN is great at delivering aid(one of the very few things they are good for) but when there is armed conflict, they are totally worthless.

So plain the advantages of machination
It constitutes a moral obligation,
And honest wolves who think upon't with loathing
Feel bound to don the sheep's deceptive clothing.
So prospers still the diplomatic art,
And Satan bows, with hand upon his heart.
--R.S.K

Mr. Arkin,

Thank you.

Many people, myself included, try to convince others how biased the media is against the military every day. Even when the contempt and loathing for them is pretty obvious, it is still hard for some to accept it.

I very much appreciate you making said contempt and loathing glaringly obvious, and I assume the Washington Post will make it irrefutable by keeping you on as both a reporter in general and one tasked with commenting on military affairs. Nice touch, WP!

Again, thank you for making my task a little easier.

Weary G

maybe if the UN had a spine we could stop the fiends in Dafur, North Korea. How is it there now ?

Alex,

Finally, we have something of late that we can agree upon. However, ask every member nation of the UN, which nation by and large controls the UN, and they will all tell you , contrary to what the USA says, that it is the United States of America.

Did you know that the USA had a presence (mostly military)in the majority of nations of the United Nations.

Having said that, I am big fan of the concept of United Nations organization. However, the final permament members, especially the USA wields too much (veto)power!

Can we get the U.S.A. to allow the U.N. to develop a spine? The answer is no, because the USA, just like it does in the rest of the world, will not tolerate the U.N. taking positions that differs from its own.

VETO VETO VETO!

I didn't learn anything from this post. Mr. Arkin has provided little to add to what we already had known.

Arkin's point is simple, it is never going to be the right 4 star in charge until they publicly advocate immediate withdrawl. Staying the course is wrong. The 'Surge' is wrong.

The problem with this blog is the author is the most predictable writer on the Post staff. It is likely I could write Arkin's posts before he even ponders their subject. There is no surprise. There is no potential for new horizons. Arkin's allegories are a complete waste of time. The Washington Post can do so much better.

Aster 77 writes:"Alex, alex, alex.... you go girl with your stock red-blooded righteous indignation."

And that is the problem, so few of us have any indignation when we witness someone raping and pillaging. We sit back and say "oh, well we cant save the world so I guess we'll sit this out". Maybe if the world had some righteous indignation, maybe if the UN had a spine we could stop the fiends in Dafur, North Korea. How is it there now ?
Its a mess, but I dont think you can make a case that it was a lesser evil to condemn a country to Saddam and his sons. At the very least the country has a chance at the same principals we cherish. Mussolini made the trains run on time, Hitler had low unemployment but I'm sure glad they are gone.

~~~~~~~~~The Middle-East needs to Develop their own Monroe Doctrine, with regards to the U.S.A. bully!

Apart from the 'troops supporting Americans issue', consider American foreign policy as it relates to Iraq and Iran.

What have either of these two nations done wrong, except to violate the wills of a couple of white guys (who often inveigle the United Nations), thousands of miles away, in America. Which of us would not be reacting in the same manner as the real Iranian and Iraqi nationals are currently doing, resisting a hegemon, and in the case of Iraq, an evil invader and occupier?

We would vis-a-vis Iran, not tolerate a foreign invader attacking a nation, particularly with our friends, on one of our borders. Imagine if some other nation attacked Canada, we would be doing what Iran is doing? But Americans have no problem with the American double-standard!

And getting back to the real problem of the American deciders, what did these couple of white guys decide for Iraq and Iran? Well they concluded that certain nations in the world are not permitted/entitled to do on a small scale, what the United States has been doing on a large scale for about a half century now; developing and stockpiling nuclear weapons.

Why, because if they were to possess even a modicum of the nuclear weapons that the U.S.A. possesses, they might do what the U.S.A. is doing to Iraq (while at the same time it is saber-rattling against Iran), use them or their implied threat to force their will upon the United States or Israel.

Shady Americans and politicians have no problem with the double-standard of the, 'we can possess and deploy nukes', but if you were to get one, we would come in and destroy your country, United States of America.

That is exactly what America is doing in Iraq, just as we are presently threatening the sovereign nation of Iran. Is the U.S.A. willing to give up its nuclear weapons as the same time that it is telling other nations to give up in their visions of having nuclear weapons (or we will attack you), are you kidding?

For some Americans, truth is a left-wing invention, and if that is the case Mr. Arkin should be proud to be a left-winger. The question is what do you call people who are biased and twisted, the same who will never be honest about the truth about America that is staring them in the face everyday? That is one problem that the dyed-in-the wool American propagandists will never confront!

American foreign policy in this regard is evil and full of self serving double-standards. The shame of it is that we send people to die for such willful, jaundiced and evil, double-standards; and some of them, incredibly enough, volunteer to die for it!

America and Americans needs to learn to relate to the truth and to fight for a noble ideal, instead of American propaganda and falsehoods!

The Truth is what matters...

America, Washington DC and the Post are blessed to have someone like Mr. William Arkin. Why?

He is not a dyed in the wool partisan who is so ensconced in American protectionist propaganda that he cannot relate to apparent truth, the same truth that is smacking him and every other person in the world in the face every day.

The reason that geopolitical problems re-occur and seldom get resolved in the world, when the U.S.A. is involved, is because Americans will never admit to America's contribution to the problem.

Americans simply want to dole out punishment to the other guy, even eliminate them if they decide to do so, and exploit any situation in pursuit of American interest. To Americans, once you have eliminated enough people the problem is solved.

Saddam and approximately another 100,000 Iraqis are no longer with us; however, the problem is still there. Why? Because the real problem is the United States of America. It was never Saddam, and right now the problem is now Iran. America is simply out of control and off on a murderous rampage!

No nation in the world would be permitted to come in the Americas, according to American doctrine, and do what America is doing in the Middle-East right now, let's be clear about that!

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader01152007.html

Billionaires Head for the Closet
The Class War's New Map

By RALPH NADER

The boiling, surging, churning and corporatizing economy of the United States is racing far ahead of its being understood by political economists, economists, politicians and the polis itself. Tidbits from the past week add up to this view, to wit:

--The giant, shut-down Bethlehem steel plant in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania will soon become a $600 million casino and hotel complex. With tens of millions of Americans lacking the adequate necessities of food, fuel, shelter, health care and a sustaining job, this project is part of a 25 year trend by the economy, moving away from necessities and over to wants and whims. Among the fastest growing businesses for three decades in America are theme parks, gambling casinos and prisons.

--Our Constitution launched "we the people" to "establish justice, Špromote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves." We're losing ground year after year on all three accounts. Yet to what does Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. devote his entire annual report on the federal judiciary this January 1, 2007? He called for a pay raise for judges, calling the current pay ranging from $165,200 to $212,000 (with a great retirement plan) a "constitutional crisis."

-- General Motor has introduced yet another prototype electric car-called the Chevrolet Voltto distract attention from its ongoing engine stagnation and provide a little cover for its gas guzzling muscle cars displayed at the Detroit Auto Show. This procrastinatory tactic by GM has been going on since the 1939 New York World's Fair to keep people looking far into the amorphous future so as to not focus on the dismal today year after year while gasoline prices sky rocket and oil imports swell. We're still waiting for some of GM's engineering prototypes from 1939 to hit the road in the 21^st century.

-- Just as there are stirrings behind more shareholder rights over the companies they own and more disclosure by management of large corporations relating to executive pay and accounting information, the rapid rise of huge pools of capital controlled by private equity firms and Hedge Funds are buying larger and larger public companies and taking them out of the regulatory arenas into secrecy.

Corporate morphing to escape public accountability has been going on for a long time. Note the coal corporations digging deep under residential streets in Pennsylvania and other neighboring states decades ago. As the homes began to cave in (this is called 'subsidence'), the coal companies disappeared by collapsing themselves only to be succeeded by their next of (corporate) kin.

Today, this corporate morphing is far more ranging and far larger in the economy, drawing trillions of dollars from pension funds and institutional investor firms which themselves are largely closed off from workers and small investors whose money they shuffle around. Corporate attorneys are super-experts in arranging ways for corporate capital to escape not just the tax laws of the U.S. but also the public regulatory frameworks of the Securities and Exchange Commission and other public "law and order" entities.

Independent and academic corporate analysts have barely begun to figure out the consequences of this seismic shift of capital structures.

-- "Private Firms Lure C.E.O.'s With Top Pay" was the headline in the January 8 edition of the New York Times. The subtitle was astonishingly worded as "Less Lavish Packages at Public Companies." The reporters go on to say, in essence, that if you think that Home Depot's departed C.E.O., Robert L. Nardelli's $200 million plus take home pay package was a lot, you haven't seen what's happening behind the curtains at the large private equity firms buying up ever bigger public companies. "Public company chieftains are deciding that they no longer want to be judged by their shareholders and regulators, and are going to work for businesses owned by private equity," write the authors.

One such migrant executive, Henry Silverman, went from big riches running the conglomerate Cendant, to making $135 million just from selling one piece of Cendant, Realogy, to a private equity firm. "There is no reason to be a public company anymore," said this happy corporate prophet.

Now go to the other side of the tracks. In the last quarter century the value of the U.S. corporations has risen 12-fold, according to the Wall Street Journal. C.E.O. pay has skyrocketed similarly. But workers today, on average, are still making less, in inflation adjusted dollars, than workers made in 1973 -- the high point of worker wages!

Citing data from the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University, New York Times' columnist, Bob Herbert, reports that between 2000 and 2006 the combined real annual earnings of 93 million American workers rose by $15.4 billion. That rise is "less than half of the combined bonuses awarded by the five Wall Street firms for just one year."

Class warfare in reverse is what's going on. The super rich and their corporations against the workers, redistributing the workers' wealth into their own pockets and coffers. Mr. Herbert frequently frets about no one in the political parties saying or doing anything about this state of despair. He defines "political parties" as the two major parties, though knowing full well that there are smaller parties and independent candidates who have campaigned across the country trumpeting the need for economic justice in very specific terms.

So long as most progressive writers ignore these people in the electoral arenas who are laboring to break down the barriers that keep these issues of economic justice over corporate power abuses from moving into elections and government, they will be bellowing in the wind.

Social justice movements in the United States have come from small starts that are duly recognized.

It was *tread softly* but you are right about it being Roosevelt

More pseudo leftist partisan drivel. Hey Bill, don't forget that it's corporate donations that are paying you salary faker. You can't fool us anymore. Perhaps you need a reminder. You just got a "job" at Harvard. Guess who pays for it...corporations and so called capitalist organizations. Need I say more or what. Oh, no. When you where also working for NBC...nope, that wasn't GE giving you a check. That's the same GE that is one of the largest jet engine and military contractors in the world. You know what my father used to call people like you? Fakers. And that what you are Bill, a faker.

Bill:

You should have someone check your spelling . . . just so it won't be something for the wingers to pester you about.

It's naysayers, not neighsayers and in vain, not in vane.

You can look it up!

Alex, alex, alex.... you go girl with your stock red-blooded righteous indignation.

Yeah, Saddam was a bad dude at the head of a nasty government, but by that criteria we should be blasting away at numerous countries - N. Korea, Myanmar, Sudan, Somalia, Congo, et al. The US invasion of Iraq was a pre-emptive war based on false premises and its motives were hardly pure.

How many Iraqi civilians have died as a direct result of our actions? And how does it look there now? Give me a break.

Aster writes:"Actually phillygirl, you've got it backwards - we are fighting people whose country *we* pretty well destroyed."

And what a country it was, run forever by a murderous thug who killed on a whim. Yeah him and his two vicious pillaging vermin.I guess your a fan of Kim ill sung , he has a country also, pol pot had a "country" so did Adolph Hitler. Woudnt want to hurt those guys either.

The John C. Stennis is on the way to the
Persian Gulf. The propaganda war against Iran is heating up. The false-flag operation in Karbala is blamed on Iran. The US military mission for Israel is on the move. Admiral Fallon is going to fill the roll of scapegoat for the sinking of a major US carrier with thousands of dead in the Persian Gulf. This is the provocation needed to convince the american people to back a larger war in the middle east. Who ordered those carriers into the Persian Gulf? They are targets for Iranian Sunburn and Silkworm cruise missiles that will be used in retaliation for an unprovoked aireal attack on Iran. The AEI wrote this script. When will this treason be exposed and prosecuted?

Actually phillygirl, you've got it backwards - we are fighting people whose country *we* pretty well destroyed.

And why all the uproar about Arkin's post today? Seemed relatively innocuous to me.

I am embarrassed that you write for my local newspaper. You have no idea how lucky you are to live in a country where you can say whatever stupid, ugly thing comes to your mind. If you lived in Iran you would at the very least be imprisoned. More likely, they would chop off your hands.

I am amazed you can paid for writing such dribble. If you have a better plan for fighting terrorists who want to destroy our country, and our western way of life, please post it on your illustrious blog. Don't count on any members of the U.S. military to support your plan, though.

I never fail to be amused by the flattering scrutiny columnists shower upon the military. Why all the fascination, Mr. Arkin? Somehow, every choice, sinew, thought and potential thought of a military person has to be poked at, pulled apart, turned upside down, and examined under a microscope. They're expected to meet a standard of competence and professionalism that is flawless, seamless, and without human failings. No other profession is subject to that level of scrutiny, certainly not the major media, and of course not the Washington Post. If you at the Post think you are speaking truth to power, and helping to maintain the pillars of democracy with a free press, you have failed the American people miserably. Now, I know you HAVE to believe you are part of a noble cause. After all, there has to be SOME higher meaning in what you do, right? You have no choice but to concoct something righteous, principled as the reason for your reporting. How else could you choose this unappealing, lowly job?

decent wage? are you aware of how many troops live below the povery line? Or how many married soldiers qualify for WIC? That is the travesty. Do a little research before you blow a gasket about some troops complaining about a lack of support that they feel they receive (or don't receive) from those of you who cover the war for the MSM...How many murders, abductions, road side bombings, etc committed by 'insurgents' do we have to hear about on a daily basis without one positive story about the work that is done by our troops? where are the stories about the hospitals that were reopened or the fact that iraq's economy is growing?

PLEASE GO TO REHAB YOU ARE INABVIOUS NEED OF IT

Arkin wrote: " By each staying in their lane and respecting those below and above, they let the others do their job."

Yeah, but Schwarzkopf ran the First Iraq War as CENTCOM commander, it can be done.

Arkin wrote: "Adm. Fallon was frustratingly modest in offering opinions on the new, new strategy in Iraq, declining on a number of occasions to get into the details of a plan that he readily admitted he had not been involved in writing, and did not even know the details of."

Who DID write the plan, Mr. Arkin, the military or the AEI? Moreover, Fallon can be excused a little bit because his focus will be how to use US forces in Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gulf against Iran.

So we wait for Congress to enforce the will of the American people: they are the ones who ultimately tell the President what to do.

Come to think about, according to Bush and Cheney, no one tells them what to do, well, unless they are from Israel or Saudi Arabia!

Even long-time Senator Arlen Specter, of Willie Horton fame, has asked the President to go back and check the Constitution. Arlen doesn't believe that the President knows that he is only a part of one of the pieces of America's Tri-parte government.

Let me see, Willie Horton and George Bush, hmmm, both of them got a bye and they both continued killing. I might be on to something here!

I think it was "speak softly" - Teddy Roosevelt. The only quote of Ike's I remember is "beware the military-industrial complex" or something to that effect.

Anyone who works for or with general officers know they are the most risk averse people in the military. The days of great battle captains like Washington, Pershing, Patton, and the like are long gone.

The Civilian Commander in Chief ...

....ought to have the final say. However, he or she should have the brains to recognize that those who have served, and read and studied how to conduct wars, are experts in their fields, and they should be vociferously and aggressively listened to.

A confident Commander-in-Chief would create an atmosphere wherein the Commander's would know that the atmosphere is an open atmosphere, and that their input 'pro or con' is what the CIC wants to hear. Why? A man surrounded by 'yes men' will never accept no for an answer!

An interesting report on CNN last night: Bush ignored every single competent individual who explained to himthat Harriet Meiers was not ready for the Supreme Court position, a year or so ago.

And we won't even get into the other Bush fiasco's, like, 'you are doing a great job Browny', of FEMA fame. Perhaps Mr. Brown did a good job, however, Mr. Bush clearly did not. By the way, unlike the military commanders, what qualifications and where did Bush receive his training in order to be the Commander-in-Chief of the trained individuals who were and are under his command? Oops!!

Mr. Arkin there is clearly a paucity of good leadership in the world right now. I shutter everytime I think that the most important crises facing the world right now, is to be resolved by George Bush and Mr. Maliki. So far, it is the ninth inning and the score is still nothing to nothing! And we all know that nothing from nothing, leaves nothing!

A marionette being controlled by a mental midget does not instill a lot of confidence in me and others. How many will die while these two go through the maturation process?

Yes, Congress or somebody had better do something!

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info

Rigging the presidential race with "rock stars" and "front-runners"

By Jack Balkwill

Those who run the country are hard at work selecting the next president. No, I don't mean the Bush regime -- higher up. No, not Exxon-Mobil or General Dynamics -- higher up than that. That's right, the big transnational investors who rent our elections with their euphemistic "campaign financing" bribes, often through their corporations, then get the money back for campaign ads on the TV networks they control. They are currently working on a three-option plan to decide who our next president will be.

Option One

Option One is always "get a Republican if you can," to hold the White House on behalf of corporate greed at any cost to the public interest. Problem is, the current scam is unraveling -- notably the illegal invasion and botched occupation of Iraq. So a little time may have to pass before working the scam again using Republicans.

John McCain is their man to sustain the scam if it is possible. He's not only behind the war, but for a troop increase. The owners like this because the war has put hundreds of billions more into their "defense" mafia piggy bank from which they make liberal withdrawals. A big takeover of Iraqi oil is also in the works, and there are all those rebuilding projects for more billions, so McCain is Option One.

The downside of Option One is that the peasants have been turned off by the war -- polls show 70 percent oppose McCain's troop surge. They just voted congressional Republicans out of their majority, and Republicans currently rank lower than whale poop in the polls, so it is not extremely likely that another Republican president can be palmed off on the public without fixing more voting machines in the Land of the Free than even last time. This scam can only go so far.

Option Two

Hence, Option Two, the backup plan, otherwise known as Hillary Rodham Clinton. Hillary has shown the big transnational investors she kisses powerful butt well by her Senate votes, and is willing to tell any lie to win the White House.

For example, on the January 18 PBS NewsHour January she told Gwen Ifil, "You know, for more than a year and a half, I've been in favor of phased redeployment of our troops, bringing them home as quickly as possible."

Finger to the wind, Hillary knows what the people want to hear these days, having seen what just happened to the Republicans for "staying the course" -- clearly her position before this whopper got laid on us unwashed masses.

If she has been in favor of bringing the troops home "as quickly as possible," why have the women of Code Pink been following her around the country and protesting wherever she appears for not endorsing any withdrawal from Iraq, including a protest at the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) meeting in Colorado last July 23?

Hillary was there because she is in the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, the DLC's leadership. That's why corporate media push her so hard -- she is the primary backup to the Republicans, sharing pretty much their philosophy of corporate greed at any cost to the public interest, though with the softer "I feel your pain" whine of husband Bill, which works so well with many liberal voters.

In August, Hillary's refusal to endorse Congressman Murtha's troop withdrawal plan had him saying, "I'm disappointed." Strange comment about someone who now says she has been for getting the troops out as soon as possible for a year and a half.

After the November election Hillary was asked if she supported Senator McCain's suggestion of a 20,000-troop increase in Iraq and replied, "It depends on what is the mission of those troops. I am not in favor of doing that unless it's part of a larger plan." So Hillary was not, just a few months ago, against a troop "surge" -- an escalation the war.

Hillary will pretty much say whatever it takes for a shot at hubby's old job of pushing the agenda of Transnationals, Inc., so those who run the planet like a private plantation want Hillary to run Corporate Cops on Call if they can't get McCain.

Corporate media call Hillary the front-runner, which works well to influence the electorate as they give her endless free publicity to insure she stays that way. My Google of "Hillary front-runner" without the quotes got over a million hits, so corporate media have worked this well.

The downside of Option Two is that few Democrats with their hat in the ring have a record as hawkish as Hillary, voting for the war and every financial appropriation with which to sustain it. Can such a person be crammed down the throats of voters in their antiwar mood? Hillary thinks so. She just announced she's running to win, and she set records as recently as last year for raising Senate campaign funding.

Option Three

But what if the owners can't get the masses to hold their noses and vote Republican or Hillary to keep their war going? This is where Barack Obama, or Option Three, comes in.

Obama is being packaged as a peace candidate, even though he has voted for every increase in spending for the Iraq War.

The owners and their corporate media are aware that the public has had enough of war and the scams necessary to perpetuate it. The public has begun to wonder if one "supports the troops," the favorite corporate media mantra, by sending them to a desert to be shot at and bombed daily. Bin Laden can't be found in Baghdad, those weapons of mass destruction are mass-gone, and Satan is not shooting stem cells in Sadr City. All that's left are nebulous terms like "the enemy," without suggesting the obvious, "are you talking about the Iraqi people, George?"

Obama had the good fortune to arrive in the Senate after the war had already been authorized by his colleagues, so he likes to say he did not vote for it. He wants you to believe he is not enamored of the war and wants out (though not today, nor Tuesday, nor . . . ).

Obama is called a "rock star" in corporate media and hyped as much as anyone after Hillary. I Googled "Obama rock star" without the quotes, and got over 800,000 hits. The only thing he allows us to know about his plan for the future is that he is for a "new kind of politics." Well, we all want that, don't we?

The Owner's Last Option, 2004

Corporate media badly want McCain, front-runner Hillary, or rock star Obama. To show how the scam works, in the last presidential race, a year before the primaries, it was John Kerry whom the corporate media were pushing as the front-runner at this point, echoing around the clock. Like Hillary and Obama, they knew Kerry would sell out the masses on their behalf, because, like them, he had a record. Let's review it.

Kerry not only voted for the USAPATRIOT Act, but wrote part of it to show his willingness to trash the Constitution and civil rights. The owners like that kind of loyalty to their interests.

Kerry, like his fellow Skull and Bones alumnus Bush, opposed the Kyoto Treaty, which would begin to address global warming. The owners really liked that one.

Unlike Bush, Kerry voted for NAFTA and GATT, locking unfairness for labor and the environment into the future, giving transnational corporations the means with which to overrule democracy around the globe. The owners were delirious about this.

Kerry was not only for staying the course in Iraq, like Bush, but he was for a troop surge in 2004, before the euphemism "surge" became a daily mass media mantra. The owners like that kind of enthusiasm for war.

Millions of us progressives were trampled by herds of those supporting the Kerry disaster. Kerry seemed more interested in raising money from those he served, a $328,479,245 record amount for Democrats, than in having a principle upon which to stand. You only get that kind of money from the owners if you are willing to sell out the public interest on their behalf.

So why all the constant screams of "frontrunner Hillary" and "rock star Obama?" Well, corporate media's masters of deception have

For the rest please go to:

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1688.shtml

Was it Eisenhower who said *Tread softly and carry a big stick* ? Well the stick is big enough but you*re tap-dancing with hobnail boots.