For Your Information: Arkin is a complete jerk and does not know what he is talking about. Those soldiers who received awards were given them for their last deployment in which many brave soldiers were killed and injured. These brave soldiers just returned from a deployment in Iraq a week or two before Christmas and were greeted when they hit the ground in the US with the information that, instead of being at Fort Bragg for a few months as promised, they were being sent right back to Baghdad the first of January. This turnaround and redeployment was unprecedented and bitterly disappointing to the families who had weddings and trips to Disneyworld with Daddy in their plans. How can this Arkin be a military affairs analyst and have no clue what these awards were for? He clearly has an ax to grind with those whose patriotism and courage he cannot even begin to understand because he is a hate filled coward!!!

Billy Arkin is an idiot. Period.

Who is doing the talking here? What is a national security and homeland security expert, what does Arkin bring to the table to support his blatant anti-military sneering. Is it a successful term in the Military? No. Maybe it was a leadership position in the Clinton cabinet like another yahoo Richard Clarke? No. It appears all we have here is another self proclaim expert without the knowledge, again.

Arkin served only four years (1974 to 1978) more than likely as an enlisted solider an E-1, yet many of his bylines from the past two decades described him as a "military intelligence analyst" during his service (his rank and units are not readily apparent). In 1977 President Carter came to power with the idea that the United States did not need a military so Carter started the military layoffs, how much you want to bet Arkin's was one of the first to go. Since Arkins did not list having a degree during this time, He received his BS from the University of Maryland, so there was no way he was an Officer. So what was Arkin? He could have been an in the rear cook, a motor pool wiper, maybe a gate guard for some hole in the fence in Kentucky. We will never know.

However to be fair, if he was an Officer (which is not claimed or listed in his onsite resume) chances are he was not a leader of men, maybe an Officer Club Treasurer, Recreational Officer or something in line with his ability. Considering there was only two military operations during his active duty Paul Bunyan / Tree Incident and the Mayaguez Operation it would appear that Mr. Arkin's combat war experience was at the best limited to White Sands or the strip outside the fence of the state side base.

However to Mr. Arkin would like us to believe he is the General of the Army of the Potomac, the Marcus Furius Camillus of Rome, or the Desert Fox of the American Army, yet his list of anti-military credentials would make President Hugo Chavez envious. The National Standard describes Arkin (since Arkin will not disclose his affiliations) as having cut his teeth with the lefty Institute for Policy Studies, and went from there to positions with Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Human Rights Watch. He has been a regular columnist for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. In recent years he has taken more mainstream work as a senior fellow at the School for Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University (he appears to do most of his writing not from the SAIS campus, but from his home in Vermont). Sounds like Arkins is in touch with the leaders of the Military, you know like Kerry meeting foreign leaders without leaving the country, yea right from in his study hidden deep in a Vermont township two doors down from Starbuck's.

:) good!!!

If you recall, the Brits, Pols, Italy, Canada, etc. withdrew many if not all their troops. Doesn't this mean there used to be a lot more and perhaps numbers beyond the administration's proposed troop increase they're talking about now? ...and when that was the case, it still didn't work?

look, you cant blame every two bit dictator on the US. Assad,

Alex,

Who do we blame for the current American dictatorship that has been forcing, militarily, its designs upon Iraq and Afghanistan, of late?

I repeat we have been interfering with Middle-Eastern nations like Iran and Iraq for over a half-century now, you can't just ignore that fact.

It is naiive for one to believe that these nations would not respond to American interference; Khomeni and other have done nothing but try to defend themselves from the American hegemon. How old are you? It seems that you have missed a lot of history.

A phrase that is often repeated in the American system of jurisprudence is, 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth'.

Ignoring all of the facts will not make your one-sided argument any more correct.

Preach on Maddog and Dimitry! For Alex is apparently not aware of the number of dictators that America has set up in the past, or given outright support to in the past and in the present.

But most Americans aren't either, they are too busy trying to figure out how to make more money, and to consume more of the world's goods, regardless of the costs to other people in other nations of the world.

Blood Diamonds mean anything to you, how about oil?

==well, yr original post insinuates the US gov is acting in a similar fashion==

You appear to have long lost the thread of this particular argument. It is about whipping up hate and propaganda in print, of which the original, raving post was a good example. George Orwell has described such techniques in his book on modern authoritarianism, "1984". These techniques are used increasingly world-wide to shape political opinions of the gullible, the scared and the vulnerable.

Dimitry writes:"
==Sounds like Hezbollah, Ha-mas, Iran, Syria, Sadam==

The original poster is in excellent company, then."

well, yr original post insinuates the US gov is acting in a similar fashion , I would say we are very very very diff from the terrorists listed above. I cant imagine you would think that such methodologies /results are used and achieved in this country like they are in the above organizations.

My son is an officer deployed with 3/6 out of LeJeune. Their January deployment date was known as long ago as early last summer, 2006. Are you implying that the surge was already planned then? Perhaps the reason there was no major news coverage of the batallion's deployment is that it was routine and expected - it was scheduled months ago, trained for extensively, and then executed. 3/6 is replacing 3/2, which has been in Iraq 7 months, and so it is their turn to come home. The replacement for 3/6 will soon be designated and trained, and so the cycle goes on, each Marine batallion being replaced after seven months. Unless you have more facts than you chose to put in your article about how 3/6's deployment is proof of advance planning of a surge, I think you should be very careful what you imply.

==Arab nations have tolerated and supported all these loons and have done nothing about any of them.==

Iranians have voted in Mossadeq, who we overthrew and fought consistently against the Shah, who we installed, overthrowing that despot finally. Iraqis fought viliantly against Saddam who we supported, dying in great numbers in their attempt to defeat him. It is very, very difficult to overthrow a dictator who is supported by a superpower.

==Sounds like Hezbollah, Ha-mas, Iran, Syria, Sadam==

The original poster is in excellent company, then.

Maddog writes:"Right now, it's fair to say that many Muslims just hate us. But, what most Muslims dislike is our favorable policies towards their governments that suppress them, kill them, torture them"

look, you cant blame every two bit dictator on the US. Assad, Sadam,Khomeni and a whole host of other murderous thugs like Ha mas and Hezbollah/Taliban/ Osama are supported by many in that region. Arab nations have tolerated and supported all these loons and have done nothing about any of them. So we knock off two legitimate thugs Osama , Sadam, something they would never ever be capable of and we are the losers ?.Arab countries dont have the guts nor the will to clean there own backyard. Arabs need to stand up and be accountable for there home grown hatred( and they have a ton of it), something which they have not done. Considering the massive oil wealth in that region, its amazing they still have so many problems, Americans areant the problem, Arabs need to look in the mirror.

Dimitry writes:"which wipped up anger and nationalist frenzy, in order to keep the people hating the enemies and not think about the absurd incompetence of their government."

Sounds like Hezbollah, Ha-mas, Iran, Syria, Sadam

==The fighters, who called themselves the Soldiers of the Sky, are driven by an apocalyptic vision of clearing the Earth of the depraved in preparation for the second coming of Muhammed al-Mahdi, a Shiite imam who disappeared in the 9th century, according to Ahmed Duaibel, a spokesman for the provincial government in Najaf. The governor of Najaf province, Assad Abu Gilel, said the group planned to attack pilgrims and shrines and to assassinate Shiite clerics at the peak of the religious holiday, called Ashura, which culminates Tuesday.

"Imam Mahdi is among you," a voice on a loudspeaker could be heard by a Washington Post special correspondent who spent the day at a checkpoint near the orchards. "Fight until martyrdom."

"Today's attack was designed to destroy all of Najaf, even the holy shrine of Imam Ali," said Duaibel, referring to one of the most revered Shiite shrines, near the offices of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. If successful, such a provocative attack could surpass in significance the bombing at the Askariya shrine in Samarra last February that drastically escalated sectarian killing in Iraq.==

www.washingtonpost.com
------------------------------------------

Neat.

Apparently we can now add violent suicidal death cults to the deadly mix of insurgents, Al Qaeda, sectarian death squads and organized criminals gangs that is the HELL called Iraq.

You have done a heck of a job, George.

The War loving Nation of Alla who has been attacking and calling for all out War agianst America for more then 25 years should get the response they have been attacking for. The full and undivided attention of America should be on ridding the West of our self proclaimed Enemy!"

Nicklan,

Twenty five years? America took up where Great Britain left off. America has been interfering in Middle-Eastern affairs (if not the whole world) since the 1950s. We have installed dictators, destabilized nations, provided WMDs, murdered world leaders and citizens of other nations, spied upon and of late, invaded Iraq...!

What gives Americathe right? Had any other nation attempted to do to America, what America has done in other nations, Americans would fight back. Why aren't these folks, and nations of the Middle-East permitted to protect themselves and to fight back? Why are they considered to be so evil by Americans simply for protecting their homelands?

Are these people without the rights to resist a hegemon? Your comment about Allah reminds me that the first person, according to the Bible, to die, was slain because of religous hatred/sectarianism.

It would appear (given your and some other Americans intolerant feelings about Middle-Easterners), that the last person to die in the so-called modern age will do so because of religious bigotry and hatred; or in America's case, because of American's worship of the American Idol, itself.

Other people and nations, besides America and Israel, have the right to exist!

I am aware of Islamists who instead of fighting are praying to Allah to save them from Christian America.

How paradoxical?

Nicklan and Dave,

It would be a waste of time trying to open up either of your minds with respect to America's horrid history of killing innocent people, apparently.

However, have either of you ever considered the moral dimensions or the social implications of a nation that has such a horrid history of slaughtering innocent people? Other nations and people of the world have; the rest of the world is appalled and disgusted by America's current behavior.

Perhaps you two should simply remove the glaciers from your hearts, or the blinders that go with patriotism from your eyes.

It's wrong, murder, no matter who does it. You both may be in denial about America's history, and you might try to sanitize it by comparing American misbehavior with the misbehavior of other nations, but that does not change the facts. Moral equivalency...?

America has been one major killing machine since its inception. And given all of the killing power that it has amassed in its mighty arsenal, America clearly has zero intentions of stopping its murderous ways.

I remind you that Iraq did not attack the United States, yet there are possibly 100,000 dead and 3 or 400,000 wounded given America's unprovoked and murderous misbehavior.

Oh I'm sorry, you indicated that America is a liberator nation. America never did anything to free black Americans until it was forced to do so. America never did anything to stop government supported discrimination against blacks until it was forced to do so. You folks have a bad understanding about the land of the free and the home of the slave!

If there is a God, and if the Holy Bible is correct (what you sow, you reap) America will also receive its comeuppance -I didn't say it!

I am often amazed by the fact that I live among so many people (Americans) who have a murderous/killing mindset and a thirst for blood; but on the other hand, why should I be given America's history?

What is our policy on dead bodies and mass graves?

Look at the recently departed Saddam. He mowed down shia and kurd resistance with helicopter gunships and dumped the bodies into mass graves. These have recently been dug up and him and his cronies have been tried and executed for these and other crimes.

We are now using helicopter gunships to mow down large numbers of mostly sunnis in Iraq. What happens to the bodies? Do we allow the population to bury them? If so, are they treated as heroes and what does it say about the success of our counterinsurgency efforts? Or do we dump them into unmarked mass graves, like Saddam? If so, doesn't it open doors for future trials for crimes against humanity against the American leadership?

I have never heard this addressed by our media except in rare cases like Saddam and his sons.

==If America must shut down the whole region to Win this War then so be it !
10,000 addition to the Navy is a good start maybe we should consider adding 2 more fleets. Block aid them all nothing in or out. Nothing flys, sails or drives unless it is ours. The War loving Nation of Alla who has been attacking and calling for all out War agianst America for more then 25 years should get the response they have been attacking for. The full and undivided attention of America should be on ridding the West of our self proclaimed Enemy! ==

I have read this before, in George Orwell's "1984". The population there was required to watch a set amount of hate TV, which wipped up anger and nationalist frenzy, in order to keep the people hating the enemies and not think about the absurd incompetence of their government. Your diatribe is a perfect example of this. There must be a need for people to create this type of programming. I am sure that the current government can use this kind of talent. You should definitely apply.

I*ve been racking my brain trying to figure out why there are so many different non-binding resolutions??? Haven*t you wondered?? Well besides the obvious, giving senators or congressmen different levels of harse language, there is one other reason. If there are 5 different resolutions then 20 percent of the politicians can vote for one of the five resolutions. You see they don*t really want any single resolution to pass. But if each resolution gets 20 percent of the politicians support no ONE resolution will get over 20 percent of the votes. It*s a beautiful plan to SCR_W us again. The muliple resolutions will give every single politician the opportunity to say to their constituents...I voted for the non-binding resolution AGAINST the SURGE. Later we will find that none of the individual resolutions actually passed muster but 100 percent of the politicians will be able to claim that they voted in favor of ONE OF THE FIVE RESOLUTIONS. Then they can blame each other for not wanting to work together on a single resolution. Pretty sick in my book but these guys and gals are smarter than you think. So much for representing the sentiments of the American public....Gil in Tex

How long are the blood thirsty going to deny the FACT that this government is illegal? If you support this war, then you support those who are manipulating YOU. And now you live in FEAR. the same who cry for more blood! More War!

God said to my master, "Sit at my right hand Until I make your enemies a stool for resting your feet" Acts 2.29-36

Posted by: Nicklan,

"If America must shut down the whole region to Win this War then so be it !
10,000 addition to the Navy is a good start maybe we should consider adding 2 more fleets. Block aid them all nothing in or out. Nothing flys, sails or drives unless it is ours. The War loving Nation of Alla who has been attacking and calling for all out War agianst America for more then 25 years should get the response they have been attacking for. The full and undivided attention of America should be on ridding the West of our self proclaimed Enemy!"

You're methodology or policy would continue the erosion of American interests in the Middle East, dive the price of a barrel of oil to several hundred dollars, warrant a domestic military draft, send the economy and deficit into a tail spin (most likely into a depression), and most of all turn the region into a killing field for a hundreds thousands of American soldiers for nothing. You are confused with a football game, there is not going to be a winner to this war in Iraq, just damage control.

Well Dave. Where to start with someone like you.

Equality by the U.S. Once again I'll use Native American Indians and blacks as an example. They were never treated as equals and still are not. I'lll add that the American Civil War was not about slavery--it was about the cultural and economic differences between the Noth and South..

Look. If the U.S. had been invaded and destroyed as many times as Russia, we'd be taking over adjacent countries even now. Russia was basically engaging in self-defense. We supported Saddam in Iraq, as I pointed out---YES, we did. The U.S. often supplied brutal regimes with the means to suppress, murder and torture their own people: Shah of Iran in Iran, Pol Pot in Cambodia, in Suharto in Indonesia. As for China just after WWII, we used Japanese and American soldiers in an attempt to overthrow the communists who fought on _our_ side in WWII. We supported the Chinese nationalists, who did nothing to help us. The U.S. did not free up Eastern Eurorope--it was collapsing on its own. The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of NY kept pointing that out throughout the 1980s. We helped Kuwait after selling them out to Iraq who had a legitimate claim to land on their mutual border. Moreover Kuwait was created by the UK after WWII from Iraqi land. Saddam tried to negotiate with Kuwait, but in the end invaded them with the permission of the U.S. who then decided to destroy Iraq. Can you name a country that has been at war, covertly or overtly more than the U.S. since WWII???? Bet you can't! These wars were not for the freedom of the people in those countries, but rather to control the people in those countries.

Yes, I'd rather that Syria and Iran have influence in Iraq. The U.S. wants Iraq for our own purposes which I can assure you are not noble. If we gave a rat's behind about Iraq, we would not have destroyed their country _twice_. It turns out that it's far easier to find come common ground, some friendship with other countries if you actually use diplomacy and show a willingness to work with them. My favorite example of the U.S. being unwilling to engage in diplomacy was the USSR offering to break up the Warsaw Pact if we would break up NATO--the U.S. would not even discuss it.

I could go on and on, but I'd rather address the Osama bin Laden issue. Yes, bin Laden recommended reading "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower" by William Blum. That's how I found out about it. Right now, it's fair to say that many Muslims just hate us. But, what most Muslims dislike is our favorable policies towards their governments that suppress them, kill them, torture them ( hey, even the U.S. uses these countries for torture ). I've already used the Shah of Iran as an example. But, it's equally true of Turkey. MY POINT is that you should read Blum's books--the one I've mentioned above is a bit terse and not very well organized. My SECOND POINT is that I would not believe much, if any, of what Blum writes if I did not live in the D.C. area from 1984 to 2004 and have a good newspaper to read and many political talk shows to watch. Read Blum's books--if you already read what you already believe you never learn anything. My last point is that Mexicans and Soith Americans don't really like us, or our policies, either. They may say they do, but if you gain some trust, they'll tell you that the do not like the U.S. at all because of what we have done to their countries. Now I appied for work with a tree service company in Virginia. The supervisor told about his Mexican crew--they outworked his American crews by such a wide margin that he simply had no idea how they could do it. He also told me that he would not place me with a Mexican crew because they _hated_ Americans. I've taken a course in college Russian history and occasionally refer to that book. Both Blum and that history book confirm that the U.S. had 10 to 15 thousand soldiers in Russia just after WW I ( a few other countries had soldiers there as well ); their purpose was to destroy the Bolshevik government in its infancy. This was done just after Russia was an ally in another wr with Germany et al. Again Russia had been distroyed. We lost that battle anyway, but why were we fighting our ally?

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity''. --Hanlon's Razor

If America must shut down the whole region to Win this War then so be it !
10,000 addition to the Navy is a good start maybe we should consider adding 2 more fleets. Block aid them all nothing in or out. Nothing flys, sails or drives unless it is ours. The War loving Nation of Alla who has been attacking and calling for all out War agianst America for more then 25 years should get the response they have been attacking for. The full and undivided attention of America should be on ridding the West of our self proclaimed Enemy!

Maddog56
"Moreover, the U.S. has done much more to deprive people of equality than any other country I can think of"
Hmmmm. The Soviet Union and the take over of Eastern Europe. Mao in China. Saddam in Iraq. Hitler/Germany. Burundi. Darfur. Cambodia, Pretty much any country governed by Islamic law. If the US is the country you think of when it comes to deprivation of equality, perhaps you should brush up on your history. The US (with help)- freed up western Europe, then eastern Europe, righted Germany and Japan, got Russia to rethink communism, helped Kuwait, overthrew Saddam...

"The U.S. has refused to include Syria and Iran in the process wrt Iraq. Reason: the U.S. never intended to leave Iraq, needs a puppet government _we_ can control..."
Or maybe its just that Iran and Syria are our enemies. What is the benefit of having them help? You think its better that they should have a permanent presence in Iraq? But i guess using your logic, they are the good guys so that would be ok.

And finally, I'm afraid that any author specifically recommended by Osama bin Laden is not going to make it onto my reading list - so Blum is out. "When asked if he was disturbed by Bin Laden's endorsement of his book, Blum replied "I was glad. I knew it would help the book's sales and I was not bothered by who it was coming from. If he shares with me a deep dislike for the certain aspects of U.S. foreign policy, then I'm not going to spurn any endorsement of the book by him. I think it's good that he shares those views and I'm not turned off by that." Fabulous. What a guy.

Dimitry,
"Didn't Russia, along with Britain and the US defeat Nazi Germany, which surely saved many millions of lives and, in effect, saved the western civilization from...itself?" You are so correct - Stalin, taking a break from killing tens of millions of people, helped defeat Germany in response to being attacked.

I meant to use "become" instead of "be" in the following: China (too busy trying to be a superpower and a military force...

Dave. What can I say, exccept that you need to read some history books.

America has had _more_ than its share of " fights, battles, and wars." I can think of no other country that, over the past 200 years or so, has spent so much of its resources waging wars around the world, overthrowing or trying to overthrow governments we did not like, bombing innocent people, etc. Read some books by William Blum. Native American Indians were not freed--mostly their land was confiscated and they were murdered. Manifest Destiny!!!!! Blacks might have been "freed" from slavery by the civil war, but I can remember them fighting for basic civil rights in the 1960s. The U.S. has not provided mankind with the concept that all people are created equal--that concept was around long before the U.S. Moreover, the U.S. has done much more to deprive people of equality than any other country I can think of--our goal was a government that supported U.S. policies and interests, regardless of the consequences to the people.

The U.S. has refused to include Syria and Iran in the process wrt Iraq. Reason: the U.S. never intended to leave Iraq, needs a puppet government _we_ can control, and allow us to keep our military bases there--as if we didn't have enough around the world.

No country lost more people or sacrificed more during WWII than Russia--some 17 million people dead and a country virtually destroyed. What Russia went through in WWI and WWII makes 9/11 look like a low-budget Independence Day fireworks display.

What happened to Saddam is typical of what happens to tyrants once allied with the U.S., but who have outlived their usefulness to us. Saddam an ally??? Yes! We proivided the chemical and biological materials and technology that Saddam used on the Kurds, Shia and Iranians. DO NOT even try to tell me that we did not know how those WMDs were going to be used.

Dave, you must have believed every word of U.S. history as taught in elementary school. Mostly lies.

somehone=somehow

That English of mine...

==Russia (despite end of cold war not exactly looking out for our best interests plus they could care less about people suffering)... ==

You mean a complete desintegration of their state into an impoverished conglameration of ethnically warring nations somehone did not engender their continued gratitude? Well, I'll be...

==China (too busy trying to be a superpower and a military force - and they too could care less about the suffering of people).==

I guess to even point out the irony of the above statement would be pointless. I know a superpower and a military force that still finds time in its busy schedule to ease the suffering of the people, by liberating them in large numbers...permanently.

==You want a "killing machine", take Russia==

Didn't Russia, along with Britain and the US defeat Nazi Germany, which surely saved many millions of lives and, in effect, saved the western civilization from...itself?

The Rev,
Where to begin...
"The American killing machine actually ramped up around 1619, and it has never looked back or atoned for its own malfeasance, and it does not intend to."
The American killing machine? You have got to be kidding. Much like most other countries, America has been in its share of fights, battles, and wars. Some legit, some not. She's not always perfect and has had its share of not so shining moments. But overall, America has freed or saved more people than any other country in history. It has provided mankind with the concept that all people are created equal. That's America's legacy. You want a "killing machine", take Russia or China or a host of other countries or peoples. Its fascinating that people can look at the world of 200+ years ago from today's perspective and condemn the people for their lack of human rights - considering human rights back then were a novelty and that America pretty much started that experiment.

"Isn't it ironic to you that America has never pushed for a truce, and worked to bring in legitimate and neutral nations, who could help to bring about a peace in Iraq."
Syria and Iran are not "legitimate and neutral nations". The Arab league was asked and wanted nothing to do with it (why would they want to actually do something worthwhile other than attacking Israel). France (spineless - wait they were going to help but only if they could have all the oil contracts)... Russia (despite end of cold war not exactly looking out for our best interests plus they could care less about people suffering)... China (too busy trying to be a superpower and a military force - and they too could care less about the suffering of people).

==This may be our last chance, so we ought to take it, if serious intelligence shows that the Shiite militias and death squads in Iraq, or most of them, are in fact standing down.==

Why wouldn't they stand down, Jay, if Americans are coming to kill off their enemies for them?

It's called the 80% solution which was briefly floated for public opinion assessment a few months back. I surmise that the reaction to this "genocide-lite" scenario has not been good. Therefore, the plan is being implemented in "secret", or actually in plain sight, but it is as good as nonexistent for our valiant media. It's called a "surge" and it means that the American troops with their Iraqi shia/kurd colonial troops will attack and further decimate the Sunni areas, killing a great many in the process. We already see extra-bloody battles in Baghdad, with large force on force engagements, with close air support against civilian buildings and savage retaliatory bombings of the shia population.

It appears we are really seizing our "last chance to win" with a vengance. If we win, we deliver Iraq to Iran. If we loose, we deliver Iraq to chaos, civil war and Al Qaeda. It's a strategy of a moron. So here we go.

William M. Arkin
"But it does continue to baffle me why the mainstream media is by and large not reporting the actual "surge" as a front page story."
This baffles you? They are reporting the surge just as they have reported the rest of the war - which is not at all. The only thing that the media report is a death count. There is precious little analysis or insight into what is going on or what the strategy is in Iraq. This reporting is NO different than last month's or last year's. But we all know the Iraq death count. What baffles me is why we all know the Iraq death count, why its is virtually reported daily and yet, the same does not hold true for the war in Afghanistan. The media never pounds that death number into the masses brains. Could that be because Afghanistan is considered to be the "legitimate" war? No, that could not be it - there is not that kind of bias in the media, is there???

WWPD-What Would Pelosi Do???? If I was Pelosi I would have approached Bush right after the November elections. I would say...Mr President, I think you should send more troops to Iraq. Bush said, but Maddam speaker if I send more troops how will you be able to satisfy all the Americans who voted you into office to stop the war???? Peloci says, no problem George....you send the troops and we will raise such a STINK that the voters will believe we are against the war. Peloci continues....we will insult you and your Iraq policy, we will introduce numerous non-binding resolutions to berate your surge action, we will even allow the republicans to join us in the anti-war rhetoric so they won*t suffer any more losses in 08. Don*t you see Mr President, it*s the perfect political play, you get to flex your war powers and continue your war while we sit back and RAISE HELL about the surge. The voters will be so distracted by our quarreling that they won*t notice that the war goes on. Sure we will lose many more soldiers but it*s the 08 elections that really matter. Bush stood there in silence then he spoke....Nancy you are a genius!!!!!! I get to take a STAND and I will never back down while your party gives the impression that they are fighting me to the DEATH!!! I think it*s A GREAT IDEA!!!! George continues...Nancy please feel free to insult me and bad mouth my war policy and I will continue to wage this war to save my LEGACY!!! I will say rediculous things like, I AM THE DECIDER and I AM THE DECISION MAKER, this will really piss off the voters. Nancy chimes in...yes and we will go out our way to make it seem as if we are totally against the war without really stopping you........Gil in Tex

To the Rev:

Thanks for your reply.

You are right on target!

Posted by: The Rev,

"Isn't it ironic to you that America has never pushed for a truce, and worked to
bring in legitimate and neutral nations, who could help to bring about a peace in Iraq."

I haven't heard this openly stated, but bringing in neutral nations or those nations bordering Iraq would jeopardize the Bush administrations goal for exclusive control of the Iraqi oil fields. It is difficult for anyone, at this point, to deny this war was oil motivated. WMD's, Sadam the evil dictator, spreading of Democracy, and Terrorism are all smoke screens for dominating the oil fields.

As the dream of dominating the oil fields fades, Bush pushes more for weaning this country off of Middle Eastern oil with a new energy policy (this alone is proof of Iraq being an oil war), but falls short of leveling off the sacrifice for energy conservation with the wealthiest Americans sharing the burden of the middle and lower income households. This lack of sharing is also apparent in taxation, medical care, and fighting the war in Iraq to name a few.

It has been estimated that by mandating CAFE standards of 40 miles per gallon we would not need to import any oil from the Middle East, but the Bush administration will not do this for "safety reasons". I've always wondered if these "safety reasons" are weighed against the over 22,000 wounded and over 3000 dead in Iraq? To me it is very apparent the greater of the two safety evils is the war in Iraq.

If others were not driving monstrous gas guzzling SUV's, I would be much safer driving my little 40+ mile per hour four cylinder. Many in the Bush's voting base prefer driving gas guzzlers. Perhaps he should change his slogan from "stay the course" to "dump your SUV and save a soldiers life" it might be more truthful a slogan.

This may be our last chance, so we ought to take it, if serious intelligence shows that the Shiite militias and death squads in Iraq, or most of them, are in fact standing down.

Jay.

Our last chance to do what, to force an illegal invasion down the throats of the Iraqi people by surging 'American Death Squads'?

Some analysts are saying that there might be a quieting down, but as soon as the Americans get out, the civil war, instigated by Americans, will resume.

Your analysis is thoughtful, but I still disagree with it. The only thing that America should be surging is to get out of Iraq. America broke, America owns it, however, America cannot fix it.

Isn't it ironic to you that America has never pushed for a truce, and worked to bring in legitimate and neutral nations, who could help to bring about a peace in Iraq.

All America needs to be doing with respect to Iraq now, is to begin paying reparations.

Alex says: If you read these blogs you'll see how some bloggers think we've been killing murdering and stealing since 1776.

Catzie,

Alex tends to prefer living in the same illusory world that most Americans prefer to live in. The American killing machine actually ramped up around 1619, and it has never looked back or atoned for its own malfeasance, and it does not intend to.

Unfortunately, most Americans have been conditioned to believe that American behavior is always justifiable; they are not conditioned to believe the same when it comes to non-Americans. They will point out the good that America does around the world, and quickly rationalize and explain the evil. The latter, by and large, is the reason that American is hated so much around the world.

The U.S.A. made it possible for Saddam to hang for his crimes and delivered him to the lynch mob. But no one in the U.S.A. has ever hung for their crimes against humanity; the native Americans and blacks primarily. Factually some Americans that are considered American heroes, were nothing more than killing scoundrels and nothing more, including some Presidents, Congressmen, Court Justices, Sheriffs, Polices, and did I leave out ministers?

Someday, perhaps, Americans will learn the true meaning of 'justice', and to be equally balanced in their judgments of others, and to atone for American malfesance, injustice and cruelty.

Given all of the innocent people who have died in Iraq (many who are praying to Allah right now to spare them from so-called Christian America by the way), as far as I am concerned Mr. Bush and his group are nothing more than 'natural born killers' who lack conscience!

Regrettably, they can never suffer enough for their current crimes against humanity, but I am sure that the Almighty has something in store for Bush and his 'hate group', the Republican Party!

Here's the URL for the complete analysis mentioned in my previous comment, which didn't make it through the Post's filters:

http://jaydiatribe.blogspot.com/2007/01/chance-for-success-in-baghdad.html

One of the problems with running a war in the press (or in Congress, for that matter) is inability to respond quickly to changes on the ground.

I've opposed the Bush Administration's mismanagement of this war from the beginning. But, like most Americans, I also think that a pacified Iraq is better than one that remains capable of blowing up in our faces for the foreseeable future.

Very recent events suggest that the surge may have a small but reasonable chance of success. The reason: the Mahdi Army and Shiite death squads in Baghdad appear to be standing down in anticipation of the surge. There are reports of Shiite militia units leaving Baghdad. Others are reportedly sequestering their weapons and peacefully blending into the population, apparently to wait out the surge.

If these reports are true, then the worst nightmare of the surge---our troops fighting Shiite death squads house to house with Shiite-sympathizing Iraqi troops at their backs---won't happen. The battle will be with Sunni death squads, with the help of Iraqi troops that support the mission. If we and the Iraqis can beat the Sunni death squads back, or if the Sunni death squads, too, stand down in anticipation of the surge, their might be enough of a reduction in violence in Baghdad to make some headway on law enforcement and political reconciliation. For complete analysis, check out this discussion.

Is this a sure thing? Not hardly. But ever since Rumsfeld decided to try out his pipe-dream theories against the advice of every competent general whom he consulted (including Colin Powell), all we've had is a small chance of success.

This may be our last chance, so we ought to take it, if serious intelligence shows that the Shiite militias and death squads in Iraq, or most of them, are in fact standing down.

Ron in Denver

There already is genocide in Iraq, thanks to Bush and his supporters.

Why are we now "surging" when Maliki, the supposed sovereign ruler says no?

Is that the Bush supporters' idea of freedom and democracy?

As for your belief that global glorious capitalism is THE "fix" for Iraq, you show the rights' real interest in the ME, ie their oil.

Alex says: If you read these blogs you'll see how some bloggers think we've been killing murdering and stealing since 1776.

Unfortunately it's true. One obvious example - there was legal slavery in 1776, ie wholesale stealing of the wages of millions, and it didn't end without a huge war caused by those who refused to stop stealing.

America does both good and bad things, that's the way the world works, despite some people's desire to believe otherwise.

re: medal presentation - I can't imagine why they waited until arriving in Iraq, but the medals are almost certainly for accomplishments in the 82nd's previous tour of duty in Iraq, which would have been probably 1-2 years ago. It takes the military many months or years to go through the process to award medals.

Bush is having his (Cheney's) way. I think this is more widely known than you think, Mr. Arkin. It doesn't take much to add or "surge" 22,500 (let's not forget those other 500 service people) souls for the people grinder formerly known as Iraq. There's no reason for long winded explanations and recriminations any longer. America and Her ideals have been lost already. Now is the time for sorrow and for working toward a way, if such there be, to stop the BushCo Machine. We all know Iran is in their sites. God help us all!

n.romero writes: ". Bush says he is the "decision maker"....yeah that's not in the Constitution! "

I asume you mean his command over the military since that quote was reffering to the addtl troop deployment.If you are, then yr wrong, he is the commander and chief, it is in the constitution. But incase you still believe yr correct, why do you think the legislative and judicial branches have not done anything ?

If congress really wanted to stop the President, why the hell don't they just impeach him? A non-binding resolution does nothing. Bush says he is the "decision maker"....yeah that's not in the Constitution! The checks and balances were set up so that one branch never had complete control. This prevents dictatorships like the one we have now.

The "surge" IS a smokescreen : To buy time, so that we dont begin our inevitable, ignominious retreat during King George's watch, AND a device to facilitate our entry into a war with Iran vis a vi a Gulf of Tonkin incident. It's all about George's fragile ego, and Christo-Triumphialism.

Here's my alegory for this so-called surge:

Bus fare costs $1.00.
You have $0.25, so the driver won't let you on.
You come back the next day with $0.50, doubly your investment but still falling short.

The bus driver still won't let you ride.

"Oh, well. I tried," you say.

Too little, too late.

Alex,

And in anticipation of your reply:

Senator Brownbeck, Republican Presidential Candidate, has already apologized to Hilary Clinton for his hatred of her.

He explained that in 1994, he was a part of that hate frenzy (caught up into the Republican Party) that breeded so much hatred.

I'm just telling you this because I am certain that you will try to turn the tables and say that the Rev harbors hatred.

Senator Brownbeck, discovered something that most on the Religious Right have not discovered yet, (particularly their leaders) that Christianity is not about murder, hatred and war. He has had a change of heart!

Those white men who are angry do not have anything to be angry about, in fact its the other way around, they should be apologizing!

Alex,

You must have missed it when just about a decade ago that phrase was employed on aa daily basis by the press in order to describe the feelings of that particular catchment group in America.

The catch phrase had to do with many of the white male Americans who had become fed up with all of what was going on in the nation e.g. crime, big-government (a euphemism for helping anyone else but them), America's shrinking international power et al.

Suddenly, they realized that they were becoming a minority (victims) and that their grip on power was shrinking; they did not like it. So they decided to fight back by organizing themselves politically by regaining the Golden Fleece of power in America and the rest of the world!

I didn't invent the Phrase, I was simply repeating it; but it was accurate.

By the way, they did not have any problems with their own double-standards and their inhumanity to their brothers and sisters who happened to be of a different hue in America and around the world.

In fact following the angry white men, we have all witnessned the misguided 'angry evangelical church'; both hate groups became particularly exercised just over a decade ago and it has lasted until today.

And that my friend is one of the primary reaons that Bush has 'gone wild' and is trying to take on the world. He was a part of a bigger feeding frenzy; he was a part of that hate group. And today, much like then, he does not listen to the voice of reason. He is beset with the angry mob mindset of white men and religious fascists. He has an agenda, and he is on a mission, okay 'crusade'!

rev writes:"angry white men"

yes men get angry , but all men do , its not a white thing nor a black yellow purple thing.

The real surge...

began at least a decade ago; factually, one could actually trace 'the surge' back to the days of Ronald Reagen.

Once the Republicans regained complete control of all 3 branches of Government in Washington (and Impeachment of Bill Clinton having failed), Bush simply picked up where Reagen left off, the temporary interruption by Bill Clintonwas not supposed to have happened.

Reagen got away with, usurpation of power and Congress, as well. So why wouldn't Bush who followed in Reagen's footsteps, play loose with the rules, and he still is playing loose with the rules?

The plan(s) that had been in the incubator when the Republicans, angry white men, the Contract with America and Newt seized control of Congress, were then hatched, with Bush. Ironically, today Newt admits that Clinton is the number one politician in America, hmmm. So what does that say about Bush, Newt?

It turned out, however, that Bush and Cheney who proceeded to alienate the Republican Congress, were far more hawkish than their accomplices in crime ever thought they would be. Many of them were now embarassed by the brazaness of these two caricatures, although they wouldn't say so publicly. Anyone else ever slip into a William F. Buckley meeting like I did? Klan rally?

What we are witnessing today, in Afghanistan and Iraq, are only part and parcel of something much larger, that was begun begun years ago, and many in the Republican Party have already attested to that fact. It would have happened anyway, all they were waiting for was 'a pretext' to engage the middle-east, and they got it on 911.

Many Republicans, however, for political reasons have since abandoned ship, Bush and Cheney are primarily,'the last surgers' standing. The rest of the Republicans will come out of the closet when Bush and Cheney are gone away; they are still dyed-in-the-surge, Republicans.

P.S. Learned a lot on Capitol Hill today, good thing I brought my big coat and top hat!

PJ Casey is partly right about the Battle for Baghdad being like the Battle for Berlin. Zhukov's army suffered major casualties in the block by block fighting. Of course the Russians didn't have C-130 gunships and smart bombs to level a building to neutralize each sniper. This is just a side show anyway, the real action is on the way in the Persian Gulf. The Zionist battle plan is for the US to fragment Iran in 2007 following the plan laid out in A Clean Break: A New Strategy To Secure the Realm prepared for Netanyahu in l996 by many of GWB's Zionist war staff.
How do you soldier boys like carrying water and blood for Zion anyway? Back to the Persian Gulf. The Iranians have Sunburn and Silkworm cruise missles lining the Persian Gulf. Have you googled the capabilies of these missiles deployed against the obsolete carrier battle groups.
They are setting ducks in the Gulf. Is this the plan? One of those ducks goes down in the cruise missile attack after the first bombing runs on the Iranian nuclear sites. Thousand of our sailors die as the rational for using tactical nukes to keep the Straits of Hormuz open. This would be my plan if I had a trillion dollars to spend and 10 carrier battle groups, but no real dominating ground forces to do the job. All you arm chair warriors get the beer and chips stocked for a ring side seat to the final battle for the empire. If nukes don't do the job the US is finished as a world power. Are the ayatollahs clever enough to sit tight and let world opinion take it to Uncle? Either way it looks like GWB and his Zionist handlers have finished us as a world power.I think we should stop thinking about impeachment and start talking about treason.

I wonder about two matters. First, this is not the first surge in this war. The insurgents did not hide. Rather, counter-offensives and internecine conflicts increased quickly. Second, if the powers that be in Iraq are aware that the failure of this surge may bring a stronger response by Americans and Congress now, or at least in the election of an anti-war Democratic President in '08, it would behoove Iraqi insurgents to have organized a quick response as early as late '06, when the idea of a surge was being leaked. The sooner Bush is humiliated and Americans die, the sooner the troops may be pulled back/out. No?

The troops would be coming home now if they could bring the petroleum with them.

Burns also quoted an American military officer who said we have face an enemy who will trade space for time. They will leave Badgdah, wait us out knowing it's only a temporary surge. So the peace the surge brings will not last -- indeed, a smoke screen and a fraud.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

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

A warning from Senator Webb: Democrat cites danger of deepening "class lines" in America

By Patrick Martin
25 January 2007

The official Democratic Party response to President Bush's State of the Union speech Tuesday night was delivered by newly elected Senator James Webb of Virginia, a former Republican and secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration.

Webb's eight-minute speech dealt with two issues: the war in Iraq and the growth of economic inequality within the United States. Webb's criticisms of the Bush administration's conduct of the war in Iraq were typical of the congressional Democrats. He criticized Bush's incompetence and cast the Iraq war as a diversion that weakened the position of the US in the global "war on terror," although he was more scathing than most of his counterparts about the war's toll on the United States, in both human and financial terms. (See: "Bush's State of the Union speech highlights crisis of US ruling elite").

The senator's discussion of the economic conditions in the United States, however, went considerably beyond the pallid quasi-populist rhetoric normally employed by many Democrats. He spoke bluntly about the widening divide between rich and poor and the vast chasm that separates corporate CEOs from ordinary workers.

In beginning his remarks, Webb said there were other urgent issues beyond the scope of his brief speech, including "such domestic priorities as restoring the vitality of New Orleans." This was an attack on Bush, who made no reference whatsoever to the greatest natural disaster in American history, an omission that exposed the utter indifference of the White House to the needs of the vast majority of the American people.

Webb continued: "When one looks at the health of our economy, it's almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it's nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day. Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world."

After hailing the passage by the House of Representatives of an increase in the minimum wage--a drop in the bucket compared to the actual social need--Webb turned to the subject of the Iraq war. He returned to the theme of economic inequality towards the end of his speech:

"Regarding the economic imbalance in our country, I am reminded of the situation President Theodore Roosevelt faced in the early days of the 20th century. America was then, as now, drifting apart along class lines. The so-called robber barons were unapologetically raking in a huge percentage of the national wealth. The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt."

In his description of the deepening social divisions in America, Webb was stating facts that are well known throughout the media and political elite, but almost never referred to publicly or seriously analyzed outside of the World Socialist Web Site.

He used language, including the phrase "class lines," that has been virtually banned from official bourgeois politics for many decades. Right-wing pundits and politicians regularly denounce any explicit reference to the socioeconomic polarization of American society as "class warfare," in effect declaring that the class contradictions in America are so severe that even to acknowledge their existence is impermissible.

A man of the military and state apparatus, Webb is himself an ardent anticommunist. The former Marine officer and Vietnam War veteran held high political office in the Reagan administration. But he is one of the more thoughtful representatives of the US ruling elite, and, as a successful war novelist, able to articulate his concerns.

His remarks are thus significant both for what he did say, and what he didn't. Webb drew very tame political conclusions from the explosive social facts he cited. He praised the example of a Republican president, Theodore Roosevelt, who struck a public posture of opposition to the excesses of the wealthy ("trust-busting"), in order to safeguard the profit system from the attacks of what Webb described as "demagogy and mob rule"--i.e., socialism.

In pointing to the growing class divide in America, the Democratic senator was addressing two audiences. He was, on the one hand, attempting to pump new life into the tattered myth of the
For the rest please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/dems-j25.shtml

Burns also quoted an American military officer who said we have face an enemy who will trade space for time. They will leave Badgdah, wait us out knowing it's only a temporary surge. So the peace the surge bring will not last.

==People need to pay attention to what John Burns said on the Charlie Rose show. He believes that the surge can bring peace to Iraq. He has been reporting for the New York Times for four and a half years. I hope the Senators pay attention to what he said. We are critical of rushing into Iraq without the facts.. Now I fear we will rush out of Iraq again without the facts==

Burns tends to be emotional in his reporting. He has held a wide variety of opinions during his tenure in Iraq, many of which bleed into his writing. He should consider becoming a columnist.

On the other hand both previous Iraqi PMs, Alawi and Jafari think the surge is not needed and will likely not work.

I think unless the great majority of the Iraqi population accepts the presence of American troops in their country in perpetuity, the war will contunue. In order to force them to accept us as a military presence for ever (this is the reason we went in and the reason we will not leave, at least under this president), we will have to commit near genocide, a la Saddam Hussein.

That's what our "victory" will look like. Unless, of course, it is interrupted by an additional war with Iran.

Ron in Denver wrote: "The majority more likely wants a change in direction...as is being tried right now with or without the support of a Congress"

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Ron, at the link you'll find a list of polls on Iraq about the time of the election. You'll find in the CNN poll of Nov 3-5 (third page of the link) that 60% of the public thought that a Republican controlled Congress would move the country in the wrong direction in regards to Iraq.

Ron in Denver wrote: "There is nothing in the public record that supports the majority of this country wants an immediate withdrawal from the conflict in the Middle East"

Looking at the Pew Poll (+ or - 3%) I see that when the question is 'Should the troops stay until the situation stabiizes or should they come home as soon as possible' it's very possible, given the margin of error, that a razor thin majority do indeed want the troops home ASAP. But essentially the country is evenly split on that question, and has been for about a year and a half.

"because it remains such a smoke screen and a fraud."

Care to prove this Arkin?

People need to pay attention to what John Burns said on the Charlie Rose show. He believes that the surge can bring peace to Iraq. He has been reporting for the New York Times for four and a half years. I hope the Senators pay attention to what he said. We are critical of rushing into Iraq without the facts.. Now I fear we will rush out of Iraq again without the facts.

http://www.charlierose.com/

John Witworth writes:"The media for the most part never gives the real story."

Well John, thats due to a number of factors, one being ratings, disaster and doom are what sells. I also think there is an odd angle to american society, it's like an immense guilt complex over bad things from the past. Its bad because this segment of society cannot believe that americans can do good. Its the "we must be ripping off and killing somebody". I dont know what causes it but I think its something to do with being the richest most powerful country. Maybe its a rich kid complex.If you read these blogs you'll see how some bloggers think we've been killing murdering and stealing since 1776.

What the Bush Administration is trying to do is get the troops in place and dare the Democrats not to support them. There has been heavy fighting on Haifa Street for a few days, which has been reported on CNN. Also, it has been reported that the Iraqi forces cannot control the situation by themselves, because they are out gunned by the insurgents. They will "need" American forces for heavy weapons and air support. For example, they had a sniper in a tall building and couldn't get him out with regular infantry weapons. They tries to use a helicopter Gun Ship, but they again couldn't get the shot. Finally, they knocked down the whole building with artillery.
You can forget about Iraqis taking the lead. As light as our forces are on the ground, it will take a lot of firepower to take these people down. Baghdad may look like Berlin after WWII before this thing is finished. The hole gets deeper!

Come on, you know better - the Bronze Star was no doubt from any one of that solider's three or four previous Iraqi deployments.

Arkin, you've eloquently used the premise of emotion to continue your own narcissistic arguments. You would do well to gather and report facts. The will of the American people can only be characterized as wanting to pull completely out of that conflict and leave genocide to the people of Iraq IF you believe the "giant media". Facts no more support that statement than your insisting the November elections were a referendum on the war itself. The majority more likely wants a change in direction...as is being tried right now with or without the support of a Congress so caught up in 2008 that decisions for the betterment of America will be damned. There is nothing in the public record that supports the majority of this country wants an immediate withdrawal from the conflict in the Middle East. If you bother to look beyond your beltway bubble, you'll find plenty of suggestion that the Iraq situation is making progress. Without political stability in Iraq, they will never truly enter the global economy and, therefore, never stand a chance to understand freedom.

Arkan,

If the troops being awarded medals are part of the deployment process then they have been in place for weeks, if not months ahead of the main body. As such the awards are typical. I do agree they are too liberal with the Bronze Star, but then again without the V its basically a combat area ARCOM.

CAN YOU GET YOUR COMMENTS AND COLUMN MOVED TO THE FRONT PAGE OF THE PAPER?
Bush is proving to the world that he IS THE C IN C! CONGRESS AND THE PEOPLE BE DAMNED!
He also asked for 7 BILLION MORE FOR AFGHANISTAN TODAY! And he speaks of balancing the budget!
The smoke is getting more dense all the time!

arkin wrote: "The big media, meanwhile, seems narcissistically stuck on the Washington talk show and the far future of the 2008 elections"

I think the topic of who is next going to be the most powerful (and dangerous) person in the world is worthy of discussion....but not TWO YEARS of it. Horse race crap. Its sooooo superficial right now, the Hilary Clinton is in the paddock stuff.

Anyway, I would expect more stories from Iraq after the surge units have been there a while---when the reporters can tell if they are or arent making a difference in their assigned Baghdad neighborhood.

Thank you for your clear writing-- maybe the media is focused on washington because both the democrats and the republicans are churning out news trying to appear to be "doing" something, the democrats trying to appear as if they oppose the president, the president trying to appear to be changing his policy in Iraq (more hogwash in the words of Cheney). While neither side wants attention on Iraq because what is happening in Iraq is attrocious. The violence has been escalating and will continue to escalate despite the troop surge. Until Congress is ready to talk about impeachment, there is no news story in Washington.

Bigger fish to fry. Patriot Missiles being deployed in Quatar, Kuait, & Saudi Arabia... Another carrier fleet coming into the gulf; Our ready-reserve being deployed into Iraq (the "surge"). Are we preparing to support an Israeli strike against Iran?

The media for the most part never gives the real story. My son spent three (3) tours in Iraq with the 3/4 out of Twentynine Palms and his unit is there right now for the fourth (4)tour in Iraq. The Marines who have been there three are four times will give you a different story of the good going on in Iraq. Why isan't the media doing stories on that? I guess they look only to the doom and gloom for ratings.

The media for the most part never gives the real story. My son spent three (3) tours in Iraq with the 3/4 out of Twentynine Palms and his unit is there right now for the fourth (4)tour in Iraq. The Marines who have been there three are four times will give you a different story of the good going on in Iraq. Why isan't the media doing stories on that? I guess they look only to the doom and gloom for ratings.

Maybe the phrase "awarded a Bronze Star for
getting to Kuwait" was tongue in cheek, but
in the Army's defense, awarding a medal of
that stature usually has to go way up the
chain of command which can take a LOT of
time. Then they may have wanted to provide
a morale boost when the troops arrived "in
country" by having the awards cermony at
that time.

How much are paid people who are sitting on communication of "usual suspects", ah?
I really want the money other are paid to screen ILLEGALLY all communication of mine.
If I remeber correctly, bush just a few days ago reported to abolishment of this kind of scrutiny. Hw come I still have al of it in full, ah?

Really Mr. Arkin, do you have any facts to back up your overt cynicism concerning what YOU judge to be an "unjustified" awarding of a Bronze Star? You wrote:

"Just for getting there. Some guy got a Bronze Star just for deploying from Fort Bragg to Kuwait and onward to Baghdad."

If your facts are not forthcoming, then you simply choose to demean some soldier's act or service (about which you knew nothing) and as well, ignorantly demean the symbolism associated with the awarding of the Bronze Star per se.

New congress didn't stop surge, it-surge is fast developing. Public opinion and publis voting's results DON'T MEAN anything, according to congress behavior.
So, what good can these comments do (in addition to public referendum), if public opinion is so obviously neglected?
Except of the identifying the authors, of
course.

New congress didn't stop surge, it-surge is fast developing. Public opinion and publis voting's results DON'T MEAN anything, according to congress behavior.
So, what good can these comments do (in addition to public referendum), if public opinion is so obviously neglected?
Except of the identifying the authors, of
course.

New congress didn't stop surge, it-surge is fast developing. Public opinion and publis voting's results DON'T MEAN anything, according to congress behavior.
So, what good can these comments do, if public opinion is so obviously neglected?

How many troops (navy) are involved in the second battle group steaming into position to air attack Iran? At least 10,000 or more! Bush's smokes creen.