I heard some shocking news today from a male talk show host (I don't know if I can use his name because it is the title of his show) that has greatly upset me and I hope it upsets you the same. He said that our vets returning home from Iraq are COMMITTING SUICIDE at the rate of 6,000+ in one year - I don't know if that is a correct timeframe because I could not find any data to back it up, but all the same, whatever the timeframe (whether its a year or over the course of the Iraq War) this is something that needs to be discussed and dealt with NOW. Why aren't our troops being taken care of properly upon their return home, esp. after serving 3 and 4 tours of duty? PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), which I'm sure is the cause but I'm not a doctor, is very serious and it seems that nothing is being done except the labeling of our troops as "normal" and sending them on their way to deal with this on their own. He also indicated that our troops are coming home and committing murders or have been charged with murder (120+). And these are our fellow Americans who had no prior police records of any kind and had been ideal citizens. Is there anyone out there who can provide me any info on these serious issues? Can we please contact the Bush administration now and ask them why they haven't done one iota of anything to help our troops and then contact our governors, senators, etc. to inform them of what is happening and tell them to take action also? But, more importantly, lets ask the presidential candidates what they are going to do about them. If nothing else, we, all Americans, must do something to bring these serious issues to their attention on a daily basis. I know I am going to starting now - I hope you join me. Our troops deserve much better. War is an ugly thing and the Iraq War is one of the ugliest! Please, do your part! Thank you.

We vocally clamored for proper Body Armor and armor on America's pathetic unarmored Humvees before Bush even invaded Iraq just to drive in America's decrepit, gun-ridden cities. AWOL George didn't listen. Well, he listened, in fact he started listening to his political opponents in his massive domestic illegal surveillance program months before September 11.
Before you pour money into a giant military to protect society, you have to build a society worth protecting.

plainfacto

I believe that incendiary Senator McCain is likely to steer up the hornet's nest more than any other of the
presidential candidates.

He was rebuffed at 'CrossFire' Georgetown University by the student body recently, when he asked for a showing of support
for his hawkish views, by having the students stand up who supported his
hawkish views!

Like Bush, he walks around with a chip on his shoulder just waiting for someone
to knock it off. The 21st century
calls for bold and new visionary
leadership. We got off on
the wrong foot in this
century with 20th
Century retro-throwback leadership!

Bush, Cheney, Libby, Wolfowitz, Snowe, Zel, Delay, Trent, Perle, Hastert, Lieberman, Condi, Bill Kristol
and a whole lot of the other
fossils need to be
permanently retired to
their rocking chairs
and chloroform!

These men are not suited to lead or to influence policy in a technologically advanced era! Their attitudes and
policy positions will only
encourage future wars!

These folks hate multi-culturalism, and the fact is that we live in a heterogenous world, where the majority of the
people of the world are
becoming more homogenized
to their fear and disdain,
even Condi! Their number
one fear is that the rest
of us will continue
to grow closer - which will leave them, their fear tactics and need to
divide, dominate and conquer,
out in the cold!

And yes, I recall when the American troops were pushed back by the Chineese in
Korea.

And we can avoid the approaching Apolcalypse, if Americans desist in being duped by fear-mongeromg politicans,
and instead clean house and vote
for level headed and erudite
leadership - and turn off
Hannity, Limbaugh et al!

That leader will realize that America will have to become a responsible citizen
nation in the world, and learn to
cooperate with other nations of
the world instead of behaving
like a spoiled child-nation
that insists on dominating
and havings its own
exceptional way!

Instead we must learn to live and let
live.

The nations that you cited are guilty of doing one thing wrong, they failed
to adhere to the will and the
mandates of the USA. The
world does not belong
to the USA.

Remember, we break laws
too, we own nukes, and
we have used them
before.

However, as Bush so proudly proclaimed on
many occasions, we will not be dictated
to by any other nation. The question
that remains then is, how come we
persist in dictating to other
nations?

And the end result is that we send innocent young people to die,
given our arrogance and
misguided policies
that are in place
to keep America
in power, and
to make a
minority
rich!

I can appreciate your loyalty, zeal and fidelity to our nation. However, I
only wish that the millions of
patriots like yourself, had
the same zeal and dedication
to correct what is wrong
with our nation, as
you are to support
our leaders desires
to straighten
out other
nations!

Hey Rev:

Whatever president makes it into office will have their hands full from day one of their administration. No doubt about it. The world has become so volatile that brush fires can pop up at any time and almost anywhere.

My Dad was at the Chosin Resevoir with the Army and Marines. He saw what a million Chinese did to US Forces when we got too close to the Chinese borders - after we chased the retreating N.Koreans. One cannot forget what enemies we have; the DPRK are a very 'bent' group. The DPRK have been anything but cooperative. Bush had to twist their arms to get once again to a bargaining table and give up nukes - which they are doing bitterly and reluctantly.

The Pentagon always uses war games to simulate possible attacks - from any country. China may be using agents in our country for the purpose of industrial espionage. There have been a few reported cases of this already. They are looking for all of the tech secrets they can beg, borrow, and steal.

The collision course will not be pleasant; it looks as if the Apocalypse is just beyond the horizon. On too many fronts; the galloping of the 'Four Horseman' is almost within earshot. Greed is not the real motivation; I think it more like desperation. Many nations know that the world's resources are reaching points of no return.

The disparites of this country are far less realized than it would be in other countries if/when the US economy should falter. We can buffer perils for a period; but other nations that depend upon us will certainly have chaos, destruction, and woes.

You believe that if McCain should get into office that it would be worse? But I think that ANY candidate that gets into office is going to have the same problems; I don't believe that will change anything.

I was involved in a science experiment in High School; it went something like this:
-Imagine a room with limited space, limted food and water, and a few rodents that are allowed to grow and multiply until they realize there is not enough to support their masses. They kill and maim each other until there are no more to perpetuate their species. The ones that were left became cannibals and necropheliacs.
It was not a plesant experience to be involved with this biology experiment or writing my report; but it did shock me to understand the behavior of lower creatures - given controlled circumstances.
I did not say this to demean humanity or offend anyone; I said it to open our eyes...

plainfacto

If the incoming President and his team
are not wise, and if he, or she, or white, or black - does not reverse America's current policies, intrusions and excursions into other nations -
I believethat we will help to push other nations of the world like Russia,
China and perhaps a few of
America's current allies
closer together!

And I agree, China is not a threat to the United States, and neither was Iraq,
Iran or the DPRK. In fact it was
the other way around.

And the current administration in Washington, as you know already,
has an attack plan
to defeat
China.

We may be on a collison course with destiny, however, I do not believe
that it is a pleasant course.
And it doesn't matter
who is the greediest,
America's greed and
its quest for
power, is driving its inane policies!

Besides, if something isn't done about the economic disparities between the
various classes, America
will likely have its
own Bolshevik Revolution and implode from
within!

And if 'rifleman' John McCain becomes the
President, we are going to fight
somebody - perhapts Vatican City
next!

==I'm a contracted ROTC cadet who's going active duty upon graduation. As a liberal democrat, I disagreed with the war in Iraq from the get go. What upsets me are two things:==

So, you are against the war, are going to fight in it mostly because of your family tradition, and it upsets you that more people don't sign up for it.

Perhaps they don't sign up for it because they are against it and are courageous enough to stand for what they believe in.

Maybe people serve in their own way - and not always in a government prescribed organization.

And before military transports and peace corp trailers get shipped out, they have to be paid for. And that means great majority of Americans have to be in the private sector and pay taxes to cover all the bad and good things the state does.

It is inappropriate for a member of the Armed Forces to advocate silencing civilian debate on account that civilians are not "manning a post".

We have NEVER supported the troops in my lifetime (please note I said troops and not war)!

Your ""Bush Add"ed" to that the $93.7 billion veteran's budget, which is nearly double the spending that was in effect when Bush took office."

You forgot to mention that Bush has run up 2 TRILLION in deficit (off the books) and has been at war his whole administration. Even longer than WW II

Bush ACTUALLY CUT VA hospital spending in 2006. tried to cut "combat pay". cut widow's benefits in 1/2, and sent this country into another war based on lies, just like Vietnam and the "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution" which all but 1 Republican voted for! It was actually our own doing that we were involved in Vietnam, and it was EISENHOWER who first put US troops in Vietnam in the 1950's! My father was their in 1958, long before I was sent to Vietnam!

This country did not care about our troops then, and putting a yellow sticker on your car means nothing, as the VA denies benefits and the Army throws out around 10,000 military at Ft Carson (AFTER THEY WERE IN IRAQ AND MANY WOUNDED)for "Pre-existing Personality Disorders"! Wonder how they came up with that one?

Just last week the Surgeon General was telling the VA to drag it's heals on providing benefits for those WHO EARNED THEM!

Yea I know, Agent Orange is a popsicle!

I'm a contracted ROTC cadet who's going active duty upon graduation. As a liberal democrat, I disagreed with the war in Iraq from the get go. What upsets me are two things:

1. The majority of cadets at my school had parents who served in the military. There are very few people who do not have a family military connection in ROTC. I expect this goes for much of the rest of the officer corp in the Army. There should not be a "warrior class" in this country. That's going to just lead to more ignorance amongst general Americans on what the military is actually like.

2. The people who talk big on patriotism often are not willing to sign up and join the war effort themselves. Stop talking about it and do it. Otherwise, your words are worthless. The military may not be your best fit (it certainly isn't for me) but do it anyways. Your nation, despite an unjust war, needs you. It's all well and good to join the military when there's peacetime but when we are at war, regardless of how it was started, people are dying in your place. How can you stand it?

Regardless of your political leanings, you owe your country something. Join the military, join the Peace Corps, Foreign Service, become a teacher, whatever. Do something. America, for all its faults, is one of the finest nations on this planet and each and very one of us owes something to it. I cannot fathom how people can just freely take the benefits of their freedom and not even try to give something back.

Veterans get a lot of privileges that ordinary folks don't get. I think most every one of them would trade most of those 'perks' away if we could get better soldiers, motivated soldiers, out there. Our army is dying for a lack of them. I don't want to sound like Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men but damn it, man a post or shut the hell up.

I haven't called anybody a name. Sorry. But I have been called names - a few times on this page - and I didn't return any slur.
Check yourself...

SOMEBODY needs to kick both Rev and Plainfacto off the comments from time to time. Are these two the only commenters posting? I don't read the comments section to hear a long argument between two people who just Love the sound of their own voices calling each other names... and they just say the same things over and over. Never mind that I agree with one and not the other. There should be a limit to how many posts in a given time or something.

!!!IMPEACH PELOSI!!!

For the unnamed person and incomprehensible person who levels vicious attacks at me, learn to write a sentence before you decide to pick off more than you can chew. Personally, we hear this crap all the time, every single one of our countless dirty little wars are justified by some twisted freedom argument. Somehow, our government just goes around doing good deeds across the globe like some sort of Mary Poppins with cluster bombs. Please, I suppose that is why 90% of the people on the globe despise the Bush administration and despise the sociopathic murder craving bumpkins who support him. Those ungrateful Iraqis, we have killed hundreds of thousands of them, and they don't seem to be too appreciative. LIKE I SAID THE MODERN CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT IN AMERICA IS POPULATED WITH PEOPLE THAT ARE LITTLE BETTER THAN NAZIS AND AL QUAEDA, WHICH THEY ROUTINELY DENOUNCE. IF THESE ILLITERATE SOCIOPATHS OF THE AMERICAN RIGHT HAD UNFETTERED POWER LIKE HITLER HAD IN GERMANY THEY WOULD KILL AS MANY PEOPLE, AND THEY WOULD TURN US INTO A REPRESSIVE CHRISTIAN TALIBAN LIKE STATE IN HALF A GENERATION.

the answer is simple Arkin: want to "reconnect"? get the wide swath of society that has abdicated (whether upper or middle class; liberal or conservative) to join the fray, voluntarily, and serve.

otherwise, learn to live with the sense of separation/alienation and fractiousness that seems to pervade all our social interactions. it's not going to disappear no matter how many times we chant empty slogans like "change is coming"...."we need to unify".

ChiefV...I served also...active duty...an entire career. it aint your job to decide means and ends. you volunteered twit. you don't like it. get out at the first opportunity. even better....many in the retired community are actively discussing whether to actively encourage serving military to resign/not reup should Barak/Hillary be elected. I have yet to hear them encourage the noble sorts who populate moveon, etc., to sign and serve.

it's time for a total house cleaning and for the those who pretend to greater nobility to SxxU and serve themselves. let them serve so others can take a break, attend to their families and cofeehouse klatches while winsomely smiling their bumpersticker approach: "I Support the Troops".

I can recall throwing the ball out in courses such as The Philosophy of Marx and Engles during undergraduate daze and watching clowns like Dimitry run amok with with the bait firmly hooked in their carping mouths! and that was quite a while ago. some things simply don't change!

that's actually funny! assassination...does become assination under the likes of the Farzads of the world!!!

and with people like Farzad...morally corrupt and bereft of any responsibility.....torture, gassing, genocide, rape, mutilation, state sponsored assination: it's all OK!!!! "we'll talk about it"....while still more children and innocents die. how souls are marked under your column as long as we're keeping count? because the Farzads of the world can rest secure, never accountable, never forced to act while adrift in their comtemptible moral ambivalence. in the end, they don't stand for anything. they watch. they complain. but they aren't much use. lots of people die on their watch, they just ignore it while scribing whinny posts to blogs an letters-to-the-editor. imploring "the governemnt to "do something"....."to talk".

2-3 years into a Barak/Hillary "dawning"...I certainly hope I don't live down wind.

what can one say? big middle digit to you little guy!!!!!

!!!IMPEACH NANCY PELOSI!!!

Plainfacto thinks that after we invaded Iraq in violation of international, bombed the country to smithreens, and set off a brutal civil war that we should bill the Iraqi people for our services rendered. Dimitry don't waste you precious time on this guy, it is clear that he doesn't make sense to anyone but those that are unbalanced like himself. I wonder how much the Iraqis should bill us for the hundreds of thousands of their people we killed and crippled? This is how sick these people are, they think America should be free to attack any country that it likes, that we should be completely unanswerable for anyone we kill and maim, and that at the same time we should then bill the country that we invaded against their will for our expenditures. With people like Plainfacto, is it a wonder that Anti-Americanism is on the rise throughout the globe, the ugly American indeed.

Do you mind -D? The Rev and I were having a friendly back and forth conversation. Not your 'Bean Town back and forth' variety that you are used to.

I'll tell you what. If you want to converse on a particular thought, type something up that you may think that we could have a civil debate about, and I will do my best to respond. I'll put my Glock away - if you can put your cookies down.
OK?

==If it were a scorched earth policy, Iraq would already be a barbecue pit. It isn't. The way to win economically, is to realize what we have done best - innovation and manufacture. These are concepts that any incoming president will need to encourage, or they aren't worth their weight in horse scat.==

We don't manufacture much of anything.

==Why not make the war pay for itself - like the Romans did? That would do a lot to discourage any further attacks. WWII had a large debt - too. It was necessary to accomplish the goals that were set. Keeping our resources open in Iraq is essential; unless we want to pay fifteen bucks for a gallon of gas! I know that I don't want that; as our business/economy would suffer.==

War to pay for itself - like rape and pillage kind of thing? We are trying, but the days of colonialism are over and starting them up again will surely bankrupt us fully. It is also mean to subjugate people and steal their natural resources. At least in the non-neocon world, that is.

==Freezing China's assets would only be a last-resort measure if diplomacy fails. I don't see the Chinese as much as a threat as the Russians are. They have 'chummied-up' with Iran. Who knows what the Russians will help the 'Eyeranians' with. We know that Russia set up a 'hi-tech' radar base in Syria and Iran paid the bill. Too bad it was such a miserable failure for Russia, Iran, and Syria!==

How dare these Russians to sell weapons to people we don't like! Haven't they heard that it is us who lays down the law as to how the world functions and who sells what to whom! Besides, we want those markets to ourselves - we have hungry coroporations whose CEOs need their third yachts!

==China has a greater interest in business and trade than anything that would interrupt it. They have too many mouths to feed, and too many big ideas for their country. I wouldn't say that they - or Russia - doesn't work to make things tilt their way - in much the same way that we do.==

So that would mean they are not interested in picking a fight with us, say by supporting some nefarious terrorist outfit, right?

==Americas crusade - as you call it - is to ensure the flow of business and commerce. Unless you can throw your iPod out the window and say it was a bad idea, it would be wise to consider what may be lost and consider protecting what we have.==

That would mean we should trade with people, not occupy and kill them, right?

==A nuke holocaust may certainly happen - no matter who may be elected. I am certain of it - too. It may very well be in the ME. If anyone is going to lob nukes about - I can't think of any two countries that would be involved - except Iran and Isreal.==

That would be quite an achievement, considering that Iran doesn't have any nukes. So what you are saying is that Israel will incinerate Iran, right?

==America isn't any greedier than Russia or China. If they had their way, they would gladly trade us for what they have. They have both come a long way, but they don't match up to what the US has accomplished. Would YOU want to live in either one of these countries?
I know I wouldn't!==

Now we are at square one - if we don't want to live somewhere we should attack that land and force it to be our vassal state?

==As far as the US being the 'real terrorists'; I respectfully disagree. If we didn't check what is being played against us by every country that isn't on our 'friendly list'; we would have collapsed a long time ago.==

So we are a paper tiger, who is standing up only because of continuous defense against "every other country", who are just aiming to bring us down. Ever noticed how foreign markets fall a lot harder when ours dip? These other countrie's governments sure have a death whish in their relentless drive to destroy their main consumer destination.

-------------------------------------------

So, PF...

Do you have anything worthwhile to say?

!!!IMPEACH NANCY PELOSI!!!

For once I agree with Plainfacto, Impeach Pelosi, she is a sycophantic shill for republican mass murders. It is time you stopped getting along with these people Pelosi. Quite frankly, your dereliction of duty and your betrayal of the people that put you in the speaker's chair makes you no better than baby killer Bush. Nancy Pelosi you have blood on your hands and no amount of spin is going to absolve you, you are a traitor to this country just like George Bush. Go collect your campaign contribution from Ehud Olmert and his supporters and continue on with this charade.

I believe we are on collision course with destiny. China hasn't threatened our source of oil resources. At least - not that we can yet see.

If it were a scorched earth policy, Iraq would already be a barbecue pit. It isn't. The way to win economically, is to realize what we have done best - innovation and manufacture. These are concepts that any incoming president will need to encourage, or they aren't worth their weight in horse scat.

Why not make the war pay for itself - like the Romans did? That would do a lot to discourage any further attacks. WWII had a large debt - too. It was necessary to accomplish the goals that were set. Keeping our resources open in Iraq is essential; unless we want to pay fifteen bucks for a gallon of gas! I know that I don't want that; as our business/economy would suffer.

Freezing China's assets would only be a last-resort measure if diplomacy fails. I don't see the Chinese as much as a threat as the Russians are. They have 'chummied-up' with Iran. Who knows what the Russians will help the 'Eyeranians' with. We know that Russia set up a 'hi-tech' radar base in Syria and Iran paid the bill. Too bad it was such a miserable failure for Russia, Iran, and Syria!

China has a greater interest in business and trade than anything that would interrupt it. They have too many mouths to feed, and too many big ideas for their country. I wouldn't say that they - or Russia - doesn't work to make things tilt their way - in much the same way that we do.

Americas crusade - as you call it - is to ensure the flow of business and commerce. Unless you can throw your iPod out the window and say it was a bad idea, it would be wise to consider what may be lost and consider protecting what we have.

A nuke holocaust may certainly happen - no matter who may be elected. I am certain of it - too. It may very well be in the ME. If anyone is going to lob nukes about - I can't think of any two countries that would be involved - except Iran and Isreal.

America isn't any greedier than Russia or China. If they had their way, they would gladly trade us for what they have. They have both come a long way, but they don't match up to what the US has accomplished. Would YOU want to live in either one of these countries?
I know I wouldn't!

As far as the US being the 'real terrorists'; I respectfully disagree. If we didn't check what is being played against us by every country that isn't on our 'friendly list'; we would have collapsed a long time ago.

==AQ and their buddies the Taliban are past asscociates of ours; talk about your bad divorce. I wouldn't go around blaming you if you married a psycho-b*tch and she burnt down the Sears tower after you divorced her.
But in your case - I might change my mind!==

I would blame you, since you didn't just "marry" him, but rather, knowing his mental instability, you gave him weapons training and explosives, tought him how to avoid detection and funded his paramilitary training, and when he was pumped and ready, just split and left with another stud.

plainfacto

I believe that America is on a collison
course with China, a nation whose
citizens by and large admire
and seek to emulate the
United States, just
as other nations
have done - who
we attack and
threaten anyway!

Admiration of the USA will still not stop America's scorched-earth policies
and crusades. Besides, America
cannot repay its financial
debt to China without
increasing either production
or its tax revenues - and
we know that a certain
segment in the nation
won't tolerate
the latter,
and American productivity
is being exported off-shore!

And what better way will there be for an
American warhawk administration like
the current one in DC, to cancel its (unprecedented debt), other
than by coming up with a
pretext for war?

Well, we could freeze their assets within
the USA or simply cancel the debts; and
Lord knows that we are not above
exercising either option!

And what will America call a 3 million
man Chinese army that it cannot
defeat without the use of
technology? The answer
is Toast!

When America began its crusade (stage
one into the Middle-East), the
Golden Goose was not
Baghdad!

I feel strongly and the evidence supports my feelings (consider Pakistan, Iran and the DPRK), that their will be a nuclear standoff or holocaust either
during a McCain Administration,
or easily within
the next 3
centuries!

And what will be the real reason for it? It will have nothing to do with foreign
terrorists, it will have everything
to do with whether or not the USA
is willing to change!

Change what? American thirst for greed
and power, and America's persistent
pursuit of global domination!

We are the world's terrorist nation that will be responsbile for whatever
happens in the foreseeable
future! We hold the
trump card!

Why is it that you need to comment on what I say?

!!!IMPEACH NANCY PELOSI!!!

AQ and their buddies the Taliban are past asscociates of ours; talk about your bad divorce. I wouldn't go around blaming you if you married a psycho-b*tch and she burnt down the Sears tower after you divorced her.
But in your case - I might change my mind!

==I don't know why I bother to explain this to you.
Yes - Al Qaida WAS a creation of the Agency. But they -AQ- were always on their own side - first. All we did was to help them defeat the Sovietskiis. They are not a present part of a US plan; they are strictly and jealously independant. My use of the Baader-Meinhoff (etc...) was an EXAMPLE of outside influences. I know that your kind likes to lump it all in the same pidgeon hole, but then you woke up when I reminded you otherwise.
You're Welcome...==

Oh, I understand now! Me so dumb!

Soviets have maybe ideologically supported local German leftist terrorists, who are long gone and were never a serious threat to the West. USA has armed, trained and coddled a large paramilitary groups of anti-Western religous fanatics, who have subsequently turned on their CIA masters. These fanatics have perpetrated the most devastating acts of terrorism in the history of the world, directed at our citizens. That would definitely make the USA government the most dangerous sponsor or terrorism in the world, and also the dumbest, as only an idiot would setup Islamic fanatics as our "allies".

I can see how you can draw the "inescapable" conclusion that we have to watch out for that nasty Russia and China when we go after US-created terror cells. Man, that Glock is sure helping your think!

Good thinking, PF! I must have been blind not to see that simple truth.

!!!IMPEACH NANCY PELOSI!!!

//Heck, it worked with Iraq, right?\\

I don't know why I bother to explain this to you.
Yes - Al Qaida WAS a creation of the Agency. But they -AQ- were always on their own side - first. All we did was to help them defeat the Sovietskiis. They are not a present part of a US plan; they are strictly and jealously independant. My use of the Baader-Meinhoff (etc...) was an EXAMPLE of outside influences. I know that your kind likes to lump it all in the same pidgeon hole, but then you woke up when I reminded you otherwise.
You're Welcome...

==My pointing this feature out - was to say that regardless of what 'bloom or shoot' we may be seeing at work - 'wherever' - they may very well have the backing of these superpowers exerting influence.==

That's a prefect example of barking up the wrong tree, most likely to purposely decieve. We have created Al Kaida, as a concious effort to counteract Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Reagan brought these "friends" to the White House, proclaiming them to be the equivalent to our Washington, or something to that effect. What does the sorry Baader-Meinhoff gang have to do with our own actions and the resultant blowback? Nothing. But if you keep bringing up "roots of terrorism" and Russia and China in the same breath over and over again, maybe you can convince some people that those are directly related. Heck, it worked with Iraq, right?

!!IMPEACH NANCY PELOSI!!

John McCain is calling for a permanent state of war in Iraq. He's also calling for permanent tax cuts.

So how's he going to pay for Mr. Bush's war, part II?

Think about it.)al75/////

AL75, EXCELLENT POINTS, HERE IS HOW THEY ARE GOING TO PAY FOR THE WAR, BY BASICALLY BANKRUPTING THE TREASURY WITH NEW DEBT. YOU SEE YOU ARE OPERATING UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE REPUBLICANS WANT TO KEEP THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SOLVENT. THEY DON'T, THEY HATE FEDERAL PROGRAMS, AND THEIR TRUE GOAL IS TO BANKRUPT THE COUNTRY AND THEN FORCE RADICAL LAISEZZ FAIRE CAPITALISM DOWN THE THROATS OF A FRIGHTENED POPULATION. THIS IS HOW THEY PLAN ON KILLING THE FEDERAL PROGRAMS NAMELY MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY. They will bankrupt the treasury with endless wartime spending enriching their defense contractor and oil baron buddies. Then they will use their shills in the zionist and corporatist media to blame their debacles onto welfare mothers and the greedy elderly hording their social security checks. Then they will kill social security, welfare and virtually all federal programs except surveillance and war making.

Also I think you are barking up the wrong tree asking the conservatives to "think about it", asking these people to think about anything is like asking a Lion to become a vegetarian.

Nancy Pelosi do your duty and impeach this war criminal. You are the biggest mass murder appeaser in history Pelosi, you and Neville Chamber. The democratic congressional leadership are just as big a bunch of traitors as the republicans. They impeached Bill Clinton over a BJ and lying in a civil law suit. George Bush's lies and criminality have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the ransacking of our treasury. How do you look at yourself in the mirror Ms. Pelosi, how dare you look at the voters who elected you and then make statement like impeachment is off the table. Are there any other constitutional duties you are going to publicly shirk before even conducting an investigation. They could show tape of george Bush smoking crack while forcibly copulating with a bond and gagged iraqi, while he is machine gunning captured prisoners and the cowardly democrats would still sit there and try to "work with the president".

Personally, I wanted spit in the Ocean to further this neocon war. I would try to talk anyone and everyone I know out of serving in this government's military. The military isn't fighting for America in Iraq, they are fighting for the agenda of the big businesses and the Israel lobby. How exactly have any of you benefited from this war? Eric Prince Ceo of Blackwater made a billion dollars, dick Cheney has made tens of billions in stock options, the Bush families stock holdings in the Carlyle group and oil companies have shot through the roof. Draft the young republicans now, this war is being fought for their party and their vicious ideology, it has nothing to do with America.

Our military forces are on loan to the industrial/military complex and the neodons who have in turn used them as the mafia uses hit men. Their mission is to increase the riches and power of the self-styled elite. Almost without exception the armed forces are violating the Constitution and their oaths to preserve, protect, and defend the same. While we fill our prisons with victimless crimes, we bankrupt the hation with unjustified military expenses, particularly when one realizes that the tax payer is subsidizing a private army and the commission of war crimes. This need not be. If the gutless Congress were fulfilling their oaths of office to preserve protect and defend the Constitution we could start feeling like and being Americans again.

Hey Rev;

I don't believe that we will use a nuke as a 'life saving measure' unless any force/gov't would choose to us or threaten us with the same.

Having dumped countless billions into conventional warfare - means that we are commited to solve dilemmas with the absence of nuke force.

How unteneable is the ground/land that glows?

//Upgrades are available, VRIO. It's Red Army Faction, and their connection to the USSR is much more tennuous than Al Qaida's direct connection to the CIA training and funding during the Soviet/Afghani war\\

Any connection would be tenous - or else they aren't doing what do correctly. Actually, what I meant to say that the RAF and the Maoist Rebels, Shining path, etc - were examples of superpowers exertinging their influence so their favorable 'tilt' can be achieved thru a third-party revolutionaries. It was late when I wrote what I did, and I waas tired.

My pointing this feature out - was to say that regardless of what 'bloom or shoot' we may be seeing at work - 'wherever' - they may very well have the backing of these superpowers exerting influence. It is their necessity of making their presence felt and plant those who may provide a decisive advantage when the time is right. Never underestimate their reach or influences.

As far as this VRIO crap is concerned - knock yourself out and make yourself happy...

Why would we need to have a hundred years war if this planet only has a current reserve of 35-40 years left?

plainfacto

You are likely correct in this regard, the USA has limited resources to fight
a metaphorical 100
years war.

However, the spirit of American expansionism and hegemony will not have died in 35 to 40 years. And that will only hasten the day when the United
States will deploy its massive
arsenal of nuclear weapons.

And what will that portend for China,
America's current competitive and
expanding nemesis. Don't be
surprised if within 35 to
50 years, the USA
finds a pretext to
nuke China!

Of course we will rationalize the use of
atomic weapons as a 'life saving
measure'!

Zero poplulation growth hasn't been achieved as yet. China has done a lot to slow its growth; India hasn't done as well. These a both extremely critical factors.

The demands for oil in the near future by every nation in the world is still climbing - while the resources available to them is still fixed/limited. Why would we need to have a hundred years war if this planet only has a current reserve of 35-40 years left? If some think this situation has gotten ugly and distasteful; what metaphors are going to be worn out in the next ten years to describe what the situation will look like then?

The republicans have never seen a war that they don't like. All these nonsense discussions of Iraq being the central front in the war on terror is just pure propaganda. The people that attacked us have never moved from the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region. Instead we hear the propagandists talk about how we are fighting AQ in Iraq. "If we don't fight them there they will follow us here", what a ridiculous notion. America was attacked by Saudi terrorists, funded by a Saudi based in Afghanistan, and this government has done little or nothing to catch him.

The entire iraq war is really a glorified money laundering scheme, a way for the republicans and republican-lite (democratic) party to funnel tens of billions to their corporate and zionist paymasters. The attacks of 9-11 helped to justify Israel's apartheid and to create the political cover necessary to rape both the Iraqi nation and to plunder our treasury for the benefit of the Halliburtons and Blackwaters of the world. The republican party wants to bankrupt the country, and then they will blame the bankruptcy of our treasury on liberal spending programs. The corporate media will repeat these lies to a scared and ignorant American populace and the Republicans will systematically disembowel the social safety and net and unleash laisezz fair and amoral capitalism on the globe. This is their big dream, to kill the new deal, to turn back the clock to the 1920s, and to turn America into the test tube for the free market whacko ideologies. The sad thing is that I think most Americans are dumb enough to believe them, somehow they will forget or the zionist and corporatist media will simply not remind them of the 2 trillion dollars wasted on George Bush's made up war.

==If the present Iraqi leadership lose their grip of government - that is the quickest way to define our loss.==

Or, conversely, this could define a strategic win - no more strategic paralysis due to the Iraqi war, no more $100 billion a year debt expenditures no more casualties.

==This loss means that we must now change our strategy - because our needs for oil have not been altered as yet. These stakes are high. This loss makes a larger, more decisive war necessary for us to fight.==

That's a basic neocon lie. "The oil weapon" is a dud, the countries that sell it need the revenue even more than we need the black gold. The sources are diverse and mounting a comprehensive embargo is impossible.

==If Iraq can be strong enough to support their own gov't and their autonomy is strong; they win and we win. Another democracy has taken hold and another ME country is doing business with the West.==

That's the nonsense for the unwashed masses. Read Leo Strauss. The main reason the neocons are backing the Iraqi quagmire is to secure a set of military bases on top of the second biggest oil reserves. Full stop.

==That is how victory has been framed by the US and its Western business partners.==

On the contrary, "victory" has more often been defined as forced access to resources, as in a classic colonial enterprise. This is the same thing, dressed up not to look like a pig that it is.

==The victory over terrorism is far more difficult to define. Will it take a hundred years to locate, infiltrate, and defuse all known terrorist cells bent on doing harm to the West?==

A wee bit longer, dumkopf. Given our "victory" in the "war" on drugs, I project hundreds of years.

==I think we have a fair idea of who they are and what it takes to defuse them. Even locating them has been done to a fair degree; I think this is one area where we are certainly lacking.==

According to the Republicans, they are Muslims, Muslim simpathizers and allied defeatist Democrats. All to be neutralized.

==There have been two main sources of terrorist groups that are with us today that were against us for the last thirty years. The Red Faction Army of the USSR and the Maoist Rebals of China are both organizations that have helped the rise of Islamic extremists.==

Upgrades are available, VRIO. It's Red Army Faction, and their connection to the USSR is much more tennuous than Al Qaida's direct connection to the CIA training and funding during the Soviet/Afghani war.

==Especially the RFA. Competing superpowers all do what they can to ensure that events are tilted in their favor.==

Should you mention Al Qaida, neocon?

==I am merely scratching the surface here. But if we are to put a stop to terrorism, we must deal with the roots; not just the blooms and shoots...==

That is neocon code for attacking China and Russia, right? The "roots" of terrorism, so to speak...

Think about it: why did the British Empire fail? Answer: debt. Debt from the Boar War, compounded by debt from WWI, with a final bullet through the head with debt from WWII.

Britain owed the US several hundred billions after WWI (ref: "The Gathering Storm" Winston Churchill). Repayment crippled the British economy (along with the depression which followed), and military preparedness followed.

Think about it: EVERY DIME of the Iraq war has been funded by debt. Debt, not treasure.

The interest payments alone on Mr. Bush's war are staggering - but he's stepping down, so it won't be his problem any more.

John McCain is calling for a permanent state of war in Iraq. He's also calling for permanent tax cuts.

So how's he going to pay for Mr. Bush's war, part II?

Think about it.

I am merely scratching the surface here. But if we are to put a stop to terrorism, we must deal with the roots; not just the blooms and shoots...

Plainfacto

However, onee man's terrorist is
another man's freedom fighter!

To the other side, we are the
terrorists, and frankly, I
find it hard not to agree
with them!

Hey Rev:

Is it truely going to be a 'hundred year war'?
Or is that statement meant as a rhetorical simile to point out and bolster the impossibillity of a victory by the US in the ME by the left?

One first needs to define 'victory' in the framework of the present Iraq situation.
Then, we have to define victory in the framework of int'l terrorism.

Are we talking about 'ifs' or 'whens'?
Someone will have to lose, and someone will have to win. I doubt very much that a hundred years is what it is going to require to finish.

If the present Iraqi leadership lose their grip of government - that is the quickest way to define our loss. This loss means that we must now change our strategy - because our needs for oil have not been altered as yet. These stakes are high. This loss makes a larger, more decisive war necessary for us to fight. Yes; oil interests and our economy make this so.

If Iraq can be strong enough to support their own gov't and their autonomy is strong; they win and we win. Another democracy has taken hold and another ME country is doing business with the West. Economies can grow when the in-fighting in Iraq gives way to a thriving and safer existance among themselves and neighboring countries. That is how victory has been framed by the US and its Western business partners.

The victory over terrorism is far more difficult to define. Will it take a hundred years to locate, infiltrate, and defuse all known terrorist cells bent on doing harm to the West? I think we have a fair idea of who they are and what it takes to defuse them. Even locating them has been done to a fair degree; I think this is one area where we are certainly lacking.

There have been two main sources of terrorist groups that are with us today that were against us for the last thirty years. The Red Faction Army of the USSR and the Maoist Rebals of China are both organizations that have helped the rise of Islamic extremists. Especially the RFA. Competing superpowers all do what they can to ensure that events are tilted in their favor.

I am merely scratching the surface here. But if we are to put a stop to terrorism, we must deal with the roots; not just the blooms and shoots...

Using the troops, and supporting the troops
are two different animals...,

I had to go away and watch the McLaughlin Group. Pat Buchanan was right, he
posited that if McCain becomes
President, America will be
engaged in a 'one-hundred years war'.

It will be interesting to see how long the
American people will support a war,
when another couple of hundred
thousand troops are added,
and the war is still
prolonged - in spite of overwhelming troop
strength!

It will also be interesting to see how long wealthy Republicans support the
war effort, when they are no
longer receiving tax cuts,
and their pocketbooks
are effected by the
staggering costs
of the war.

How did the wealthy Republicans support the
ongoing '6-year war' (while 'the troops'
risked life and limb), they provided
themselves with tax relief -
Cheney even built himself a
larger home, where
he could live
closer to
Rummy - as the troops risked their lives!

Buchanan was right, for what other war have we had in the history of America, where one class refused to share, proportionately, in the final
costs of the war.

And plainfacto don't pay any attention to the 'spook comment', we don't know who
that comment was directed to, or
what the writer meant by it!

I am still hopeful that the Rev is still out there. We were having a conversation, I guess he had to get off for awhile. I guess I will have to settle for 'comrade cookie'.

==you're from Bean Town and that kind of stuff that goes on there is 'OK with you'.==

I am going to nominate you for an award in clumsy, stupid baiting.

There must be some VRIO Academy Awards where I can send your pearls, right?

What are you so slap-happy to hear from me again for?
I am worried about you; you're from Bean Town and that kind of stuff that goes on there is 'OK with you'.
Ugh!

==You are too easy to prove wrong.==

So when are you going to start?

==It's a waste of my time and effort.==

More like a severe strain on your limited abilities.

==I got 'booted off' for a while. I wasn't permitted to respond to your last drivel; I tried several times.==

I wonder what you really got the boot for, if that's what it was. Was it that old double-timing trick? Seems to have stopped recently. Did you learn your lesson?

==Otherwise, I don't blog anywhere but here...==

We are honored for you to grace us with your attention. Aren't you due for an "anti-liberal" rant or at least at attack oh "Silly-Hilly" or "Billary"?

You are too easy to prove wrong.
It's a waste of my time and effort.

I got 'booted off' for a while. I wasn't permitted to respond to your last drivel; I tried several times.
Otherwise, I don't blog anywhere but here...

==A liberal democracy does what it must to remain alive and free; and it has crossed the lines several times in its history to ensure that it would continue. You may say that my rhetorical approach sounds hackneyed, but maybe it just appears that way. Don't be the one that judges a book by its cover.==

Translation: I may be a self-serving scumbag, but hey, I just may look that way! Aren't you one, too? Aren't we all? Let's just render them somewhere, where we don't have to hear their screams. Hey, what's on the tube?

==You can count on the fact that Gitmo is an exclusive club - you only get there if you are a select and chosen few. The Gitmo campus is is a selective and exclusive processing plant. If they got there - you had better believe they had it coming!===

Here we go again, with blind trust in authority, actually a put-on for proper effect, as an example to other law 'biding citizens.

Many, if not most of these "enemies" are bounty hunted foreigners, who we bought off the hands of their captives right after the fall of Taliban. Who knows what they are really guilty or not guilty of, but we sure not going to find out with kangaroo courts and all-military "tribunals".

On top of the indefinite and until recently incomunicado detentions, were render these folks, sometimes by mistake into allied torture centers or torture them ourselves in secret prisons. This is the stuff we used to think is reserved for totalitarian, despotic regimes that were our enemies. I still remember a time when US government admission of using torture would shock the good people of this country. Now, all we get is articles about the "controvercial technique" of waterboarding and muted demands for some "investigation", which our chief lawyer simply says "NO" to.

Oh yeah, we also get VRIOS like you, trolling blogs with "we gotta do what we gotta do, mate" meme. I don't think we can denerate any further as a nation. But the good people of this country lately have proven me wrong time and time again.

The next time you use the term, "liberal press", try to remember who owns most of the press. These people are NOT liberals!

Hey Rev:

As I recall, there wasn't a problem with unilateral efforts by this gov't in WWII to stop Nazi operatives in the US. One 'rendition' that was visisble to the US public were the Japanese interrment camps in the western US. The other was in the southern states; German prisoners were interred for the duration of the war. Is it so unacceptable that we take prisoners in a time of war?
Why is that?

A liberal democracy does what it must to remain alive and free; and it has crossed the lines several times in its history to ensure that it would continue. You may say that my rhetorical approach sounds hackneyed, but maybe it just appears that way. Don't be the one that judges a book by its cover.

But I find renditions just as objectionable to resort to as the next person does - believe it or not. But if these methods of winning over our enemies are measured against the consequences of a possible failure, then they are deemed necessary. Don't believe fro a second that our enemies haven't done worse. Remember the beheadings that we wathed; or do you think that was stilted - a 'put on' job - just for the press?
No...

Using rendition is far more acceptable to me than the consequence of losing. This translates to the loss of American lives if we don't, and that is altogether unacceptable to me. If people have been picked up, questioned, and imprisoned and were found to be of no consequence - they have the right to sue- only a pitiful few have!

All I am saying, is that because we are at war, taking prisoners and calling it 'rendition' is another way for the liberal press to bring to light that we are at war - and taking prisoners is a must - if we want to see daylight at the end of this tunnel. The principles of war are the same, only the semantics has changed. Call me a 'spook' if you like; but I have been called much worse than that.

Plainfacto,

All revolutions have artisans, writers, poets and even the Press as
participants!

It does not matter that renditions
took place during WWII, what
matters today is that a cross-
section of Americans, mostly
on the Right (including
the President), believe
that they have the
right to stiffle
free speech in
this nation.

Had it not been for the Press, and a
few whistleblowers, we would not
have been aware that our government
was behaving in a way that
was unconsciencable
to most Americans!

Let me put it another way, as long as the
Press was exposing and criticizing the
behaviors and policies of President
Clinton for example, you never
heard the Right criticizing
the Press.

If it it wasn't for the Free Press, who operated much like a once free
judiciaary did, many Americans
would still be denied their
consitutionally backed
civil liberties, which
too many on the Right
viewed as a
liberal-communist idea, in deference to the Constitution!

God bless the free press, and you will love this, the ACLU. We cannot hand
the country over to fascists who
simply want this country to use
to serve their counterfeit
purposes to exercise
power and greed!

Young people who go to other countries to kill other individuals who are in the
same predicament that they are in
here in the states are not very
bright - and IQ results have
proven that for a fact!

Today, 80% of the propganda on America's
airways is being brought to us by
right wing talk show hosts. They
fill the airways daily with
propaganda.

And you don't hear the Right complaining
about what ought to be considered an
anti-trust violation!

Rightist media groups are purchasing not
only mass media radio and television stations, they are also purchasing newspapers groups. And why are
they doing this? They are doing
in order to silence those
disparate voices in
America that
differe
from their
own.

And what is the Right saying about this
free speech violation, Nada!

Some people on the Right are simply fascist - just think of a common plank on the Right that says that we have to take
control of the judiciary, and place
who we want on the Supreme Court
in deference to the will of the
rest of the American people?

That is just one more way that some on
the Right are trying to dictate and
define the narrative in this country -
by censoring free speech!

And I don't hear anyone on the Right
complaining about it. One would have
believe that they would have stopped
at manipulating elections. What next?

Just a reminder.
Beware of "spooks"!

Hey Rev:

If I get lengthy and respond to your point - Arkin may boot me off again!
This happened to me - just last week. Don't worry about the 'Agency' - as much as Arkin practicing his own brand of journalistic renditions!
Ha!

In WWII, this kind of thing ('renditions')happened far more often - with no press commentaries or citizens injecting opinions into these matters. In fact - no one knew a thing about it. Was the American public better served by this method? I think so; others will no doubt disagree.

You can count on the fact that Gitmo is an exclusive club - you only get there if you are a select and chosen few. The Gitmo campus is is a selective and exclusive processing plant. If they got there - you had better believe they had it coming!

Our intel groups are anything but slackers; but I can't say that about our press core! Arkin used to be an Army intel analyst; I doubt very much if he were to agree with me - now that he is in the private sector. He can slant all that he wants - and he does! His spin doesn't faze me...

Our troops are a select and chosen few - as well. If some are unhappy with US citizen support; they have the right to speak. Don't assume that they speak for all, or are definately the last word either. I would be far more cautious than to accept what may be blown out of proportion by a vocal few.

The pseudo-liberal press take what they can get and run with it - regardless if it is in focus or not. I am more weary of the press in a time of war than I am when we ae at peace. The first casualtiy in any war is the truth - and the people that report it create wounds...

OK How about a show of hands?

How many of you think we're in Iraq because Iraq is a threat to the U.S?

How many of you think we're in Iraq
because that's where the oil is?

I wonder if we'll ever see THAT on a
national poll?

let us all support a president that gives lip service to freedom then pulls out from under the american people.A president that is the very best recruiter Al Quida could ever find.
Could it be that americans are wakingup a bit?Supporting the troops is getting them out of harms way not buying more munnitions for them.Could it be the troops are waking up to that fact?the war in Iraq will come back to haunt us one day.Over 5000 children killed or maimed and do you expect,as bush does,thier parents and relations are really thankful that we are there?If you want to support the troops bring them home and quit recruiting for Al Quida and other terrorist organisations

The only way to truly support the troops is to NOT support them. Cut off the money and they will come home. Let the American companies in Iraq hire people like blackwater with their own money. If the oil companies want to secure Iraq, or Afghanistan fot that matter, for they're own profits, then let them get their own people killed and NOT our childern.

plaintfacto

Based on some service men and women's own comments with regard to the American public, your well-intended
but categorical conclusions
are simply unfounded!

And if it were not for the press and a
whistleblower or twoin the CIA, would
we have known about secret
prisons, and American
renditions - I think not!

Too many individuals on the Right would
deny the press its First Amendment
rights - well, unless it was the
American Spectator attacking
the so-called liberal press
or a politician on the
so-called left!

Rev:
I am certain that the troops support the American people. But I am equally certain that any campaign to end this war prematurely would need the press - even the WaPo - to stir up opposition and discord.

The press has always been the measurement of the American 'pulse'; however, they also have the power to unduely influence the public. With power comes responsibility - and the press has been showing too much power with too little responsibility.

An irresponsible press is certainly not an asset - it can and does harm - history shows this fact time and time again. So my concern is for the honesty of the press - not for the resolve of our troops or the American people to continue to be prudent about Iraq.
Stay the course...

Do the troops support the American people?

I wonder how many of America's troops are actually fighting for the American
people, as opposed to the
one's who serve in the
military in order to
fight for the way
that they believe
that things out
to be?

Someone should poll the troops! Some might simply be murdering people
under the pretext of serving
the country, or fighting
for a just cause!

Where did that come from?

Plainfacto,

I suspect that you are correct in more
ways than one.

If Hilary becomes the front-runner
in the Democratic Party, it will
galvanize Republicans - those
who are willing to overlook
her competency - and the
ones who still have
gender biases or
that hate her
and Bill!

And a ticket with a black man and a white woman on it will do the same for Reagan Republicans, as well as Reagan
Democrats and many white
southerners - shades
of the recent (white-black
swift boating) of Harold Ford's
run for the Senate
office in the
state of TN!

I am just about to conclude that the
office of the President of the
United States of America,
is simply to big for
any one human to
handle given
our bifurcated
nation!

An easy way to support the troops is to keep their story in the public eye. Lets start here at washingtonpost.com and get the "America at War" page where it can be more easily seen. I suggested to the editors that it be given a tab, call it "War", on the main navigation bar.

Right now the coverage is buried way "below the fold" under News->World->Special Reports. Check the stats; is anyone reading it?

Politics shouldn't drive news; it should be the other way around. The economy is important but personal sacrifice, death and injury trumps unemployment in my book.

William Arkin is exactly right, the american people are disconnected from their military. If we as americans are going to enjoy the blessings of liberty and personal freedom than we have a collective responsibility to defend the country that makes liberty and personal freedom possible. Too many americans believe that service and sacrifice is a "personal choice" as opposed to an obligation to the greater good. We can, and most definitely should be debating the need for when and where it is necessary to fight a war, and we should be holding accountable the politicians who commit our forces to battle. But it is time to start loking at what we want to be as a country, and who is going to sacrifice to make it possible. It can't always be someone elses son.

Hey Rev:
I think what I am seeing in the 'pubs is the Romney Romulans that are disenchanted with McCain. Ergo - the 'booing' of McCain by a few. This is not a permanent affliction; it is just the effects of losing their choice.

The 'pubs know that McCain is far better chioce - than to have HillBilly in office. In fact, if HillBilly gets the nod from the DNC - 'pubs are far more likely to come out of the woodwork and become vigorous about campaigning just to be assured that she doesn't get elected.

If Barak gets the nomination, I think that the 'pubs would let it be a honest horse race between McCain/Obama and not be so ballistic about it. I hear a lot of 'pubs saying as much...

I think we are going to see a McCain/Huckabee for the 'pubs. The dems have a different and difficult problem; Barak and HillBilly are so close in the number of delegates that they may split their party. This has already been observed.

I know of many dems that cannot stand HillBilly and would rather not vote dem if she gets the nomination. They really have their hearts set on Barak, and I can't say that I blame them. I am not a 'pub; but if HillBilly gets the nomination - I will vote for McCain just because I cannot tolerate HillBilly. I may vote for Barak; but HillBilly - no way!

To pundits...

any truth is liberal nonsense! Ironically,
when Clinton was President, he
was accused of being 'the
liberal President'.

Now that Bush is the President, anyone
that questions his policies is 'a liberal'. If a Republican is
elected President in the
next general election,
we can expect more
of the same.

None of America's problems will likely get solved; however, there will likely be
4 more years of McCarthy-like
name calling and
divisivness.

And that my friend is how a propaganda
machines operates, both domestically
and abroad. And what are the
disarrayed flesh eating 'piranah Republicans doing now? They
are consuming their own
flesh - the one's
that are stepping out of line
from Party propaganda!

John McCain is a Republican, he encouraged Americans to place country above party
affiliation; and Romney is a
Republican. However, when
they make sense, 'pubs
are ready to turn on
them just as they turned on McCain
during the primaries 9 years ago -
an American war hero, Senator
and patriot. They even
turned on 'the Governator'
of California!

Doesn't that Party sound like Stalin or Lenin's former communist party purgers?

Isn' it apparent that more and more the
Republicans are 'the Non-Sense Party'
in America, and a cadre of
pirannahs - Limbaugh,
Coulter, Hannity and all!

And the buck stops with Bush, he is the leader of the flesh eating
'Piranah Party'!

To pundits...

any truth is liberal nonsense! Ironically,
when Clinton was President, he
was accused of being 'the
liberal President'.

Now that Bush is the President, anyone
that questions his policies is 'a liberal'. If a Republican is
elected President in the
next general election,
we can expect more
of the same.

None of America's problems will likely get solved; however, there will likely be
4 more years of McCarthylike
name calling and
divisivness.

And that my friend is how a propaganda
machines operates, both domestically
and abroad. And what are the
disarrayed 'piranah Republicans'
doing now - they are consuming
their own - the one's that
are stepping out line
with Party propaganda!

John Mccain is a Republican, he encouraged Americans to place country above party
affiliation; and Romney is a
Republican. However, when
they make sense, 'pubs
are ready to
turn on them just as they turned on McCain
during the primaries 9 years ago
an American war hero, Senator
and patriot. They even
turned on 'the Governator'
of California!

Do they sound like Stanlin or Lenin's
former communist party purgers?

Isn' it apparent that more and more the
Republicans are 'the Non-Sense Party'
in American, and a cadre of
pirannahs, Limbaugh,
Coulter, Hannity and all!

And the buck stops with Bush, he is the leader of the flesh eating
Piranah Party!

Lyndon Johnson's son's in law both served significant terms on active duty, and used their father in law's pull to get INTO Viet Nam (The services trying to keep them out lest something untoward happen and they have to explain it.) Strangely, Pat Nugent, his daughter Lucy's husband, is sort of missing in action on the web. Charles Robb, the Marine, of course, ended up big in Virginia politics.

Theodore Roosevelt's sons served in the Army, and one died of a heart attack on Omaha Beach, 6 Jun 1944.

We would be better off with universal service. I'm a reserve warrant officer, Bosnia veteran, not yet Iraq or Afghanistan. GOP hypocrisy probably would have made Bush a one-term wonder if we had universal service, and everyone knew one or two Iraq/Afghan vets personally. Likewise, the dems might not get away with supporting the war in Afghanistan, opposing the one in Iraq: we'd be asking why it's okay for 18 year olds to lose limbs and eyes in Kandihar, but not in Mosul. Quality of political discussion would benefit, since if your cousin, brother or niece were 'over there', your BS-indicator would be a lot more sensitive.... A Question: how did a draft military influence America's Korean War strategy ?

Actually, Franklin Roosevelt had several of his sons serving in the military, as regular soldiers and airman. One was on Guadalcanal, one ran reconaisance over Europe and several others served, most with some distinction. Eisenhauers son was in the Army. I can't recall any others since then. But for straight equalitiy of sacrifice, nothing comes close to universal military service.

And it's not just the military...I spent ten years in the federal IHS...maybe Dana Priest should start checking those facilities for shoddyness...

Posted by: tioedong

Dear wingnut, since you "spent ten years in the federal IHS" their "shoddyness" could very well be attributed to shoddy workers like you. Just saying.

Nothing is a bigger waste of a life than dying for George Bush's lies or mistakes. What the hell has Exxon, Halliburton, the Israel lobby, or Blackwater ever done for any of us, why is it that our blood treasure should be drained for the benefit of these people, whose interests are clearly adverse to America's. Our economy is struggling, George Bush added trillions to our national debt, and a generation of American teenagers have been crippled or killed. Tell me when are you going to get your Mission Accomplished lottery check in the mail? What is it that we have won? Only a fool would sign up for a fool's errand. Serving in the military under the warmongers of the far right is a guarantee that you are either going to kill or be killed in some trumped up or made up war. The world would be a better place if people stopped volunteering to kill and die for some lying politician's bogus assertions.

Steve S:

The last time an American President had a relative in a war, was Teddy Roosevelt's grandson. He was a general, and took part in the invasion of Normandy in WWII.

The 'other' significent son of a leader - was Stalin's son. He was captured by the Germans during Operation 'Barbarosa' (that was the German code name given for the German attack against the USSR).

Stalin's son was captured, questioned, tortured, and summarily shot. Being in the line of fire and being killed provides the enemy with a high-value propaganda target to exploit - dead or alive. Having a realtive injected into war may be considered patriotic act - but it is also an exceptionally bad move for these very same reasons...

From this side of the pond it is all too easy to see Mc Cain as an avuncular benign conservative . This is 'conservative ' sans neo.
He must shed the wretchedness of the neocons and yet remain an attractive candidate to the GOP faithful.
But his POW status notwithstanding is it sufficient to reward a man who was probably heroic in Vietnam , with the Presidency just because he does'nt appear to have any skeletons in the cubbard.
There are some murmurings about shady dealy but they seem far too nebulous to make manifest allegations against him.
But from hear I'm hearing a language which speaks with some derision about the white flag.
If the war is a failure and they have to leave as ignominiously as they did after the fall of Saigon it would be far more noble and compassionate for the servicemen in Iraq that they at least negotiate a truce and withdraw with some degree of honour.
But will they do that and leave the big capitalists there , and moreover lose control of oil in the Middle East , which is what it was always about.
MC Cain comes from a military family , something he is not afraid to trumpet as if it were that he was handed the keys of the kingdom ; the heir of his patrimony .
We like to think of him as 'a bit Irish , even if he does'nt make the claim as overtly as he might.
Mr MC Cain has made his position on Iraq clear enough to forewarn the electorate.
What about Iran . Would he show the restraint to nuke or otherwise interfere there.?
What about the road to Baghdad being through Jerusalem , ;the implication here being that if the USA were seen to be honest brokers in establishing dual statehood for Israel and the Palestinians ; would he be as partisan towards the Israelis as the Bush administration has been ?
Remember that while Bush visited the region for the first and only time in recent weeks , that even when he was talking about realigning historical borders , at that very time the Israelis were actually continuing with their carve up of occupied territories; dividing farms , denying farmers from access to their olive groves ;
diverting the water from these farms .; strangulating the occupied territories from essential supplies ,
I have served as a doctor on 6 missions with the UN , have visited these farms , have had discussions with young Israelis about their alleged hegemony and military supremacy. Most are conscious of their ( Israeli) disproportionate war in Lebanon - which was mostly against Lebanese citizens and destroyed an economic and infra- structure the Lebanese had struggled so hard to reconstruct.
I have seen the devastation in Northern Israel ,caused by Hamaz rockets launched from Southern Lebanon .
I have also seen the resullt of operation Grapes of Wrath , launched by the Israelis on civilliant sheltering in the Fijian battallion HQ and the memory will neber ever leave me.
I have visited the Holocost Museum and was equally revolted .
The mutual distrust is manifest in everything everyday.
The situation there and elsewhere requires a less belicose voice than Mr Mc Cain's .
It requires the vision , imagination , compassion of someone like Obama.
One senses that despite his relative inexperience , his mind is suffeciently open to be that honest broker.
He would certainly refrain from any designs in Iran.
Maybe mine is a naive hope , but we all look to the USA for a renewed international integrity . We depend on the US for stability in world economics.
I would plead with the uncommitted American voter to take pause .
This is the most defining time for the US sense of equality , freedom , and the right to pursue happiness. ,
Could the avuncular Mc Cain succeed in this very fragile area while he still talks of disdaining the white flag.

Funny how the executive branch of British government seem to take it for granted that military service is both their privilege and their duty. The Duke of Edinburgh (Prince Phillip), the Prince of Wales (Charles), the Duke of York (Andrew - a combat veteran), and now Princes William and Harry all have served their country in uniform. When was the last time a President's child wore a uniform? Lieutenants Jenna and Barbara Bush, anyone? A little leadership by eaxample, maybe? No?

This piece reminds me of the theme of Fahrenheit 911. It was the focus of most of the second half of the movie. Parts of the first half famously focused on the related point: that the political elites who got us into Iraq avoided service, starting with Bush and his National Guard placement that kept him out of Vietnam. There is the famous footage of Moore asking members of congress if they or their kids plan to serve.

I can see that all of the pity-party members of the pseudo-liberal club are here. They are all trying to take their best shots and comment on what they aren't sure of - but can only guess at. Arkin knows how to spin a story; after all - he is their main-man spin doctor.

And what do you get after being spun for too long?
Dizzy.
That sums it up...

If you want to know how the current Administration feels qbout military personnel, and how supportive they really, consider the following!

How many of them actually joined and
fought in the military!

How did they treat distinguished military
veterans like General Colin Powell,
Senators John McCain and John Kerry
both who ran against the
Bushtanistas and
George Bush in two General Elections!

I am not a fan of McCain's, however, give
Senator McCain and his family some
credit, they fought for the
nation!

And Alma Powell was prophetic after all. She didn't want her husband Colin to
run for President for fear that someone
would kill him.

She will partially right The President,
George Bush killed him! How do you
ask a distinguished serviceman, who
was correct more times than Bush, to
resign!

Support military people, Bush fears them!

Military Pork Barrel Spending -

this is what the majority of Americans
reticently support. Having said that
military costs are similar to the
associated costs of running
let's say GM, Ford or
Chrysler.

Ford reportedly spends more to purchase
employee health and retirement benefits, than on steel (or is it plastic)to
build an utomobile or truck!

Within the educational systems in most
states, more money is spent on
administrative costs than
is spent to educate our
children.

The problem is systemic - it is not specific to the 'MILITARY INDUSTRY!

And Bush has forever 'dinted' the image of the American man or woman of war - its
not their fault!

Don't allow the flag draped coffins to be viewed or photographed , make sure that government waste cannot be revealed and investigated.Allow no bid contractors to overcharge and rape our treasury and shadow armies to destroy the hard fought progress we are allowed to make. Mr.Bush and Cheney will do anything not to upset the monoploly in War Catering they have bestowed on their pals in war profiteering industries.
Now Bush ,through his devious signing statemnts has made it likely for the U.S. to have permanent bases in Iraq along with the previously mentioned denial of investigations into millitary suppliers spending abuses. Could these con men be any more obvious about who's side they are really on?

Unfortunately throughout history all governments whether good or bad use their military for political purposes. After Sept 11 it was necessary to take some type of military action. If the American people were ever presented with the real costs of this war they would shocked into a stupor. If we had mature adults running our government there still would have been military costs but nothing like we have seen. We have an administration in office that has placed poliitical ideology over competence. They did create their own reality instead of dealing with the situation that is there.
This is an election year and once again the usual games are being played. I hope that somehow our men & women will be given the support they need & deserve. When a person takes the oath of office for president they also take another oath at the same time. This oath states that if the military is called upon to fight that every avenue will have been explored to prevent a war, that if diplomacy does not work the armed forces will be given the best equipment & support available, the public will be required to make sacrifices if necessary , there will a plan of what to do when the troops arrive overseas and there will be an end plan to get them home. Also there will available at home the best care in all fields for the returning troops. It does seem that our current president has not honored this oath. When someone signs up to join the military they enter into an agreement with the government that refers to the oath that had just described . At present it seems that we have a clear breech of contract since our government isn't holding up their end. Years ago I read in the paper of what had happened to some veterans of the Korean War. They had gone to a VA hospital for treatment due to the effects of frostbite that had suffered during that conflict. Guess what happened? The VA wanted not just the discharge papers they wanted to know what battle they had been in! Is that anyway to treat our veterans?
Over the past seven years the National Guard has been screwed and so has the 24/7 military and the reserves. I do not think that you have to served in the armed forces or know a veteran to be president or serve in a political office. It does help if your head isn't up your backside.

Reinstatement of regular Army proportions will lend a Nation to Presidential and economical stability.

Internal reinforcement enables empowerment of diplomacy and allures envy of other Governments.

Military expansion creates a Nation's morphology. The depletion departmentalizes and affects a Nation's security.

Imbalances of military portions will cause a chain reaction of the Presidential duty of check and balances and an Executive reasonability will elude the office and infiltrate the economic sector of America's backbone.

Military expansion is troop support.
Support the troops

Judging by the bloodthirsty nature of American political leaders especially those in the rightwing, I wouldn't want my children serving in any military led by the likes of our political class. Why would I want my kids to die so Halliburton's stock value could quadruple, or so that Exxon gets guaranteed primacy in megabillion dollar oil contracts? I don't have children but i wouldn't want my child's life in the hands of the paranoid neocon political class. These people haven't seen a war they don't like, and they believe that our soldiers and tax dollars should be used to open up markets for megabillion dollar corporations. Personally, if George Bush was leading a run to the local Chuck E. Cheese for pizza, I wouldn't want my kid going with him, he would probably find a way to screw it up. The right and even many democratic lawmakers have gone completely crazy since 9-11, and i wouldn't trust these ignorant savages in red state land with my dog, forget about my child. In fact, considering that of the dozens of military engagements and conflicts we have had over the last 50 years about 4 of them were moral and justified; I would probably never want my child or close family member serving in a military and I would vehemently counsel them against it. Hell I would offer them money not to sign up. The problem is that the politicians have stopped using the military as means to protect the country and instead have started to use the military to forward their own political and financial agendas. None of our troops in Iraq are dying for America or for freedom, they are dying to further George Bush and his faction's ambition, power, wealth, and legacy. Nothing in my opinion is a bigger waste of life than dying for the lies and agenda of neoconservatives and ultrazionists.

some of us support the troops, but most of your commenters don't.
A lot of the stuff they complain about predated Bush...

If they bothered to join the Army they would know about things like "turn around time" to get supplies and the logistics of getting two hundred thousand items from design to use...

And it's not just the military...I spent ten years in the federal IHS...maybe Dana Priest should start checking those facilities for shoddyness...

No worries... someone else will die in an illegal worthless war

Stick magnetic ribbons on your SUV.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t4HOMduBO4

Mr. Arkin,

You raise an excellent question, again. "Do We Really Support the Troops?" Then you confuse the focus by equating "support" to "best military" and universal service by stating: "The best military would be one where we all shared responsibility and contributed our sons and daughters."

Your statements are properly separate and distinct issues. Separated, the issues can be addressed:

1) Do we really support the troops? Public support ranges from the tangible: housing, employment law, medical care, educational opportunities, financial instruments and monetary compensation to goodwill intangibles: gratitude, honor, recognition and respect. By these measures, the troops are supported.
2) What is the best way to staff the military? Since elimination of the draft in the 1970's, the National Military Command Authority has recognized advantages with the all volunteer force: higher overall quality of soldier, greater deployment latitude and reduced public resistance to the use of military force. But the "Long War" may create new staffing challenges... may make the return of the draft a necessity.

"... "The rule," she says, "was they couldn't fly commercial if they had injuries that showed because it would upset the American people."

This is so fkng unbelievable. The current administration has NEVER, repeat: NEVER supported the troops. Sending them in at first without body armor, then with unarmored humvees, and from the begninning in woefully inadequate numbers (Shininski, in all truthfullness, you must be anguished to know you were right and nobody listened), and outsourcing housing and feeding to buddy-buddy contractors, and the list goes on and on.

Non-existent mental health care for servicemen and returning veterans.

Shoddy medical facilities, i.e. Walter Reed

Increasing rate of Iraqi veterans'
suicides.

Retraction/confiscation of bonus payments if a soldier is wounded and out of action.

Don't forget the ban on photos/video of returning war dead..... as if our sensibilities would be offended. And after all this, some of us are just now finding out that the KKKarl Roves and Dickless Cheenays of the world wouldn't let our wounded return in comfort??!!!!!

AND some lowlife 30%ers still approve of the pigsty in the Whitehouse.

Shame on you.

.

Franks statement: "To most Americans, I suspect "support for the troops" is defined less by money spent (e.g., compensation for service)and more by morale boosting actions. Actions which may be done spontaneously by the individual (such as swapping seats on an airplane) or in an organized collective way (such as the homecoming parades held in small towns across the nation for for units and individuals returning from deployment)." Is, unfortunately, all too true.

Most Americans would rather stand and watch a parade (the Troops actually have to march in it) and be entertained, or post meaningless magnets on their vehicles, or write the newspaper and b...h that those of us who find this particular war appalling, than pay taxes to pay for those troops, or hire them when they get out of the military.

I had intended to quote Kipling, but I found this, a much better reference:

Tommy in the Long War
David Danelo | June 22, 2006

P.J. Casey makes a good point: isn't it odd that Bush43 has NEVER issued an appeal to young Americans to join the US Armed forces?

This has been the case through 5 years of war, even as the Army struggles to meet its recruiting goals with "moral waivers" for recruits with drug problems and criminal convictions, lower educational standards, and extended deployments.

Simlarly, Bush has never asked the American people to pay for this war - it's all being done on the loaned dime of the Saudis and the Chinese.

Making war on these terms - without doing the political work to secure consensus, weakens the US military, and our society overall.

But why not a call for increased volunteers for the Army? That would cost nothing but the cost of airtime for the speech -- and a President gets that for free.

Support the troops? Why not? Who can say no? We support the troops 100%. What does that mean? Throw a parade. Put on a sticker. Give up a seat. Spend more money if you are the war president or in Congress. As for joining up or pay more tax. Nah. Why not? Well for one our political leaders tell us we are not needed. They don't want a draft. They told us so - draftees don't fight good. Nor would they raise tax. As a matter of fact they cut tax. For the wealthy at least. Why? They ain't dumb. They know if they push the draft or pay for the wars, especially Iraq, with a real tax, middle class America would rise up, march on DC, throw the bums out and end that war within one election cycle. We almost did in 2006. But the Dems haven't done a damn thing. Maybe that's why Hillary is getting beat up.

Looking back there were three maybe four wars that were worth fighting, the last one being WW II. Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq. They are all wars of choice, not existential ones, in the sense that the existence of the country is truly at stake. Well maybe Afghanistan is, but you wouldn't know the way they fight it. Three battalions for reinforcement after six and half years? Please. You don't scare nobody with three battalions. Three divisions maybe. Three corps would be more like it.

The way the US military is structured these days, it's not fit for the kind of wars like Iraq, or even Afghanistan. Not long wars of occupation or attrition. One year in, one year out? Anybody who runs his business the same way by rotating personnel in and out on a yearly basis would go bankrupt. It takes years and decades to build up any kind of expertise in any enterprise, in any environment. I don't care who you are or how inspiring you talk.

It's unfortunate the political leadership is more interested in protecting jobs through military spending. Or else they only play at war. From Commander In Chief all the way down. The grunts deserve better. The brass should know better. They should know the way they structure their military, there are certain kinds of wars they cannot win and should not get in. It would have been better if they all had turned in their commissions when the civilians trashed Shinseki. So don't any fuzzy headed liberals go around saying the brass is not to be blamed. There is more than enough blame to go round and round.

Know your enemy. Know yourself. Including your society and your political bosses. Otherwise we are in for another four or five years of misery no matter who gets elected. Romney? Maybe good at the economy but no experience in national defense. McCain, he definitely won't play at war but already admits knowing little about the economy. Obama? Who the hell knows what Obama will do? Richard Cohen says he does? Please! Hillary? Studies a lot. Talks like she knows even more. Even gets along well with the brass. But who knows? Look at Pelosi. Looks good. Talks tough. Couldn't win a budget fight with guy who plays at war.

Maybe we do need a copresident this time. Who says Bill won't come in handy? Fuzzy headed libs and cons?

I served in the military through the Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson Administrations, and never felt that I wasn't getti