By today's standards, Jesus would have been considered a leftist preacher.

The real comparison that ought to be made is what positions conservative preachers (who were in bed with politicians) took over the 232 history of this nation.

The majority of them were more a part of the problem than they ever were part of any solution.

Even Rev. Billy Graham refused to join Dr. MLK at the 1963 March on Washington to tell America that racism, bigotry et al were wrong!

Many of your conservative white preachers today, still won't help to address the issues of America's growing permanent underclass (with members of all races included)!

Dimitry writes:

-- Based on that methodology, the liberal-progressive approach, as practiced in blue states, appears to have yielded substantially better results over the years in just about every social parameter of note. --

I'm sorry. I thought the discussion had moved onto the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of religion to address social ills. Within that context, are you suggesting that the improvements you cited are because liberal preachers are more effective at addressing social ills than conservative preachers?

Or perhaps the discussion has moved once again in a different direction. :)

Also, Dimitry, can you provide a link to "What's Wrong with Kansas"? I'd like to read it over so please so I can better understand your point. Thank you.

==And it's a problem not exclusive to religiously-inclined conservatism, either. I believe, perhaps even to a greater extent, that the same litany of social ills you recite plaque those bastions of the liberally-progressive Democrat-base (and where organized religion plays a major role in community leadership); e.g., the urban poor.==

However, you have brought up the statistical approach to investigating social phenomena. Based on that methodology, the liberal-progressive approach, as practiced in blue states, appears to have yielded substantially better results over the years in just about every social parameter of note. The red states' religious/private charity emphasis appears to have fundamentally failed to deliver real, measureable change in the life of the population. What's more, the gap between the states doesn't appear to be narrowing, but rather is either static or expanding. Yet the red states seem to want to continue the same failed policies and the elect the same leadership. It is a conundrum, recently expresses in perhaps a less than charitable manner in "What's wrong with Kansas?"

Dimitry writes:

-- I guess that their "flock" is just not listening...for decades. On that and most other social ills they preach against. Wife beating? Check. School dropping out? Check. Teen pregnancy? Check. Infidelity and divorce? Check, check. Alcohol and drug abuse? Double check. Poverty? Check. Racism? Check. After decades like this, why not try something different? --

I won't argue with you about the ineffectiveness of organized religion to cure social ills.

And it's a problem not exclusive to religiously-inclined conservatism, either. I believe, perhaps even to a greater extent, that the same litany of social ills you recite plaque those bastions of the liberally-progressive Democrat-base (and where organized religion plays a major role in community leadership); e.g., the urban poor.

==2) Setting aside your "billions of dollars" clause, what you wrote is just another way of saying that preachers tend to rail against the most pervasive "sins" within their flocks.==

I guess that their "flock" is just not listening...for decades. On that and most other social ills they preach against. Wife beating? Check. School dropping out? Check. Teen pregnancy? Check. Infidelity and divorce? Check, check. Alcohol and drug abuse? Double check. Poverty? Check. Racism? Check. After decades like this, why not try something different?

So, what does all that preaching and all that giving actually do? Apparently not much back home, except getting the religious conservatives the statistically signficant "generosity lead."

THERE HAS NOT BEEN A PROPER LOGISTICS SYSTEM IN IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN! You have had a bunch of private companies running around the battlefield getting their people killed. There is no organization involved, and they drive the cost of the war through the roof. Military people do military logistics. It is a military specialty people! Since there is no rear areas in insurgent warfare, EVERYBODY, like the Marines, should basically be LIGHT INFANTRY. Whatever your job description, you are first of all trained infantry so you can take care of yourself and equipment.
Most of those MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS are worthless and a waste of money. They are CORPORATE WELFARE!
You get private enterprise out the logistics chain and watch costs go down. You have only to look at the present economic mess to judge the efficiency private enterprise.

Are those figures included in your source's charitable giving estimates? --
I don't know.
Do your own research.

Frank,

Well, so much for engaging in meaningful discourse!

Rev writes:

-- What amount of charitable Americans dollars given in Synagogues and Christian Church offerings 501[c]3, that go to support Israel, end up assisting the war effort? --

I don't know.

-- Are those figures included in your source's charitable giving estimates? --

I don't know.

Do your own research.

Dimitry writes:

-- I presume you are not bringing this up as an example of excellent use of confidence limits. --

See my post 11 Apr, 1239 PM in which I first brought up the study.

-- At the end of the day, billions of dollars donated to the megachurch preachers who rail against promiscuity every day correlates neatly with a high rate of promiscuity as evidenced in high rates or out of wedlock births and teen pregnacy in the very communities that are the "flock" of the megachurch. --

1) I personally find the vast sums of money generated by megachurches obscene (I prefer my place of worship to be more humble).
2) Setting aside your "billions of dollars" clause, what you wrote is just another way of saying that preachers tend to rail against the most pervasive "sins" within their flocks.

My point now, Rev, is that you regretably chose to talk at people rather than with them.

Frank,

You have been controlling the narrative with respect to this charitable giving by comparison discussion. The fact is that your position was personally directed from the onset, I believe!

Since I have spent most of my life working for 501[c]3 organizations, presiding over and and sitting on Boards for 501[c3] organizations, I suspect that I know something about them, as well as charitable giving.

Let's raise the discussion to another level and employ the socratic method. What amount of charitable Americans dollars given in Synagogues and Christian Church offerings 501[c]3, that go to support Israel, end up assisting the war effort? Are those figures included in your source's charitable giving estimates? Answer: Yes?

I have been discoursing with you Frank, you simply don't agree with my position on this particular topic. We are not that far apart in other areas!

==Assuming that statement was true, it only shows correlation. And would be misleading to imply liberal secular states lead to stable marriages, lower child pregnancy, etc ...; and that "deeply religious, fundamentalist areas of America appear to be inviting all the social ills."==

Sure. But the point of all of this kind of research is to move beyond correlation into conclusions, either via policy or personal behavior changes. That's the reason this kind of research is cited in polite, non-scientific company. I presume you are not bringing this up as an example of excellent use of confidence limits.

==Rather, social ills may very well engender religious fundamentalism. And more social healthy states may engender liberal secularism.==

Maybe so (though I seriously doubt it), but one way or another, it ain't working. At the end of the day, billions of dollars donated to the megachurch preachers who rail against promiscuity every day correlates neatly with a high rate of promiscuity as evidenced in high rates or out of wedlock births and teen pregnacy in the very communities that are the "flock" of the megachurch.

Rev...you crack me up. Those concepts you abuse in your post (which, had you paid attention in those same civics/history classes.

Posted by: lmao

Factually, you missed my point. The liberties that our founders professed to believe in were won in a typical American style, that has continued to this day: invasion, war, duplicity and hegemony.

What was done and that which was reffered to as liberty spoke to securing freedoms for 'white people'. If you skip to the end of the story, everyone else gets killed or enslaved - not much has changed.

My point: Some of us took those meaningful words to heart, and we have given life back to those words and creeds, those of us who really believe in liberty and justice for all people.

And that is why we are not in the military, engaging in junkets overseas, to kill people who haven't done a thing to us. We are fighting for their freedoms and liberties as well, against a government that never believed in freedom for all people!

Question: If you are in the military and fighting in defense of American freedoms, when do you find time to write anyway? It makes you wonder what the trillion is being spent for, hmm?

-- What is the real point that you are trying to make Frank! --

Since you asked. My point now, Rev, is that you regretably chose to talk at people rather than with them.

Dimitry writes:

- ... In the analysis you site, we are likely to be lumped in with the religious conservatives, when we really don't belong there... -

I think a closer read of Brooke's statement is that he treats religious/secular and consevative/liberal as independent categories; e.g., he acknowledges the religious liberals exists, as do secular conservatives. And he points to a correlation between religious inclined persons and 'giving' persons. I think your personal example would most likely fall into the religious liberal category. (Brookes goes into depth in his book re. sources of data, so you are free to evaluate yourself his conclusions based on the constraints of the data.)

And though he points out the correlations, he shys away from drawing conclusions about "cause and effect", which are beyond the scope of the book.

Which brings me to my second point. You write:

-- From this viewpoint, you see an opposite picture - more liberal, secular states enjoying more stable marriages, less child pregnancy and crime, lower rates of incarceration and poverty, higher college enrollment. At the same time, deeply religious, fundamentalist areas of America appear to be inviting all the social ills they daily preach against - poverty, crime, out of wedlock child birth, high rates of teen pregnancy and pomiscuity and lower academic achievement. --

Assuming that statement was true, it only shows correlation. And would be misleading to imply liberal secular states lead to stable marriages, lower child pregnancy, etc ...; and that "deeply religious, fundamentalist areas of America appear to be inviting all the social ills."

Rather, social ills may very well engender religious fundamentalism. And more social healthy states may engender liberal secularism.

==-- Your conjecture with respect to who gives more to charity ... --==

Since by the author's definitions of "religous" and "charity" there is more charitable giving in the deeply religious states and since there is a widespread conservative belief that charitable giving is far better at fixing social problems then government programs, how does one logically explain the deep disparity in almost every social parameter in favor of the "less giving", "less charitable", liberal and secular states?

Frank,

Draw your own conclusions! In my opinion it ought to be 'your' respnosibility to enage in research before staking out a position; my assistance wasn't required when you sought out your current, indefensible, resource.

Besides, it doesn't really matter anyway - this is nothing more than a ruse. I believe that you are injecting this straw man in order to draw us away from the real discussion!

You have already made my point anyway, your author's position is not without criticism. Have you made an effort to evaluate the criticism or those critics who have already challenged his conclusions?

If you were serious about political discourse, socio-metric studies and research, you would have engaged in scholarship yourself, during the time that you have spent trying to expose me!

What is the real point that you are trying to make Frank!

from Mars to win this thing.
lsye101

Aside from my belief that Ms. Clinton is arguably the most astute, competent, 'caring and prepared candidate' to be President; I believe that the Universe is out of balance given its history of self-serving gender-specific dominant male leadership.

If the world is to become more than a theater of war for aggressive greedy war-like males, the world will have to be brought back into balance.

Males have been very adept, historically, when it comes to construction and engineering, however, we are far less competent when it comes to running things.

Just consider how out of whack our 2-century old federal government, overwhelmingly controlled by males since its inception, has been!

If we keep doing what we have been doing, we will keep getting what we have been getting!

Rev writes:

-- Your conjecture with respect to who gives more to charity ... --

To recap:

1) It wasn't my conjecture. But rather, the conclusions drawn from data by Arthur C Brookes, a professor at Syracuse University, and a registered independent. I merely offered them up as a point of departure for discussion.

2) You then chastised me for not presenting both sides, and suggested I read other sources that present a counter viewpoint.

3) I said, in all sincerity, I'd be happy to. And asked you to recommend something.

4) You said that,rather than providing a recommendation, I should do my own research (despite the opportunity presented to use your 30 years of experience to mentor me in the right direction.)

5) You then said, "I don't have the sense that any information that I would provide could make any difference to you". That despite my sincere desire, as written in an earlier post, "... to understand you."

So much for civil discourse. And an attempt to reconcile our divergent viewpoints.

==America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative.==

I would be very careful using such labels and lumping "giving" into a single category. Do religious givers give mostly to their church? What is considered a charity? How is non-registered charity giving accounted for? How is "religous" defined? Liberal and conservative?

We belong to a very liberal UU congregation in Massachusetts and our giving is both to the church and to an array of liberal, mostly secular institutions, as well as for "off the books" personal causes. In the analysis you site, we are likely to be lumped in with the religious conservatives, when we really don't belong there - I am an agnostic on a good day, my wife an atheist.

On the other hand, almost against my better judgment, a caricature from "Repo man" comes up - of a brainwashed, fundamentalist cultists, who donate their kids' college fund to their TV megachurch, so their names can be written in the "scrolls of the chariots of fire".

To my mind, isntead of financial counting of "giving", I would look at a broad range of societal parameters that are behaviorally based. From this viewpoint, you see an opposite picture - more liberal, secular states enjoying more stable marriages, less child pregnancy and crime, lower rates of incarceration and poverty, higher college enrollment. At the same time, deeply religious, fundamentalist areas of America appear to be inviting all the social ills they daily preach against - poverty, crime, out of wedlock child birth, high rates of teen pregnancy and pomiscuity and lower academic achievement.

You wrote in an earlier post "Perhaps you should consider examining more than one source yourself in the future."

Frank,

One good thing that has come out of our discussion is the one thing that has not been discussed so far with regard to the war and those Americans who support it, moral relativism.

Your conjecture with respect to who gives more to charity reflects the same attitude of Americans who support the unjust war!

Frank, stop dancing and go and do some research. I spent over 30 years researching and teaching - I don't have to prove anything, on the other hand, you have a lot to learn!

Besides, I don't have the sense that any information that I would provide could make any difference to you, for you have staked out a moral position and that is all that matters to you - truth doesn't matter!

The Spirit of God says watch what I do for the time is now where I will come and send you an abundance! I will send it to you and with glory, wisdom, power and strength so that you can overcome in the next few years. Believe what I am about to do for you in the next few years for I know who the next President is and I tell you there will be great leadership under his voice. This Bush that is in the White House as of now will go out with My glory says the Lord.

http://jcudell.blogspot.com/

Rev writes:

-- If you are sincere, and want to know more about the truth you will have to make a realistic investment in time and effort; it takes time. Please don't rely on a piece or tome that favors your own position. ... I've done the research and the work for roughly 30 years. --

Rev, I don't want to become you. Just understand you.

Your wrote in an earlier post "Perhaps you should consider examining more than one source yourself in the future." My response was "I'll be happy to. Recommend one."

And so again, I ask for your recommendation.

i'm so ashamed and proud @ the same time What a paradox our country is becoming and is going through. As I have been studying the blogs from many sources and trying to detect gender from the context, I found that more men support Hillary than women do. I think this tells us a lot about our society. If you can just take a step back and think about what you are writing.
80% of the men write logically 20% emotionally. 56% of the women write emotionally while about 30%write logically an 14% are torn yet either overly excited or confused.
You may say how i could tell this is boggus. well maybe. But first of all women's blogs are easily detectable. ofcourse there are less than 1% who purposly try to confuse their gender ID. For better or for for worse at least I took the time to study this because I care about what is happening to our country.
I tried to tacle the race difference it was harder but nonetheless visible. I found AA men like white men are not as harsh on Hillary and the hillary AA supporter are older looking from the experience they write about they go from 40 + to 60+ Younger AA are plain rude and could not tell if they were male or female because younger crowd have a new unisex language now like one size fits all. and they can be explosive at times.As I said earlier the race study is not conclusive and I'm still at it.Anyway this is notthe firsttime that I'm proud of the men of this country Hillary need to have more of them to come down from Mars to win this thing.

More on Brooke and his book in the Chonicle of Philantropy

Frank,

If you are sincere, and want to know more about the truth you will have to make a realistic investment in time and effort; it takes time. Please don't rely on a piece or tome that favors your own position.

I've done the research and the work for roughly 30 years. BTW, here is one man's definition of a compassionate conservative. A man is drowning 40 feet offshore, the compassionate conservative tosses him a 15 foot rope!

Stop patting yourself on the back given the disproptionate amount of pseudo-benevolence that is often demonstrated by the group that you favor.

The fact is, we could eliminate poverty in this country in just about a week and have full employment to boot, however, window dressing will never help to meet the objective.

Once we move towards democratic socialism in this nation, guess what? I will tell you what, the crime rate, incarceration rates...will drop, and certain groups in this nation will still be wealthier than those of the middle and lower rungs.

The war in Iraq and the extension of the war, likely to be expanded after the election later this year, particularly, if McCain wins - is being done for the benefit of a powerful elite that resides within the United States.

Any minority who goes off to fight to protect such a venal enterprise needs to have his or head examined!

Yes, I teach minorities that everyday. Never go overseas and kill people who are in the same boat that you are in, just to sustain a rich and powerful elite in back home in America - particularly those members of the elite who will not fight themselves!

Frank,

According to Wikipedia:
The Bell Curve is a controversial, best-selling 1994 book by the late Harvard professor Richard J. Herrnstein and American Enterprise Institute political scientist Charles Murray.

The book's title comes from the bell-shaped normal distribution of IQ scores. The Normal distribution is the limiting distribution of a random quantity which is the sum of smaller, independent random phenomena. The message in the title is that ...

I read the Bell Curve about 14 years years ago. This is, the book of statistical analyses and distributions. If one accepts its conclusions, all based upon statistical analysis, one would be easily convinced that what the authors have concluded in it is accurate.

Much of the information in the 5-600 page book has since been debunked. I will check out this Brookes dude! I betcha he has a dog in this fight himself!

plainfacto,

What are you doing home on a Friday night. Shouldn't you be huddling with the warhawks and helping to decide which country should be invaded and occupied next?

Will it be Vatican City? You know that they are threatening our way of life too don't you?

Just kidding - I enjoy fighting with you!

//Is it to prove that Bush and Cheney give more percentage wise to the war effort, than the poor soldiers who are risking their lives to fight their unjust war\\ -The Rev

Still on that 'unjust war' jive?
Figures...

Soon Bush will be out of office, and it will all get so bad that you will find yourself wishing for those days past when your beloved Dem gets into office. Only then will you see the folly of this 'unjust war' rag...

Rev,

More on Brooke and his book in the Chonicle of Philantropy

http://www.philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

-- I'm certain that another another book on your favorite's reading list was the Bell Curve. --

Never read it. Never even heard of it.

-- You and I both know that statistics can be skewed in order to support any conclusion. --

Of course. But Brookes starts with the data and draws conclusions from it (deductive reasoning). Rather than starts with a premise and chooses the data to support it (inductive reasoning). Read the book.

-- Perhaps you should consider examining more than one source yourself in the future --

I'll be happy to. Recommend one.

-- the poor give more percentage wise than any other segment in American society! --

Won't argue that. What's your point? Brooke's book examined conservative/liberal giving. Not rich/poor. Are you saying the poor are liberal in their politics? Not sure that's true.

-- I wonder, why are you choosing this topic to make your argument about the military and Bush. --

My comment was addressing something tangential (admittedly off topic from Arkin's blog) that another commenter said. I'm not making any arguments whatsoever about the military and Bush.

-- Whose reality Frank, that is the real question? --

You confuse me with your consistent references to "subjective reality', etc. I think we need to define our terms if you want me to understand your point. I suggest we use the definitions applied to the spectrum of philosophical gradations of reality; from the most subjective to the most rigorous: phenomenological reality, truth, fact, and axiom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

I suppose that Brookes's works has its critics. And I assume some of that criticism may very well be deserved.

Frank,

Whose reality Frank, that is the real question? You have already stated the obvious, the man's work has its critics. You and I both know that statistics can be skewed in order to support any conclusion.

I'm certain that another another book on your favorite's reading list was the Bell Curve. You probably were tickled pink and reading flips when you read all of those skewed statistics. I wonder why?

Perhaps you should consider examining more than one source yourself in the future, as opposed to being an apologist for someone whose 'reality' is the same as your own existential reality!

And factually, the poor give more percentage wise than any other segment in American society!

I wonder, why are you choosing this topic to make your argument about the military and Bush! Is it to prove that Bush and Cheney give more percentage wise to the war effort, than the poor soldiers who are risking their lives to fight their unjust war?

Rev writes:

-- The information that you supplied with regards to who gives the most to charity contradicts everything that I ever heard or read. Where did it come from really Frank, the American Spectator? --

The facts were obtained from a book by Arthur C Brookes, a professor at Syracuse University, and a registered independent. See the provided link for a review of that book, or better yet, read the book. It's wrtten in an academic style and therefore contains footnoted sources so that you can verify (and judge for yourself) the veracity of those facts.

Other surprising conclusions drawn from the data by the author include:

* Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

* The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

* Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.

* While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity."

I suppose that Brookes's works has its critics. And I assume some of that criticism may very well be deserved. But also deserved is a reading of the book before discounting it's conclusions out of hand just because they don't corrolate with the worldview on which we found our politics.

Keep an open mind, my friend. Reality is the state of things as they actually exist - even those things which may not be comprehensible or neatly fit our own unique subjective, phonomenological-based constructs of reality.

I am unclear about who are the non deployed uniformed members of the military mentioned in this article. If you are talking about logistics people, they have been privatized off the battlefield, which was a major mistake. There are no safe rear areas in dealing with insurgencies, and any support troops need professional infantry training. Are you talking about the Air Force or the Navy? It is perfectly normal that a large logistic train is needed to support combat elements. War eats up supplies, ammunition, and equipment.
it is true that the combat arms have been underfunded and under staffed, but a major war demands the draft which supplies a "temporary" surge of troops for the length of the war. It would have given the combat arms decent rotation schedules and spread the risk around among the general population.It would have been CHEAPER, than those GUNS FOR HIRE private contractors.
This war has never been properly supported or fought. In deed, it should never have been fought, but if you are going to fight a war, do it in a professional manner. The Iraq War has been a disaster, and an embarrassment.

and you wonder why liberals are held in such general contempt. then again, as a Liberal, you might not!

lmao,

I don't think you get it. The so-called liberals could care less about what the natural born demented killers on the Right believe!

Chuck,

Do you recall the song that was around in the 70's entitled, The Name Game? My favorite verse was the one that began with the name 'Chuck'! Go and sing it to yourself a few times, and you will get my drift!

Can a minister say that? Well, forgive me Lord!

And Frank,

The information that you supplied sounds more like subjective reality over objective fact.

The information that you supplied with regards to who gives the most to charity contradicts everything that I ever heard or read. Where did it come from really Frank, the American Spectator?

A wealthy philanthropist donated $300M to charity a few years ago, yeah! Granted, she gave more to charity than me and most of my friends combined. However, and having said that, we weren't able to donate to the Kennedy Center or the Smithsonian, however, we gave a hell of whole lot more per capita to the poor and needy.

Your stats are skewed and so is your reasoning - you are obliterating the facts.

The real issue is how monies could be better spent that are being wasted in the prolonged Iraqi fiasco, including payoffs in the billions of dollars, and dollars that have summarily disappeared!

This prolonged war is draining America's resources. Should we keep pouring in good money after wasted resources just to save the face of America's failed oligarchy in Washington DC?

Attitudes are changing as the new American poor, more and more of the middle class feels the economic pinch given America's downward spiral. Can you say, I lost my job or I have a job, in fact two - however, I can no longer afford to pay my mortgage or heathcare costs, yet my government can scrape up dollars at will to pay for an unjust war?

Hey Frank, define "charity." Giving to anti-abortion groups? Christian dominionists? Tithing to their own wingnut church to pay for more wingnut propaganda from the pulpit and in Sunday school (after which the preacher does some crystal meth with his gay lover)? Sending money to poor Africans (while ignoring the poor African-Americans next door? Face it, Frank, wingnuts are not about kindness. Most red-state people only pay lip service to Jesus while using his name to advance their prejudices, and you're probably just like them.
BTW, lmao, conservatives use U.S. soldiers' lives up and then discard them; unlike your hysterical "liberals hate the U.S." rants, my statement is backed by facts. If you have any facts, put up or shut up.

Another Liberal Maniac writes:

-- Poverty is a terrible thing and few people seem to care enough to think of a workable system structure that would allow a basic level of wealth for all people of the world to enjoy, so that the "rich" of the world would perhaps have two houses and two cars, not six houses, three islands, a fleet of vehicles, and on and on. --

Oh. If only liberals could find a way to practice what they preach. Did you know:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

"Dear John....the same...even more so...can be said of the Left. the primary difference is that the Left actually exults in American deaths. It needs American deaths. It wants American deaths. It has to have Americans dying - even in New York City - to justify its own politics. Kind of a reverse Col Jessep proxy if you will."

Actually - this is the RIGHT you are talking about. Better that 4,000+ Americans die on a (foreign)field of glory than 2,000 should perish on American soil.

You're completely nuts dude.

uh..William? I believe the "drawdown" is in "pause" mode, and the tour reduction only affects GI's deployed AFTER AUGUST, not anyone in Iraq now.

And that's dependent on a "continuous reassessment" of the "battlefield geometry".

In other words, Bush's announcement means nothing. It's typical PR crap which reporters -- even intelligent reporters like you -- feel solemnly compelled to present as the daily truth.

The left does not exult in any soldier's death. But we do exult in reminding the nation that the right is who gave us this war in Iraq.

"Nothing we are doing in Iraq is helping us defeat al Qaeda, or the Iranians. It never was even possible. The invasion actually caused all the problems that the occupation now pretends to solve - and can't. Bush's supporters are the ones who are actually destroying America and weakening us in the face of our enemies."

ok...we'll take your word for it! speaking of idiot emotionalism with zero content.

and you wonder why liberals are held in such general contempt. then again, as a Liberal, you might not! time to rerun the Mike Moore "documentaries"...wouldn't want to miss incisive, honest analysis!

you might not get it: increasingly...you are my enemy. not my fellow citizen. that is certainly one cost of this war. don't for a moment beleive that unity is in the wind whether this war ends tomorrow or not.

ALM...as I said......kum by ya. sweet thoughts. with no plan of action.

and it is appalling how blithely you sweep the cost of the communist "experiment" under the rug...as though 30 million plus souls you claim to feel for...most of whom were poor....were just a blip on the learning curve.

one last thought for the easily decieved...exactly what or who is Arkin referring to when he passes his sweeping generalizations about the military? as though there was a unifying pov within that colossus of competing personal and corporate interests. as though tooth to tail hasn't been sermonized on for time immemorial (although, war done, one can count on Arkin then rolling on on excessive Pentagon spending....tooth or tail be *amned!). as though Servicemen haven't always wanked about deployment separation.

and "deferred to the next administration"? well...that's interesting diction. but he's right...everyone in the Pentagon knows that the National Defense Strategy specifically states that no war shall outlive the adminstration under which it started.

did it ever occur to Mr Arkin that senior military leadership was totally unprepared for this war? that age old lessons had been forgotten? that, as usually happens in peace time, peace time warriors and skill sets had gained ascendancy?

the war has been a mess..but for reasons far beyond Mr Arkin's disingenuous, vaguely veiled polemic.

lmao - past failures should not be a deterrent to figuring out a better way to do something... it's been said that communism would have succeeded had it been espoused by the British (who would have had the wherewithal and rigidity to make it work, the thinking goes) rather than the Russians and Chinese etc. (who turned it into the types of regimes to which you refer.) I am not saying I agree with that, and I don't think communism was the way to go, but it was step in right direction when you see the current chasm between the 10% (and shrinking) haves and the 90% (and growing) have nots. Relative scarcity? What does the West know of scarcity? Cutting back on fuel for the second car this month? What about families who are so poor the father and mother are forced to work day and night shifts so they can share a single pair of pants? Think I'm kidding? Poverty is a terrible thing and few people seem to care enough to think of a workable system structure that would allow a basic level of wealth for all people of the world to enjoy, so that the "rich" of the world would perhaps have two houses and two cars, not six houses, three islands, a fleet of vehicles, and on and on. Flatten the curve at the top and raise the baseline of poverty so that everyone has something and the very rich are not grotesque in their lavishness. We all die, why must some live in obscene luxury while so many need so little to be so much more comfortable? But don't mind me, just keep on snorting.

The basic flaw in right-wing thinking about Iraq is the notion that the military action there is hurting our enemies. It's not. That's the reason to quit doing it. The Elder Bush knew that Saddam was the only possible Iraqi bulwark against Iranian influence in Iraq. The invasion, not the withdrawal, is what strengthened Iran. Al Qaeda is still mostly a Saudi-Afghan-Pakistani operation, and they're mostly laughing at how we are breaking ourselves against their rag-ends in Iraq - a place where they will never have any real influence because the huge majority of Iraqis are of a different sect. They are only there because it's a convenient place to cause us pain. If we leave, they will not take over Iraq; they will simply continue to build up their real strongholds in Afghanistan and Pakistan, unless we finally wake up and take the fight to them there - as both Clinton and Obama have pledged to do.

All your right-wing bluster about how we have to fight the enemy and stay strong has nothing to do with the political and military reality in Iraq. Libs who have actually read the news and such don't want to "surrender to the enemy"; we just understand that the war in Iraq has always been a sham, run expressly to dupe nut-cases like you into supporting an administration that is breaking our economy and our military for purely partisan and personal advantage.

Nothing we are doing in Iraq is helping us defeat al Qaeda, or the Iranians. It never was even possible. The invasion actually caused all the problems that the occupation now pretends to solve - and can't. Bush's supporters are the ones who are actually destroying America and weakening us in the face of our enemies.

btw Rev...I trust that you were praying for the innocent Iraqis long before this war. maybe even the Kuwaitis as well. You should have seen those torture chambers in Kuwait! other worldy...speaking of evil nations and all that....ya know...dude.

ALM....kum by my yaдиктатор.......kum by ya...

ideologies like yours always seem to result in the most repressive, degrading, dehumanizing systems for social organization and rule. they sound sweet...but they just don't get around to solving that nasty economic verity of relative scarcity.

Rev...you crack me up. Those concepts you abuse in your post (which, had you paid attention in those same civics/history classes, you would know the founding fathers had widely varying positions on).....how were they secured? ooops...that's right...in a war! minor detail.

When I see these Useful Idiots wearing their uniforms of beard and robe, firing AK-47s into the air for the benefit of cameras, shouting hoarsely about how Islam will conquer all and the world will fall at their feet, and inciting crowds to a frenzy of hatred at whatever symbol they're waving around that day (Dubya? Danish cartoonists? Crucifix? Star of David? Those Other Muslims Who Got It Wrong? The Philly Phanatic?) and then I think of the large majority of Muslims hoping and praying for peace, and wanting nothing more than to lead peaceful lives, I have to say: There is no world war between Christians and Muslims (but don't listen to me, I'm a 'liberal maniac'), there is only the misguided notion that such a war exists, a notion present only in the minds of fanatics on both sides. There is a large amount of human nature at work, yes, and oppression, and injustice, but that is true most everywhere, not only in the countries that espouse beliefs other than Christianity. We are expected to believe that there is some sort of massive Muslim army arraying their forces against the West. Can you blame the poor people of Africa and the Middle East for seeing Christianity (and its overfed resource hogs) as anything BUT evil? If we stopped soaking every dime we can out of these people and stopped imposing ourselves on them through force of arms, we could finally begin to get along with them. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy from the start. Let's be real: America is fighting for control of resources so its people can keep wasting... everything, and living like children. Wake up! The world needs to stop the madness, overhaul the capitalist system to curtail its inherent imbalance (money makes money) and figure out a way to share resources worldwide so that every single person on earth can be clothed, fed and sheltered in permanent residences without fear of violence from people who do not have enough. That is a fantasy at this point, as human nature compels us to strive for power and control, but if there is a dream for the 21st century, overcoming the base instincts of our nature and evolving past our animal drives must be it. Renewable resources, shared resources, understanding of cultural differences, acceptance that shelter, clothing, three squares a day, medical care and education is all any of us really needs, and peace in our time. That is what we need to achieve!

gee pmv...that was a brilliant AoA. scintillating insight into actions and consequences.

Dear John....the same...even more so...can be said of the Left. the primary difference is that the Left actually exults in American deaths. It needs American deaths. It wants American deaths. It has to have Americans dying - even in New York City - to justify its own politics. Kind of a reverse Col Jessep proxy if you will.

How many roads must a man walk down...

The amazing thing is that after 5 years of this illegal invasion and occupation of a foreign land, NO ONE, not even the Bush administration's harshest critics talk about the reality of this "war": It is an oil and land grab, plain and simple. When will the media and the American pubic be mature enough to have a debate based on this simple fact?

Sure its just grandstanding thats what politics is about, one day when america is a backwater slum and some president pulls out of iraq, they'll announce it was their plan all along and that they are all to happy to 'send the troops home', just like nixon did in vietnam.

On the other hand the pentagon can't make the decision to disengage from the action/policy action/war/dubyapile or its expenses without the presidents approval - only the presidents approval will do, and this one isn't planning on working, he's thinking about a parade of barbequeues and speaking events he'll be hosting come next year. Maybe some time with his drinking buddies.

Whats really important, is that american's aren't thinking about consequences either. They're busy being shocked and awed with the costs, suprised by Sadr's populism, or frightened that iran is hiding under their beds, and just recently starting to realize there really isn't going to be much of a country left for them here once this adventure into deep dumb is bought and paid for. Thats the new question, given that the us is headed for a steep irreversible decline , given that Iraq isn't going to 'work out' or 'be western friendly' no matter how many drugs Mccain and his pals take, and no bobblehead left or right is going to be able to fix anything - just preside over a funeral. How do americans want to go down? In a blaze of failure or a bonfire of failure? (choose wisely) Saving face is a wet dream which might be cured with anti-depressants, saving the country could probably be cured by a soviet style break up. Saving the status quo ought to be considered sufficient for a 5250 (involuntary commission for observation into a state mental health facility)or proof of 'diminished capacity'.

But stick with the question - do we want to leave iraq and let it sink for itself, so we can commence the titanic sinking were headed for, or are we better off staying - whining how we tried, and cutting our reserve chutes when were closer to 50 feet from the ground?
Seems like a personal choice of which poison pill tastes better, the chance to choose health was taken 'off the table' some time ago.

so...Seth...what strategy do you think should be implemented?

Da Blowhard....wow...Arkin served 4 years in a non-combat role....certainly not a leadership role. by all means...that qualifies him as a military expert! you sure squared that guy's circle.

he may know something about cold war nucs. but military strategy? the inside information? pls.....you insult your own intelligence with that inference. and, of btw, as long as your exicising select portions of the bio...look at it again: one thing is for certain...he does not arrive without an agenda. trusting his sense of obligation to truth and unbiased analysis is a comical notion - in the extreme. but, why should he assume a professional posture any different from the rest of his WP brothers and sisters?

obviously....you know nothing about the military or your wouldn't have made such an uninformed....ok...clueless....pot.

I am currently doing a 15 month tour. Along with a lot of other guys who are on there third and forth tours. The "in and out" of this war is breaking the military, from the top on down, standards have severely fallen.
I and a lot of other soldiers in Iraq would really love to see some hardcore accountability and realistic strategy.

O B A M A ! !

This is a response to TheRev: He has an "I" missing. In his tirade against America there is a word with an "I" missing. Find it, insert the "I" and that word will describe him. Have fun.

Christines, I'm a jew... I DO NOT LIKE Barack Obama (or the other war-monger Hillary Clinton), and I DO support the 'Palestinian cause'.

Now... That said... go somewhere nice and quiet because your head is going to explode shortly(PLEASE!)

Then we won't have to read anymore of your ethno-rambles.

We all make our own choices...,

Some choose to serve in the American armed forces and that is their right. Others choose to speak out against unjust wars and that is their right!

BTW, great documentary on TV early this morning juxtaposing America's current occupation in Iraq, and its century old occupation of what was formerly known as the free Kingdom of Hawaii.

When I was last in Hawaii, 9 years ago, the unpatriot Rev had the same discussion with the locals there, the Benedict Arnold that I am!

The nations who have historically refused to acquiesce to American demands and domination, Cuba, formerly Iraq, Iran..., are instantaneously labeled as terrorist, rogue nations..., or enemies of the State, the United States!

Has anyone else noticed that none of those nations have ever tried to take over the USA - it is always the other way around. Er herm, so who is the bad guy?

Since the 17th and 18th century, it would appear that America still hasn't learned to live within the rule-of-law, or to respect the rights of other disparate people or nations of the world. Instead, America still insists on engaging in mischief!

It's good to have you back lmao; you and I always fight, however, I always pray for your safety as well as the safety of the innocent people in Iraq - who did nothing to America!

And for those individuals who don't like 'liberals', the principles that this nation was founded upon (tee hee) were supposed to be 'liberty', 'civil liberties' and freedom for all (white) people .

It sounds like a few of our respondents were absent the semester that liberty was taught in America's civics classes. The classes that I took said nothing about invasions, occupations, kidnapping people, GITMO, renditions, destabilizing governments...!

In the event that some of our respondents are functionally illterate, were graduated anyway, or garned a GED - liberal comes from the word liberty! Having said that, we know that many Americans do not actually believe in 'the principle of liberty' anyway. Liberals, those of us who fight for 'civil liberties' and 'justice' should not be ashamed!

The other side however, I wonder, what are they really fighting for? Power, hegemony, supremacy, resources like oil? They certainly [ain't] fighting for liberty. Hmm!!

I am more concerned about Obama and his tie to terrorists, according to the LA Times!

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,1,2431765.story?track=rss&page=2

http://www.commonvoice.com/article.asp?colid=8310

The true shortcoming of what is occurring in this "alleged" war is that it is another "conflict" being run by politicians. Politicians as a group are stupid and there is not a dumber group than those that presently occupy Washington at every level. The entire bunch of them make decisions only after they test the wind to see how it is blowing. There isn't an ounce of intestinal fortitude in any of them.

If you go to war you go to win - there are no "draws" - if you really want to end this thing it can be done in two ways: 1.Commit the entire Marine Corps loose with all their weapons and let them go from one end of Irag to the other and wipe out anything that resists. Yes, there are going to be civilian casualties but that is the price of war. Nobody is going to like that method but any neighboring country will get the message. And if Iran wants to get into it blow the hell out of them and let Allah sort them out.

2. Pull everybody out of there and let them slaughter each other as they have been doing for hundreds of years. No foreign aid, no humanitarian aid, no nothing.

They have lived under oppression all their lives and frankly, except for a very small minority, they probably like it that way.

No more lost American lives or money. We have to realize that we can't save the world from itself, at least not doing it alone, and no other country has the guts to make a substantial committment.

==I don't think the historians are going to know what to make of this. A mass hallucination, I guess.==

I would think the more plausible explanation is near total incompetence of the leadership coupled with a near total ignorance of the population.

We seem to get way off the subject on this infernal war ---there was no reason for us to invade Iraq----no WMD---and as soon as we verified that we should have pulled out.
Now, way overdue, we can work with the region and the international community to try and stabilize the country, but we have to stop this occupation.
Earl

shorter tours = more tours = stay the course.

Hey Paratroop... Arkin is a vet.

It's in his bio.

Where's your bio?

Most of the Ultra right slavishly follow the line "the surge is working" Very few of them have ever served a day in uniform and avoided service when given a choice.

The problem is that the Army is too small and that the number of deployed troops cannot be sustained without unbearable strains on the soldiers and their families.

What is needed if the war is to be won is a draft where no one even the ultra right is exempt and tax increases to pay for the war.

  We're not hearing the full story on these 15 to 12 month deployments. They don't begin until August. In other words, those there now, as well as those arriving in-country from now until August, will be serving 15 month deployments.   If I'm on my way to Iraq between now and August, or I'm stuck with a 15 month tour, I'm going to be mighty po'ed. As a vet, Navy 68-74, I can give a pretty educated guess as to how those military stuck with 15 months vrs. 12 feel about this: it really, really sucks.  Combine this with Congress not passing the G.I. Bill improvements, and morale has to be affected.
bushcheney are destroying our military.... there ain't no ifs, ands or buts about it.

Most of the Ultra right slavishly follow the line "the surge is work" Very few of them have ever served a day in uniform and avoided service when given a choice.

The problem is that the Army is too small and that the number of deployed troops cannot be sustained without unbearable strains on the soldiers and their families.

What is needed if the war is to be won is a draft where no one even the ultra right is exempt and tax increases to pay for the war.

They were wrong about WMD. They told you it'd take a long time. They went in 'light' and tried to occupy 'on the cheap'. They told you 'a stable Iraq' exit strategy. They've changed command. And you want a 'real' exit strategy... No you don't. You want an 'exit NOW' strategy. They surged... it worked... Muqtada blinked, scurried to Iran. We pressured Maliki to act, he finally does, Muqtada rattles sabres back at the opportune time, the report to Congress. We're not going to be able to 'flip a switch'... CBS's Logan was right, the Shiites have to work this out, and we're battling Iran meddling. Prior to now, Maliki could -not- have waged any campaign... now he did... progress has been made. It will take time, period... and the next admin has to continue/exit properly. Running away won't help, wringing hands, whining won't get the job done. Lax oversight doesn't help, but the job is to support Iraq security, govt progress, not annihilate all discord. If we help this Iraqi govt, in decades they'll be partnered with us as much as Japan and Germany has after ww2... which is to say better than Sadaam ever could, and infinitely better for the region. Iraq only supplies less than 6% of our oil imports (see Energy Info Admin)... it's -not- about that oil. Obama won't lean on advisors any more than Billary would. McCain won't run. A 'presence' (as in Korea) is not a hundred years war.

John, which campaign are you employed by the Billary express or Barrack Hussein Obama?

We americans are ashamed of our president, for the deceit he has displayed, over his tenure in office. The lies we have been fed by him and his cronies in the past seven plus years, and the utter lack of respect shown to us is only surrmounted by the damage he is has done to our image in the world. The working men and women of the united states are now living in poverty, whereas;once not long ago,families in our country were earning living wages, buying homes, putting money in the bank, sending their kids to college. Now a man or woman responsible for his or her familiy's support cannot afford the gas for transport to work, (and many more do not have jobs at all). For all our sakes, I only hope that God in his infinite wisdom sees fit to bring back sanity to this country in the form of the Democratic Pary.

"Mr. Arkin do not talk about soldiers as if you understand or know us. From both this article and the previous ones you have written it is clear that you either latch on to the small minority opinion within our ranks or simply make up information to serve your ideological goals. There are a lot of good reasons to dislike this war, but speaking on behalf of soldiers you don't know is cheap.
-82nd Airborne Vet."

BINGO!

But as long as there are tools like the Rev.....there will be an audience!

...another vet

"perhaps even more importantly it's a fight between the U.S. (who backs the Iraqi government and Iraqi security forces) and Iran (who backs al Sadr and Maliki Badr militias)."

I don't know if the irony was intentional or unintentional, but this statement really captures the lunatic quality of the entire "debate" over the US presence in Iraq.

The fact is, the "Maliki Badr militias" ARE the Iraqi government, such as it is. Maliki is the notional prime minister of a ruling coalition of Shi'a and Kurdish militias. The Badr Brigade, which is controlled by the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, formerly the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (note the name) is the core of that coalition. Both Maliki and the Badr Brigade are staunchly supported by IRAN.

So this is the reality: the US is backing one Iranian-supported Shi'a militia in its power struggle against ANOTHER Shi'a militia faction (Moqtada Sadr and his Mahdi Army) which is ALSO supported by Iran, but actually less so than the militia group the US is supporting.

The winner in this crazed, four-corner death match can only be Iran. So, in a word: US troops are fighting and dying to make Iraq safe for Iranian influence. And just about everybody in Washington is acting like this is perfectly normal state of affairs!

I don't think the historians are going to know what to make of this. A mass hallucination, I guess.

Bush and his Administration takes credit for everything except when they lie or violate the rule-of-law, at that time they pass the buck to someone else, commute sentences or stick their heads into the proverbial sand!

Second Point? This administration prefers dealing with corporations, and the military much like the USPS is a corporation with its own Board, CEO's, Executive Board, Boardmembers and shareholders!

"The Military Comands Bush" Yeah that's objective news...lol

You libs are the most pathetic bunch of
BS artists in the known universe. Keep up
the BS and keep lying to yourself as well
as others. It will only destroy you in the
end.

What a bunch of liberal maniacs.

This is a battle in a much larger conflict the Western world cannot afford to lose. Our enemy understands this...the only way to establish true peace is by way of defeat.

This is a war about many things not just one...it is ideological and it is about oil. Oil runs the world. Wars have been over salt and pepper this is not a new concept. Wars over natural resources happen and this is a necessary fight to perserve the American way of life. It is agreed that the extremist eliminates of Islam is 5-10% that is still alot of extremist. The best way to win a fight is to punch first and win with fear instilled by aggression towards your enemy. Through clear and evident defeat...this is the only way for the western world to accomplish it's objectives. We did not do this with North Korea...but we did with Japan....

pick up your skirts and grab your b#lls guys this is America and we must fight for freedom and to perserve the American way of life.

Does this also pertain to the 180,000 mercenaries in Iraq? The President should take this opportunity (hee, hee) to tell a little story about how his tour of "duty" (hee, hee) was shortened during the Vietnam War. (Daddy made a couple of calls, hee, hee, and shortened my mission, too). What a sorry hypocrite!

Mr. Arkin do not talk about soldiers as if you understand or know us. From both this article and the previous ones you have written it is clear that you either latch on to the small minority opinion within our ranks or simply make up information to serve your ideological goals. There are a lot of good reasons to dislike this war, but speaking on behalf of soldiers you don't know is cheap.
-82nd Airborne Vet.

The answers of this situation date back to the dawn of Economical Hitmen... Step 1: Offer loans to indebt the area... if it fails continue to next step... Step 2: Assassinate the leader of the area... if it fails continue to next step... Step 3: Take over the area with military force...

books are more useful than media... read one sometime...

I flew for 3 1/2 years over North Viet Nam with just the standard 30-days off at Christmas. I also flew AWACS in Iraq I.

I personally think none of you would be belly aching about tour lengths (which you don't serve) if someone other than Bush were President.

Of course, I grant you that if someone else had been President we would not be in this mess....because ONLY "Dubya" had to prove to his Daddy that he didn't turn coward and run away from his plane and his war.....and then use the entire US Military to prove it. George Senior must be so proud of him by now.

How long is the media going to buy this construct that the military is in control of the troop levels and that this whole war has not been a plan to build a permanent military presence in Iraq, using the Reichstag fire, uhm, excuse me, I mean 911 as a pretense.

Iraq Occupation Commander Petraeus' entire Mission "Was to Train Iraqui Troops to Take Over Security (and fighting)" HE CLEARLY FAILED When 30,000 Iraqui Military were Defeated in BASRA, unleashing sectarian civil war again throughout Iraq !

Now, Bush "The Decider" Doesn't want To Decide Anymore on IRAQ? He is Deserting his responsibility, Taking Off Commander-in-Chief Jacket, Passing It FIVE Levels Down.. To Iraq General Petraeus?

Bush and Cheney's GAME Is DELAY To PASS QUAGMIRE to DEMS in Jan 2008, and are trying to make Military responsible for Iraq Failures as Reality becomes more apparent to U. S. Public:

"This is really the proxy war that everybody talks about behind closed doors but nobody wants to admit to in public."

Speaking with Bob Schieffer on Face The Nation, CBS Iraq Reporter Logan said that the gains made by agreements with militias (including from Sunni tribes and some Shiite tribes) to work with the Americans have almost disappeared in the face of the recent violence which spread so quickly from Basra in the south of Iraq.

"It's really about two things," Logan said. "It's a fight amongst the Shiites for power in Iraq - what the future of this country is going to look like, how the Shiites will divide Iraq among themselves - but perhaps even more importantly it's a fight between the U.S. (who backs the Iraqi government and Iraqi security forces) and Iran (who backs al Sadr and Maliki Badr militias).

this war will go on & on till we have a draft -- the anti-war movement's ineffective because it's actually an anti-draft movement -- leaders of the anti-war movement thrive on this war & they use coded language in order to let their contributors know that the money contributed will go toward heading off the draft -- the contributors are happy, knowing they're sheltering their kids

Waddaya mean?

GW IS... "The Decider"

...and he 'decides' with 'War On His Mind'

War in:

The Horn of Africa.

The REST of Africa...

Afghanistan
http://icga.blogspot.com/2008/04/rubin-afghanistan-insurgent-attacks-up.html

Colombia! Venezuela! Ecuador!
"Nancy Pelosi will also fight the Colombian "Free Trade Pact"... and guess what? It's about oil... Natch!" http://leighm.net/wp/2008/04/10/tth_080410/

Coming soon to a hot LZ near YOU!
Stressed out, divorced, PTSD'd soldiers with door-to-door combat experience... Yowzah!

See them PANHANDLE agressively!

See how EASY it is for them to knock over jewelry stores when NO Stateside jobs are available!

Here's a conspiracy theory for ya: Perhaps one unspoken political "goal" of this war is to create a situation that will force the military to bring more non-combat troops into combat roles. Therefore, the government will have to outsource all the logistics and administrative functions of the military to defense companies, like KBR. That way, civilian defense companies will profit from this war (and from all future military operations) ever more so, and military personnel will be relegated to dangerous grunt work.

Well, it does seem to ease up a little bit soldiers' life. But the real question is: what is the time for redeployment? Has it been changed, and if yes - then how. If it has been shrunk, this whole woo-doo does not make any sense.

You keep saying "the military" said this or that. But actually, there has been a tremendous amount of dissent among military leaders. The problem is that the Bush administration continues to ignore the considered judgment of, indeed push aside, courageous and experienced military leaders who do not tow the Bush/Cheney line. This destructive approach started with ignoring General Shinseki and continues today ignoring Admiral Fallon and General Cody.

Mr. Arkin, you should know better: The United States of America is not, nor has it ever been, at War with Iraq or Afghanistan. We illegally invaded Afghanistan even though the country had nothing to do with 911, then we illegally invaded Iraq after administration officials told a thousand lies a thousand times.

Presently, The United States of America is illegally occupying Iraq and illegally semi-occupying Afghanistan. Both countries are supposedly allies; we are not at war with either.

If journalists, reporters and pundits continue to use the word "war" to describe the administration's illegal use of our military, then said administration will continue to insist it has "war powers," which it has redefined to mean they can lie, maim, torture, murder, kidnap, spy illegally, ignore subpoenas and court orders, out CIA agents, warp the Justice Department, and completely ignore the will of We The People.

Words matter. The USA is NOT AT WAR. Period. Repeat that truth thousands of times and watch what happens.

I need a credit card with an open line of credit and no means to pay it back.

As usual, the real issue is behind the story. Will the amount of tax dollars sent to Iraq increase or decrease because of shorter tour lengths? Will it change at all?
If we just double the amount of tax money we're already giving to the private enterprises in Iraq, they could buy large enough armies of their own, and our troops could come home. Remember, companies like Blackwater are paid with YOUR tax dollars.
Of course, that's not going to happen. The troops have to stay there or we wouldn't be
hearing "support the troops" anymore.
Am I the only one tired of sending huge amounts of money to Iraq without knowing where any of it is going?
If your going to talk about Iraq, then talk about the real issue. The robbery of the American tax payer!!!!

I'm so disgusted with the lack of accountability in the White House. First, they hide behind the military when facing Congress. Then, they use the military for photo ops. Now, they pretend to have control over military policy to get credit for something they haven't done. What about funding, equipment for the troops, benchmarks, a real exit strategy? Why is it OK to punt this to the next administration?