A few items of note:
(1) As I posted a couple of days ago, I found the Democrats' embrace of Gen. Hayden's nomination as CIA Director to be indefensible and strategically inept. The reason isn't because there was a real chance to block the nomination; the Republican majority made confirmation all but inevitable. The reason for Democrats not to support the nomination was to avoid (accurate) lead paragraphs like this one, from a Reuters article today reporting on Hayden's confirmation by the full Senate by a vote of 78-15:
The U.S. Senate on Friday confirmed Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden as CIA director in a vote that gave a broad bipartisan endorsement to the architect of President George W. Bush's domestic spying program.
To put it mildly, it is difficult to listen to Democrats express solemn "concern" over the president's lawbreaking when the majority of those in the Senate just voted to install as CIA Director the principal symbol, advocate and "architect" of the President's illegal NSA programs.
(2) A couple of weeks ago, I posted about the vicious and hateful (though entirely unsurprising) character and patriotism attacks on Jack Murtha, all because he had obviously been apprized -- and then disclosed -- that the investigation into the deaths of Iraqi civilians in Haditha concluded that they were the result of cold-blooded, wholly unjustified murder by U.S. soldiers. Today, The New York Times confirmed Murtha's statements that the investigation had reached this conclusion. I won't bother noting the apologies owed to Murtha, but it is worth examining the significance of this story.
It is certainly true, as many pro-war advocates today have noted, that incidents of this type are inevitable in every war. And it is also true that the mere existence of incidents of this sort does not prove that the war is unjustified, since even the most justified wars have included soldiers engaging in gratuitously cruel, violent and outright criminal behavior. The killings are morally reprehensible but do not constitute direct evidence as to whether the war itself was, from the beginning, a justified war. That's all true enough.
But what incidents of this type do underscore is that wars are not something that are to be routine or casual tools in foreign policy. The outright eagerness and excitement for more and more wars that we see so frequently from some circles is not only unseemly and ugly unto itself -- although it is that -- but it is also so reckless and unfathomably foolish. Every war spawns countless enemies, entails incidents which severely undermine a nation's credibility and moral standing, ensures that the ugliest and most violent actions will be undertaken in the country's name, and, even in the best of cases, wreaks unimaginable human suffering and destruction.
Certain circles in our country see war as the first and only option for dealing with every country they dislike. They have no use for diplomacy, negotiations, containment, incentives, alliances -- that's all the girlified stuff of Chamberlain-like appeasement. Any measures short of war for dealing with Iran, for instance, are pure charade, all just pit stops along the way to the Glorious War. They see war as the only thing that works, the only option worth pursuing. They want war. It excites them, makes them feel strong and purposeful, and convinces them that they are the only ones with the resolute will to defend what is Right.
But incidents like these Haditha killings illustrate the moral bankruptcy and sheer stupidity of that mindset. Rational people believe in their gut that war should only be used genuinely as an absolute "last resort." But we have a lot of people in our country, some of whom are employed in and near the Oval Office, who see it as the first and only resort. To the extent that the cold-blooded, calculated murders of innocent Iraqi civilians illustrates the reprehensible folly of that approach, all the better.
(3) The dates and events for my book tour for How Would a Patriot Act? are starting to become somewhat clearer. The June 6 event at the University of Florida which I had previously talked about is not a public event, but they are trying to arrange an event on campus earlier that day for a seminar or book reading or something along those lines. If that happens, I will post the details as soon as I know them.
The multiple San Francisco events will be June 7-10, and I will post the details for each event when everything is confirmed. I will be at YearlyKos in Las Vegas from June 10-12 (on a June 10 morning panel), and at the Take Back America conference in Washington, DC from June 12-14. I am not sure of the dates when I will be in New York, but we have confirmed a June 17 book reading at 8:00 p.m. at the West Side YMCA in New York. The other cities on the tour that are confirmed are Boston, Philadelphia and (probably) Los Angeles. Others are still possible, and much of the schedule still depends on what media appearances get confirmed and when. I will continue to post dates as I have them.
UPDATE:
(4) There are some interesting items in the roll call vote on Hayden's nomination (h/t Prof. Forland and EJ). Arlen Specter was the sole Republican voting against the nomination, signalling yet again (for whatever it's worth) that he's growing increasingly angry over the stonewalling he's encountering in his efforts to investigate the NSA eavesdropping program. Democratic Senators voting against the nomination included Clinton, Durbin and Obama. Democratic Senators voting in favor included Ried and Schumer.
Glenn, when you hit LA please let me know.
ReplyDeleteGood points all, particularly item 2.
ReplyDeleteNot that I expect our resident contrarians to actually address the issues on substance, mind you. Still, it would be interesting to see them try.
That is the rub with the sort of pro-war, war is good, YEAH LET'S GET IN THERE AND GET SOME, mentality is that is so often coming from the abstract, the video game, cinematic, blow'd up real good set...You take that and balance it next to something gut-wrenching and awful...Like 90% of what's happened/happening in Iraq and you just want to puke.
ReplyDeleteBy the by, I am hoping you might find yourself in Chicago sometime during this tour...I am quite enjoying your book!
Worth noting: Specter voted against Hayden. (Interpreting what that means requires a level of Kremlinology well beyond my expertise.)
ReplyDeleteGlenn, in light of a majority of Democrats voting for Mr. Domestic Spying, now might be a good time to remind everyone why we shouldn't just pick up our toys and go home.
Just started your book. All I can say is thank God you have taken this on.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThat is the rub with the sort of pro-war, war is good, YEAH LET'S GET IN THERE AND GET SOME, mentality is that is so often coming from the abstract, the video game, cinematic, blow'd up real good set...You take that and balance it next to something gut-wrenching and awful...Like 90% of what's happened/happening in Iraq and you just want to puke.
ReplyDeleteI'm not in favor of a draft, but I think the volunteer aspect of the military, and the fact that it attracts those on the lower end of the socioeconomic scale (i.e., not those who are in Washington making decisions and/or pompously opining) is one of the most significant reasons, if not the most significant reason, why we are too willing to think of war as an option.
In World War I, almost every monarch and each of their sons fought on the front lines, and many were killed. But being able to think about war as some abstract video game that they get to watch from afar with interest and enjoyment is unquestionably a major factor in why they advocate it so easily.
Glenn, in light of a majority of Democrats voting for Mr. Domestic Spying, now might be a good time to remind everyone why we shouldn't just pick up our toys and go home.
Agreed. I'll give some more thought to this and probably write something on Tuesday. Great suggestion. But I think people in the blogosphere have long given up the idea that they take their lead from Senate Democrats.
Broad Bipartisan support...
ReplyDeleteI feel myself on the verge of a constant primal scream.
But, this is the world we will inherit. Physcially bankrupt, morally/militarily bankrupt, and a Constitution in tatters.
Here's to the last gasps of our republic.
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteBut we have a lot of people in our country, some of whom are employed in and near the Oval Office, who see it [war] as the first and only resort.
It's not like they don't like it and are forced into it because it's the only option (see, e.g., Iraq). Some of these folks like it (or at least specific wars) and think it's just fine and dandy. Some think it's just the cat's meow for dealing with their own personal pet projects in an expeditious (and sometimes even lucrative) way, at least for them. Such as AIPAC and their buddies within the maladministration. War is part of the plan!!! And not the least bit immoral, seamy, or to be shunned. In fact, a couple such "excesses" go a long way in their mind in accomplishing the over-all goal ... you know, just the way that terrorism "works" to get the other side's "attention" -- thus we have the rocketing of houses in Palestine, the flattening of Fallujah, and the bull-dozing of Rachel Corrie. This is the morality (or lack thereof, depending on your own personal take) of the RW hawks. And you even see it here in the likes of "shooter242" and "The Dog"....
Cheers,
Some of you familiar with Jonah Goldberg of National Review may be interested in this:
ReplyDeleteHe got his ass handed to him by Jon Chait yesterday.
Goldberg is a tool and The Corner is a toolshed.
Yes these things happen in wars - its part of what makes war so horrible.
ReplyDeleteI find it sickening that the right wing spent so much effort to deny and slime Murtha and then when they can't deny the facts anymore they pretend it's no big deal.
Monsters.
A suggestion on another way for people to help promote the book: contribute to Wikipedia. The article on Glenn Greenwald http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald could use some work and there isn't yet an artlcle on the book at all. If you're interested, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy could also use a lot of work.
ReplyDeleteTake a look at this relatively thoughtful statement from Sen. Obama explaining why he opposed the Hayden nomination. (Via fas.org)
ReplyDeleteI live in a sparsely populated, useless flyover part of the country called "Chicago." Is there any chance that your book tour might stop by here to inform all of us bumpkins about the important activities in the real America?
ReplyDeleteI live in a sparsely populated, useless flyover part of the country called "Chicago." Is there any chance that your book tour might stop by here to inform all of us bumpkins about the important activities in the real America?
ReplyDeleteIf my publisher - like all publishers -- had its way, I would be in every city large, small and in between. I think Markos and Jerome went to 60 cities or something, and still counting, to promote Crashing the Gate.
But I don't want to be travelling for the next 3 months and I don't want to go to a city unless there are multiple events that really justify the trip. Given its size and importance, Chicago is obviously one of the places we are considering adding, but so far, we haven't really had big enough sponsors or events to make me willing to go.
It's just a time-allocation question - how do you feel you can be most productive?
Just yesterday, someont told me Dodd was a pretty good guy. That seems to have been confirmed by his "nay" vote.
ReplyDeleteDurbin is great, as well. As is Feingold (which almost goes without saying at this point).
I'm impressed that Clinton voted nay.
I wonder why Boxer, Dole, Inouye, Rockefeller, and the others didn't vote.
Several points in the second part of your blurb should be focused on and amplified, as far as I’m concerned. What has been markedly absent throughout the last couple of years is a prolonged discussion/debate, about when war is an appropriate act to inflict on both the country being attacked and on one’s own country. As far as I’m concerned, war’s not a game, it’s not a policy tool, it’s an act of self preservation; it’s equivalent to having to saw off one’s arm to save one’s own life. It’s that serious and that life-threatening. If it isn’t needed to save one’s life, then only an idiot will persist on trying to cut off his arm. And given that perspective, all the other justifications; the possible gains and benefits that people like Thomas Friedman see in pursuing the current or any other war are simply beside the point. My biggest concern is that unless and until this underlying issue is brought out into the open and people are forced to address it themselves, we’re going to continue to talk past each other in working our way into the next war (presumably Iran), just as we did going into, and throughout the course of the current debacle.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I'm very disappointed in Biden, Byrd, Chafee, Graham, Hagel, Jeffords, Leahy (why would Leahy, of all people, vote yes?), Levin, Lugar, McCain, Reed (isn't he supposed to be leading the opposition?), and Stabenow, among others.
ReplyDeleteAnd once again, Specter only votes his supposed conscience when we don't need him. Thanks again, Arlen.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I'm very disappointed in . . . Leahy (why would Leahy, of all people, vote yes?).
ReplyDeleteGood point. I missed that. None of the other Democrat Yes votes really surprise me, but Leahy's Yes vote does.
As for the "surprising" Democratic No votes - Clinton, Bayh, Dodd, etc. - they're all running for President and need some liberal bona fides when they can get them without cost. This was a cheap no vote - it can be touted by them to the circles that will like it, but won't really be used against them. That's not to say that it's not a good thing that they voted no - it is good - just that it was politically calculated and not some sort of sign that those Senators are awakening to anything.
bob:
ReplyDeleteI find it sickening that the right wing spent so much effort to deny and slime Murtha and then when they can't deny the facts anymore they pretend it's no big deal.
Monsters.
"When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the facts arent't on your side, pound the law. When the law isn't on your side, pound the table...." (RQFM)
Hope that explains it.
Cheers,
How much less does it solve now, when we have ill-defined enemies and ill-definited objectives?
ReplyDeleteThe war cheerleaders don't see it that way. Everyone knows that the enemy is "islamofascism" and they can see the difference between "us" and our enemies plain as night and day. And to them anyone with the misfortune to live in Iraq or Iran is deserving of death. Unless of course their leader is someone we like.
jimlanc and shargash's comments made me think further about the Bush administration's use of the American military. Bush and his tribe treat the military as their own personal army, when in fact, the U.S. armed forces are clothed, fed, trained, cared for, and paid by the American taxpayer. Bush is the commander-in-chief, but he doesn't OWN the military....he's supposed to use them only in defense of the national interest, really the interests of ALL Americans. Bush carries that strongly aristocratic attitude that only he knows best (maybe he should start renaming whole regiments after himself--e.g., the President's Own blah blah blah, similar to the British tradition). The Bushies have never considered the Eisenhower view that "War solves nothing." No, to them, the armed forces are the equivalent of toy soldiers that they play with first, before ever sincerely considering a less destructive means of serving our national interests.
ReplyDeleteGlenn, I just received and started reading "How Would A Patriot Act?". I am thoroughly enJoying it.
ReplyDeleteAbout Iran, Bush & war:
Since 2003 Iran has been trying to hold bi-lateral talks with the US, but Bush refuses to do so. He tells us he will use all means and methods possible to solve the alleged Iranian problem before using the military. But refusing to talk to Iran is another example that clearly demonstrates Bush will deliberately engage America in another dangerous, ill-conceived, yet "avoidable" war.
Bush does not seem to know how to deal with problems other than reacting militarily, but he has an agenda also. So he chooses using the military to pursue that agenda.
In addition to corporate globalization, in 1997 a plan titled Project for a New American Century (PNAC) was devised -- and/or is supported -- by Cheney, Rummy, Wolfowitz, Feith, Armitage, Libby, Addington (?), Khalilzad and others. PNAC's goal is to transform America into a global empire unrivaled by any other to maintain and preserve Pax America. That means Americans will be involved in many war theatres across the globe. Their strategy is simply using technological know-how, expanding and creating the most powerful military in the world, and being in "possession of the world's largest economy." They believe America's leadership is good for both America and the world. They believe the plan will ensure that no country will rise to power nor rival militarily, economically, nor ideologically against America.
The Middle-east is militarily a strategic starting point. The rest follows.
And that is why, I believe, the WH refuses to talk to Iran.
Henceforth, the idea of Iraq or any other country being a sovereign, democratic country independent of America is not in the neocons "vision." The neocons believe their plans will make America safe and secure by forcing America's vision on the world stage using the military to corporatize the world. It bears asking is the war on terror a ruse, an excuse to carry out their plans.
If so Americans, unwittingly along for the ride, are used as instruments to achieve those goals. The American public, with no say in the matter, are to just "trust" them as they corporatize and militarize the world, the consequences be damned.
Durbin voted to send him to the Sneate....and then voted against confirming him.....
ReplyDeleteIs he schizophernic???
I'm a regular reader of your blog, Glenn, but I just wanted to compliment this post as particularly outstanding. The part on the war-loving ideology was really spot-on.
ReplyDeleteRe the Donkeys and Hayden, "A change of rulers is the joy of fools" Romanian proverb
ReplyDeleteHey, look at the bright side: at least our guys have the guts to express their "deep concern".
ReplyDeleteNow that's tough! Ken Salazar spews those words like a bad wax recording.
The prevailing myth is that "we" are better then "them". We don't just take people out and put them up against a wall and shoot them. Only "they" do that. It's true that it is not always usually our "preferred" method for dealing with "troublesome people" but it is still not much more than a myth.
ReplyDeleteshargash said...
ReplyDeleteEisenhower said....
Eisenhower was a commie spy. Really. He was.
Bob Dylan's Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues...
Well, I was feelin' sad and feelin' blue,
I didn't know what in the world I was gonna do,
Them Communists they wus comin' around,
They wus in the air,
They wus on the ground.
They wouldn't gimme no peace. . .
So I run down most hurriedly
And joined up with the John Birch Society,
I got me a secret membership card
And started off a-walkin' down the road.
Yee-hoo, I'm a real John Bircher now!
Look out you Commies!
Now we all agree with Hitlers' views,
Although he killed six million Jews.
It don't matter too much that he was a Fascist,
At least you can't say he was a Communist!
That's to say like if you got a cold you take a shot of malaria.
Well, I wus lookin' everywhere for them gol-darned Reds.
I got up in the mornin' 'n' looked under my bed,
Looked in the sink, behind the door,
Looked in the glove compartment of my car.
Couldn't find 'em . . .
I wus lookin' high an' low for them Reds everywhere,
I wus lookin' in the sink an' underneath the chair.
I looked way up my chimney hole,
I even looked deep inside my toilet bowl.
They got away . . .
Well, I wus sittin' home alone an' started to sweat,
Figured they wus in my T.V. set.
Peeked behind the picture frame,
Got a shock from my feet, hittin' right up in the brain.
Them Reds caused it!
I know they did . . . them hard-core ones.
Well, I quit my job so I could work alone,
Then I changed my name to Sherlock Holmes.
Followed some clues from my detective bag
And discovered they wus red stripes on the American flag!
That ol' Betty Ross . . .
Well, I investigated all the books in the library,
Ninety percent of 'em gotta be burned away.
I investigated all the people that I knowed,
Ninety-eight percent of them gotta go.
The other two percent are fellow Birchers . . . just like me.
Now Eisenhower, he's a Russian spy,
Lincoln, Jefferson and that Roosevelt guy.
To my knowledge there's just one man
That's really a true American: George Lincoln Rockwell.
I know for a fact he hates Commies cus he picketed the movie Exodus.
Well, I fin'ly started thinkin' straight
When I run outa things to investigate.
Couldn't imagine doin' anything else,
So now I'm sittin' home investigatin' myself!
Hope I don't find out anything . . . hmm, great God!
I love JBS. If you start there, everything happening today becomes almost... inevitable. You will find their free literature at every courthouse in the country with the rest of the local advertisers and papers.
ReplyDelete...Unlike most advocates of the Illuminati-Freemason conspiracy theory, however, the Birch Society strenuously denies harboring any anti-Semitic ideation, and indeed claims many Jews among its membership. At one point a key leader in the JBS, Revilo P. Oliver, had his membership revoked for veering off into antisemitic conspiracy theories in public.
Republican mainstream unhappiness with the Birch Society intensified after Welch circulated a letter calling President Dwight D. Eisenhower a possible “conscious, dedicated agent of the Communist Conspiracy.” Welch went further in a book titled The Politician, written in 1956 and published by the JBS in 1963, which declared that Eisenhower’s brother Milton was Ike’s superior within the communist apparatus and alleging other top government officials also were communist tools. Included were ex-president Truman, Roosevelt, the previous Secretary Of State John Foster Dulles and former CIA Director Allan W. Dulles. Conservative writer William F. Buckley, Jr., an early friend and admirer of Welch, regarded his accusations against Eisenhower as "paranoid and idiotic libels" and attempted unsuccessfully to purge Welch from the JBS. Welch responded by attempting to take over Young Americans for Freedom, a conservative youth organization founded with assistance from Buckley.
In October 1964, the Idaho Statesman newspaper expressed concern about what it called an "ominous" increase in JBS-led "ultra-right" radio and television broadcasts, which it said then numbered 7,000 weekly and cost an estimated $10 million annually. "By virtue of saturation tactics used, radical, reactionary propaganda is producing an impact even on large numbers of people who, themselves, are in no sense extremists or sympathetic to extremist views," declared a Statesman editorial. "When day after day they hear distortions of fact and sinister charges against persons or groups, often emanating from organizations with conspicuously respectable sounding names, it is no wonder that the result is: Confusion on some important public issues; stimulation of latent prejudices; creation of suspicion, fear and mistrust in relation not only to their representatives in government, but even in relation to their neighbors.”
In their early days, the JBS shared a common ideology and some overlapping membership with Fred Schwarz and his California-based Christian Anti-Communism Crusade. John Birch Society influence on US politics hit its high point in the years around the failed 1964 presidential campaign of Republican candidate Barry Goldwater, who lost to incumbent President Lyndon Baines Johnson. Welch had supported Goldwater over Richard Nixon for the Republican nomination, but the membership split, with two-thirds supporting Goldwater and one-third supporting Nixon. A number of Birch members and their allies were Goldwater supporters in 1964 and some were delegates at the 1964 Republican National Convention. The Goldwater campaign in turn brought together the nucleus of what later became known as the New Right, many of whom had been groomed by the Birch Society but whose more pragmatic members realized that the group's conspiracism was an impediment to electoral success.
John Birch Society members and allies also authored several widely distributed books that promoted conspiracy theories and mobilized support for the Goldwater campaign:
A Choice, Not an Echo by Phyllis Schlafly, which suggests that the Republican Party is secretly controlled by elitist intellectuals dominated by members of the Bilderberger banking conference, and whose policies are designed to usher in global communist conquest. "A Choice, Not an Echo" became one of Goldwater's campaign slogans.
(...)
In his novel The Crying of Lot 49, Thomas Pynchon satirized the famously conservative society with his "Peter Pinguid Society," an organization so anti-communist that they opposed capitalism because it led inevitably to communism...
References to inevitable, as history records, wartime atrocities set me thinking along with Bush’s recent apologia re his inappropriate, if not crass, use of language in the wake of 9/11. It is not just that the world is not a US backyard for inarticulate Texan swagger, it is the irrelevance of waging a crusade against 1bn people and harking back to US’ World War II role in defeating fascism to usher in democracy in a part of the world that has the exact opposite experience of US power. The latter has, time and again, over the 60 years and continues to do so, propped up authoritarian, repressive regimes totally unable to control internal disaffection, fully aware of the source of their repressive power establishment.
ReplyDeleteThese peoples, yes plural, also know when democratic elections return elected representatives, US finds it hard to accept their democratic and political legitimacy. Does the US public really know what democracy means? The last US President who tried vainly to define democracy as more than more money was Carter in 1979 and he was sunk mercilessly by a public convinced that democracy meant unchallenged dominion of greed.
I doubt that Bush would have feigned contrition in a public forum without Blair’s presence. The latter knows darned well that the British public and his own party will not forgive him. It is also instructive that the question which led to Bush’s uncharacteristic admission of not being a smart politician came from a British journalist, not an American one.
I puzzled over Blair’s conduct for a while. Then it occurred to me that Blair knew full well that British imperialism only survived for half a century longer than it did because of US engagement in world affairs. And that old adage of the Brits teaching India about democracy was already lost since that country forged its democracy in its own way. This adage somehow operated discretely from the unexplained reality that somehow the Pakistanis never learned.
What is democracy? The US public shows an unhealthy disregard for the institutional infrastructure essential for democracy to prosper. The judiciary’s insupportable intervention in deciding election results, wrongly as it turned out, was only the beginning. The dominant political party establishments are busy disenfranchising the grassroots voter beyond casting votes at elections and even that right is marginalised through processes implemented for its exercise. The question at the start of this paragraph, nevertheless, remains unanswered. This is really a subject of many multidisciplinary doctoral theses.
Is this a crie de cour? You bet. I despair with the Congress waking up to its role when its miscreance is threatened with investigation. I despair when racism is brought into play in this although that and its timing remain dubious.
References to inevitable, as history records, wartime atrocities set me thinking along with Bush’s recent apologia re his inappropriate, if not crass, use of language in the wake of 9/11. It is not just that the world is not a US backyard for inarticulate Texan swagger, it is the irrelevance of waging a crusade against 1bn people and harking back to US’ World War II role in defeating fascism to usher in democracy in a part of the world that has the exact opposite experience of US power. The latter has, time and again, over the 60 years and continues to do so, propped up authoritarian, repressive regimes totally unable to control internal disaffection, fully aware of the source of their repressive power establishment.
ReplyDeleteThese peoples, yes plural, also know when democratic elections return elected representatives, US finds it hard to accept their democratic and political legitimacy. Does the US public really know what democracy means? The last US President who tried vainly to define democracy as more than more money was Carter in 1979 and he was sunk mercilessly by a public convinced that democracy meant unchallenged dominion of greed.
I doubt that Bush would have feigned contrition in a public forum without Blair’s presence. The latter knows darned well that the British public and his own party will not forgive him. It is also instructive that the question which led to Bush’s uncharacteristic admission of not being a smart politician came from a British journalist, not an American one.
I puzzled over Blair’s conduct for a while. Then it occurred to me that Blair knew full well that British imperialism only survived for half a century longer than it did because of US engagement in world affairs. And that old adage of the Brits teaching India about democracy was already lost since that country forged its democracy in its own way. This adage somehow operated discretely from the unexplained reality that somehow the Pakistanis never learned.
What is democracy? The US public shows an unhealthy disregard for the institutional infrastructure essential for democracy to prosper. The judiciary’s insupportable intervention in deciding election results, wrongly as it turned out, was only the beginning. The dominant political party establishments are busy disenfranchising the grassroots voter beyond casting votes at elections and even that right is marginalised through processes implemented for its exercise. The question at the start of this paragraph, nevertheless, remains unanswered. This is really a subject of many multidisciplinary doctoral theses.
Is this a crie de cour? You bet. I despair with the Congress waking up to its role when its miscreance is threatened with investigation. I despair when racism is brought into play in this although that and its timing remain dubious.
sorry, my post got in twice - anonymous was bwecause I didn't complete all the details
ReplyDeletei've done it again, that apology was from sona
ReplyDeleteOne of the greatest myths we have today about war that is not just held by those who live for war but even by those who understand it's folly and thus makes it easier to have a war, is that we can have a “clean” war. It is the promise of the techno solder, the smart bombs, the computer data, satellite spying, stealth technology. Even our own solders will not be in danger as in the past with body armor, faster tanks, night vision, portable computer hookups, etc. All of it has been passed on for purchase because it promises the precision strike, cuts like a surgeon's knife, leading to that future when we never loose a solder and we never kill anyone but the enemy.
ReplyDeleteWake up! It's war. And to quote a line that really hit me even though it was Star Trek: Yes, but we are not going to fight today. As Kurt explains to the leads who had made war so clean the only casualties were those who's number was call up to walk into the elimination machine based on a computer fought war. It saved them the money of having to rebuild the damage from the real thing.
Want to stop wars? Then go back to the draft. It is the only way to assure that our military reflects the make up of society. As we are the military just as we are the government.
When the Democrats vote overwhelmingly in favor the administration's nominees and policies they not only provide bipartisan cover to congressional Republicans, but remove the standing they would need to later object and take corrective action, assuming they do gain a majority. Any hopes or expectations that they intend to do so are probably misplaced. I'm afraid it's getting very difficult to find anything to be encouraged about on that front.
ReplyDeleteMost of the enemies we are fighting or pretending to fight are monsters of our own creation and the unintended consequences of previous imperial interventions, mostly by us. The eagerness for war is not only a refusal to learn from past mistakes, but a proud insistence on repeating them. I guess there is always some inane rationale for why it'll be different this time.
Arthur Silber had a very good post on the issue of the draft a while back. I'm not sure if it's still around. The argument for the draft is that it makes war less likely by giving everyone a stake. I think there are some real problems with that theory. For one thing, the truly privileged will always be exempt if they want to be, draft or no. Worse than that though, it takes away the one direct means the public has to object to and stop an unnecessary war, by simply not going. If even the dear leader's most fanatical followers won't sign up to fight in his glorious crusades, that's a real problem for him. Sure, the draft helped mobilize opposition to the war in Vietnam, but could that war have gone on nearly as long as it did without the draft? Not having a draft enables people to safely cheer for war from the sidelines and support it with rhetoric, but talk is cheap. When it comes down to it, if people are unwilling to fight or to pay others enough to fight then they are voting against the war in a way that really counts. If the government wants to fight a war and the people don't, why, assuming we actually have something resembling democracy, should the government be able to compel them? The draft, in effect, allows the president to override the actual, as opposed to the rhetorical, will of the people to a much greater extent and for far longer than he otherwise could.
Glenn:
ReplyDelete(2) A couple of weeks ago, I posted about the vicious and hateful (though entirely unsurprising) character and patriotism attacks on Jack Murtha, all because he had obviously been apprized -- and then disclosed -- that the investigation into the deaths of Iraqi civilians in Haditha concluded that they were the result of cold-blooded, wholly unjustified murder by U.S. soldiers. Today, The New York Times confirmed Murtha's statements that the investigation had reached this conclusion. I won't bother noting the apologies owed to Murtha, but it is worth examining the significance of this story.
The NYT did not "confirm" anything of the kind. They did not quote from the report or anyone writing that report.
Instead, the Times quoted unnamed "congressional officials" that the killings appear to be "methodical" and that "most of the bullets that killed the civilians were now thought to have been "fired by a couple of rifles."
Those "congressional officials" wouldn't be from Murtha's office or that of the Donkey leadership, would they?
Murtha has played judge and jury by publicly condemning these Marines for committing cold blooded murder when none of them have even been charged, nevertheless convicted, of such crimes. At minimum, this is callous recklessness. At worst and more probable, it is simply another malicious political attack using our Marines as scapegoats.
As a former Army grunt who has three Marines in his family, Mr. Murtha is cordially invited to f*** himself. (Pardon the French, but that is the most polite I can be concerning the person).
But incidents like these Haditha killings illustrate the moral bankruptcy and sheer stupidity of that mindset. Rational people believe in their gut that war should only be used genuinely as an absolute "last resort." But we have a lot of people in our country, some of whom are employed in and near the Oval Office, who see it as the first and only resort. To the extent that the cold-blooded, calculated murders of innocent Iraqi civilians illustrates the reprehensible folly of that approach, all the better.
Nonsense. That is like saying we should only deploy police as an absolute last resort because there are wrongful police killings.
War should never be the first resort. However, neither should it be the absolute last resort if the alternative is doing nothing in the face of terror and mass murder.
sona: Is this a crie de cour? You bet. I despair with the Congress waking up to its role when its miscreance is threatened with investigation. I despair when racism is brought into play in this although that and its timing remain dubious.
ReplyDeleteThis has to be one of the best comments I've read here in some time. Yet, I do not think that you return to where you started: the "inevitable" atrocities.
When people invoke inevitability in world events, you should look for a gun. For it is this appeal to historical destinies and providence that leads us to such mind-sets that it's all beyond our control, ergo there's no responsibility.
Why should we be surprised when neither Bush nor Blair or anyone else accepts "responsibility" for their actions. For it's all set down in some book of Nostradame or maybe even Daniel; therefore the responsibility lies there, not with us, not with me, not...
So when the soldier spills blood and splatters brain on adobe walls, who's to gainsay they're responsible. With everyone else spewing crap about how this that or the other being being beyond one's control, then why should we appeal to free will and all such inanities?
In such a world where leaders pass the buck to the bottom and rise to the top on the backs of others, who's to blame? Because there's no one there in the video game of Iraq called "Not in My Neighborhood" and "That's Just How Those People Are."
We'll kill and maim and torture--but in their backyard. God forbid we'll see the blood splattered sheets on our doorsteps.
A suggestion on another way for people to help promote the book: contribute to Wikipedia.
ReplyDeleteI created a (short) article at Wikipedia on the book. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Would_a_Patriot_Act%3F"
Please help improve it.
Those "congressional officials" wouldn't be from Murtha's office or that of the Donkey leadership, would they?
ReplyDeleteAn ongoing military investigation supports allegations that U.S. Marines in November killed 24 innocent Iraqi civilians without being provoked, senior Pentagon sources said Friday.
Charges, including murder, could soon be filed against Marines allegedly involved, the sources said.
Unfortunatly, wishing it weren't so isn't going to make the truth go away.
CNN
War should never be the first resort. However, neither should it be the absolute last resort if the alternative is doing nothing in the face of terror and mass murder.
ReplyDeleteBart, you may not devote much thought to the war in Afghanistan, but surely even you would agree that it does not constitute "doing nothing."
The NYT did not "confirm" anything of the kind. They did not quote from the report or anyone writing that report.
ReplyDeleteSorry Bart, I just finished reading the NY Times article and any reasonable person would conclude that the article "confirms" Murtha's accusations and that Glenn's summary is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the article.
Sure, the article doesn't prove anything, you may not put much stock in a NY Times confirmation, or the article may be downright wrong, but as written, the article does confirm Murtha's accusations.
Oh, and by the way, I was talking with Murtha the other day and he speaks very highly of you.
HWSNBN says hypocritically:
ReplyDeleteMurtha has played judge and jury by publicly condemning these Marines for committing cold blooded murder when none of them have even been charged, nevertheless convicted, of such crimes....
... sez the guy that calls Clinton a felon. At least here, it's pretty clear that there is a crime (little girls don't bleed to death from bullet holes in their heads from natural causes).
As I said, HWSNBN will defend the indefencible to his last breath in support of his Fuehr... -- umm, sorry, "Decider".
Cheers,
Aren't we all missing the big picture here? This administration, fed by neocon wetdreams of finding a woman to warm their imperialist dreams of Kubla Khan, glamorize war as the primal and necessary condition for justice.
ReplyDeleteFor a neocon whose penance over neocon sins involves giving the lie to the movement's prudential ineptitude, see Scott Harrop's's reflections on a lecture given by Frank Fukuyama at UVA.
HWSNBN sez:
ReplyDeleteAs a former Army grunt who has three Marines in his family, Mr. Murtha is cordially invited to f*** himself.
Here, let me clean that up a bit:
"As a former likely REMF who has three Marines in his family, the long-term-duty Marine Corp officer Mr. Murtha is cordially invited to f*** himself."
Mr. Murtha cares about the Marine Corps. HWSNBN couldn't give a damn ... the Marine Corps, its reputation, and its honour can all go to hell (and the jarheads can pay with their blood and their lives) ... if that's what's necessary to keep Dubya from being impugned in any way, even indirectly, much less shown to be the amoral incompetent -- responsible for untold human carnage and misery -- that he is.
Cheers,
bart is the embodiment of the video-game mentality "let's just shoot a bunch of things because it's fun and I like to see them bleed." Please don't let his comments on this subject promote the standard waffling "well, I'm in favor of wiping out all the terrorists too" sort of response. He doesn't have a fiber of moral ground to stand on and when you meet him half way you make it appear otherwise.
ReplyDeleteLooka here, you stupid moonbats. If we shoot enough Iraqi civillians, it may not make us any safer from the predations of the terrists, alligators, sex offenders and sharks that prey upon us but it will certainly make some of us feel better.
ReplyDeleteGlenn, your book arrived in the mail yesterday. So far, I've just had time to read the introduction, but I look forward to reading the rest. It is almost creepy how similar our evolutions of thought on the topic have been (although I am sure that I would not be able to articulate my sentiments as well as you have).
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking the lead on such a crucial and challenging cause. Hopefully the book will gather a great deal of momentum now that copies are in people's hands.
cynic librairian - i refer to 'inevitable' war atrocitiies because history records no war without atrocities. War itself as a first option is an atrocity and a failure of politics.
ReplyDeleteI also hold that when a democratic nation goes to war, it needs to do that with the draft so as not to hide its reality from all and sundry.
I come from a family who lost many members in the 1940s and whose survivors became refugees in its aftermath. I was born long after all of that but I know my grandfather lost four of his brothers and took responsibility to trace their families and assumed responsibility for all who survived. I was too young when he died to ask any questions but i did talk to my grandmother. She was adamant that politics as a process breaks down when ordinary people are marginalised to pose questions. You see, she never trusted politicians but questioned our understanding of governance.
I have lived and worked in a number of countries and everywhere I have tried, however inadequately, to understand the historical/cultural baggage and economic and human relaities that ensue.
My take on the US nightmare that is unfolding now is that we hide behind chimerras and invoke these chimerras to evade the essentials.
Racism, or discrimination on the bases of gender, race, religiosity et al in any form, is unacceptable to me. At the same time I question outcomes from policies to extend access to opportunities which do not evaluate the equity relating to outcomes for disadvantaged groups.
I am not a political commenter. I am an ordinary person who cares about the world because I think and have two girls who I hope I have encouraged to think through beyond their their own backyards.
Another thing, education beyond the compulsory years in Grades 11 and 12, should be free, if not compulsory. This is so in many countries not as rich as the USA which also sport better health outcomes than the USA.
OT a wee bit:
ReplyDeleteIs anyone else a tad bit concerned that Bush seems to be directly interfering in a criminal prosecution process vis a vis FBI's warranted search of Cong. Jefferson's office?
I wasn't aware that a President could defy a Federal Judge and his authorized search warrant by "confiscating" the results of the search warrant.
Wouldn't the Judge who authorized the search warrant likely think that the Prez was "obstructing justice"?
If you or I interfered with a judicially-approved search warrant being executed by the FBI, wouldn't we be handcuffed and placed under arrest?
IANAL, so could one of folks here who is explain to me how one can tell a Federal Judge to butt out?
Glenn, isn't this a rather vivid and graphic in-your-face instance of the Unitary Executive in action?
cynic librairian - i refer to 'inevitable' war atrocitiies because history records no war without atrocities. War itself as a first option is an atrocity and a failure of politics.
ReplyDeleteI also hold that when a democratic nation goes to war, it needs to do that with the draft so as not to hide its reality from all and sundry.
sona
I come from a family who lost many members in the 1940s and whose survivors became refugees in its aftermath. I was born long after all of that but I know my grandfather lost four of his brothers and took responsibility to trace their families and assumed responsibility for all who survived. I was too young when he died to ask any questions but i did talk to my grandmother. She was adamant that politics as a process breaks down when ordinary people are marginalised to pose questions. You see, she never trusted politicians but questioned our understanding of governance.
I have lived and worked in a number of countries and everywhere I have tried, however inadequately, to understand the historical/cultural baggage and economic and human relaities that ensue.
My take on the US nightmare that is unfolding now is that we hide behind chimerras and invoke these chimerras to evade the essentials.
Racism, or discrimination on the bases of gender, race, religiosity, sexuality et al in any form, is unacceptable to me. At the same time I question outcomes from policies to extend access to opportunities which do not evaluate the equity relating to outcomes for disadvantaged groups.
I am not a political commenter. I am an ordinary person who cares about the world because I think and have two girls who I hope I have encouraged to think through beyond their their own backyards.
Another thing, education beyond the compulsory years in Grades 11 and 12, should be free, if not compulsory. This is so in many countries not as rich as the USA which also sport better health outcomes than the USA.
I'm a soldier. War is part of what I do (some, like Andrew Sullivan think it ought to be all I do, to him, and those like him the back of my hand).
ReplyDeleteBefore I got to take part in one I was against them. So too were most of my fellows (my ficancée was amazed to discover that, in many ways, my unit was full of pacifists).
Now, I am at least as opposed to them. They lead to things like this. It is telling that so many of those who are railing for more war have never been to one, plan to never go to one, and (absent a draft) will never be in one.
I took heart before this one started that so many vets (esp. of WW2) were opposed to it.
But the idea that war, as policy, is a good thing, and always worth the price... it's insane.
"But what incidents of this type do underscore is that wars are not something that are to be routine or casual tools in foreign policy."
ReplyDelete"We may see from this what a fallacy it would be to refer the war of a civilised nation entirely to an intelligent act on the part of the Government, and to imagine it as continually freeing itself more and more from all feeling of passion in such a way that at last the physical masses of combatants would no longer be required; in reality, their mere relations would suffice—a kind of algebraic action.......
AS long as we have no personal knowledge of war, we cannot conceive where those difficulties lie of which so much is said, and what that genius, and those extraordinary mental powers required in a general have really to do. All appears so simple, all the requisite branches of knowledge appear so plain, all the combinations so unimportant, that, in comparison with them, the easiest problem in higher mathematics impresses us with a certain scientific dignity. But if we have seen war, all becomes intelligible; and still, after all, it is extremely difficult to describe what it is which brings about this change, to specify this invisible and completely efficient Factor.
Everything is very simple in war, but the simplest thing is difficult.....
The consequences of the nature of war, how end and means act in it, how in the modifications of reality it deviates sometimes more sometimes less from its strict original conception, plays backwards and forwards, yet always remains under that strict conception as under a supreme law: all this we must retain in idea, and bear constantly in mind in the consideration of each of the succeeding subjects, if we would rightly comprehend their true relations and proper importance, and not become involved incessantly in the most glaring contradictions with the reality, and at last with our own selves. "
-Carl Von Clausewitz
Sadly the popular image of Clauseitz is almost completely at odds with his actual message.
Bart: Murtha has played judge and jury by publicly condemning these Marines for committing cold blooded murder when none of them have even been charged, nevertheless convicted, of such crimes....
ReplyDelete... sez the guy that calls Clinton a felon.
All the evidence was made public and the man was impeached and disbarred.
At least here, it's pretty clear that there is a crime (little girls don't bleed to death from bullet holes in their heads from natural causes).
Murder is the wrongful and intentional killing of an another. The fact that civilians were killed in a war zone is not necessarily murder.
As I said, HWSNBN will defend the indefencible to his last breath in support of his Fuehr... -- umm, sorry, "Decider".
Numnuts, we are talking about Marines in the field, not the President.
The fact that you and Murtha are condemning these marines or cold blooded murder without a scrap of evidence in order to make malicious political attacks against the President says all that needs to be said about your character.
I'm not excusing this, but what we have here is a bunch of 18,19,and 20 year olds who saw one too many buddy die and "snapped". 5 hours may seem like a long time for a "snap", but its really not - battle stress is no joke and it can have effects that last years and cause serious alterations of mental state. It does not just manifest itself as a murderous rage but can also drive people into detached states where they become creul and methodical, but are no less .
ReplyDeleteIEDs dont always kill quick - Im sure they've seen some slower, uglier, deaths. An 18 year old shouldn't have to lie to his friend and tell him he'll "make it" if he justs holds on a few more minutes.
Hold the guilty to account, but I honestly feel for these kids too.
"Murtha has played judge and jury by publicly condemning these Marines for committing cold blooded murder when none of them have even been charged, nevertheless convicted, of such crimes...."
ReplyDeleteThe nameless, faceless, Marines who actual identities no one in the public actually knows?
keep trying. I'm almost fooled into believing you actually care about these kids and not just about the image of the corp.
From Bart at 10:22PM:
ReplyDelete"All the evidence was made public and the man was impeached and disbarred."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but disbarment can occur for all manner of reasons, not all of them felonious behavior. In President Clinton's case, the entire 'perjury' business was ultimately overturned as entrapment, wasn't it?
And unless I'm misremembering history, no convictions resulted from that sad spectacle of impeachment. So exactly how was President Clinton a 'felon'?
"Murder is the wrongful and intentional killing of an another. The fact that civilians were killed in a war zone is not necessarily murder."
Are you so *dead* inside you have no ethical or moral standards any longer? The unprovoked killing of noncombatant civilans in a war zone, as seems to have happened here, seems about as beyond the pale of acceptable behavior as the pogroms the Hussein regime undertook in the 1980s; at least to anyone who might actually give a damn about human life.
"The fact that you and Murtha are condemning these marines or cold blooded murder without a scrap of evidence in order to make malicious political attacks against the President says all that needs to be said about your character."
The fact you are so quick to deny photographic evidence and the reports coming from the region says all that needs to be said of your (nonexistent) soul.
But Specter gets to say he voted against it, right?
ReplyDeleteann arbor, please glenn.
ReplyDeletethanks.
A breath of sanity from the Left. Read this Euston Manifesto in its entirety and think hard about what is being said here.
ReplyDeletehttp://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2006/04/the_euston_mani.html
This is a path to reunite the nation.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteBart: "Murtha has played judge and jury by publicly condemning these Marines for committing cold blooded murder when none of them have even been charged, nevertheless convicted, of such crimes...."
The nameless, faceless, Marines who actual identities no one in the public actually knows?
keep trying. I'm almost fooled into believing you actually care about these kids and not just about the image of the corp.
Both of them count for those of us who serve. In the military, you are both an individual and part of a larger team greater than yourself.
An attack on the military is and attack on those who serve and an attack on those who serve is an attack on the military.
Court of Appeals upholds unconstitutionality of Patriot Act's National Security Letter provision By Diane E. Dees
ReplyDeleteA federal appeals court ruled Wednesday on two challenges to the National Security Letter provision of the USA Patriot Act filed by the American Civil Liberties Uniion. Two different lower courts found the provision to be unconstitutional, and the ACLU argued that recent amendments to the law have made it even less democratic.
Using the NSL provision of the USA Patriot Act, the FBI can demand a range of personal records--email messages, visited websites, library records--without seeking court approval. In addition, the law puts an automatic gag on anyone whose records are gathered by the FBI.
bart said...
ReplyDeleteA breath of sanity from the Left. Read this Euston Manifesto in its entirety and think hard about what is being said here.
This is a path to reunite the nation.
Bart, nobody wants to reunite with your infinitesmal part of the wingnutitation. The Useless manifesto has already been cobagged, you cobag. Those people are leftists like you or Bush have anything to do with conservatism. You are an idiot.
Bart... Both of them count for those of us who serve. In the military, you are both an individual and part of a larger team greater than yourself.
Boot camp, basic training... it's also called brainwashing.
An attack on the military is and attack on those who serve and an attack on those who serve is an attack on the military.
This DUI defense specialist is probably under the influence right now. Only a drunk could come up with that kind of circular motion. Rub it, Bart! Rub it!
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteFrom Bart at 10:22PM: "All the evidence was made public and the man was impeached and disbarred."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but disbarment can occur for all manner of reasons, not all of them felonious behavior. In President Clinton's case, the entire 'perjury' business was ultimately overturned as entrapment, wasn't it?
:::chuckle:::
How exactly was Clinton "entrapped" at the civil deposition and later before a grand jury?
In any case, no, the impeachment and disbarment was never "overturned."
And unless I'm misremembering history, no convictions resulted from that sad spectacle of impeachment. So exactly how was President Clinton a 'felon'?
The fact that the Senate declined to act to remove Clinton at office for its own political reasons does not mean Clinton is not a felon.
The evidence is overwhelming that Clinton committed at least two counts of felony perjury.
His relationships with government employees was held to be material by the judge in the sexual harassment suit and Clinton was ordered to testify under oath at deposition on that subject. He lied under oath concerning his relationship with Lewinski.
Later, he repeated that same lie before a criminal grand jury assembled to investigate whether Clinton committed perjury at the deposition.
The fact of the relationship and the lies under oath about that relationship are undisputed unless you believe the cock and bull story that Clinton does not believe felatio is really sex.
Bart: "Murder is the wrongful and intentional killing of an another. The fact that civilians were killed in a war zone is not necessarily murder."
Are you so *dead* inside you have no ethical or moral standards any longer? The unprovoked killing of noncombatant civilans in a war zone, as seems to have happened here, seems about as beyond the pale of acceptable behavior as the pogroms the Hussein regime undertook in the 1980s; at least to anyone who might actually give a damn about human life.
Have you ever been in a fire fight or even training for a fire fight?
If you believe the leaks, then it appears that the Marines had been attacked and then went from house to house clearing them.
It is murder if the Marine went into a house, saw and identified unarmed noncombatants and then intentionally killed them.
It is manslaughter if the Marine had reason to believe that there might be unarmed noncombatants in the building but recklessly decided to clear the building by fire (ie spray the inside through a window without necessarily seeing what you are firing at.
However, it is perfectly legal to clear a building by fire if you reasonably believe that the enemy is inside.
This is hardly as clear clear cut as you believe for three reasons.
1) Anonymous hearsay spread by the press may or may not be an accurate portrayal of the report or any criminal charges. The press has a very poor track record accurately reporting the facts in criminal cases.
2) Prosecution documents or reports are not evidence, they are accusations. We had three soldiers court martialed here at Ft Carson accused of drowning a prisoner. The problem was that no one could find a body and the witnesses ended up admitting that they actually did not see these soldiers drown this alleged victim.
3) You have to prove intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt. There is a great deal of reasonable doubt on a battlefield unless you have eye witnesses or confessions.
Remember innocent until proven guilty? These Marines may be guilty of some crime, but I damn well want to see the evidence proving this beyond a reasonable doubt before I make that statement to the world. Murtha knows better.
Bart: "The fact that you and Murtha are condemning these marines or cold blooded murder without a scrap of evidence in order to make malicious political attacks against the President says all that needs to be said about your character."
The fact you are so quick to deny photographic evidence and the reports coming from the region says all that needs to be said of your (nonexistent) soul.
What photographic evidence? Show it too me. All we have is the reporter's version of the hearsay of the infamous anonymous sources with heaven knows what axes to grind.
David Byron @ 7:41
ReplyDeleteOT somewhat: Most scholars agree that George Washington was not the "richest man in the Colonies" at the outbreak of the Revolution.
Charles Carroll of Carrollton is generally thought to have had the largest private fortune at the time -- and for a considerable time after Independence as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Carroll_of_Carrollton
Charles Carroll of Carrollton was a Catholic and thus barred from most civil affairs under English law. He was a fervent advocate of independence and provided a great deal of the financial wherewithal for the rebels.
While his contribution to the Revolution was well known and very highly regarded during his lifetime, burgeoning anti-Catholic sentiment after his death was in part responsible for his near absence from American history after about 1840.
(well, right about that time people
ReplyDeleteA fur-trapper (who was strictly from commercial)
Had the unmitigated audacity to jump up from behind my igloo (peekaboo) )
And he started into whippin on my favorite baby seal
With a lead-filled snowshoe)
I said, with a
Lead-
Filled
With a lead filled snowshoe
He said, peekaboo
I said, with a
Lead-
Filled
With a lead filled snowshoe
He said, peekaboo
He went right upside the head of my favorite baby seal
He went whap with a lead-filled snowshoe, and
He hit him on the nose and hit him on the fin, and he
That got me just about as evil as an eskimo boy can be. so I bent down
And I reached down, and I scooped down and I gathered up a generous
Mitten-ful of the deadly yellow snow
The deadly yellow snow, from right there where the huskies go!
Whereupon I proceeded to take that mittenful of the deadly yellow snow
Crystals and rub it all into his beady little eyes with a vigorous
Circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
To take the place of the mudshark in your mythology
Here it goes,the circular motion, now rub it!
(here fido)
And then
In a fit of anger
I pounced
And I pounced again
Great googly moogly!
I jumped up and down on the chest of the him
I injured
The fur trapper
Well he was very upset, as you can understand
And rightly so, because the
Deadly yellow snow crystals had
Deprived him of his
Sight
And he stood up, and he looked around, and he said
I cant see
I cant see
Oh, woe is me
I cant see
Well.....you know
I cant see
Nothin
He took a dog-doo snow cone and stuffed it in my right eye
He took a dog-doo snow cone and stuffed it in my other eye
And the husky wee-wee
I mean the doggie wee-wee
Has blinded me
And I cant see
Temporarily
Well, the fur-trapper stood there, with his arms outstretched across the
Frozen white wasteland, trying to figure out what he was going to do about
His deflicted eyes. and it was at that precise moment that he remembered
And ancient eskimo legend, wherein it is written (on whatever it is that
They write it on up there) that if anything bad ever happens to your eyes
As the result of some sort of conflict with anyone named
Nanook,
The only way you can get it fixed up is to go
Trudging across the tundra
Mile after mile
Trudging across the tundra
Right down to the parish of st. alphonzo
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeletebart said... A breath of sanity from the Left. Read this Euston Manifesto in its entirety and think hard about what is being said here.
This is a path to reunite the nation.
Bart, nobody wants to reunite with your infinitesmal part of the wingnutitation. The Useless manifesto has already been cobagged, you cobag. Those people are leftists like you or Bush have anything to do with conservatism. You are an idiot.
This manifesto simply rejects the Left abandoning it basic humanity by making excuses for and common cause with tyrants, terrorists and enemies of our country simply out of spite because Mr. Bush is the head of the government fighting them.
So long as you continue to give aid and comfort to the enemy simply to take political shots at the other party, I too do not want anything to do with you either.
I doubt I agree with many of the political beliefs of the man who wrote this manifesto, but if the Left could at least agree to reject tyranny, terror and support for the enemy, all Americans would at least share a common humanity again.
Does it ever bother your conscience at all when you make excuses for Saddam as well as the Baathist and al Qaeda terrorists simply to make Bush look bad?
Bart... Both of them count for those of us who serve. In the military, you are both an individual and part of a larger team greater than yourself.
Boot camp, basic training... it's also called brainwashing.
No, its called self discipline and team work, concepts which appear to be alien to you. Do you even know anyone in the military? I doubt it.
Bart,
ReplyDeleteYou are an idiot and your military experience is about as worthless as the AWOL pussies in the White House and the rest of the GOP. It's brainwashing, and for those who go in without much of a brain, like you, it obviously has a deleterious effect on the ability to think clearly and for yourself. Anyone here can attest to that. I refuse to do more than piss down your back. At least I tell you that's what I'm doing. The main difference between you and I is that you are still trying to tell folks it's raining.
Mission Accomplished!
Iraqi minister defends Iranian nuclear program
'Every country has right' to nuclear technology, Zebari says
Friday, May 26, 2006; Posted: 6:56 p.m. EDT (22:56 GMT)
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iran has a right to develop nuclear technology and the international community should drop its demands that Tehran prove it's not trying to build a nuclear weapon, Iraq's foreign minister said Friday.
HWSNBN keeps flacking for the maladministration (and strangely, chides other in other places for their alleged support of such evils as tyranny):
ReplyDelete[Arne]: At least here, it's pretty clear that there is a crime (little girls don't bleed to death from bullet holes in their heads from natural causes).
Murder is the wrongful and intentional killing of an another. The fact that civilians were killed in a war zone is not necessarily murder.
HWSNBN isn't bothering reading any papers or listening to any TV or radio. He'll say "Lah-lah-laaaahhhh ... I can't heeeeaarrrrrr yoouuuu!" until it becomes breathtakingly ridiculous to maintian that attitude, then he'll go silent and pretend that nothimg happened. He's worse than a useful eedjit; he's an apologist for murder (and that's what it is; I'll eat my leather hat if it's not....). Now he doesn't have to try and play down the murders; they weren't done at the direction of Dubya (at least I hope and expect not, and if they were, that would be an impeachable offence not to mention a war crime worthy of the Hague). But in his blinding "love" for Dubya's butt, anything taht reflects badly on the operation of Dubya's maladministration at any level can't be tolerated, so he's got to jump on the Powerline/Freeper/LFG/InstaHack bandwagon and circle the wagons here "for Dubya" ... rather than saying that this is a horrible event, and we need to get to the bottom of it and find out what happened (and why), no matter what it takes.
HWSNBN shows in exemplary fashion his true character here.
Cheers,
HWSNBN:
ReplyDelete[Arne]: ... sez the guy that calls Clinton a felon.
All the evidence was made public and the man was impeached and disbarred.
Rrrrriggghhtt. In the words of Chief Justice William Rehnquist (who must have been choking on them):
"Not guilty!"
As for the disbarment (in fact, the ArkBA, the only body to hold a actual proceeding on such, only suspended him, and the suspension has been lifted), that was for a violation of the mealy-mouthed MRPC (ArkRPC) Rule 8.4(c), a rule that Mr. "Criminal Prosecutor" DePalma breaks here pretty much on a daily basis.... Hardly a "felony" conviction (and if it is, Mr. DePalma should go find himself a >real lawyer).
HWSNBN is a liar. As dishonest as the day is long. not to mention, a scum-bag, as he shows here in trying to play down these murders.
Cheers,
HWSNBN dissembles:
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you and Murtha are condemning these marines [f]or cold blooded murder without a scrap of evidence in order to make malicious political attacks against the President says all that needs to be said about your character.
Sounds from all the media reports all over the place like there's plenty of evidence. Even the military is acknowledging that some folks are in deep doo-doo and may even be tried for murder.
But where did I or Murtha "attack[] the President" here? I think this is a classical case of projection.
I'm sure it's quite clear to everyone here except Mr. DePalma that it is he that seems to think that this implicates the preznit ... and as I was saying, this only confirms why it is that HWSNBN is jumping out gung ho to defend the indefencible. Now that shows the malignant evil of the folks like HWSNBN and the Powerline/Freeper/LGF/Limbaugh/Hannity coterie.
Cheers,
HWSNBN:
ReplyDeleteAn attack on the military is and attack on those who serve and an attack on those who serve is an attack on the military.
The troll is drinking early today, IC. I don't blame him.
But let's take him at his word: When they convict these young soldiers of the various crimes, we'll see if Mr. DePalma joins them in the brig for their life sentences (or even executions; it is a possibility, sadly), because, you see, "an attack on those who serve is an attack on the military" and "an attack on the military is and [sic] attack on those who serve." So, we'll see if Mr. DePalma steps forward to take responsibilty. I mean, he just impressed on us his philosophy of collective guilt. Right????
Cheers,
According to The Saddam Hussein Sourcebook:
ReplyDeleteWashington D.C., 18 December 2003 - Newly declassified documents posted today on the Web by the National Security Archive show the British Embassy in Baghdad recommending Saddam Hussein to London in 1969 as a "presentable young man" with an "engaging smile," "with whom, if only one could see more of him, it would be possible to do business."
U.S. documents published in today's Saddam Hussein Sourcebook quote Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 1975 telling the Iraqi foreign minister "we do not think there is a basic clash of national interests between Iraq and the United States" (the Iraqi disagreed), and that Israeli influence on U.S. policy would diminish given "our new electoral law" which means "the influence of some who financed the elections before isn't so great."
The newly declassified briefing notes for special envoy Donald Rumsfeld's second trip to Baghdad in March 1984 reveal Rumsfeld's instructions to reinforce the message of U.S. interest in improved relations "at a pace of Iraq's own choosing," and to emphasize that U.S. criticism of Saddam's chemical weapons use versus Iran was not meant as a pro-Iranian or anti-Iraq gesture. Saturday, December 20, marks the 20th anniversary of Rumsfeld's famous handshake meeting with Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.
HWSNBN screws up the law again (thank goodness it's only "murdering" the law, and not apologising for actual killings of children):
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the Senate declined to act to remove Clinton at office for its own political reasons does not mean Clinton is not a felon.
Ummm, wasn't the hypocrite HWSNBN just saying that people shouldn't be termed guilty without a trial?
But they did return a verdict (maybe one that HWSNBN can't stand, but fortunately, they get to decide under our laws and government, not him). In the words of Rehnquist: "Not guilty!"
The evidence is overwhelming that Clinton committed at least two counts of felony perjury.
Nonsense. Amongst other things, there's three different elemets to the crime of perjury, belief in falsity (note that false material statements are not necessarily perjurious; strange as it may seem, as well, if you take the perjury chapter [18 USC 1621 et seq.] literally, in fact one could argue that a perjury conviction could be upheld for a statemet that was true ... as long as the person that made it thought it to be false), under oath, and material. HWSNBN thinks that both the belief in falsity and the materiality are overwhelmingly proved. Simply not true.
His relationships with government employees was held to be material by the judge in the sexual harassment suit and Clinton was ordered to testify under oath at deposition on that subject. He lied under oath concerning his relationship with Lewinski.
Two problems here: First, Judge Wright excluded the Lewinsky stuff from the Jones case.
Second, and more important, materiality is not a matter for the judge to decide (nor did she, seeing as she has neither the need nor the ability to do so). See U.S. v. Gaudin.
HWSNBN is simply ignorant of the law (and spouting the RW "talking points" that were similarly wrong ... whether intentionally or through ignorance).
Cheers,
Bart and other wingnuts
ReplyDeleteFYI the Euston Manifesto was thought up over an alcoholic pub session by one of its author's admission. It has since been disavowed by the party itself. Its no more than an incoherent apologia for the US neocon talking points which got crushed in the recent UK local elections. You talk to a Brit re the Euston Manifesto and (s)he would think you come from Mars. So come back to Mother Earth and don't pontificate about other countries of which you know very little. At least the Brits know how to sort their traitors out, monarchy or no monarchy and their judges do not toe a dictated line. They also have an enviable MSM that the US can only dream of. I have family and friends in both the UK and in Australia so I do know where I am coming from.
And now, Dick Cheney is saying 'it's not domestic spying,' repeating the 'if someone's talking to al-Qaeda, we want to know' and sprinkling magic security dust over the whole thing.
ReplyDeleteThe goal is not to out-guess the terrorists. The goal is to have security and emergency procedures that are not dependent on the magic intercept theory, because the worst attacks are going to be the ones you don't know about.
But, just as it was in California after the 1989 quake, there were some people who were so afraid of bridges or freeways collapsing that they avoided them. Fear makes people do dumb things.
Oh, and since WE aren't talking to Iran, Iran is talking to IRAQ. It's only in a world where both the British PM and American President can admit to making mistakes in their execution of a war, but gosh, there's nothing wrong with WAR, per se.
And we expect these clowns to have a coherent plan for Iran, diplomatically or militarily? Right.
I haven't read Glenn's book yet (but will this weekend) but I am somewhat surprised by some of the initial "reviews" I am getting back from people to whom I had sent the book.
ReplyDeleteThese are mostly apolitical people who don't like what has been happening in this country but who have generally taken the attitude "nothing's going to change" so they are mostly concerned with their own lives.
I thought they would say a polite "Interesting book, he really makes some good points, etc."
But instead they are saying "Great book!
This is highly compelling reading and the author's style and approach are totally unique" and "This is an extraordinary book and we simply couldn't put it down once we started it."
I asked one person today (who is only halfway through the book but has already called me twice just to rave about it as he is going along---which is the first time he ever called me about anything "political") if he had even been really aware of these issues before reading the book.
In truth is I know he has been somewhat aware because I was hardly talking about anything else these past months. But everyone doesn't like when I started talking about these matters because I got too emotional, I started to ramble, and I just drove everyone completely crazy so they all asked me to please stop which I finally did. They said they preferred me the way I used to be, which was pretty much happy-go lucky and I rarely talked or thought about anything political.
That's why I couldn't wait for Glenn's book to come out, because I figured I would just send it to everyone and if Glenn can't enlighten them then I never would have been able to anyway but at least I would have tried by putting before them the best person making the best argument in the most persuasive and rational way.
Anyway this friend said "Yes, there has been been a lot of coverage of most of these issues in the news. But reading this book is an entirely different experience because it makes one focus on the whole picture in a way that listening to the news or reading newspapers does not and Glenn's passion is actually contagious."
Yikes! I never thought that would happen. Reading Glenn's book is arousing actual passion in these people. I can't wait to read it myself even though I have the opposite problem: I need to get less passionate about all this to start bracing myself for a possible unhappy ending.
A friend who is a psychiatrist once told me "One difference between an adult and a child is that when something bad happens, a rational adult adjusts to the situation, accepts the new reality and finds a way to go on with his life. Children don't have that capacity so each time something really bad happens to them they think it is the complete end of the world."
This poses a problem. I admit that when I first learned about Abu Graib and the fact that our country had instituted a policy of state sanctioned torture (which was the first time I started to become aware of everything that is happening) I did feel it was the end of the world.
I initially thought there must be some kind of mistake or it was a hoax or it was a lie in the newspapers because it never even occurred to me that there was anyone in our government who didn't think that such practices were crimes against humanity and were only true of brutal, despotic regimes in other countries.
The problem is that even when it finally became clear this was the "new reality", I just could not figure out how to "adjust" to it. And everytime I read about some new really terrible thing happening, I again get that "end of the world" feeling of doom especially for "America", which I guess I just sort of assumed would always stand for the old reality at least about clear cut issues like state sanctioned torture and the basic civil liberties of all Americans.
In short this adult "adjustment" is a real bitch to deal with.
May I ask how everyone else is dealing with all this?
Bart said...
ReplyDeleteAs a former Army grunt who has three Marines in his family, Mr. Murtha is cordially invited to f*** himself.
Prior to practicing law, Bart DePalma had the honor of serving his country in the US Army's 82d Airborne and 3d Infantry Divisions. Mr. DePalma is a combat veteran of the Persian Gulf War, where he served as an infantry platoon leader.
So tell us more about your military service, Bart. Regale us with your "war stories". And please do better than the "I saw evil Republican guard units rape women and then kill them with AK-47 abortions" variety. The last time this country had units engaged in heroic mortal combat worthy of a Homeric retelling was in Somalia and you weren't there. You either didn't try for Ranger school (odd that, because the brainwashing is designed to get everyone to try) or you washed out (most do). Your "military experience" blerb is a bit vague. Give us some details so we can verify them. One doesn't need to actually see any combat to call themselves a "combat veteran of the Gulf War". Care to post your DD-214 for us?
John Kerry did.
I've often wondered where this nonsense originated...
ReplyDelete"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because tough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
I think this is it... How pathetic is that? Orwell never said that. Some schmuck with lthe absurd nom de plume of John Ringo just made it up and other dumb schmucks, like Bart, just lap it up.
Bart, you are pathetic. John Kerry saw more combat during the 2004 election than you will see in your entire lifetime. We aren't counting the juvenile, narcisisstic fantasies that bubble up from the shallows of your puerile mind.
I wonder if "John Ringo" might be one of the many psuedonyms of this illiterate co-gasbag, J.R. Dunn, who also writes sci-fi and fantasy for that wingnut site, The American Thinker.
ReplyDelete"But what incidents of this type do underscore is that wars are not something that are to be routine or casual tools in foreign policy. The outright eagerness and excitement for more and more wars that we see so frequently from some circles is not only unseemly and ugly unto itself -- although it is that -- but it is also so reckless and unfathomably foolish."
ReplyDeleteThose of us who are veterans have known this for quite some time. It's a shame that we elect officials that elected not to serve when it was their turn, and now force the whole country to re-learn what was already known at the expense of yet more dead and wounded.
The real solution will most likely never happen but I'll put it out there anyway. If everyone wants all but the most necessary wars to stop being fought all that has to be done is to require that the children of the leaders that want war be required to serve in combat on the front lines.
I can guarantee that we would not be in Iraq if Bush's daughters had been required to serve driving trucks in convoys there.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI've often wondered where this nonsense originated...
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because tough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
Which part did you find nonsenensical, that it was misattributed or a false observation?
If it's the attribution, who cares? Quite a few truism's are credited to anonymous, even though we can tell that you in particular aren't that smart.
If it's the "truthiness" of the saying, take away police and military and you have Sudan. I doubt the population there sleeps well at night.
Lastly, it is an awful irony that you should write this on memorial weekend, where men and women are honored for protecting your pampered little patootie with their very lives.
Laws are enforced and taxes are paid at the end of a loaded gun. Remember that the next time you look for someone to enforce your point of view.
Glenn, regarding the Chicago area for your book tour, suggest your publisher contact Lauren Beth Gash, chair of the 10th District Democrats (see tenthdems.org). This district includes parts of the North Shore with some very important people. The 10th Dems are actively supporting Dan Seals in what I believe will be a very competitive race with Congressman Mark Kirk and I'm sure there is a good possibility of tie-in with Seals' campaign and your book, if you would be interested.
ReplyDeleteI noticed that Bush dragged his "humble" persona out of some dust covered closet for the speech with Blair the other night.
ReplyDeleteProblem is that his mistakes which he is belatedly admitting to aren't like: Sorry I forgot to pick up the laundry, or get the milk or whatever. His mistakes have cost 2,500 American lives, and have forever altered the lives of 18,000 more that have been wounded. All of which were completely unnecessary.
Anonymous writes:
ReplyDelete"So tell us more about your military service, Bart. Regale us with your "war stories"."
Well let's see if I have this straight.... you who are not strong enough to use a identifying handle... are castigating a combat veteran, that has the additional sand to come here to present his POV, in the midst of slings and arrows?
Bart, for all the serious people here, let me say...thank you.
Anonymous writes:
ReplyDelete"So tell us more about your military service, Bart. Regale us with your "war stories"."
Well let's see if I have this straight.... you who are not strong enough to use a identifying handle... are castigating a combat veteran, that has the additional sand to come here to present his POV, in the midst of slings and arrows?
Bart, for all the serious people here, let me say...thank you.
sona said...
ReplyDeleteBart and other wingnuts
FYI the Euston Manifesto was thought up over an alcoholic pub session by one of its author's admission. It has since been disavowed by the party itself. Its no more than an incoherent apologia for the US neocon talking points which got crushed in the recent UK local elections.
The fact that a leftist must get drunk in order to condemn tyranny, mass murder and terrorism and then runs away from that condemnation when he is sober says all that needs to be said about the state of the modern Left.
Thanks for that reminder that the madness continues unabated.
ender said...
ReplyDeleteBart said... As a former Army grunt who has three Marines in his family, Mr. Murtha is cordially invited to f*** himself.
Screw it being a stain on the honor of the Marine Corps. It is obviously that - hell, treating the actually fighting enemy with anything other than respect is a stain on the Marine Corps. The considerations of Marine Corps "honor" are secondary here.
The actions of those murderers are an affront to humanity and you and any Marine in your family that doesn't see this event as such is not only a person completely devoid of honor him/herself but also a pathetic excuse for a human being. A total dirtbag deserving of nothing but ridicule and perhaps a good beating.
Pardon me if I do not condemn your fellow Marines without seeing any evidence and without a trial to cross examine that evidence on the word of the NYT.
IF and only if the evidence shows murder beyond a reasonable doubt, then and only then will I condemn these Marines as murderers.
The fact that you are ready to condemn fellow Marines as murderers without seeing a scarp of evidence says far more about your sense of justice than it does mine.
I'm sure everyone has heard that Dick Cheney's office has asserted it is EXEMPT from the reporting requirements applied to all other federal offices.
ReplyDeleteFor those not familiar, or who need a refresher, here's a link to a story about it:
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com
/news_theswamp/2006/05/
cheneys_secret_.html
What struck me on reading this particular reporting is this chilling, and so far as I know, unremarked upon claim by the VP's office:
“These reporting requirements are not applicable to (the office of the vice president),’’ Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride said today. “This has been thoroughly reviewed and it’s been determined that the reporting requirement does not apply to (the office), which has both legislative and executive functions."
Not only does this administration assert its power to ignore the law and the Constitution as it pleases, but now they have created a new Constitutional designation of powers: the veep's office is both Executive AND Legislative.
This for an office which has historically been essentially without ANY power!
I'm sure they'll use the rationale that the Veep is also the President of the Senate, but they'll ignore that he has NO VOTE, except to be a tie-breaker.
This is breathtaking and appalling. It confirms what should be pellucidly apparent to all by now: Dick Cheney is the chief architect of this administration, its primary war criminal and traitor against America, with Rumsfeld as his chief lieutenant, and Li'l Butch as their witless patsy, his confused jumble of pro-business and "pro-Jesus" (sic) half-thoughts the perfect stew to appeal to an ignorant and superstitious public, and to keep Li'l Butch himself confused as to who is the real power in the White House today.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteBart said...As a former Army grunt who has three Marines in his family, Mr. Murtha is cordially invited to f*** himself.
From Bart's Firm Website: Prior to practicing law, Bart DePalma had the honor of serving his country in the US Army's 82d Airborne and 3d Infantry Divisions. Mr. DePalma is a combat veteran of the Persian Gulf War, where he served as an infantry platoon leader.
So tell us more about your military service, Bart... One doesn't need to actually see any combat to call themselves a "combat veteran of the Gulf War". Care to post your DD-214 for us? John Kerry did.
Unlike Mr. Kerry, I don't spend my time telling war stories for self glorification, but since you have challenged my veracity, here is a short summary of my military career.
I served from 1983-1986 as a Sergeant in HHC, 307th Engineer Bn, 82d Airborne Division.
I served from 1989 to 1993 as a Lieutenant working as an infantry platoon leader of 3d Platoon, A Co., 1/7 Infantry Battalion, 3d Brigade, 3d ID, then mortar platoon leader for the same battalion and then as a brigade assistant intelligence officer.
In the Persian Gulf War, the 1st Armored Division was ordered to deploy and our 3d Brigade was sent with them to replace their 1st Brigade, which was drawn down to the point of being combat ineffective.
I had the honor of commanding a platoon of 4 Bradley IFVs.
My platoon was in major combat during three engagements, primarily around a unnamed rise along the Iraqi / Kuwait border which some books later nicknamed Medina Ridge after the RG tank division we destroyed there.
My Platoon received artillery, tank and small arms fire, but thank heaven we did not lose anyone.
Since you and John Kerry seem to have a fixation with medals, my platoon of 35 men earned around 6 bronze stars, one of which was awarded to myself. The 3d Brigade was honored with a meritorious unit citation, one of only a very few awarded in that conflict.
However, I usually do not talk about my Bronze Star, and I certainly do not feature it on my webiste like Mr. Kerry, because I do not feel that I did anything heroic to earn it. I simply did my job.
Also unlike Mr. Kerry, I wasn't putting myself in for medals. The only medals I requested were Bronze Stars for two of my enlisted troops - one was a driver who saved his Bradley by maneuvering it out of artillery fire when his vehicle commander lost it and would not respond to my orders. The second was a young gunner from Arizona who destroyed 14 enemy tanks and BMPs in about 20 minutes. The medals were both deservedly awarded.
Nothing special about my story. Tens of thousands now have stories just like it.
This Memorial Day, go thank a veteran if you know one and honor those who have fallen by thinking about them and what they accomplished for maybe a moment or two.
Bart said:
ReplyDelete"War should never be the first resort. However, neither should it be the absolute last resort if the alternative is doing nothing in the face of terror and mass murder."
You are offering false choices once again Bart. The choice of going to war or doing nothing in the face of terror and mass murder.
War should always be the last resort after all other means of resolving a situation prove useless. Most of the rest of the world were still calling for more diplomacy and for giving inspections another chance when Bush made the unilateral decision to invade Iraq. There was no need to rush into war with Iraq. All of the evidence points to the fact that Bush and his administration lied because he wanted a war with Iraq, not because we needed to go to war there. The results of those lies lie in 2,500 graves across the U.S. and in the pain and suffering of the 18,000 wounded there. Just as importantly, rushing to war in Iraq distracted us from accomplishing a mission that was important, capturing or killing Osama bin Laden , the individual that actually was responsible for attacking us and for the death of 3,000 Americans
Bart @ 11:50 AM
ReplyDeleteAbout what I expected. They give that crap out like lollipops at the doactor's office now, Bart. Did the fire your unit received come from the enemy or our own troops. More American troops died in friendly fire incidents than as a result of fire from the Iraqis in GWI. Blow it out yer ass, Bart. You are about as much of a "war hero" as Beetle Bailey is. GWI was a propaganda fest like Reagan's excellent adventure in Grenada.
Since you and John Kerry seem to have a fixation with medals, my platoon of 35 men earned around 6 bronze stars, one of which was awarded to myself. The 3d Brigade was honored with a meritorious unit citation, one of only a very few awarded in that conflict.
ReplyDeleteThat's because so few units saw any action what so ever. Most of the killing of the enemy was done from above.
As to your suggestion about what I do on Memorial day, Bart... At my age I thank my lucky stars that neither me or my son are no longer a part of that increasingly fascist organization, the U.S. Military. It's one thing to have served yourself under previously more sane administrations. It's quite another to have your children involved in this nightmare. The U.S. military is never any stronger than it's weakest link. Right about now, that weakest link resides in the WH.
Put up the DD-214, Bart... or shut up.
Bart will never admit that we were all better off with Saddam as that "Rough man" on the wall with a gun. I hate to admit it myself, that Bush One may have been right about not going into Baghdad. I still think it may have been better in hindsight, but who could have imagined back then that these dumb fucks in office now would pull such a lame stunt. Thanks to Bush 2 and the misuse of American military might the world is a much more dangerous place than it ever was throughout most of the Cold War.
ReplyDeleteGris Lobo said...
ReplyDeleteBart said: "War should never be the first resort. However, neither should it be the absolute last resort if the alternative is doing nothing in the face of terror and mass murder."
You are offering false choices once again Bart. The choice of going to war or doing nothing in the face of terror and mass murder.
I am not offering any choices because I am offering my generic scale of when war is justified.
Let me attempt to clarify my position.
At some point, our national interests have to dictate that inaction is insufficient to deal with a threat or a problem. Among those national interests is sometimes to stop mass murder.
You should always start with diplomacy and try to settle the problem with words instead of bullets.
Then, if it can be effective, you can take positive or negative economic action against the party raising the threat.
Your last option is war.
In the case of Iraq, we spent over a dozen years going through this scale before we arrived at war.
ender said...
ReplyDeleteBart said...Pardon me if I do not condemn your fellow Marines without seeing any evidence and without a trial to cross examine that evidence on the word of the NYT...
The fact that you are ready to condemn fellow Marines as murderers without seeing a scarp of evidence says far more about your sense of justice than it does mine.
I will not pardon you Bart. Not for this and not for you being you. I agree that I should have qualified my statement to read "if they are found guilty of murder" but that to me is not even what this discussion is about. I don't know whether they are guilty or not and neither do you. They will have their day in court.
This is about you and your ilks willingness to smear Murtha for telling what he believes wholeheartedly to be truth based on the info he has been given just so you can score political points.
1) How do you know whether Murtha is telling what he believes to be true?
2) Murtha is the one attempting to score political points. Right after he condemned these Marines as murderers, he said it wasn't their fault and blamed it on the war which is has been politically campaigning against. IF those Marines are actually guilty of what they are accused, then they damn well are responsible and should be hammered.
The story itself has not given you pause only the fact that Murtha is telling it.
If George Bush made those same statements I would be even more infuriated because he should know better just in the same way I was infuriated with the Elephants who participated in that embarrassing episode of nativism by attacking the Dubai Ports deal.
When it comes to national defense, I find Donkeys to be largely clueless and ignorant, so I cut them more slack. Elephants should know better and have no excuse.
Will you retract all the negative things you have said about Murtha with regards to this issue if those Marines are indeed found guilty of the crimes?
No. My point for the umpteenth time is that Murtha condemned these men as murderers before the evidence was subject to cross examination by the press if not at trial. Whether a trial later finds these men guilty or innocent does not change the fact that a Congressman in a position of responsibility should not be publicly condemning our soldiers in the field in the middle of a war before the evidence is in and is subject to cross examination.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteSince you and John Kerry seem to have a fixation with medals, my platoon of 35 men earned around 6 bronze stars, one of which was awarded to myself. The 3d Brigade was honored with a meritorious unit citation, one of only a very few awarded in that conflict.
That's because so few units saw any action what so ever. Most of the killing of the enemy was done from above.
Actually, that is incorrect. The Air Force's kill ratio against units on the ground was found to be vastly overstated after the war. The Iraqis were actually very good engineers and has set up numerous dummy positions which we bombed to no effect.
Try reading some books.
As to your suggestion about what I do on Memorial day, Bart... At my age I thank my lucky stars that neither me or my son are no longer a part of that increasingly fascist organization, the U.S. Military.
That is all that needs to be said about your "support" (sic) for our military.
AMEN.
ReplyDeleteMr. Murtha's Rush to Judgment
Sunday, May 28, 2006; B06
A year ago I was charged with two counts of premeditated murder and with other war crimes related to my service in Iraq. My wife and mother sat in a Camp Lejeune courtroom for five days while prosecutors painted me as a monster; then autopsy evidence blew their case out of the water, and the Marine Corps dropped all charges against me ["Marine Officer Cleared in Killing of Two Iraqis," news story, May 27, 2005].
So I know something about rushing to judgment, which is why I am so disturbed by the remarks of Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) regarding the Haditha incident ["Death Toll Rises in Haditha Attack, GOP Leader Says," news story, May 20]. Mr. Murtha said, "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."
In the United States, we have a civil and military court system that relies on an investigatory and judicial process to make determinations based on evidence. The system is not served by such grand pronouncements of horror and guilt without the accuser even having read the investigative report.
Mr. Murtha's position is particularly suspect when he is quoted by news services as saying that the strain of deployment "has caused them [the Marines] to crack in situations like this." Not only is he certain of the Marines' guilt but he claims to know the cause, which he conveniently attributes to a policy he opposes.
Members of the U.S. military serving in Iraq need more than Mr. Murtha's pseudo-sympathy. They need leaders to stand with them even in the hardest of times. Let the courts decide if these Marines are guilty. They haven't even been charged with a crime yet, so it is premature to presume their guilt -- unless that presumption is tied to a political motive.
ILARIO PANTANO
Jacksonville, N.C.
The writer served as a Marine enlisted man in the Persian Gulf War and most recently as a platoon commander in Iraq.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/27/AR2006052700846_pf.html
Murtha is making even more inflammatory accusations:
ReplyDeleteRep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat and former marine who has become a fierce critic of the Iraq war, said he had no doubt marines killed innocent civilians in Haditha and tried to cover up the deaths. Marine Corps officials, he said on the same television program, have told him that troops shot one woman "in cold blood" who was bending over her child begging for mercy.
The only possible way to prove this is through an eyewitness. Yet, the NYT through yet another anonymous Iraqi stringer allegedly interviewed four witnesses and even they admit:
The four survivors' accounts could not be independently corroborated, and it was unclear in some cases whether they actually saw the killings.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/29/world/middleeast/29haditha.html?ex=1306555200&en=2e086fdf0b71ad92&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
And yet Murtha continues to spew this filth without evidence, charges or a trial.
anonymous:
ReplyDeleteHe ["Bart"] padded his resume...
Ayup. A student internship in the Office of the District Attorney becomes "served as a criminal prosecutor". And then the blowhard has the balls to say he doesn't make up stories "like Kerry" to aggrandize himself. What a big stemaing pile'o'sh*te...
Don't believe a word of what "Bart" says unles there's notarized documentary evidence to back it up.
Cheers,
THIS is why you do not convict suspects before the evidence is in.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to video from the drone, investigators have records of radio message traffic between the Marines and a command center, said military defense lawyers who have discussed the investigation with Marines who were at Haditha but who have not yet been formally retained by them.
"There's a ton of information that isn't out there yet," said one lawyer, who, like the others, would speak only on the condition of anonymity because a potential client has not been charged. The radio message traffic, he said, will provide a different view of the incident than has been presented by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and other members of Congress. For example, he said, contrary to Murtha's account, it will show that the Marines came under small-arms fire after the roadside explosion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/29/AR2006052900928.html
In late breaking news:
ReplyDeleteNew evidence shows that Bart is still a hypocritical blowhard....