Heckuva Job Louis Freeh Endorses Rudy

If ever two people matched each other these two guys are it. Louis Freeh, likely
the worst F.B.I. director in U.S. history, not to mention the most self aggrandizing,
is supporting Rudy, who decided that even after the World Trade Center buildings
were hit that the command center should still be inside of them.

Louis Freeh, Democrat Bill Clinton's FBI director, is going over to the other side in a big way today – endorsing Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani, the Daily News has learned. The high-profile endorsement is a boon to the former mayor, whose views on security and terrorism can only benefit from having an international lawman like Freeh in his corner, experts said. … .. Ex-Clinton FBI chief pushing Prez Rudy

This is just laughable.

Let's remember something that everyone seems to want to conveniently forget:
It was Louis Freeh's F.B.I. that was caught with their pants down on 9/11. Freeh's
tenure was from September 1, 1993 – June 25, 2001. Get it?

Freeh was in charge when Colleen Rowley was ignored.

Freeh was in charge when he allowed his F.B.I. agents to be sent to New Orleans
to investigate a brothel by John Ashcroft, instead of tracking down Islamic
terrorists about to attack us.

Freeh was in charge when the terrorists were slipping in and out of the United
States under our very noses.

The 9/11 Commission had some stinging criticism of Freeh’s FBI, saying that though he had made counterterrorism the top priority in 1998, he never shifted manpower accordingly. “Well, what they’re referring to there is the fact that when Congress appropriates FBI resources, particularly FBI agents, the Congress dictates where those people are assigned,” explains Freeh, adding that he couldn’t assign his own people to the jobs that he felt were most important. But he acknowledged he could have shifted more agents to counterterrorism, if he had just asked Congress for permission. On September 11, six percent of FBI personnel were working on counterterrorism, while twice as many agents were assigned to drug enforcement. “60 Minutes”

Freeh was the one who was in the middle of it all when red lights were making
George Tenet's brain short circuit that fateful summer, and Richard Clarke was
trying to get anyone in the Bush White House to have a meeting on terrorism
because he knew something was about to blow.

So, in the middle of all this, what did Freeh do? He walked away from the F.B.I.
less than 3 months before the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil, right in
the middle of a summer that had the most serious warnings of an attack ever
to come to light since Pearl Harbor. Then decided to write a book about Bill
Clinton, blaming everything on him.

And just like Rudy, former F.B.I. director Louis Freeh has gotten mostly a
pass on 9/11, while Rudy continues to wear a halo. They deserve each other,
but not for the reasons everyone is touting and certainly not in the way Rudy's
campaign is pimping today.

Share

Patraeus’s Self Evaluation updated

This is priceless.

Some of you might remember the chat
I had with Rand
Beeers of NSN. Well yesterday, Ilan
Goldenberg, the Executive Director of NSN, wrote about the insanity of General
Patraeus giving himself a “self-evaluation.”

So would this ever happen in the corporate world? You have an employee. He’s doing a job. You ask him to evaluate how he is doing his job. You base your entire evaluation on his own assessment without getting any objective outside input. Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it. But that’s exactly what President Bush wants us to do when evaluating whether or not the “surge” is working. We are supposed to sit tight and wait for General Petraeus to deliver his report in September and tell us how well he is doing his job. Then based on his own self evaluation Congress should make a decision. The conflict of interest is brutally obvious. Petraeus is inextricably tied to the “surge”. Concluding that it isn’t working would be a huge blow to his own career and legacy. Not to mention any political aspirations that he may have after life in the military. He has also realized that one of the centers of gravity for the war is American public support. Without it the war can’t go on and his strategy has no chance. He seems to be taking it upon himself to try and build that support. Finally, there is his previous behavior. Larry Korb points out that Petraeus has injected himself into politics before, writing an op-ed six weeks before the 2004 election arguing that the Iraq Security Force training was going well. Keeping all of this in mind, it’s not surprising to see reports that military leaders are already starting to move the goal posts on the September report so that they can project an image of success instead of failure. I can tell you what the Petraeus report will say. It’s what every employee self evaluation says. “I’m doing a great job, but just to show you that I’m a modest guy here are some areas where I can improve.” Petraeus’s Employee Self Evaluation

Not long afterwards, Petraeus’s spokesperson was online defending his boss.
Didn’t DoD ban this type of web interaction? You’ve got to read
it for yourself. Needless to say it’s a bit, let’s just say, defensive.

UPDATE: The saga continues.

And since we’re speaking about Iraq, as a quick update to the Petraeus post, I just got an email from Ilan Goldenberg, the Executive Director of NSN. He’s got quite a dialogue going on with Colonel Boylan, Petraeus’s spokesman, which ends up with Boylan getting smacked. Part of it revolves around Lawrence Korb’s recent op-ed, which calls out Lt. General Petraeus’s misleading op-ed in the Washington Post right before the ’04 election. This is a must read, but here’s a snippet. The Colonel also argues that: General Petraeus over the times he has been in Iraq has written op-eds on various topics in order to provide context to what is happening on the ground. But actually I did a little research and was not able to find another op-ed in a major newspaper that General Petraeus has written in the past five years. My search included more than 200 newspapers including almost all of the highest circulation papers in the country as well as most of the large circulation magazines. If I missed something, I would ask the Colonel to correct me. But as far as I can tell, the piece that came out six weeks before the 2004 election and conveniently reiterated the President’s talking points is the only one out there in a major U.S. newspaper. This only reiterates Korb’s point. More Petraeus

Share

Video Snippet of Bill-O Rant Full video, including trailer park set up.

You knew it was going to happen.

The moment John Edwards said he wouldn't participate in the Fox “News”
Nevada presidential debate all hell broke loose. All the candidates followed
his lead. It's costing Edwards plenty, at least on Fox.

Last night, Bill-O went after him, tying him to Rosie O'Donnell, as well as
dragging out his trailer park neighbors to say he's a big rich guy. O'Reilly
never mentioned once the humble beginnings of where John Edwards started his
life. It was as if he was born with a law degree in his diaper.

In the next hour, Sean Hannity continued the drill, though I'd had my fill
by then and didn't watch it.

The message is clear and very simple, if a bit threatening. If you're a Democrat
who dares to stand up to the Fox smears you're going to get the same treatment.
Clinton gets it all the time. Obama has had his share, too, until Ailes compared
him to Osama.

The Fox “News” channel is in ratings free fall. Someone has to pay.
Edwards helped publicize what they're all about. He's in the target zone.

While Rosie O'Donnell is a poster girl for far left propaganda, far more serious is the conduct of John Edwards. The former vice presidential candidate has sold his soul to far left interests and is now telling the world the war on terror is a “bumper sticker.” — Imagine losing a loved one on 9/11 hearing that. Edwards is running a preposterous campaign. He lives like a sultan in a 30,000 foot North Carolina house. Look at that! Yet he decries economic unfairness in America. He runs around telling Americans the system is rigged, while paying $400 for a haircut. This guy is a one-man sitcom. Now across the street from his palatial mansion is a trailer park where working class Americans live. They are neighbors of John Edwards. Some like him. Most don't. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He don't know — he really doesn't know what two Americas are. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everybody here is just normal income people. You know, just live day-to-day. And I don't think he knows anything about us. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do you have in common with John Edwards? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I can't imagine anything. He don't know anything about the things I know about. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't know if he knows how to help poor people or lower class people. He doesn't know them. He doesn't — you got to know something about something before you can help the problem. He doesn't know anything about it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When he talks about the two Americas, what do you think he means when he's talking about that? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't know. He says many different things. I just don't pay any attention to what he says any more. (END VIDEO CLIP) O'REILLY: We couldn't find anybody in the trailer park to say anything nice about John Edwards. Now “Talking Points” tries to respect all of those who want to serve their country, but Edwards is an exception. I have no respect for him. He's a phony and is in the tank for special interest to damage this country. Edwards is going nowhere, but deserves to be called out. And that's “The Memo.” John Edwards and Rosie O'Donnell

Share

Valerie Plame Was Covert

VIDEO: Valerie Plame was covert. More testimony videos.

Oh, Victoria. Ms. Toensing, dahling. Let us review, shall we? Oh, yes, let's.

Joseph Wilson's wife, you remember, the covert C.I.A. agent? Well, about that
“covert” status you went on and on and on about, my dear. Read it
and weep, because the right-wing neocon slime machine lost this one, unfortunately
so did this country.

An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was “covert” when her name became public in July 2003. The summary is part of an attachment to Fitzgerald's memorandum to the court supporting his recommendation that I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Cheney's former top aide, spend 2-1/2 to 3 years in prison for obstructing the CIA leak investigation. … .. Plame was ‘covert’ agent at time of name leak Newly released unclassified document details CIA employment

So next time you Republicans talk about being “strong on national defense,”
remember this: the Bush administration systematically went about not only destroying
Valerie Plame's career, but getting rid of an expert actually working on WMDs.
Nice job, Victoria, you Republicans must be so proud.

Larry Johnson, her former fellow C.I.A. brother has more, including a long overdue I told you so.

Share

Obama’s health care plan is finally being unveiled. Details are coming out
slowly, with Kevin
Drum getting more
from the campaign than the AP
offered earlier, which wasn’t worth much. Obama’s website gives the
overview. The WSJ has some
details too.

The Edwards plan
is up if you want to compare.

Clinton on health
care also includes a video taken at her appearance at the Las Vegas healthcare
forum, where she outshined them all.

But all these plans will likely turn pale when Michael
Moore’s “Sicko” debuts. Moore also takes on both sides, as well as the
American people for putting up with what the insurance industry dishes out.
He reminds us that the same industries creating our heathcare crisis give money to both political parties.

It’s important that candidates put their ideas about healthcare out in the
open. I was highly critical of Obama’s performance at the Nevada forum, because
he basically just winged it. Putting out some sort outline isn’t that tough, frankly, because we all know the basics of what needs to be included, so not having one is just lazy. The real issue isn’t any candidate’s particular plan it’s the people you have to get ready to oppose
and fight: Big Insurance and Big Pharma. No candidate wants to touch that nightmare, especially when they are receiving their money. But no healthcare plan matters if the candidate won’t take on the big money people inside.

After Michael Moore’s movie “Sicko” debuts, which is getting applause
from the left and right, I imagine all the candidates will have to regroup.
Again, it’s not about a plan and providing insurance for the uninsured, it’s
reigning in the big influences for profit at the center of our healthcare crisis.

Share

This analysis takes the cake.

He writes that “the idea of self-government became feasible after the printing press.” With this machine, people suddenly had the ability to use the printed word to debate ideas and proceed logically to democratic conclusions. As Gore writes in his best graduate school manner, “The eighteenth century witnessed more and more ordinary citizens able to use knowledge as a source of power to mediate between wealth and privilege.” This Age of Reason produced the American Revolution. But in the 20th century, television threatened it all. In Gore’s view, TV immobilizes the reasoning centers in the brain and stimulates the primitive, instinctive parts. TV creates a “visceral vividness” that is not “modulated by logic, reason and reflective thought.” The Vulcan Utopia

Oh, but then you get the real problem David Brooks has with Al Gore’s new book.

Fortunately, another technology is here to save us. “The Internet is perhaps the greatest source of hope for re-establishing an open communications environment in which the conversation of democracy can flourish,” he writes. The Internet will restore reason, logic and the pursuit of truth. The first response to this argument is: Has Al Gore ever actually looked at the Internet? He spends much of this book praising cold, dispassionate logic, but is that really what he finds on most political blogs or in his e-mail folder?

Brooks and his bunch are scared of the Internet. The biggest reason is that
we’re cutting into their wingnut monopoly, established through radio Rush and
Ken doll Sean Hannity. It infuriates Republicans who are used to controlling things.

It’s also interesting that Brooks obviously doesn’t understand Gore’s main
thread of the book. Brooks raises the point that Gore doesn’t talk about family
as part of the structure. Maybe that’s because family can only do so much when
the onslaught of media directed at us all focuses on Rosie and Elizabeth, while
our senators run amok in Washington.

Since Brooks doesn’t get it, here are just a few topics not being discussed
in depth because everyone has to get ratings and talk trash, or they’ll lose
their jobs. They’re not sexy and don’t sell, but they’re going to have a big
impact on our lives.

The Farm Bill Trashing Organic Standards Lawmakers pushing for coal subsidies

But if you want to talk about something that really hurts, it’s that the media,
as Al Gore stipulates in “Assault on Reason,” is in love with myths,
as opposed to truths. You know, like Saddam had something to do with 9/11. This whole fictionalization of reality is continuing into the ’08 election cycle. Rudy Giuliani is exhibit A. His aura of 9/11 is like a
shield for any facts that prove his competency is anything other than what the
propaganda purports. Politico.com
is canonizing him. Chris Matthews never misses a moment to do the same with
Rudy on 9/11. Greg
Sargent has more, compliments of John Harwood, all about Rudy’s alleged
“combat” experience. Is he kidding? Combat experience?

So it’s no wonder Brooks has a problem with the blogs, er, I mean
the Internet. We hold the hack pack’s lazy relationship to reality to account. Brooks can’t
have that, now can he?

Share

Luca Brazzi?

That’s the latest on Candidate Clinton from Chris Matthews. She’s calculating and willing to do whatever she can to exonerate herself. The Video of Chris Matthews and his pals talking about the Clinton marriage is illustrative of what Clinton will face. But as the video shows above, Candidate Clinton can handle it. It’s a good thing, because the hits just keep on coming.

“The would do anything to get out of the Whitewater situation, including not being forthcoming.” – Mark Fabiani

Never mind that she was completely exonerated.

Oh, but Clinton the wife is even worse. She likes to control the news of her marriage. Hells, bells, alert the frickin’ media.

“From what I’ve seen of the coverage so far, it shows Hillary, to a greater degree than we even realized, controlling the process of shutting down stories about infidelities of her husband …” – Howard Fineman

Oh! Clinton, the wife, also wanted to shut up the women who had stories to
tell about Bill. Hello. How’d that one work out?

“It’s Luca Brazzi behavior.” – Chris Matthews

Luca Brazzi was a hit man. This is like the stuff Rush Limbaugh was spewing about President Clinton in the 1990s. You remember, Clinton murdered people in Arkansas as part of some mythical drug deal. This rumor, by the way, came compliments of the late Reverend Jerry Falwell.

This is a new low even for Matthews, who never misses an opportunity to stoop
below what anyone else will do. The Republicans and his buddy Sean Hannity must
be loving this stuff. He goes on to say that she used intimidation and her friends
who were lawyers to try to get women to sign affidavits about their prior relationships
with the Big Dog. Excuse me, but is anyone shocked by this? A woman’s husband, who just happens
to be leader of the free world, wants to use all of her power, which is considerable,
to keep damning personal and sexually titillating stories out of the press.

Hello, ever heard of John F. Kennedy? The press willingly ducked those stories
back in the 1960s. They also didn’t tell the truth about Jackie. Ever see a photograph
of Mrs. Kennedy smoking? She was riding horses while JFK was trying to keep
the world from blowing up. Ever hear about that one? I know all the stories ever printed, because I’ve studied these two, focusing on J.F.K., my whole life including producing a show on Kennedy, which included Jackie as well. How about all those women
of Jack’s? Oh, and speaking of the Kennedys, Sally Bedell Smith, who wrote a
real soap opera page turner about the Kennedys, is taking a turn at the Clintons.
Now that will be special soap opera summer reading for sure. Make room in your beach bag for that one.

Bill and Hillary’s marriage, the challenges, cheating and all the rest isn’t
news to anyone. But two books coming out (not including Bay Buchanan’s efforts) want you to think there’s a lot of
news you haven’t heard

“A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton,” by Carl Bernstein, reports that Clinton as first lady was terrified she would be prosecuted, took over her own legal and political defense, and decided not to be forthcoming with investigators because she was convinced she was unfairly targeted. While in Arkansas, according to Bernstein, she personally interviewed one woman alleged to have had an affair with her husband, contemplated divorce and thought about running for governor out of anger at her husband’s indiscretions. “Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton,” by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr., reports that during her husband’s 1992 campaign, a team she oversaw hired a private investigator to undermine Gennifer Flowers “until she is destroyed.” Flowers had said publicly that she had an affair with Bill Clinton while he was governor of Arkansas. Books Paint Critical Portraits of Clinton 2 Biographies Detail Marital Strife and Driving Ambition

Media Matters
dissembles the latest Clinton hits even further.

I particularly like the sub-heading. The former first lady, the woman who took
on the VRWC, now Senator Hillary Clinton is ambitious. Oh, my God.
…and they’re even going to “detail marital strife.” What a twofer. I’m shocked to hear this about the Clintons.

People.

Seriously.

Duh.

What woman of ambition hasn’t had man troubles? For that matter, what modern
woman hasn’t had troubles with men, period? What ambitious woman hasn’t been
called too ambitious, cold, calculating. I’m nowhere near Clinton’s league and
I’ve been called every name in the book. Trust me when I say this will not impress women at all. It might even make them move closer to Clinton, feeling that sisterly bond of getting dumped on by men. Who can’t relate to that one?

Let me also state that anyone who thinks former President Bill Clinton isn’t an asset for Candidate Clinton has been watching too much Fox “News” and listening to wingnut radio way too long.

This rehash of 90′s news
isn’t likely to stop. With a war raging in Iraq it’s also not only not news,
but it seems trivial in the extreme. Candidate Clinton will have no trouble spinning the rehashed details to her own advantage. She’s done it before.

Share

Remembering those who have fallen before, it’s impossible not to think of all
the soldiers now condemned to policing a civil war, with no end in sight.

There are no words.

No videos.

No pictures.

All that remains is the failure.

The war goes on and everyone talks politics. What people might say if
we stopped the war and brought our troops home.

Bad press.

Busy propping up politicians to save face.

So Democrats ruminate
on Vietnam slurs, while ducking their duty. The abject failure of leadership
and wholesale sell out of America laid bare for all to see; the only hope made merely hapless through cowardice.

Republicans chained to their incompetence; collapsing in on their irrelevance.

The soldiers say nothing and fight on.

Meanwhile, troops continue to die, Iraqis too.

The carnage has become contagious. No one has the will to stop it. Waiting for tomorrow to come, but when it’s here we look onward.

Politicians talk of beginning the end of the war, but it goes on and on
and on.

And the president warns there is danger and even more death in the summer months
to come.

Republicans talk of autumn.

See you in September.

The bodies continue to fall.

Share

Withdrawalphobia
guest post by Mash

The killing in Iraq continues.

We are told we are there to avoid further killing. We were led into war by a President who ignored warnings that he would create a mess in Iraq. Last week the same President, the “commander guy”, dismissed those warnings by saying “we were warned about a lot of things, some of which happened, some of which didn't happen.”

Now we are being warned that leaving Iraq would be, in the President's own words, “catastrophic”. Now we are told our children are in danger – that they will follow us here if we leave Iraq, presumably to attack our children.

The New York Times this morning joins CNN from a few weeks ago in laying out the frightening fear of withdrawal:

Would the pullback of American forces unleash an even bloodier round of civil conflict that would lead to the implosion of the Iraqi government? Or would it put pressure on Iraqi politicians to finally reconcile their differences? More bluntly: how bad would things get? … If the American forces were reduced too soon, military officials say, the fledgling Iraqi Army and police forces could not hold the line against a rising tide of suicide bomb attacks by insurgent groups like Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Shiite militias that had decided to lie low would resume large-scale attacks on Sunni residents. Mixed Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods, already growing scarce, would disappear, and Iraqi forces would fracture along sectarian lines. [Emphasis added by me.]

In other words, if the United States leaves Iraq an all out civil war will break out. That apparently is the justification for sacrificing more American and Iraqi lives.

However, continued American presence in Iraq is making the very end game that experts warn against more likely. The United States is not a stabilizing force in Iraq. The United States is creating the conditions for instability in Iraq and the region. The longer we stay the more difficult it will be for us to extricate ourselves from Iraq. The longer we stay the bloodier it will be in Iraq once we inevitably leave.

It is time to examine what our presence has wrought.

Already nearly 15% of Iraq's population, 4 million citizens, have fled their homes. Amongst the killing the battle lines are being drawn on the map. The American presence provides just the minimal level of protection needed for the warring sides to arm and fortify themselves without fear of a full scale attack by an opposing side. Furthermore, for years now, the United States has been training and equipping one of the warring sides in this civil war. A report from December 2005 (months before the Samarra mosque bombing) offers some chilling perspective:

OF ALL THE bloodshed in Iraq, none may be more disturbing than the campaign of torture and murder being conducted by U.S.-trained government police forces. Reports last week in the Los Angeles Times and New York Times chronicled how Iraqi Interior Ministry commando and police units have been infiltrated by two Shiite militias, which have been conducting ethnic cleansing and rounding up Sunnis suspected of supporting the insurgency. Hundreds of bodies have been appearing along roadsides and in garbage dumps, some with acid burns or with holes drilled in them.

Even before the Samarra bombings of 2006, Iraq's minister of civil war, Bayan Jabr, with American money and support had turned the business of killing into an efficient enterprise. Today the killing continues in spite of the “surge”.

Baghdad, the target of the “surge”, is being systematically ethnically cleansed. In just over a year, Baghdad has disintegrated into Shia and Sunni camps. A comparison of the sectarian map of Baghdad from before 2006 and now illustrates the point dramatically [Source: BBC]:

Baghdad Sectarian Map – pre 2006

Baghdad Sectarian Map – 2007

The Bush Administration has created the very conditions in Iraq that it warns against. There is no indication that further American occupation of Iraq will reverse the worsening conditions. It certainly will not reverse under the policies of Mr. Bush, who still fails to understand the sectarian nature of the chaos in Iraq and his own role in bringing it about.

If there is any hope for Iraq it lies in an orderly withdrawal of American forces. The United States should begin the diplomatic and political groundwork necessary to bring about an American military pullback. This will require working with Iraq's neighbors, including especially Iran, Turkey and Syria, to try to contain the instability that may follow. This will also require the United States to cut the Iraqi government loose. Working without the protection of the Green Zone may clarify the minds of the incumbent Iraqi leaders.

Bloodshed in Iraq in the wake of an American pullout may be unavoidable. But without an American withdrawal, bloodshed in Iraq is guaranteed.

Share

As of yesterday, 3,451 members (and counting) of the U.S. military have died since we preepmptively invaded Iraq. Of course, on the Sunday shows this week, everyone will be talking about the spinelessness of congressional Democrats, led by Harry Reid. It makes for good television, no doubt.

One of those Democrats who voted for the Iraq supplemental is Joe Biden. I’m thoroughly disappointed in this man for his vote, but not surprised. He’s old school all the way, which is not to excuse his actions, but to simply describe them. However, the video above illustrates that he’s got his eye on one thing that’s important, as witnessed through one military family hoping Biden can make the difference.

Democrats have a lot to make up for after this past week.

Another military family, exhibited by one father’s remorse, has similar things on his mind. However, the story of his son has already been written. No one on the Sunday shows will be talking about it today, least of all any Democrat.

… .. As a citizen, I have tried since Sept. 11, 2001, to promote a critical understanding of U.S. foreign policy. I know that even now, people of good will find much to admire in Bush’s response to that awful day. They applaud his doctrine of preventive war. They endorse his crusade to spread democracy across the Muslim world and to eliminate tyranny from the face of the Earth. They insist not only that his decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was correct but that the war there can still be won. Some — the members of the "the-surge-is-already-working" school of thought — even profess to see victory just over the horizon. I believe that such notions are dead wrong and doomed to fail. In books, articles and op-ed pieces, in talks to audiences large and small, I have said as much. "The long war is an unwinnable one," I wrote in this section of The Washington Post in August 2005. "The United States needs to liquidate its presence in Iraq, placing the onus on Iraqis to decide their fate and creating the space for other regional powers to assist in brokering a political settlement. We’ve done all that we can do." Not for a second did I expect my own efforts to make a difference. But I did nurse the hope that my voice might combine with those of others — teachers, writers, activists and ordinary folks — to educate the public about the folly of the course on which the nation has embarked. I hoped that those efforts might produce a political climate conducive to change. I genuinely believed that if the people spoke, our leaders in Washington would listen and respond. This, I can now see, was an illusion. The people have spoken, and nothing of substance has changed. The November 2006 midterm elections signified an unambiguous repudiation of the policies that landed us in our present predicament. But half a year later, the war continues, with no end in sight. Indeed, by sending more troops to Iraq (and by extending the tours of those, like my son, who were already there), Bush has signaled his complete disregard for what was once quaintly referred to as "the will of the people." To be fair, responsibility for the war’s continuation now rests no less with the Democrats who control Congress than with the president and his party. After my son’s death, my state’s senators, Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry, telephoned to express their condolences. Stephen F. Lynch, our congressman, attended my son’s wake. Kerry was present for the funeral Mass. My family and I greatly appreciated such gestures. But when I suggested to each of them the necessity of ending the war, I got the brushoff. More accurately, after ever so briefly pretending to listen, each treated me to a convoluted explanation that said in essence: Don’t blame me. To whom do Kennedy, Kerry and Lynch listen? We know the answer: to the same people who have the ear of George W. Bush and Karl Rove — namely, wealthy individuals and institutions. … .. I Lost My Son to a War I Oppose. We Were Both Doing Our Duty. by Andrew J. Bacevich

All I can say to the hundreds of thousands of people who feel let down by Harry Reid and the rest of the Democratic congressional worms, though our representatives and senators are less useful and not as good for anything, is that you are not alone. There are a lot of people trying to hold the Democrats who did this accountable. We will not stop until that job is done.

Share

Talk of The End Begins

It doesn’t get more cynical than this.

The Bush administration is developing what are described as concepts for reducing American combat forces in Iraq by as much as half next year, according to senior administration officials in the midst of the internal debate. The concepts call for a reduction in forces that could lower troop levels by the midst of the 2008 presidential election to roughly 100,000, from about 146,000, the latest available figure, which the military reported on May 1. They would also greatly scale back the mission that President Bush set for the American military when he ordered it in January to win back control of Baghdad and Anbar Province. … .. White House Is Said to Debate ’08 Cut in Iraq Troops by 50%

Unless you count this beauty from Michael Gordon: Increased Strife Is Foreseen in Iraq if U.S. Troops Leave. That usually happens when the government won’t make deals to reconcile differences between rival factions in the middle of a civil war, while also planning vacations with the people left stuck in the middle of the mess. This is our problem at this point because…. ?

Share

Remember the
“Marlboro Man’s” story?

He’s not alone. With every redeployment
and extension of tour comes more stress on military families. It matters; that
is, if you want to keep the all volunteer force healthy and enlistments high.

For Brue, it was a bittersweet moment. This was what he had looked forward to for months, ever since he found out in January that his squadron would spend four extra months in Afghanistan. For his wife, the extension was the end of the marriage. “She basically quit,” said Brue, 24, of Syracuse, N.Y. “That’s the best way I can say it.” The true toll of war on any soldier is difficult to gauge. While in Afghanistan, eight men have died in Brue’s squadron, victims of an ambush and accidents. But 16 months in Afghanistan cannot be judged only by battles won and soldiers lost. Back home, life went on without him and the other members of his squadron. Wives gave birth to babies. One soldier’s wife suffered brain damage in a car wreck that killed two other people. Another soldier found out that his father had less than two weeks to live after being diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor. At least three soldiers postponed weddings because of the extension. And at least three men face divorce when they return home in late May or early June. Such long deployments will soon be standard for the Army, taxed by commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. The government announced in April that troops will be deployed for 15 months at a time, instead of a year, raising the possibility of extensions that could mean 18 months or even two years away from home. … Extended tours break bonds of GIs’ families

Divorce
is up. Loneliness — insert your description — is too.

The wars are taking a toll on military families, too: According to Army figures, divorce among officers jumped by 78% in 2004, though the numbers fell back in fiscal 2005. Divorces among enlisted soldiers increased by 28% in 2004 and have stayed at about the same level this year.

The military is taking the war in Iraq on the chin, with Afghanistan an added
burden. It’s time to quit giving our soldiers lives over to the Iraqis who are in the middle of a civil war.
It’s time for them to fight their own battles.

Memorial Day is a terrific time to honor our soldiers and veterans; flying the flag and showing our appreciate in words. But it
would help if we backed up the weekend of respect with actions that actually matter to soldiers serving and the families who need them at home. They know the burden of service, but it’s un-American to sacrifice them time and time again. It’s time for things to change.

Share

Memorial Weekend Mush via Harry Reid

Our troops deserve better than they’re getting from Harry Reid.

Senator Chris Dodd is right, so thanks to Matt
Browner-Hamlin for putting the video in Hot
Topics.

However, nothing could evidently keep Harry Reid from offering up pure crap on radio today,
via the Marine Corps. Hiding behind the military won’t get us to ignore or excuse
your abdication of leadership, Mr. Reid. That you’re using the military to try
and con us, well, isn’t that what Republicans do?

For their weekly radio address, Democrats called on Elliot Anderson of Las Vegas, who spent four years on active duty with the Marine Corps, including a seven-month deployment to Afghanistan. Anderson said patriotism is an American value, not a Democratic or a Republican one. “I strongly oppose our involvement in Iraq’s civil war, but I am still proud of my service to my country,” Anderson said. “But I know I speak for many of my friends overseas when I say that the best way to honor the troops is to responsibly end our involvement in Iraq’s civil war. As long as President Bush stays committed to the same policies that aren’t working, it won’t be easy. But I am proud to see Democrats and now some brave Republicans standing up to him.” Bush pays tribute to fallen U.S. troops

No one and I mean no one is buying it, not even from a distinguished member
of the Marine Corps. We’re all proud of every soldier serving. That isn’t the
point. That Mr. Reid is offering up Republican talking points to try and assuage
his own guilt is embarrassing, even humiliating. But I have come to expect the
worst from Mr. Reid at this point, because that’s what he’s been delivering. But using the military? Shame on you, sir.
If you’ve got something to say stand up and say it yourself. Be. A. Man. Don’t
hide behind a soldier, especially on Memorial Day weekend. It’s exactly what Mr. Bush is doing.

Share