I am not american( I mean northamerican)but a chilean woman who love peace and freedom.We suffered a lot when other stupid president of USA,imposed a dictatorship in my country.This is why I don´t like what Bush is doing in Irak and everywhere.I was touched by Molly Ivins coments and by her constructive sense of humour.We will miss her but w´llgo on working for peace and human rights
      Dr. Haydee Lopez M.D,M.P.H.
      old activist for Human Rights

Asked and answered, Sandi ... er, Sandy ... uh, Sindi. Whatever.

First let me apologize. I accidentally typed “Sandy” instead of “Sindy” My bad.

Now on with the show!

Sweating? That’s your come-back? Wow, I am hurt. EVS.

Let’s go back to post 22408.

And I quote, “please, tell me more about what you find wrong with the Republicans and the “Scumbag”.
And if it wouldn’t be any trouble can you please tell me what the Democrats would do differently. Please include as much detail as possible because I get tired of our current politicians speaking ambiguously. “I have a plan!” Well for the love of Lucifer, what is your plan John?
” Those are my questions.
Does that help?

My starving mind is hungrily awaiting your well thought-out prose.

Sandi, did you have a question or are you just, oh, I don’t know, sweating?

WW~
Whoopee! My colors are showing. Enough already. What? Are you 5 years old?

Why can’t you answer any of my questions? Is your favorite barista on vacation? It’s tough when you have to think for yourself isn’t it?

(WW, the barista comment is funny because it is basically saying that you get all your political views from your morning “spirited” discussion at your local Espresso Stand on your way to drop the kids off at their Motessori.)

Sindy, you’re true colors are showing. You don’t care about the weapons the military uses “to get the job done.” Thanks for letting us know, wingnut.

WW,
Originally I asked, “I did not know that. Can you please give us more info about that. I would like you to cite the articles on this. I find it very interesting.”

Personally I don’t give a rats a** what the military uses to get a job done.

You only care if our military uses an illegal weapon. You don’t care if any other military does. You don’t care if other governments kill thousands of innocent people. But if our government has a single instance that might be out of line with your patchouli clouded vision then the entire United States should be hung.

Have you looked at Darfur lately? Here is a quote for you.

“We beg the international community, somebody, come and save us,” Sheik Ali said. “We have no means to protect ourselves. The only thing we can do is run and hide in the mountains and caves. We will all die.”

Pretty sad huh. But I guess you don’t care.
I guess it is just easier to chat with your friends about Bush being a war criminal than it is to try to make a difference with the people that really are being exterminated. To dangerous for you?

If you are going to stand up for human rights then stand tall for everyone. Or are the poor innocent people of Darfur to dark and poor for you to care about?

You and I have wrangled about your questioning that the U.S. used white phosophorous munitions in Iraq. You asked for evidence and I provided it.

Then you insinuated that I was lying, and went into your divergent little screed about the two parties. That’s irrelevant to any of this, so let’s get back to the original issue between us which was that the U.S. used white phosophorous munitions in Fallujah.

The U.S. used them in an offensive capacity in a city that it knew contained thousands of civilians. It was a war crime. How should the Democrats make the world better? They should start by impeaching Bush and Cheney, and then handing them and a bunch of others over to the World Court for war crimes trials.

WW, you are so paranoid. I don’t know what a milblog is but I’m sure you probably irritated people there.
I like how you try to sound as if you are on top of things. Yup, you’re on to me. So tell me what a freeper is? And why is it that you assume that the person who sent me the link is someone else that you know from some other board?

So why can’t you answer my question about what the Dems can do differently to make this world a better place.
I guess I stumped you. But just to make you feel better, the Reps can’t do any better. Both parties suck. That’s what happens when you pay some one to represent you. It’s all about what they can do for themselves.

I am curious about what you think should be done to bring peace to the Middle East, health care for all, and more money and programs for the poor.

Hell, if you can tell me your “plan” then maybe I might just vote for you!

This is so funny. You need to introduce me to these other people that you hate because they ask the hard questions.

By the way, Scott Lewis sent the link.

Cio!

Sindy, you gave yourself away several postings ago with this:

“... someone else emailed me a link to a different article about the same subject. They said they doubted that you would provide me with an alternate source but they wanted me to have the info.”

The only person who would have emailed you something like that is one of your fellow Freeper wingnuts who smears me on the so-called “milblogs.” Back to wingnut land with you, Sindy

Oh, and one more thing, is this board painfully slow to post on or what. Is the moderator having to hand type each post again only after translating it into three different languages and back.

You know, there are some nifty bits of technology that can help keep spam and other unwanted post off of your board. It might be worth looking into.

But don’t expect WW to provide the link.
Oh come on! That was funny!

Wow WW, calling names. That ain’t polite.

A bit of education for ya. Just because the link works for you doesn’t mean it works for everyone. It depends on Browsers, DNS setting, firewalls, and many other variables.

I didn’t realize my hate was so strong. I feel that you are Yoda and I am Vader. “The Dark side is strong in you”. I would think you are the one that needs to lighten up.

Did you think I was trying to Defend GeeDub? I apologize if that was the impression you got. I was just trying to inform you that you are blind to the fact that the party you so boldly defend is just as bad as the party you attack.

But since you are so intent on attacking things, please, tell me more about what you find wrong with the Republicans and the “Scumbag”.
And if it wouldn’t be any trouble can you please tell me what the Democrats would do differently. Please include as much detail as possible because I get tired of our current politicians speaking ambiguously. “I have a plan!” Well for the love of Lucifer, what is your plan John?

See that’s funny because I am…. Oh never mind I can’t make you laugh.

Sindy, the link I provided was a good link. It contained more links, including to the U.S. army’s publication that discussed the U.S. military’s use of white phosphorous. It’s obvious that you are a wingnut. You lied about the “bad link.” You’ve made it clear that you “hate” the two parties because neither of them is sufficiently right-wing for you.

Back to Freeperland with you, Sindy. You’re fooling no one here. Your scumbag in chief is a war criminal.

WW, WW, WW. I’m just not feeling the love. I bet if I said that I hated all Republicans and there is not a single Democrat out there that is bad, then you would accept me.

I guess you just don’t like people that refuse to tote a party line. I’ll tell you what, I will show you that I am an accepting person and I will tell everyone i know that you are a well intentioned, albeit a misguided person, but well intentioned none the less, person who is just looking for something to believe in.

If your “John Kerry For President” button makes you feel like you make a difference then good for you. Whatever it takes for you to hold your head up high.

All I ask is that you step back for a moment and take a good look at the information out there and realize that somewhere out there buried in the hype, the sensationalism, and the agendas is the truth. Believing that one party is better than the other is not going to help you find out the truth. Both parties lie and both parties are trying to further their own agenda.

It’s your job to call them on it. But as long as you defend one and bash the other, no one will take you seriously.

Oh, as far as your link, don’t worry, someone else emailed me a link to a different article about the same subject. They said they doubted that you would provide me with an alternate source but they wanted me to have the info.

Sindy, the link isn’t dead and I’m not “accepting” of your wingnut lies. Or of your “hatred.”

Wow, WW. accusing me of right wing lying. Now that isn’t very accepting. All I was asking for was some facts to back up your statement.

I get tired of people saying things because they heard it from their buddy who read in an email that asked them to pass it on to as many people as possible or else they shall grow fingernails on their tongues.

For the record I hate both Democrats and Republicans equally, so don’t feel like I am only picking on one side. The Republicans have their heads buried just as deep in the sand as the Democrats. Both sides are only worried about how much funding they can get to further their, “I’m such a caring human-being” hobbies.

We all know it’s all for show and if any of you had to actually lift a hand to help out, you would say you were to busy. It’s just so much more convenient to sound like you care.

Sindy, the link is not dead. I just re-tested it. The U.S. military acknowledged using WP in Iraq in one of its own military magazines, so you can stop your right-wing lying right now. Thank you.

WW said:
Comment #21000 by WW on 8/31 at 3:18 pm
Sindy, here’s the link:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00173.htm————————————————————————

WW, sorry but the link is dead. I hope this isn’t the only reference to our “Army and Marine Corps using white phosphorous in Fallujah”!

I can’t imagine a person posting accusations based on one article found on the Internet. That’s how rumors are started.

Whisper this:

http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/index.html

Comment #21755 by Ron Roush on 9/04 at 3:42 pm

You wrote, “With the levels of apathy and de-sensitization we collectively enjoy, it may become necessary to drag our war dead through the streets of our cities, a la Mogadishu. Oh wait, it’s been done. I’m already desensitized to that one.”

The most entertaining fictional variation on your suggestion surfaced earlier this year in an episode of Showtime’s Masters of Horror series titled “Homecoming.” In it, dead Iraq-War GI’s are shipped back to US for burial, then inconveniently come back to life and go to the polls en masse to vote out the President whose policies got them killed.

Needless to say, their presence makes everyone uncomfortable and is a PR nightmare for the administration, which attempts to Swift-Boat them all. But the effort fails and the Prez’s poll numbers plummet. And the living dead just will not go away, a constantly visible and very tasteless reminder to their troop-supporting fellow citizens of the actual cost of the war.

Best bits: the President’s chief advisor gets his head ripped off by a zombie (alas, in silhouette only) and a right-wing shill for the Bush, er, fictional administration gets her head blown off by a disenchanted supporter (off-camera). Any similarity between these characters and living persons is purely coincidental, of course.

Yes, this is a mostly terrible exercise in pop agitprop—-even Joe Dante, the director, described its quality as “grade C [or was it D?]”—-but that’s American culture for you. Reflections on our most burning issues and their implications are found not in the print media or the cable-news punditocracy but on a late-night scare-o-rama with ostensibly no pretensions to artistic, much political, seriousness.

What we need is many more terrorists and not whimpy liberals.

WHY I AM A TERRORIST

By Charles Sullivan

09/03/06 “Information Clearing House”—- According to the twisted logic recently espoused by Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, the failure to support illegal, immoral and unnecessary wars defines one as a terrorist. Let me be clear about where I stand: I know who the real terrorists are, and can name each one of them—Rumsfeld among the rest.

Everywhere you go in America you see the slogan, “Support our troops.” You see it on bumper stickers, storefronts, flags and banners, yellow ribbons and even in the windows of private homes. But what does it mean to support our troops? Is it to send them into harm’s way; to invade and occupy sovereign nations in illegal wars for empire? Is it to ask them to commit heinous crimes, to maim and to kill innocent civilians; to torture, insult, and to humiliate people who have done us no harm? Is it to steal the natural wealth that belongs to other nations and turn it over to American corporations?

If that is what it means, then I cannot support our troops. I cannot wish them well if their purpose is conquer other people, and plunder the wealth of other countries that have done us no harm. That would require me to endorse crimes against humanity conducted under the guise of national security and patriotism. I cannot do that—I will not. It is simply wrong.

Neither should we, as we so often do, confuse supporting our troops with supporting the president, or wrongful and immoral policies of corrupt government. The president and his ilk do not support our troops or he would not use them as pawns; he would take care of them when they come home broken and torn with psychic scars. He does not care about them—they are only a means to an end.

No, the best way to support our troops is to take a principled stand; to hold the moral high ground—to bring them home alive and whole. A government must not be allowed to require any of its citizens to engage in immoral or criminal behavior on its behalf. When a government behaves like a crime syndicate it does not mean that the people should follow its example—they must provide a better alternative, and refuse their allegiance to it.

So if the failure to support a government’s wrongful policies makes me a terrorist—so be it. If speaking truth to power makes one a terrorist—sign me up; move me to top of the NSA and FBI lists of suspects. Send forth the assassins with their rifles. If exposing the lies and corruption that attends power makes me a terrorist—I will proudly wear the crown and bear the cost. I will cheerfully take my place alongside other terrorists with names like Thoreau, Debs, King, Gandhi, Einstein, Zinn, and Christ.

Charles Sullivan is a photographer and free-lance writer residing in the hinterland of West Virginia. He welcomes your comments at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Sadly, the question is “What will it take?” When news is broadcast about a particularly bloody day in Iraq, or the continuing erosion of civil rights, I have heard people say, “Someone should take a stand.” They don’t mean themselves, of course. They have to get on with the business of modeling their lives after the ones the marketing folks tell them to. In the meantime, they can live vicariously through the “reality” of TV. As long as there is no discomfort, they do not move. Again, what does it take? How close an acquaintance does the dead soldier have to be? The same hometown? The same neighborhood? The house next door? With the levels of apathy and de-sensitization we collectively enjoy, it may become necessary to drag our war dead through the streets of our cities, a la Mogadishu. Oh wait, it’s been done. I’m already desensitized to that one.

Nah, Scott, I don’t want you to be struck dead by anything. I was just pissed off at you. Still am. Wishing for the deaths of U.S. military personnel isn’t crossing the line, it’s pole-vaulting across the line.

As for my god, well all I can tell you is that on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays I am an atheist. On Tuesdays, Thurssdays and Saturdays I am agnostic. On Sundays I give it a rest on the God front. So worry not about my “prayers.”

As for your hopes for more death, your hopes offend me but they don’t worry me because, like me, you are a death taker not a death maker, at least insofar as our military personnel deployed overseas is concerned.

paul k., like I wrote before, it was only slightly in self-defense. I do think the media of e-mail and Internet postings tend to be inherently more literal than some others I can think of. And then there is America, which a favorite author of yours once described as the land of the dull and the home of the literal.

Hey W.W.  I’m still here. 
I even tempted Fate by driving the family all over this side of the state Saturday night.  I was briefly tempted to give your bloodlust a fighting chance by tossing back a vicodin and a couple of beers first, but if I get pinched for DUI I could lose my comission.
I can picture you curled up on your kitchen floor, eyes rolled back in your head, shaking and speaking in tongues, fervently demanding your god to strike me dead.  I guess my god is stronger than yours.  Plus mine made me come in second in Saturday night’s poker tournament.
Herr Lewis Uber Alles!

perhaps the determined drover in a smartly tailored uniform could sidle up to and mingle midst the throngs of fascists (as they are many) to speak in low and soothing tones of large mercedes automobiles and mass gymnastics exhibitions while steering the fascists into chutes leading directly to retirement condos, or rendering plants.

Re Comment #21544 by WW:

Curmudgeon? Like, John-Simon-style curmudgeon? Wow, blink and suddenly you’re 90! “These vulgar little guttersnipes and their subliterate yammerings on that goddam newfangled machine.” If that’s true, just pass the Geritol and make sure my wheelchair is facing away from the sun, Sonny. Got that? A-W-A-Y!

“Meanwhile, it’s probably best to think of postings and e-mails as the equivalent of telegrams. I suspect you didn’t see a whole lot of deadpan humor there, either.”

Not necessarily: humor tends to rear its unbusinesslike, immature, irresponsible head in the most unlikely places. Thus, this famous real-life telegraphic exchange:

From a Hollywood reporter to the main office: HOW OLD CAREY GRANT?

Response: CAREY GRANT JUST FINE. HOW YOU?

OK, probably funnier 50 years ago than it is today, but you get my point. The world is divided between those who see the world in terms of Serious Issues and act with approprate decorum, and those who see those same issues and act, well, immaturely and irresponsibly, i.e., with humor.  We’re not making fun of those Serious Issues; we’re making fun out of them. “Americans think that to be serious one must also be solemn.”—-Gore Vidal, famous curmudgeon.

Speaking of which:“WW, I don’t think wishing for anyone to get into a car and kill themselves (or wishing for the death of their family members) is a mature or responsible expression of whatever frustration you may feel towards Scott’s comments. Shame on you.”

Ouch, that’s gotta hurt. Ax? Try machete. Here’s a box of Band-Aids for those cuts. Note: better have a doc check out the one above your right eye. It looks infected.

So. . .Feeling a little curmudgeonly yourself?

The Internet may be a new medium, but it’s not that new, and, graphics aside, its main mode of communication—language—-isn’t. In the blogosphere, some of us will continue using the resources of language to amuse ourselves, whether these resources accord with the just-the-facts-Ma’am ethos of the Net or not. As for those who respond in kind, well, we few, we few, we happy few.

As it happens, some of my e-mails, like those of my friends, are of the do-this do-that variety; some are not. As for postings, I just read some comments on Digby’s Hullabaloo site and the more deadpan the remarks, the louder I laughed.

So if the Net continues to “develop” at the normal (glacial) rate of evolution, I guess the more easily bored among us will have to skip a few rungs in our ascent of the ole Darwinian ladder and just hope that eventually the rest will be able to catch up.

re; paul white

As a mother of an active duty xxxxxxxxxxxxx, I do consider you to be a murderer and a hypocrite.  if my son were to die tomorrow, I will think of “you personally”, realizing that you contributed to his death:

failing to acknowledge and CORRECT the major screw-up decisions that we endured and CONTINUE to endure. Support of a full blown civil war at present.  The lists runs deep, so I’ll stop here.

I’m acutely aware more than most, of the vietnam history, as one foot step away 4 * x 3 sat @ my dinner table for years during our past history.

Please don’t cause me any more heart pain by your destructive language.

As a family we have shed a millions tears over this war hell, with truth known (of which you know little) of all the dirty lies.  Have you been in Iraq?

Mother of US Special Forces Soldier
d-green
green
rangers
seals

Sadly most are not able to understand the stock market, let alone manager their own 401k’s.  Hencefore, many don’t realize the financial dirty strings behind the window dressing, until it is to late.  I fully agree with the floor trader who has graciously tried to educate you.

and a final thought or 2:
when the xxxxx cross under dow you don’t fly on airplanes! At present, this is true since early august.

http://www.hindu.com/2006/09/04/stories/2006090404471400.htm

And here I’m the one who cautioned against deadpan humor on the Internet. Didn’t take long to be sliced with my own axe, did it?

Molly, will you marry me?  My wife loves you too.
Keep up the good fight..

‘Troop Supporter’...it sounds like something one puts on before gym class.

WW, I don’t think wishing for anyone to get into a car and kill themselves (or wishing for the death of their family members) is a mature or responsible expression of whatever frustration you may feel towards Scott’s comments. Shame on you.
I think Scott’s words, while certainly not eliquent or delicate, raise a good point-the majority of people in the United States will not react until properly motivated by their conscience. Unfortunately, the public is being spoon fed this war in dynamic a/v bites set to exciting music, reported from the front line to the beat of artillery shells. What the people should be seeing are more images of the horrors of the war. Show the dead soldiers coming home to crying mothers. Show civilian casualties with missing limbs. Who can forget the footage of the young Palestinian girl on the beach hysterical with grief because her family got taken out by an Israeli missle? If that doesn’t make one want all wars to end, I don’t know what could. The people who need to see these honest images, the aggressors usually don’t. Instead Al Jazirah airs them and extremists use them as evidence of the injustices done to (insert name of bombed civilians here) at the hands (insert name of occupying aggressor here).
War is horrible. War is terrible. I think if more people could see the pain it causes, they would be less willing to send their children off to die. Micheal Moore did it best when he asked a US congressman (or senator, I can’t recall which) if he supported the war. The politician said he did, 100%. Michael Moore than asked him if he would fill out a registration form and sign his child up to join the army and go fight. The politician quickly turned and fled. He supports the war, but not at the price of his own child.

Scott Lewis, we got your point before. Something tells me you’re a “Freeper” (devotee of the the far-right site, FreeRepublic.com) in disguise, trying to discredit opponents of the Iraq War.

Meantime, if you really wish for death as much as you say you do, have you thought about climbing into a car, stepping on the gas and heading for the nearest bridge abutment? The tragedy of your highway death just might avert others.

Deadpan humor tends not to work on the Internet because the average Internet message is businesslike. It’s a fairly literal realm, not a literary one. Novels allow an author the room to develop a voice, and performing arts simply convey more information, i.e., facial expressions and tone of voice.

Some people use those cheesy “emoticons” on the Internet, and frankly even though I hate ‘em sometimes I use them for fear that my intent will be misunderstood. Maybe as the medium develops you’ll see more deadpan humor, but in the meantime I think it’s risky.

Oh, and it’s not the kids’ fault. Stop being such a curmudgeon. The Internet is a new medium. It’ll take a while to figure out what works and what doesn’t. Meanwhile, it’s probably best to think of postings and e-mails as the equivalent of telegrams. I suspect you didn’t see a whole lot of deadpan humor there, either.

Re Comment #21148 by WW: You’re right, of course, although I’m regularly amazed at how many people today completely miss (or misread) the tone and intent of standard (hardcopy) literary texts by the ironists/satirists I cut my once-sharp increasingly carious little teeth on—-authors such as Gore Vidal, Terry Southern, Bruce Jay Friedman, etc., plus Golden Oldies like Swift and Evelyn Waugh. What those clases in Creative Writing call “the authorial voice” is something I think you can hear as you become increasingly familiar with such authors——the inflections of Vidal’s patrician purr or Waugh’s bilious snarl.

Oddly, many of the Gen-X-and-Y-ers I know often can’t seem to hear that kind of voice any more, even though they were supposedly raised in an irony-saturated environment where everything was enclosed with get-it air quotes accompanied by a knowing wink. In fact, many of them tell me they find the writers I mentioned head-scratchingly “mean-spirited.” (Can’t you be nicer, Mr. Vidal?) I guess it’s a whole new sensibility, more oriented toward the image than the word.

(But on the other hand I find the acidulous satire of Curb Your Enthusiasm and The Office mostly bracingly hilarious, or hilariously bracing, and there must be some under-30-ers laughing along with me, so, really, what do I know?)

Gentlemen,
My point is that we are obviously fighting this war not to win it but just to sustain it.  The combined military might of the most powerful nation on the planet is getting its head handed to it by a third-world nothing of a country with no real government, no industrial infrastructure, and no standing army.  Our administration has decided that the Iraq war is either good for them politically or economically (perhaps both).  The tragedy is that we as a people will not demand a change until the price has become too great.  Therefore in order to stop the slaughter soon we must hope that it advances quickly.  I think the genius of the Bush administration has been the stop-loss orders and the involuntary recalls of the national guard.  All the pain, the heartache, the suffering, the terror and the death is being put on the same small persentage of America, over and over again.  Most of us have felt no real pain associated with this fiasco.  We pretend that we do as we watch the television, but we are not the ones crying ourselves to sleep and cursing the day we encouraged our child to join the military.  As more and more US soldiers get killed the military will have to add fresh ones into the conflict.  If enough GI’s get killed, and enough new ones are sent as replacements, then the American public will finally begin to examine and appreciate the cost of this folly.  Any step that takes us as a country closer to the end of war must be seen as a cause for celebration.  Therefore the death (while tragic) of every American Soldier must also be seen as a cause for celebration.  If one soldier sacrifices himself to save another he is lauded as a hero.  If he sacrifices his life so that all of his fellow soldiers may live shouldn’t he be held in even higher esteem?

I hear you, Freedem.

Living with religio-crazies, no matter the flavor, is a scary damn proposition. When they gain power and start going to war with one another, it’s far worse. People will do far more evil in the name of religion than just about anything else in the world; the exception being everyones’ favorite graven image, money.

The current global nightmare involves both, of course. Most nightmares do.

The lunatics have the keys to the asylum.

God help us!

paul kibble: mea culpa. In (slight) self-defense, I’d point out that deadpan humor often falls flat in electronic communication, a lesson I’ve learned from time to time.

I cannot say I am antiwar, any more than most from the soldiers who have to put their own hide on the line to those like Molly or Cindy, would simply roll over in the face of a real threat.

That Cindy has put her own hide in real danger and discomfort when there were many other options is hardly the mark of a coward much less a quitter.

One thing most honorable folk can agree about is to be anti-stupid. Anti-Ignorant is a harder sell as so many have personal commitments and there is such a massive campaign to increase those levels.

No matter the situation, the American people are supposed to be the ultimate Commanders in Chief, and to abandon that post is as wrong as for any in their employ to do the same. A committee of a few hundred million is clumsy, and each will have a different take on how to do that job, but there is no vice in honorably pursuing it.

There is plenty ignorance and stupidity to go around, but that said, it is not all equal. Osama’s attack on the Towers was stupid in that it went a very long way to wrecking his goals.

Even in Iran there was sympathy, and it temporarily advanced the secularists against crazy Mullahs. Smart, thoughtful, realistic, leaderly,  action by America, could have made America the real hero of the World, and done much to advance every good Ideal America was famous for. Sadly that was not an apt description of SCOTUS’s choice and Osama’s stupidity was trumped, doubled, and redoubled, And from ashes, Osama’s cause was advanced beyond his wildest dreams.

Like Osama there are crazy Mullahs in this country who would mirror Osama’s policy goals in nearly every particular but the name of their Religion, book, and language (even hijacking the same God). Theofacists on both sides advance their agenda by the war and everyone else, Iraqi, American, even Chinese, or African is damaged by it.

Does that mean America should abandon the field to the Theofascist threat? Absolutely not! But the American Theofascist would have us escape the hole by digging through the bottom, because that is the stupidity their agenda calls for. They traitorously wish the war be carried on in the worst way. They secretly celebrate the mayhem, and death they cause, because with each death on either side Christians are pushed toward their perverted Christianity, and Muslims are pushed to the more perverted forms of that faith.

The only Non-Ignorant answer is to unite the planet against ALL Theofascist frauds no matter the details. It that anti war? No. It is prowar for the war that will be fought now or later, and will be longer and harder than any fought till now. But it is anti the fake war that strips our ability to fight the real threat, even as it makes that very threat stronger.

Does it need to be fought with guns? I hope not. But that may come to pass if we can not solve the problem in a smarter way. Gandhi was not nonviolent because he did not believe in fighting, he used nonviolence because that was his smartest tool. He knew what Osama did not, that doing evil, created evil, and forfeited the moral high ground to the enemy, and gave away the support he most needed.

The Thuggi had tried the other path for essentially the same goal and lost everything, so even their name became synonymous with evil. Fortunately for Osama, the American Theofacists did exactly what was needed to make him a hero in the lands he wanted to fight from.

It is not hurting morale to speak of what any soldier can see better than those at home. In WW2 stupidity was an issue even as the war was as just as it gets, and while some was successfully covered up, that was not National policy and much was exposed and dealt with at the time.

What hurts morale most, in ‘Nam or Iraq is the cognitive dissonance to hear all the happy talk while the reality around you screams it a lie. When much needed equipment is missing from your own stuff, even as billions are wasted on crones, and they even chisel on your meager pay, no amount of “Support Our Troops” happy talk can suffice.

What will help morale most is to finally oppose the real enemy in a way that is smart and honorable. When that happens every soldier will have the strength of ten because it will feel right.

Re Comment #20891 by WW:

Apparently you didn’t pick up on the blatantly ironic/satiric tone of my references to the “bad PR” implications of Scott Lewis’ ideas for “celebration.” I thought I was wielding my pen with all the finesse of a sledgehammer, but you obviously took my remarks quite literally, even though I hedged my bet by first describing Lewis’ suggestion as “obscene” and “crazy.”

To cure this irony-free condition, may I suggest that you read Swift’s A Modest Proposal? In it, the Dean suggests that the Irish poor learn to control their population problem by eating their own children. Sample: ”I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ...”

Had you been his contemporary, would you have chastised Swift for his tasteless “pro-cannabalistic” stance? Context and tone matter, WW.

Sindy, here’s the link:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00173.htm

Sindy, check this link:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00173.htm

Ah, the vitriol spewing forth and being recorded on blogs will be fodder for a whole generation of future social scientists ... I would think particularly on how certain ideas evoke a predictable response ...

But Molly, you are on to something ... and we are learning these things from separate sources ... fractals suggest that the patterns of the small events of the cosmos are repeated in the large events (or is it the reverse? ... or does the “direction” matter?) ... chaos theory suggests that small events CAN move mountains (but then, we’ve heard THAT before) ...

Might I suggest those who haven’t discovered “What the bleep do we know?” yet, do so now?

http://www.whatthebleep.com/whatthebleep/

Peace begats peace. Violence begats violence. (In keeping with GW reintroducing us to the verb in the past tense, “begat”.)

Maybe Jesus knew what he was talking about.

WW~
You said, “Army and Marine Corps using white phosphorous in Fallujah”

I did not know that. Can you please give us more info about that. I would like you to cite the articles on this. I find it very interesting.

Thanks,
Sindy

No need to discuss whether or not Scott Lewis’s celebration of G.I. deaths in Iraq is bad public relations. In fact, it offends me that people who, like me, oppose the Iraq War would even discuss his attitude from that angle. It implies that if it was good p.r., we’d be o.k. with it.

Lewis’s celebration is sick and twisted, period. It’s no better than Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney’s decision to use torture. It’s no better than the Army and Marine Corps using white phosphorous in Fallujah, or various units committing murder against civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s no better than the U.S. decision to destroy Iraq to save it.

War is a horrible, ugly enterprise. There are times when it’s necessary to enter one, but it should always be a last resort, and the death and destruction it brings are never cause for celebration. The idea that this Scott Lewis character would call himself anti-war is ludicrous. At least in spirit, he’s as pro-war as anyone I’ve seen on line.

To #20697 Paul K.

Oh contraire!  A 1-A-O Selective Service Classification in 1968 means the exact opposite of what you suggest.  How about being a medic on the FRONT LINE during combat, wearing, by the way, a highly visible white vest with a red cross on it (front and back).  Talk hand-to-hand combat (just no gun).  My life expectancy at the time was three weeks.  Guess whom the Vietcon shot first?  Sorry Paul, but you do not know what you are talking about.

Paul White
In the Right

Re Comment #20747 by Scott Lewis:

I am absolutely opposed to our continued occupation of Iraq (just as I was opposed to our initial invasion), but your suggesion that “the death of every American soldier should be a cause for celebration” is. . gosh, I dunno, what is the word? “Obscene,” maybe. Or “crazy.” Yeah, that, too.

Philosophically (as it were), your scheme to galvanize our dozing fellow citizens into consciousness is a variant of the old Leninist maxim that to make an omlette you gotta break a few eggs. (The real-world application of that maxim worked out so well for the Russian people, didn’t it?)

But on a more pragmatic level, it’s, you know, a really dumb PR move, this idea that we should all be dancing in the streets every time another GI gets shipped home in a box. I mean, we’re talking the worst kind of negative publicity here, the kind that makes someone like John Mark Karr look like a goddam altar boy in comparison. Might wanna rethink the implications of your lee-tle ongoing Festival of Death. 

By the by, there’s an almost sadistic glee in your suggestion, combined with a transparent wish to punish anyone who doesn’t agree with you—-For Their Own Good, of course. (“This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you.” Oh, you betcha.) So, yeah, bring on the body bags! That’ll teach ‘em!

Anyway. . .“Celebration”? Really? Exactly how do you suggest we “celebrate”? You’re kinda short on specifics, Scott. Here’s my modest proposal: we gather at Arlington and stage a mass piss-in on the graves of those who have died in Iraq.

Better yet, why stop there?  Piss on all the frigging graves. That kind of big symbolic gesture is guaranteed to wake up all them semicomatose masses out there in the heartland, huh? Tell you what: you bring the party hats, I’ll take care of the booze.

P.S.: Maybe we could invite the friends and families of those dead GI’s, too.  I know some of them, and, believe me, they’re always up for a good time, between sessions of grief counseling and just trying to put their sad dim little lives back together.

Hang on, that’s Cindy Sheehan on the line and, guess what? Seems she’s heard about your idea and is, like, totally into it. Planning? I’m all over it! Let’s schedule it for Memorial Day. (Irony—-get it?) 

Hey, gotta jet. Be there or be square, Bro!

Scott, here’s hoping your famaily gets killed by a drunken driven next Saturday night. It just might be the death that will trigger a major effort to reduce drunken driving.

If you mean to imply that I have ever been in any danger of being forced to speak Arabic or Kurdish you are sorely mistaken.  Iraq was never a credible threat to the United States or to our way of life.  Trying to compare a tiny third-world country to WWII Germany and Japan is such a strech as to border on lunacy.  If you really think that what we are doing in Iraq will preserve our freedoms then why are our freedoms going away?  Will we need to turn our own country into a totalitarian state in order to prevent another country from doing so?

Well, I feel the need to weigh in on Scott.

Scott, your view is very twisted regardless of your position on Iraq.  However, I personally believe your words are meant only to shock and that you haven’t really put too much thought into them.  It’s a sad reality that there are men and women who would gladly go into harms way to save your right to to blather.  But that’s what makes them so absolutely superior to you.

Sam
. .

Scott, you can go to hell!  Your sick way with words is repugnant and exactly what I’d expect from a communist, islamic extremist, or other enemy of the state.  If it weren’t for soldiers willing to risk their lives on the fields of combat, you’d be speaking, at the very least, with an English accent, at best Japanese or German.

I think the problem here is that the American public has shown that they will happily accept US military casualties until the total reaches 58,226.  So with that in mind, I feel that the death of every American soldier should be a cause for celebration.  It is a terrible thing that so many of them must be killed before the American people stand up and say “enough”, but the reality is that every US soldier killed in Iraq is helping in the only way possible to bring the rest of his brothers home.

Molly,
If you and your ilk are so intelligent that you know how to keep the peace or create peace then you should go to Iraq, Korea and wherever Islamic radicals are so you can show just how smart you really are by talking to these people. But if you refuse to go there, obviously you are just a coward hiding behind words and I suggest that you look up intelligent in the dictionary and see what it says because you obviously have no clue.

Ole Rush reminds me of Herr Streicher of the Third Reich, convicted at Nuremburg and then hung.

To WW #20687:

Now see, that’s what I’m talking about.  I have no problems with you as someone who doesn’t support the war but truly supports the troops.  I thank you for that.  I would never trash talk you or your efforts.  They are legitimate and heartfelt.  I feel supported and understand your position on the war. 

To Aimee #20647:

This is why I don’t like the term “anti-war”.  It assumes that the other side is “pro-war”.  I’m not pro-war even though I’m a soldier.  There are actually very few of us in the military that would be described as “pro-war”.  After all, WE’RE the ones who have to fight and die in those things.  I’ve often said there is no better peace activist than the soldier. 

However, I also don’t believe that violence can be solved with peace.  If someone punches me in the nose, I MAY not hit back the first time.  But you punch me again and it’s on till you are no longer a threat to me.  If that’s considered pro-war, well… 

Personally I think your refusal to be around “pro-war” type people is close minded.  I love being around and debating and discussing things with “anti-war” people.  I’ve learned a lot about how they came to their decisions.  I’ve actually come to sympathize with them on issues. 

As a matter of fact, when Cindy Sheehag FIRST hit the American spot light I wrote her an open letter of support.  I figured she had a right to feel the way she did and I tried to console her as a fellow soldier.  I truly felt bad for her, having lost buddies next to me while I was there.  I’m one of only a few who survived a particular artillery strike and still carry the guilt.  However, she’s morphed into something that I can’t recognize.  Her son went without a tombstone for way too long.  I was offended by that.  She aligned herself with the wrong people and allowed the attention to go to her head.

Anyway, I hate to just cut this off, but I don’t feel like continuing…

To Bill E.:

My reference to you not understanding about “supporting the troops” wasn’t a slight to your intelligence, indeed many intelligent people fail to see things from another’s point of view; and you did miss my point completely.  That is partially my fault for tenor of my comment, but I do not apologize.  As far as caring if you engage me in dialogue, or think I am significant in any way, I simply do not care.

Sam
. .

Comment #20602 by paul white:

1. Academic credentials are irrelevant to debating the key issues here. A piece of sheepskin does not automatically confer intelligence, much less common sense. Thus while I could offer an itemized list that included my two doctorates and related professional accomplishments, nothing in this self-congratulatory C.V. proves that I can think about the questions under discussion clearly. (But of course I can!) As Dwight Macdonald used to say, “There are plenty of ignoramuses with PhD’s.” (But of course I’m not one of them!) Brains are in short supply everyhere, both within and outside the Graves (sic) of Academe. I’m afraid these same caveats apply to you.

2. Probably the most revealing part of your post is this little confession: “Believe it or not, I was a registered 1-A-O (Selective Service classification).  That means I was a selective conscientious objector serving in the military, but refusing to carry a gun.”

Oh, I believe it, all right. Hey, maybe it wasn’t exactly a Daddy-arranged safe haven like the Texas Air National Guard, but clearly it did the job. No Ron Kovac (or one of those decorative white crosses) here!

No, as you note,  a classification of 1-A-O means you were exempted from combatant military training and service and assigned noncombatant duties. In short, you’ve never seen the big red one (tip of the hat to Sam Fuller) up close and personal—-just like chickenhawks Georgie, Cheney (“Other priorities!”), Rummy or the other armchair terminators who were/are so willing to use others as bullet bait on the killing fields of Nam or Iraq.

An 1-A-O classification also means that, as the Selective Service website helpfully informs us, you would have had to establish that your “request for exemption from combatant military training and service in the Armed Forces is based upon his conscientious objection to participation in war in any form, and that he is sincere in his claimed beliefs.”

Likewise, you would have had to “establish that by reason of moral, ethical or religious beliefs,” you were “conscientiously opposed to. . .participation in combatant training and service. Such beliefs do not include views that are essentially political, sociological or philosophical in nature, or those which rest solely on his on self-interest or well-being.”

Further, you would have had to “explain fully to the board how” your “conscience reacts to training in the use of guns and other weapons designed for combatant military use.” You could also have presnted witnesses “aware of [your] conscientious and sincere opposition to participation in war.”

If “based on religious training,” you probably had a chance to “explain fully the nature of the religious teachings” and you may even have brought in your “minister or some other church official. . .knowledgeable of the teachings” of your church or presented written statements from them.

If your opposition was “based on ethical or moral beliefs,” you probably “discuss[ed] these beliefs,” and indicated “where and how” you came by them and “what effect they have had” on you.. As with religious objections, you may even have introduced “witnesses who know of these beliefs and of the effect” they have had on you.

So now, some 30 or so years later, the guy whose “conscience reacted” with such touching sincerity “to training in the use of guns and other weapons designed for combatant military use” is willing at the drop of a turban to pick up that shotgun or Magnum or whatever (at least in his head) and blow away those invading towelheads. (30 years ago, it would have been the Commies—-remember the domino theory? Or the earlier version of the same paranoia: Cuba is only 90 miles from our shore!)

Yes indeed, some 30 or so years later, the conscientious objector who for religious, moral, or ethical reasons refused to pick up a gun or partcipate in war has become the (safely) virtual warrior helping usher all those hapless 18-to-25-year-old grunts out there from this world into the next. As the old hymn has it, “This world is not my home/ I’m just a-passin’ through.” Whassup, Jesus, hope I’m not too early!

In short, with a Good Christian/fundie hypocrisy worthy of your coreligionist Dubya, the guy who managed to keep his ass off the battlefields of Southeast Asia is now a blood-and-guts gunghoist—-an “attack poodle,” in James Wolcott’s all-too-accurate description. What a convenient change of heart, now that you’re well past an age when you could serve as a reasonable facsimile of cannon fodder. What’s that old saw?: “Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.” Thanks for the tribute, Paul! It was so deeply moving. But then so is a high colonic.

Oh, and as for reading bin Laden’s manifesto? “I am not a fascist or Communist, or liberal, so I would have no reason to read Bin Laden.” Of you wouldn’t—-apart from something called intellectual curiosity, clearly a trait that you’ve managed to do without for some time. I’m not a fascist or a Communist or a liberal either, but I’ve read Osama’s pronunciamento. I also read James Dobson’s Focus on the Family Newsletter every week, as well as the National Review Online, Commentary, etc. The opinions contained in these documents are culturally and ideologically antipathetic to every value I cherish, but I operate on one simple principle: know your enemy.

But you obviously don’t want to know much of anything, the enemy included. Why go to the actual sources when you can settle for a Fox soundbite, which is always 100%-guaranteed fair and balanced?

You apparently don’t read much, either,  except the Holy Babble. That’s all right: authentic literacy is often a hindrance to blind faith, be it religious or political. Open yourself to other viewpoints, start thinking analytically, and that Blessed Assurance might go up in smoke. Then the world gets so, you know,. . . complicated. Damn those liberals and their niggling, nuance-loving distinctions. Life is so much more manageable in black. . .and, um, white, White.

I realize that ignorance is bliss, but, really you seem to be stretching the point. “The overwhelming majority of Iraqi citizens (CNN reports n otwithstanding) are grateful for what we did and are doing there.”  “CNN reports [along with many others] notwithstanding”? The hell with facts: I know what those Iraqis really think, just like deep in my heart I really know Jesus is coming again (really, really soon, it would seem). O ye of little faith!

Anyway, thanks for taking the time and effort to individually poll the entire Iraqi populace! I’m sure Messrs. Gallup and Harris will be curious to know exactly what sampling techniques you used to arrive at this sweeping generalization. Alas, actual surveys indicate the majority of Iraqi citizens want us gone ASAP.

And on that point, if you actually did read a newspaper occasionally, you’d find that many conservative Republicans as well as that beloved “silent majority”—-thanks for resurrecting that Nixon-era chestnut—-aren’t quite so silent about our Bungler-in-Chief’s conduct of the war.

As Joe conason reports, “Support for the Bush administration’s conduct of the war, and for the President himself, has been declining steadily, in fact, since the end of 2004. . . .”
Conason continues: “[L]et’s look at the numbers found by recent surveys. In June, CNN and USA Today separately asked Americans—not Democrats and not left-wing bloggers—whether they favor a ‘timetable’ or ‘plan’ for withdrawing from Iraq. Fifty-three percent said yes to CNN, and 57 per cent said yes to USA Today. Both polls were taken within days or weeks after the killing of Al Qaeda terror chief Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the latest advertised ‘turning point’ in the war.”
“Those jaundiced views of the war—which at its outset did enjoy broad public support—have not changed over the past two months. ABC News and The Washington Post jointly conducted a poll last week that asked whether Americans approve or disapprove of the Bush administration’s handling of ‘the situation in Iraq.’ Thirty-six percent approve, while 62 percent do not.”
“That same ABC/Washington Post poll found 59 percent felt the war had not been worth the cost, 64 percent felt the Bush administration had no clear plan for victory, and 53 percent felt the number of U.S. troops in Iraq should be decreased. By a plurality of 38 percent, respondents said that a Congressional candidate who supports the Bush policy would be ‘less likely’ to get their vote. Most remarkably, although 66 percent said that Democrats have no clear position on the war, a slight plurality of 43 percent said they trust Democrats more than Republicans to do ‘a better job’ in Iraq.”
“A CBS News poll came up with much the same result in late July. So did a Gallup poll taken around the same time. And similarly negative results have appeared in polls taken for Fox News, the Associated Press and the Harris Organization, among others. If more than half of the public supports withdrawal from Iraq, and nearly two-thirds disapproves of the President and his policy, then that must be the ‘mainstream’ position.”
“The neoconservatives are not only factually wrong in their domestic politics but conceptually wrong in their geopolitics. To be ‘strong on national security’ does not mean supporting the misconceived and incompetently executed policies of the Bush administration. American security in years to come will depend, in fact, on undoing this government’s grave mistakes, which have weakened this country’s military posture and undermined support for us around the world. Terrorism experts across the spectrum, from conservative Republican to liberal Democrat, agree that the ‘struggle against violent extremism’ has suffered from the foolish decision to invade and occupy Iraq.”

Sorry, Paul. You backed the wrong horse.
Footnote: For the record, I was raised by Good Christians and am happy to report I am now a card-carrying atheist. I dislike all religions, but especially those in the Abrahamic tradition—-Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

I especially dislike Islam. I agree with Sam Harris that many tenets of Mohammed’s gift to Western Civ make it in many ways a cult of death. Unlike your (and formerly my) faith, with its Crusades, Inquisitions, witch-burnings, and general obscurantism, Islam was isolated from the Satan-inspired incursions of the Enlightenment.

As a result, today we can still see, for vexample, a Chechen women accused of adultery (yes, it’s not just in the Middle East)branded with a painted green cross on her forhead, stripped, and beaten in public for her alleged violation of the Koranic code. Although Christianity also hates all but “submissive” women/wives, at least we no longer force our erring spouses to wear scarlet letters on their chests. (Men are never likewise punished, since it was of course Eve who caused the Fall.)

Unfortunately, we need someone in power who knows how to fight Islamic fanatics effectively. Bush isn’t that person. Lucky for me that so many in your Rightie camp now agree with me.

To BillE #20667:

I don’t agree with Samantha West’s characterization of Iraq War opponents (the majority of the country, by the way) as people who are bent on destroying the U.S. rather than building it. I also disagree with her when she says it’s not supporting the troops to argue against a particular deployment. I would say exactly the opposite, in fact: If you think a deployment is the wrong thing to do, then you’re obligated to speak against it.

However, I think your response in which you complained about “abuse the slights to their intelligence” was foolish. Samantha West hasn’t “abused” anyone here.

Other comments:

To CJ, if in fact the Code Pink people have called you a murderer that’s an unspeakable act. It’s so offensive that I have a hard time believing that it has happened at Walter Reed, but if you’ve got a video of them doing it there then post the link. I don’t think they should be there to begin with, much less say crap like that.

A military hospital is not the place to protest the war. Nor is a letter to a soldier in the field. I sent packages through AnySoldier.com and the enclosed letter doesn’t mention any politics whatsoever. It thanks them for their willingness to face hostile fire, and wishes them a safe trip home. Period.

Is the Iraq War a debacle? Hell yes it is. The numbers of ddead and wounded have little to do with that assessment. The Liar-in-Chief started this thing on a series of pretexts. He has lied at every stage since going in. He’s been reckless and incompetent. And now we are stuck. The only reason I might not want to call it a “debacle” is because too many people might think that word is too high-falutin’

I think disaster, or maybe Bush’s Clusterf*ck, would be better.

“He Ain’t No Prince O’ Peace!

YO NATION: LET’S NOT FORGET THE ‘DUBYA WHI$PERER’—GOP ‘CEO’ DR. LOU ($iffur)—In the DEtail$...BIGtime…now put the Sign O’ the Dollar ‘gainst the Sign O’ the Cross? guess which stands & which falls in THAT face-off…it’s HOu$e Bushelzebubba…got it?”

Rev. Hogtie Potus (Cowboy Noir)
from: Pulpit Nonfiction for a Change

YOU didn’t carry a gun and YOU are supporting BUSH incompetence while sending soldiers to be MURDERED? Just what was your MOS?
 
    Y O U     H Y P O C R A T E

You stated and I quote:

  “That means I was a selective conscientious objector serving in the military, but refusing to carry a gun. ”

RE:Comment #20548 by Samantha West on 8/29 at 9:17 pm

Sam, I have to start off with YIKES!

Just a couple of things. Dissent in time of war (especially in time of war) is an inheritably patriotic act. Blind support of any action by a government is the first step toward living in a tyranny.

Beyond that, I do support our troops. I constantly advocate for better pay, equipment and on going care, not only for those wounded in action, but for all of those that do and have worn the uniform of our country.

I understand that they go when told to, this is the agreement that they made when they choose to serve, and that is why they deserve our support and respect. But that does not mean that I have to respect the choices of those that send them to missions that have poor planning and poor oversight. I support the troops by never supporting wars of choice; by never thinking that it is okay for us to send them to under-defined missions, without clear goals, without realistic planning for winning the peace as well as conquering our enemies.

That is true support of the troops. Unlike the jingoistic posturing and shrill reminders that our freedom has been assured by our fellow citizens actions on the field of battle throughout our history.

On a personal note, name calling is seems to be the first and last resort of those that have a losing argument. While I find your points unpersuasive the extreme, I don’t think that you deserve the same low level of civility that you show in your response to me.

While I have taken you seriously enough to send time responding to your points, why should anyone bother with conversation with you, when all they get is abuse and slights to their intelligence? Isn’t that what Molly was writing about in the first place?

Cheers,

Paul White:

If you want to know why we have enemies, it’s not because we’re American with hope and money. Osama came from a billionaire family.

You talk alot about reading. Read BLOWBACK by Chalmers Johnson. Americans have been meddling in the affiars of other nations under the horizon of the American public since the end of WW2. Lots of it very nasty stuff both by Democrats and Republicans. They’re tired of it. We wouldn’t tolerate it happening in the US and you wouldn’t tolerate it with your family.

Isn’t there a Bible verse that says “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?” There is. We are getting done to us what we’ve been doing and continue to do to them. Read the THE GREAT WAR FOR CIVILSATION by Robert Fisk if you want to see the folly of US policies in the ME. Having an advanced degree from Brown you should be able to get through its 1100 pages.

Intrinsically, the turmoil in the ME has nothing to do with being American or having hope or money. The British were in the same situation before the US was. Do you realize the British were dying in Basra nearly 100 years ago for essentially the same reasons? Back then you would’ve said it was because we are British with money and hope. Before that, it is because we are Ottomans.

However, the Iraqis do have hope… that Americans will take their money and go home while there is such a thing as Iraq left to leave. Where are all the mighty empires in the ME that preceded the American Empire? Their blood has long since dried in the hot sand and blown away. This too is the fate of the US Empire. And guess what, this also is in your Bible.

Truth be known Paul, the bulls**t emanates from the Connecticut Cowboy.

I am strongly against the Iraq War. I think Bush lied his way in on the basis of WMD that didn’t exist and a fictional Saddam-al Qaeda connection. The human rights argument is a sick joke in light or the torture policy. To top it off, the whole effort has been horrendously mismanaged. If it were up to me, the U.S. would withdraw, impeach Bush and Cheney and hold war crimes trials.

That said, I am equally disdainful of the “Code Pink” protests outside of Walter Reed. They are presenting a caricature of anti-Iraq War sentiment. Demonstrations are always symbolic acts, and to hold them outside of a facility housing wounded veterans is brainless.

The wounded inside of Walter Reed should not be told by the people outside that their efforts were for nothing—even if that’s the case, as I believe. It’s cruel to do that. Or to quote my second grade teacher, “There is a time and a place, and this is not the time or the place.”

Cindy Sheehan is another pointless protester. A year ago, I supported her activities. But she has milked her son’s death for long enough, and should now find something else to do.

Dear Molly,

Thank you for being you.  I just read most of the replies to your “Cow Whisperers Against the War” and believe that those who think military force is the only answer are wrong.  Pro-war idiots don’t think about how it would be if their home town became rubble and saw dead and dying people all around.

I am anti-war and do not allow myself to be around republican pro-war types whenever possible.

I run a travel web site and wonder if the pro-war types would like the whole world to be turned into rubble with their use of force.

Keep on writing Molly!
Peace and Good Luck.

Can’t help but wonder what the world would be like if Osama and the Egyptian madman, his Cheney, were either behind bars or dead and, yes, Saddam was still in power, with U.N. inspectors on the ground in Iraq, with military back-up, and Afghanistan was pacified and functioning as a nation.

Osama really effed up when those towers came down. Yes, the Afghans greeted the world’s assistance with gleeful smiles. Men shaved their beards as fast as they could find a barber and women roamed free, outside in the streets, no longer afraid of religious police. Little girls went to school, for awhile. I can’t remember ever seeing kids so happy about school opening.

Al Qaeda no longer had a base of operations. By that time, Osama and his little band of religious whackjobs had been run out of more countries than 99 % of Americans have ever been to.

His son, Omar, who had been with him through thick and thin, told him off and went back to Saudi Arabia. The whole organization was highly pissed and did not think too highly of 9/11. It brought the wrath of God down on their heads, so to speak.

Moderate Muslims were appalled by 9/11. Yes, some may have cheered. According to press reports, there were some fairly joyous Israeli “furniture movers” over on a New Jersey roof as well. They were taken into custody and questioned.

But, by in large, Muslims are not so diffrerent from us. Young hot-heads, with opinions, tend to act out. So, what else is new? The elders see the world a little differently. The intentional wholesale murder of non-combatants is not right in anyone’s book; anyone, who is half-way conscious and aware, that is. (That would not be the religiously indoctrinated and dogmatic; the very definition of unconsious and unaware)

As Bush would say, after shock and awe in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda was on the run and collapsing like a circus tent.

All that was left to do, at that moment, in the “war on terror” was to catch or kill the head of the snake. Nothing less would do.

Unfortunately, that didn’t happen. What did happen, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, illegal and sold on a pack of lies, redeemed Osama in the eyes of many, and created more potential threats to Americans than Osama could have dreamed about.

Funny. Bush and Osama needed each other. Bush’s presidency was sinking like a stone, before 9/11. Osama’s poll numbers were in tatters after 9/11.
By the simple, albeit sometimes difficult, act of focusing and finishing a job, the administration could have made the Battle with Al Qaeda decisive.

Instead, Osama is freer than we are, the world is more hostile toward us than ever before, and our flag, stained with the blood of innocents and tattered by incredibility and war crimes, no longer flies in glory.

All of that and more, makes me sick.

Cindy Sheehan and Molly Ivins did not cause this situation.

Neither did the anti-war crowd, whom Bush called a focus group, before the invasion of Iraq. But they did warn us that the invasion would be a huge mistake for Americans, as well as everyone else. They were right.

To Isabel Ben (#20513):

While I do have an Ivy League degree (Brown U),advanced degree, and membership in academic societies—Phi Kappa Phi and Beta Gamma Sigma—I’m not sure what an “authoritative submissive” is.  I am, however, glad you are a fifth generation military—what branch did you serve in?  As for me, I served in the United States Army during the Vietnam area.  Believe it or not, I was a registered 1-A-O (Selective Service classification).  That means I was a selective conscientious objector serving in the military, but refusing to carry a gun.

Hopefully, all of the above qualifies me to respond to this topic on this liberal website.  Isabel, my bottom line:  you, like all liberals, are standing on your head and stating that the world is upside down.

You state that our tactics create enemies.  No, we’d have them anyway.  Our enemy hates us because we are American; because we have money; because they have no hope.  Democrat, Republican, liberal, John Kerry, Barbara S., George Soros, far-left—far right all of us—they want to kill us.  Isabel—they want to kill you!!  When Bill Clinton was president, why was the USS Cole attack?  That was before Bush. Why was the WTC attacked?  (when Clinton was president before Bush)  Why did Bin Laden and Al Quaeda plan the WTC2 attack?  (when Clinton was president before Bush).  All of this happened when Bill (who would rather sit down with Kofi Annan and Mahmoud Abbas at the UN and disprove the Pythageron Theorem than fire a gun).  Isabel—Bush wasn’t president then.  Why did so many want to kill us when peace-loving and peace-making and no-backbone Clinton was president?

You asked, whom (actually, you asked “who,” but I digress) should we shoot in Iraq?  How about the terrorists who are shooting at the legitimnately elected democractic government in Iraq? We are there to protect it.  We know that democracies are always peace-loving. History shows that democracies do not start wars. It is important to have democracies in the Mid-east.  We have three now—Afganistan, Iraq and Israel.  We should do everything in our power to preserve them and not let them be torn down. 

No exit startegy in Iraq?  Yes there is.  But why should we announce it to the enemy?  That would be smart, right.  Hey terrorists, we’re leaving on Jan 22, 2007.  It makes sense to tell your enemy when you are leaving, right?  By the way, we will leave when Iraqi citizens are capable of defending themselves.  Doesn’t that make sense?  You seem to think that we are fighting a war against Iraq.  We are not.  The overwhelming majority of Iraqi citizens (CNN reports n otwithstanding) are grateful for what we did and are doing there.  Other terrorist from other countries have come there just to get a piece of us—because they want to kill Americans.  In addition, the thugs in Iraq, now out of power, are trying to bring down the democracy established there.  Should we let them bring it down?  You say yes, I’m sure—because you are standing on your head and have no back bone.  That’s why in 2004 W got a mandate.  The silent majority (who don’t even know that websites like this exist) love this country. 

Did I read Bin Laden’s manifesto?  No, that’s not something I regularly read.  Do you?  I read the bible (adult bible class teacher).  I am not a fascist or Communist, or liberal, so I would have no reason to read Bin Laden.  I did read parts of it as reported by the press, but I didn’t get myself a copy.  Have you read the DaVinci Code?  How about the bible?  Do YOU read it?  How about the Koran?  Do you read it?

Let’s see, you say we should not pick up a gun until we understand our enemy.  I’m sure glad you are just a blog participant and not Commander In Chief.  I doubt you even have a family.  As for me, if someone attacks my family—my child—my wife—I will respond with force—with a gun—whether I understand the intruder or not.  You mean, Isabel, you wouldn’t?  You would have a 9/11 occur and not go after Bin Laden because you didn’t understand him yet?  There is something called self-preservation that most civilized people want to maintain. 

Isabel, you wonder what we are doing in Iraq since it was Al Queda that attacked us.  Guess who did not attack us during the Clinton years (USS Cole, WTT1) and before that in Lebanon (the Marine barracks).  It wasn’t Al Quaeda.  We are ALL fighting fascist terrorists.  Hizbollah, AQ, whomever.  We are in Iraq and in Afganistan taking on ALL terrorists, who want a piece of us.

Isabel, why did Bill Clinton let Bin Laden off the hook?  He was ours to have, not once, but twice.  Clinton would not pick up the gun.  Clinton chose to not get the Arab world upset with America.  And look what it got us—WTC. 

Sorry Isabel, nice try.  What branch of the military did you say you served in?  You said you were fifth generation.  It’s time Isabel you stopped standing on your head.

Paul White
In the Right

Well, standing vigil and holding up the V for peace may make one feel good; but what does it change?  Ghandi suffered through non-violence and fasting for how many years before change was wrought?  And even then, it was more a political decision (on the part of the colonial bosses) rather than a moral one.
In the words of a young man who spoke it rather succinctly; “you cannot petition the lord with prayer.”  You cannot petition the overlords and destroyers with prayer, they will continue their destructive ways while laughing in your peaceful, beatific face. 
Electing more democrats hardly seems the right course, they also sleep with the enemy in spite of their campaign prattle. 
The landlords of the Earth will continue their corrupt way because they have nothing to fear, it is only when they have something to fear (loss of profit, loss of hard stock, loss of life, etc.) that the corrupt can be fought - and sometimes changed.
History (in Amerika) bears this out, all one needs do is look at the early labor movement and the gains they made early on; they hardly made those gains by flashing the peace sign.  And yes, though the civil rights movemnet was largely non-violent, it was the power of the boycott (as with the braceros in the fields), that brought change.
The 60s (and the changes brought about by that movement), though supposedly non-violent, were comprised of many groups and individuals who took a more aggresive path to affect change.
The housewives of the U.S. in the mid-70s brought the beef producing bloodsuckers to their knees - not by flashing the peace sign - but by the power of the boycott.
The weapon of power is economic and we hold it in our hand.  The weapon of power also may be violence when called for.  You may put a few million people on the street (behind the ubiquitous ‘demonstration zones’) and wave signs; or, you may put a few million people on the street, disregard the holding pens and run amok.
Oh, yes, heads will be broken and other ‘bad’ things might happen, that’s the price paid for getting out from under the thumb of the boss man.
Or, you can take a few million (10 to 20) people and sit on your duff and not trade a nickel’s worth.  Don’t pay a bill, don’t bank, don’t turn on that fucking boob tube - in about two weeks Wall Street will shit itself.
Now I am realistic enough to know that this won’t happen.  The great Amerikan public has been (creature comfort) narcoticized to the point of narcolepssy.  But it’s nice to dream, isn’t it?  After all, those who petition the lord with prayer are dreaming also, are they not?

Gahndi, King and now Code Pink - passive resitance works if you are patient

What does it mean: “Support the troops”? How, exactly, does one do this? “Troop supporters” I know do things like put magnetic yellow ribbons on their cars—like that does anything but mess up the paint job—and spout magical incantations (aka praying). How many troop supporters conserve oil, send goodies packages, pester their congresspod to get them more supplies or better yet end the fiasco in Iraq?

Re Comment #20526 by CJ:

Thank you for clarifying some of the issues I raised.

1. Vis-a-vis your interaction with the Code Pinkers, I will take on faith that what you have reported is true and accurate. In that case, while I am hardly in a position to apologize for the bad behavior of people I don’t even know,I regret that you were treated so rudely by those whom I suppose I must regard as my ideological allies.

Such discourtesy does little to advance the cause of civilized dialogue and mutual understanding and in fact reminds me of the fools who used to scream “Baby burner!” or the like at soldiers just returned from Vietnam during the anti-war demonstrations I joined in the 60’s.  At the time, I thought this was probably not the most effective way to spread the message of universal peace and love to the world. I still think that today.

2. I will accept your claim that Iraq is not a “debacle” in the sense that I have offered here, i.e., “3. an overwhelming defeat or rout; 4. a total, often ludicrous , collapse or failure.” The key words here are “overwhelming” and “total” and are thus perhaps too extreme. I will therefore call Iraq a qualified (as opposed to an unqualified) disaster.

A. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal psychopath and even though I generally oppose capital punishment, I will shed nary a tear the day he swings from the scaffold (or whatever they do with mass murderers over there. . .beheading would be too much to hope for). But he had nothing to do with the monsters responsible for 9/11. (There are, of course, plenty of Islamofascists in Iraq. . .now.)

In fact, Osama despised Saddam’s secular regime. After 9/11, Bush failed in what should have been his key mission: the capture and execution of bin Laden. (“Frankly, I don’t think about him that much.”)  But bin Laden still had his uses. As former cabinet members like Paul O’Neil have pointed out, Bush desperately wanted to establish a connection between 9/11 and Saddam even though there was absolutely no evidence for such a link.

Have you actually read “The Project for the New American Century,” the necon bluprint for our Middle Eastern ambitions? This document makes it eminently clear that the foreign policy shaped by Wolfowitz et al. had one overriding goal: the appropriation of Middle Eastern oil reserves. But “We want your oil!” doesn’t have quite the same appeal as “We want to free you!”

B. Old joke: “How do we know Saddam had WMD’s? Because we kept the receipts.” Nietzsche said, “All morality is a matter of expediency,” and our foreign policy certainly proves that point. Consider that great photo op of Rummy shaking hands with Hussein in the 80’s. (Saddam was apparently taking a break from gassing all those Kurds—-an atrocity of which we were well aware at the time.)Here’s a helpful hint: if we really want to help stop all those terrorists, let’s quit doing business with them.

2. We located those WMD’s, all right, but given their degraded, 20+-year-old state, thst’s like finding a cap gun and then saying you discovered an AK-47. Here is the FULL context of that little Eureka:

“As CNN national security correspondent David Ensor reported on CNN’s The Situation Room shortly after the announcement, ‘Charles Duelfer, the CIA’s weapons inspector, tells us the weapons are all pre-Gulf War-vintage shells, no longer effective weapons. NOT EVIDENCE, he says, of an ongoing WMD program under [former Iraqi dictator] Saddam Hussein.’ The Washington Post also reported June 22 that ‘[n]either the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.’ From the Post:”

“The lawmakers pointed to an unclassified summary from a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center regarding 500 chemical munitions shells that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988.”

“The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. NEITHER THE MILITARY NOR THE WHITE HOUSE NOR THE CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.”

“Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were NOT the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.”

See http://mediamatters.org/items/200606230005

As for the discrepancy between our stated casus belli for invading Iraq vs. what we actually found (or didn’t find), as our Commander-in-Chief recently said, “I square it because I imagine a world in which you had a Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would — who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.”

“Now, look, I — part of the reason we went into Iraq was — the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out HE DIDN’T, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.” [Emphasis added.]

After then stating that terrorists attacked us and killed 3000 American citizens, he was asked what Iraq had to do with that.

“Nothing, except for it’s part of — and nobody’s ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September the 11th is take threats before they fully materialize. . .”

“Nobody’s ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.”

Sure they didn’t, George. That’s why an overwhelming majority of the American people to this day believe that Saddam “had something to do with” 9/11. Gee, now where could they have picked up that crazy idea?. . .

C. The only people who thought that democracy could be brought to Iraq in “a matter of days” (or, at most, within a few months) were George Bush and his enablers. God knows, AWOL chickenhawk Dubya sure did look like some kinda macho stud in that flight suit when he proclaimed “Mission accomplished!”

And no, he didn’t mean just the initial invasion; he meant the post-invasion aftermath as well, during which—-of course!—-we’d be welcomed as liberators. Nice grasp of Arab geopolitics, George! It is Bush and company who have repeatedly insisted on looking at Iraq through rose-colored bomb sights, constantly revising their almost hysterically Pollyannish predictions about the advent of A New, Free, Democratic Iraq as the unpleasant facts keep nudging their timetable ever further into the future.

By the way, you didn’t address the central question now before us: is Iraq now entering a civil war? This is the growing consensus, not just among the “liberal” media and those whacko Lefties but among many Republican and right-wing commentators as well.

Anyone who understands the history and culture of Iraq could have seen this coming. Most Shiites clearly want what the Sunnis do not, namely, an authoritarian theocracy, whose principles are antithetical to our conception of democracy—and indeed to the whole rational, secular tradition of the Enlightenment. The Sunnis are True Believers and like all fanatics they’re not about to give up their sense of divine certainty for devlish Western values like equal treatment of women or whatever.

D. Thank you for your good taste re Rove, O’Reilly, and Coulter.

First of all, congratulations to everyone here who has failed to provide good stewardship to our country. Molly Ivans, you are the royal princess when it comes this. However, Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan et al, are your ladies in waiting.  Your actions are about stroking you little egos and not about stopping the war, or changing things…because if you managed to do that, then what would you do for a living?

You want to stop the war for real then do it the proper way:

True patriots practice a stewardship of the United States throughout their lives. They build, they do not destroy. They work within the system to make America stronger and if they see the system is not working, they look for ways to improve it. They never say “My vote doesn’t count,” because they understand that it does. They know that gossip, slander and libel are damaging, even if it turns out to be false, and so they avoid these things. They’re not patriots because they pinned an American flag on their lapel on 9/12/2001; they are patriots because every day of their life, before and after 9/11, they take actions, some tiny and some huge, to support and improve the United States and her people.

One other thing, Bill E. - it doesn’t take a smart person to figure out that when you tell an soldier in a war zone that you support him and not the war that you’re really telling him ” Hey Joe, you risking you life for a lame cause.”  Now Bill E., can you figure the rest out?  Probably not…so let me explain further.  If your military is going to protect you effectively then they don’t get to choose the wars they fight in.  They go when they’re called.  When you tell a soldier that the cause he’s fighing for is lame how do you think that effects his performance on the battlefield?  What right do you have to risk a soldier’s life, and the lives of the people in his unit by demoralizing him? YOU DON’T BUDDY.

As far as I’m concerned, the blood of many Marines, sailors, soldiers, airmen and coastguardsmen are on the hands of all the people who practice poor stewardship. 

If you really want to change things then why don’t you take your time and energy and search for good candidates to represent you and put them in office through the proper channels?  Why do you destroy instead of build? Answer, you foment hate and distrust because it makes you feel righteous, you don’t give a damn about your country or the troops. Every day that you put forth your hatred and make no positive effort to change the things you don’t like, now I said POSITIVE, you support the enemy who is fights a fourth generation war (Read “The Sling and the Stone” by Col Thomas X. Hammes).  They depend on YOU to tear down the fabric of the United States for them, and Molly, Code Pink, Cindy, et al, you’re doing a damn fine job of it.

One other thing, if you respond to my comments don’t bring the President into it. None of this is really about him, it about how you go about making the change you desire.  Constantly bashing someone doesn’t change things, it just creates an atmosphere of conflict and distrust.

I’ll say it again, it’s not the fact that you disagree with me that I find offensive, it’s how you go about doing things.  My troops, your troops, are willing to die so you can have freedom of speech.  That freedom has been granted us at a HUGE cost, why do you use it to destroy the United States instead of using it to build Her? 

Sam
. .

And we were damn proud to have you there woman. Here, here, with your comment on the IVAW women. They are about to rip this war right open. Thank you again Molly- we wouldn’t have quite gotten the real Texas downlow without you.

*I’m founding Cow Whisperers Against the War.*

Funny article, Molly.

Cow - Coalition of (the) Willing.

Cow Whisper’s huh, now that’s a good one….they can go and talk sweet nothings in #219 ears all they want, to get her to go where they want her to go, and she’ll turn around and eat them cow whispers and the horses they ride. She don’t care how loving and soothing you talk in her ear, your in her space and she wants you gone, and she’s not afraid to use force to eject you out of her space. After picturing the 219 cow eating this women, I was laughing to hard, to read the rest of the article, it’s been a long dry summer, can we get her to come to my ranch and whisper in #219 ears, or #5, or #49, for just some type of entertainment. She’s put the fear of god into many a cowboys and there trusty mounts, from trying to tag her calfs ear, my theroy was to just leave that calf alone, less blood shed the better. We’ve tried fishing the calf from across a 4 barb wire fence, and once we had him caught and drug over, and trying to put a tag in a bucking calf’s ear, she was right in the middle of that fence, blowing snot and bellering in that poor cowboys ear. She’s crawled into the back of pickups, through pickup cabs, and trapped a cowboy under the pickup after he dived under it, for safety.

Hey we can take her down to Bush ranch and let them ladies just love up on her all they want, wouldn’t hurt my feeling a bit, they can love up on her, hug her around the neck, palnt kisses on that black nose of hers, and she’s reward them by either stomping them in the ground or holding them hostage on some fence, esp when calving season comes around, and we have to sort her off or tag that calf. Ride past her calf, and that nice brockled face cow that was happily chewing her cud, is now hot on your poor mounts tail, and you just pray that young green 20 days of riding horse that your mounted on knows how to high tail it back to safety.

And the little Smith angus bull, he’s taken my horse and me one to many times, ever been chased by a 2400 lb bull on a 900 lbs horse. Yeah they can go and whisper all the sweet nothings in his ears too when they want him to load up in that trailer.

Sweet talking gets you now where fast except to the ER.

Bill, first off, thank you for your thoughts.  Let me start by correctly stating the number of my fallen brethren are a little more than 2600, not 3000.  That’s a big difference.  Let me also note that not all of those deaths are directly or indirectly related to combat.  Some are due to vehicle accidents and others are due to illness or health.  Almost 600 of those deaths were non-combat related, things that can happen anywhere.  However, in my eyes, I don’t ever want to see ONE of my fellow Soldiers buried so this is all semantics.  If 3000 dead is a “debacle” to you, then WWII should have been lost on D-Day.

As for the ‘vigil’ comment, I don’t agree with groups who send hundreds of thousands of dollars to our enemies and who pay to send Ba’athists around our country touting how EVERY soldier is a murderer (I have video, I was there and called a murderer to my face; this is soldier support?).  Those aren’t scare quotes, those are my personal observations after weeks at Walter Reed trying to talk to these people. 

Claude, i’m no swift-boater and I go against ANYONE actively encouraging subversion of our military whether it be Ann or 1LT Ehren Wetarded.  I have no patience for people who break the law and disregard military authority.  I refuse to support people who trash talk my fellow servicemembers, even if it’s a fellow servicemember.

I’m not one of the Hooah Soldiers you talk about who can’t wait for the next kill, but I know what you’re talking about.  However, I also won’t flinch if I get a terrorist in my sights.  The more we kill, the more money we save on useless court trials and guards.  I’m all for killing the people that are trying to kill me, my brothers and sister in arms, and the people I’m sworn to protect-the innocent. 

Jen, I don’t mind the people that don’t support the war at Walter Reed…that AREN’T with Code Pink.  A few weeks ago I went out and talked to a number of them and their intentions were honorable.  One lady volunteers daily with the Red Cross taking care of Soldiers in Walter Reed, then goes out and holds a peace placard.  That’s fine, she truly supports the troops and not the war.  That’s how you do it. 

Another gentleman was there protesting against the war but FOR better medical care for the troops.  I support that as well and understand his true intentions.  I had no problems with him.

However, I have a problem with a group (Code Pink) who says they support the Soldiers then call me a murderer to my face and shout me down in front of my children (Vietnam anyone?).  This is the same group that sponsored a trip across the country by Eman Ahmad Khama (or something like that), the Ba’athist spreading lies about American soldiers.  Not some American Soldiers, ALL American soldiers according to her. 

And finally, Paul:  I don’t EVER carry any placards either in support or opposition to the war when I go down there.  I go down there to speak with people on both sides of the street - Free republic and Code Pink.  When I show up to the Free Republic side, my hand is shook and my back patted.  Do I want that? No.  But, it shows support.  When I show up at the Code Pink side (actually down the street a bit) I am jeered at (always), ignored (most of the time), and blatantly talked down to for being a soldier (often, but not always).  Not once have I been thanked for being a soldier, though I haven’t sought that gratitude.  If they truly support soldiers, why not shake one’s hand? 

Next, I like the definition you used for debacle - “3. an overwhelming defeat or rout; 4. a total, often ludicrous , collapse or failure.”  By that definition, Iraq is NOT a debacle.  It’s quite the opposite.  We went in there to remove Saddam Hussein - accomplished.  We intended to set up a democracy - accomplished.  We went in there to remove WMD - accomplished (even if you want to argue this point, you can’t deny the previous two, though this was accomplished).  The only debacle is in the minds of defeatists who think rebuilding a nation takes a matter of days and we should be done by now.  That’s simply unrealistic.  And we’re DOING IT while fighting the opposition to it and standing up an Iraqi security infrastructure. We’re doing while fighting the media’s unfair representation of our efforts.  this isn’t a “Rove strategy”, it’s a first hand experience from a senior Non-Commissioned Officer.  So, I appreciate you clarifying the term “debacle”.  For the record, Rove is a powerhungry idiot, I can’t stand Bill O’Reilly and Coulter is just funny.

Finally, I spoke out against Ann because of her stance in encouraging soldiers to commit pure and simple subversion - encouraging soldiers to refuse to obey LAWFUL orders.  I have nothing against Iraq Veterans Against the War, or whatever they’re called.  I just disagree with them.  But I respectfully disagree with them…until they start encouraging soldiers to go AWOL and other subversive acts.  Then, I’ll attack them as well.  I think they’re better than that. 

Okay, I think I covered it all.  Anyone?

As we commemorate the first anniversary of Katrina, I would like to record my feelings about how bad an omen was this for our country. Just nine months into his first stolen election, we were hit with the tragic events of 9/11. Whether this was an inside job or it was some outside enemy, history still needs to give its final verdict. However, the fact that it happened on Bush’s watch is bad enough of an omen for people to wake up.
Almost nine months into his second term, our country was devastated by the horrors of Katrina. This was, for sure, a wake up call from heaven; another bad omen about this evil imposed on the nation in the name of democracy and security.
How bad it has to get till the average American wakes up to the horrors committed by this administration in their names and with their tax-payers money!

For Paul White: How do you win a war when you can’t define the enemy? How about if your tactics create “enemies” who see their role as defensive and that would never have entered the field but for the “war”? In Iraq: who should we shoot? How will we know we’ve won? Bush criticized Clinton for Bosnia because he doubted these objectives or an exit strategy existed. Apparently there was an objective and a stragey. We aren’t there now, and I hear some fine restaurants are now available there for your enjoyment.
Didn’t you read Bin Laden’s manifesto? We gave him everything he wanted. We lack a strategician, and Bush has chased out every stateman and qualified intelligence officer from our foreign service and CIA. Query, who are our real allies at this moment? Even Britian called this administration “crap” (look it up, that’s a quote!) because they released the latest plot early for political reasons and blew busting the larger ring.
Until you can clearly define your terms and objectives,know and understand the enemy, don’t pick up a gun.
I am 5th generation military, and am apalled at the misuse of our forces. The pact is and should be that the lives of our troops are never wasted for anything less than a clear and present danger. Al Queada is not Iraq, nor is it Iran. Actually it is closer to Saudi Arabia, but for some reason we aren’t talking about the Wahabbism that they export as a foundation for the zealots we now face.
Distinguish between policy and the efforts of our troops.
The danger of Al Quaeda was known, specified to Bush and ignored. This war was a foregone conclusion long before 9/11. 
As an apparent authoritarian submissive you probably will have a knee jerk reaction to this, but I hope you think about defining your terms. You might discover something.

Re Comment #20420 by CJ:

You wrote:“Funny how when I, as a wounded Iraq vet, tell Code Pink to their faces that their little ‘vigils’ at Walter Reed every Friday night DON’T make me feel better, they laugh in my face.”  Molly Ivins wrote: “If you’re a woman peace activist, this is Step 101—you spill love and calm and reassurance and, well, peace all over them.”

Who are we to believe here? As my boy Tom Eliot used to say, “Between the conception and the creation/ Falls the shadow,” but if you’re right, then in this case the shadow (the gap between Code Pink’s stated mission and its actual performance) must be pretty damn long.

If “they” (all the members of Code Pink?) really do laugh in your face “every Friday” (their unvarying response?), then they’re not
“spill[ing] love and calm and reassurance and, well, peace” all over you. What they’re spilling is “sarcasm” and “ridicule”—-items in their armory Molly unaccountably failed to mention.

In short, if your account is accurate, at best the C.P. girls are confused; at worst, they’re hypocrites.

I am not persuaded that this is the case. You fail to provide us with any context. Where were you in relation to the Code Pinkers when this (apparently repeated) encounter occurred? Did you (and do you still)engage them verbally at some point? Are you the one who initiates the exchange, and if so, what do you say? Or do you stand mutely nearby, hoisting a support-the-war placard in your hand? If the last scenario is true, then their mockery is unwarranted and you are owed an apology.

By the way, as I understand it, the function of Code Pink isn’t to make you “feel better.” They’re not therapists. Rather, their function is to tell the truth. Observing this process is clearly more painful to some than to others.

Breaking news, CJ: no one is buying the Rove-spawned Bill O’Reilly/Ann Coulter line about “But wonderful things are happening in Iraq, too” spin any more. Ugly reality keeps intruding on this pretty little fantasy. But on that point, since you seem confused by the meaning of the term “debacle” in the sense used here, allow Webster’s New World Dictionary (Fourth College Edition) to enlighten you: “n. . . .3. an overwhelming defeat or rout; 4. a total, often ludicrous , collapse or failure.”

Pace Mr. White above, the majority of American electorate now seem ready to settle on one or both senses of that term, with maybe a slight edge accorded “a total, often ludicrous, collapse or failure.”  Certainly Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz and their historically illiterate and politically naive co-conspirators who managed to neo-con us into what is obviously now a civil war are, by any definition,  “ludicrous.” [“adj. so absurd, ridiculous, or exaggerated as to cause or merit laughter.”] Yes,they’ll welcome us as liberators! Sunnis and Shiites will snuggle up together to usher in American-style Demockeracy! The insurgency is in its last throes! Now listen to Georgie and Dick and Paul and Ricahrd laughing—-all the way to the bank. Gotta love that Haliburton stock.

Unfortunately, the toll of this war—-the thousands of dead or maimed American soldiers and the even greater number of dead or maimed Iraqi civilians—-isn’t “ludicrous.”  It’s simply appalling. That’s “appalling,” as in “causing horror, shock [and awe?], or dismay.”

By the way, why take a swipe only at COL Ann Wright? What about the Iraqi Veterans against the War that Molly mentioned in passing? Think all of them skirted combat, too? If not. what possible motive could they have for speaking out against the war? Get out the Swift Boats. . .

Excellent piece of writing that spoke to me twice…as a child in Australia I used to round up the cows for milking and never thought till just now, how easy and calm it was. I put my arm round Pet’s neck (my favourite cow) and chatted quietly near her ear all the way to milking - all the others just followed. It was peaceful.

I also met Medea and Cindy in London last December at a Peace Conference and found Cindy to be the most serene person I have ever met. I too run a gentle anti-war campaign Arms Against War and although tempted to swing naked and threatening from some tower on occassion (out of sheer frustration at the lunacy of our governments) - instead wear a simply white fabric armband (free and instant if you have a sheet/old knickers etc. handy) as a way of expressing my opinion about the war in Iraq - I want it ended.

I figure it doesn’t matter your reason for objecting to the war in Iraq - just that you do and that you say so and that we all agree (finally?) on one thing - no other agenda. This simple act of tearing and wearing the white strip means I am not still and silent. It is non-arrestable, free, instant, available everywhere right now and one day…..could be so highly visible that we cannot be ignored

A lovely read Molly and a thrill to find ‘home’ in your well selected words.

Namaste,
Tina Louise
http://www.armsagainstwar.info

#20461 - you may have missed this little fable when you were a kid.  One day the north wind challenged the sun to a duel.  The north wind said to the sun, “See that traveler walking on that road.  I’ll bet you I can get his coat off him and you can’t.”  So the north wind blew and blew and blew and the more he blew the tighter the traveler pulled his coat around him. The north wind gave up. “My turn,” the sun said.  So the sun shone and shone and shone and the traveler took off his coat.

Yea it is too bad that Code Pink has an idiot member in thier orginization that may laugh in your face, Bill.  But hey, there is at least one idiot in every crowd.  There are idiots in all large orginizations, but that does not disqualify the whole group.  The majority of reasoned thinkers now know this Iraq war was a huge mistake, a failed policy at minimum.  Some of us saw through the deceit in the lead up to war, those of us (minority) educated in mid-East history.  We could refer to it is a calamity.  But Bill, some of us are really greatful for your sacrifice, and we certainly can’t fully understand what you’ve been through.  But lets call a pig a pig, a failed policy a failed policy.  You can put makeup on a pig and it is still a pig.

#20420 - Code Pink needs to take a course in peaceful demonstrations ala Gandhi.  I took one years ago to prepare for participating in a peaceful demonstration and was surprised to learn that many of the tactics used by self-described peace demonstrators were not peaceful at all.  Foreinstance, if you’re lying down in the street to prevent cars, say, from entering a facility you get up when you’re asked to move.  You NEVER go limp so you have to be carried.  According to Gandhi that is a violent act.  What happened to you at Walter Reed is unconscionable.

Hey CJ, we are working on the Walter Reed vigil as well as making sure the Pro-peace movement takes account of how vets will react to their actions. I am sure as a vet you know civilians don’t have that special something(understanding and bond between us) we vets get from being in the military, no matter what ones opinion on the war is. They are only human and we as vets are trying to bridge that gap. I am sure you can see my logic when I say that many people who ARE pro-war don’t represent me and make me feel insulted by their remarks. Its all about perspective. I assure you though we are trying to infuse a vets perspective into the peace movement.

Peace Brother/Sister
Welcome Home
Jen
IVAW

IVAW.ORG

The arrogant elitist is prevalent in every profession.  From the insufferable published college professor to the religious fanatic and the ‘hoo-aw’ soldier who can’t wait until he gets to kill a gook/kraut/rag-head.  I met many of these suckers during the twenty years that I wore an Army uniform.  In all those memories of barracks life, etc., there are some that stand-out, but need not be repeated here.  Suffice to say, all those years ago, my initial response to the ‘hoo-aw’ attitude was correct.  I did not trust them.  At every chance, I stayed away from them, and several times took transfers to get the hell away.  I felt, then and now, anyone that could not recover from the battle-fever, or “brain-washing” of basic training was a danger to me and those around me.  They were the first to charge in and first to blame everyone else during the AAR.

CJ in comment # 20420 goes after Col. Anne because, according to him, she did everything to avoid combat during her military career.  I understand he disagrees with her political position on the Iraq war, but accusing her of being a wimp/coward/pussy really doesn’t convince me her position is wrong.

I have heard it said that women are their own worst enemy.  If you doubt that consider three women who discover an acquaintance who has suffered long-term abuse by her husband.  At least two will blame the victim and say she got what she deserved just for staying.  Similarly, CJ and other ‘Swift-Boaters’ love nothing better than to arrogantly attack the service behavior of fellow veterans/soldiers.

Dear Molly:

Congratulations on your new degree.  Welcome to the real world.  Your spunk is to be admired, but your naivete renders you obsolete in this real world. Stick to forage management and you’ll do just fine.

You win wars by showing and using force. You just do it before there is any discussion.  The enemy can’t get a heads up and doesn’t know what hit him.  He is defeated.

You lose wars with your approach—going to the UN to debate the issue or by thinking you can sit down and reason with today’s stateless enemy.  Let’s have some discussion with John Kerry and Howard Dean and and France and Barbara S and , oh yes…the UN.  We don’t want to antagonize our enemy.  When they see how reasonable we are by just talking first, they won’t resent us as much.  Yeah,  right!!  President Clinton took that approach and as he did Atta and company finalized their WTC attack.  Alot of good that did us.  Liberals—face reality—war is hell and war is necessary.

Thank God Molly will stay in agriculture, even if she does throw out some bull s—- every now and then.

Paul White
In the Right

As a filmmaker, I recently traveled to Jordan and Damascus with Cindy Sheehan, Col. Ann Wright and the Code Pink team and can testify to the audacious courage that these powerful women exemplify.

Cindy’s simple “everyone’s mom” demeanor is a surprise on meeting her - given the image portrayed by the media. She’s not in it for the glory - but has taken up the gauntlet solely as a result of Bush’s obstinacy.

Courage of conviction takes many forms. Col. Ann Wright’s patriotic career in the military and as a diplomat cannot be intelligently sullied. Don’t agree with her? Fine, but mind your manners.

David Rothmiller
trickdogfilms.com

Peace Delegation, Amman Jordan

Whatever they are or are not capable of, I am impressed with the women of Code Pink. I had the opportunity to watch them in action and their efforts went a long way to soothing the angry wounds of the US three year occupation of Iraq.

For two days early in August, members of the Iraqi parliament agreed to meet with a peace delegation from the United States in Amman, Jordan. The peace delegation included Medea Benjamin, Jodi Evans, Gael Murphy, Diane Wilson, Cindy Sheehan, Ann Wright, Judith LeBlanc, Barbara Briggs-Letson, Geoffrey Millard, Tom Hayden, Father Louis Vitale, Raed Jarrar, Aseel Albanna and Jeeni Criscenzo. I had been invited as a filmmaker to document this momentous occasion.
The meetings were complex and revealed the contradictions and factions that are making it difficult for the new Iraq government to speak with a unified voice. The one thing that was unanimous was their desire for the US to end the occupation and withdraw its troops.

Though they disagreed about the timeline for US troop withdrawal, they all agreed that federalism (the creation of separate discreet states within Iraq) is a mistake. Reconciliation of competing factions, compensation for war victims, recognition of the resistance as legitimate, amnesty members of the resistance, disbanding the militias, eradicating the mysterious death squads and rebuilding the country were priorities.

One parliamentarian, a doctor, had very sad reports about there being no medicine and no electricity in hospitals that were fully operational before the invasion and occupation. According to her, many of the skilled and educated, including doctors and nurses have either fled the country or been killed. Apparently, most of the reports we receive of hospitals and schools being built by the American occupation forces are really just efforts to rebuild existing institutions that have been destroyed.

The British ambassador, the day we arrived in Amman had been quoted as saying that civil war is imminent between the Sunni and the Shia. Yet, what we heard repeatedly is that the Sunni and the Shia have been intermarrying and living in integrated communities for thousands of years. In one of the sessions we heard from two men who represented the mainstream political parties – one is Shia, he is married to a Sunni. The other is Sunni and is married to a Shia. This is the character of Iraqi society.

In the second day of meetings, three men who had been incarcerated at Abu Ghraib spoke. Their testimony was electrifying. Even after all of the furor as a result of the photos from Abu Ghraib it was deeply disturbing to sit face to face with men who had been subjected to torture. We heard from one of the men that when he requested pain medication for his hand on which he had recently had surgery, a guard stomped on his hand and told him “that’s pain medicine in America.” He also told us of a man who was taken by a female guard and ordered to have sex with her. When the prisoner refused, ‘she put on an artificial penis and raped him’. And what is it they want? They want to be heard and they want justice.

That’s what struck me above all else was that these people are looking to America for justice. They believe that America is a just and law abiding society and they expect that the US will return their sovereignty to them and make right the damage and destruction that has been wreaked upon their country.

The goal of the peace delegation was to return to the United States with a clear and concise statement of what the Iraqis want and to present it to American legislators. But, I believe, an equally important effect of this meeting is something less tangible because it was clear that the men and women from Iraq who met with these citizens of the United States were given renewed hope that their belief in the innate goodness of Americans is not invalid. Their hopes for the future of their country were given new life.

LD Thompson
trick dog films

Ms Ivins, your brilliant column shoots a lazer guided balm straight into the Heart of the Matter.

The Art of Peace! Attack with focused Creativity, relentless Good Humor and fierce Wisdom.

There is no other way to Victory.

James Baker knows how to whisper cows.  Perhaps Iraq Study Group will be allowed to unveil some sort of “peace with honor” plan for the whole herd to moo about and follow—to the packing plant.

CJ - Let me start by saying thank you for your service. Being wounded in the service of your country is the kind of sacrifice that only those that have experienced it can really understand.

That being said, how foolish can you be? Why is it that those with right leaning politics can not understand the difference between supporting the troops and not supporting the war?

As for debacle, what exactly is your complaint with the word? The common understanding is that debacle is a sudden collapse of a policy. Is it your contention that the 3000 dead in Iraq in two months does not constitute a debacle? What words would you feel are better used to describe what is going on there? Civil War, Catastrophe, Tragedy? Those are all easily accurate words for this failed military adventure that this President and administration has foisted on the American people and its military.

On a style note, scare quotes around the word vigil just make you look like someone that likes to sneer at those that don’t agree with your point of view. You do have a right to your point of view and deserve some deference as a wounded vet, but the people that are holding those vigils are just as deserving of respect, as they are doing what they believe to be the right thing. They are trying to end the war so that no more of our fighting men and women are wounded in the service of a ill conceived war.

Cheers,

Funny how when I, as a wounded Iraq vet, tell Code Pink to their faces that their little “vigils” at Walter Reed every Friday night DON’T make me feel better, they laugh in my face.  Now, if that’s support, give it to someone else.

I’m a little confused about what kind of “debacle” you refer to.  Many of these anti-war (a term I can stand because it insinuates everyone else is pro-war) people use it yet don’t know what it means. 

In her 29 years of military service, it’s amazing how easily COL Ann Wright skirted any kind of combat action.  She magically appeared AFTER the Somalia and Grenada actions.  Interestingly, she was in the Army during the time of Vietnam, yet you don’t hear anything about her service there.
As a matter of fact, every biography I’ve read about her seems to focus on her decision to resign over Iraq.  I guess if that’s her legacy…

I just finished reading about the connection between being obese and being a christian fundamentalist.  Perhaps the republicans have already mastered the art of “cow whispering”.