Taxing

Personally, I would rather see my tax dollars going to universal health care than to unnecessary and illegal wars.

From National Priorities Project Tallies Cost of War:

These new appropriations bring total war-related spending for Iraq to $747.3 billion and for Afghanistan to $299 billion, with total war costs of $1.05 trillion.

It’s also upsetting to me to learn of another useless and illegal use of tax dollars.

From When prayers fly at Capitol, someone gets mad by Marc Hansen:

Those pesky atheists are at it again. First, they put ads on metro buses telling nonbelievers, "You are not alone."



Now, according to a letter sent to Iowa legislators, they want our elected officials to stop inviting clergy to begin each day of the 2010 session with an official prayer.



Besides violating the separation of church and state, the Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers say, it costs too much. Clergy members receive $10 per prayer and mileage from the home district and back.

The group's president — quoting the House Financial Office — says the state spends $2,606 per session on the prayers. If it seems like walking-around money, even walking-around money is scarce these days.



What's more, during the prayers, the doors to the House and Senate close, meaning clerks, pages, and legislative staff members are held captive.

Ass Biting Lies

From Why Do So Many Christians Support The Iraq War? by Kyle West:

If one supports the war, one is also inadvertently supporting the lies that made it possible. It's ironic that Christians, among the strongest supporters of the war, have supported an administration of liars.

And if one supports letting the Bush administration off the hook for this, then the inadvertent support of the lies will continue into perpetuity and continually come back to bite us in the ass.

Update:
My ass is beginning to hurt more. Is yours?

Generational Theft Revisited

Are there any Republicans complaining about this?

From A 'fraud' bigger than Madoff by Patrick Cockburn:

In what could turn out to be the greatest fraud in US history, American authorities have started to investigate the alleged role of senior military officers in the misuse of $125bn (£88bn) in a US -directed effort to reconstruct Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. The exact sum missing may never be clear, but a report by the US Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) suggests it may exceed $50bn, making it an even bigger theft than Bernard Madoff's notorious Ponzi scheme.

"I believe the real looting of Iraq after the invasion was by US officials and contractors, and not by people from the slums of Baghdad," said one US businessman active in Iraq since 2003.

In one case, auditors working for SIGIR discovered that $57.8m was sent in "pallet upon pallet of hundred-dollar bills" to the US comptroller for south-central Iraq, Robert J Stein Jr, who had himself photographed standing with the mound of money. He is among the few US officials who were in Iraq to be convicted of fraud and money-laundering.

Despite the vast sums expended on rebuilding by the US since 2003, there have been no cranes visible on the Baghdad skyline except those at work building a new US embassy and others rusting beside a half-built giant mosque that Saddam was constructing when he was overthrown. One of the few visible signs of government work on Baghdad's infrastructure is a tireless attention to planting palm trees and flowers in the centre strip between main roads. Those are then dug up and replanted a few months later.

The end of the Bush administration which launched the war may give fresh impetus to investigations into frauds in which tens of billions of dollars were spent on reconstruction with little being built that could be used. In the early days of the occupation, well-connected Republicans were awarded jobs in Iraq, regardless of experience. A 24-year-old from a Republican family was put in charge of the Baghdad stock exchange which had to close down because he allegedly forgot to renew the lease on its building.

Read more here.

Congressional Republicans voted in favor of all of this. Congressional Republicans supported Bush's war policies. Now, all of a sudden with a Democrat in the White House, they are concerned about taxpayers' money? Rush Limbaugh may want Barack Obama to fail. George W. Bush did fail.

Update:
Of course the war profiteers (including Rush Limbaugh) probably don’t see Bush as a failure.

The Buck Does Not Stop Anywhere Near George W. Bush

I think that the W in George W. Bush stands for wimp and weasel. Come on George, the least you can do is be a man and admit that you screwed up.

"The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn't just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence. And, you know, that's not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess." George W. Bush

Yes George, I wish the intelligence had been different too, and by that I mean your intelligence. A smarter man would not have dismissed the actual intelligence which said that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Not only is Bush one of the most immoral men on the planet, he is also not really a man. A real man would face reality and tell the truth. Not Bush, however. He still is in his own little fantasy world, and he is still telling lies.

From Bush: My Biggest Regret Was Failure Of Iraq Intelligence by Greg Sargent:

Of course, Bush made the decision to overlook all the good intel -- not to mention the claims of those poor forgotten inspectors -- saying that Saddam wasn't really a threat at all, or certainly not one requiring the response Bush himself ordered.

One overlooked thing about this is that not only Bush, but many supporters of the war -- Dems and liberal hawks included -- also have a vested interest in pretending that the good intel never existed and those inspectors never said what they said. Those inconvenient historical facts reflect rather badly on them, too. With so many opinion-makers having vested interests of their own in telling the story this way, history has been tidily rewritten, and Bush is able to make this claim without a peep of objection from his big-time network interviewer.

From Bush Goes Out Dodging by Matthew Yglesias:

It’s stunning that the President is still trying to mislead people about this rather than taking responsibility for his actions. French President Jacques Chirac didn’t feel compelled “looking at the same intelligence” to invade Iraq. Neither did German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder or the leaders of any number of other countries. No intelligence received by the White House ever justified the more extreme claims made by members of the administration, and some of the pre-war intelligence (that from the State Department INR Bureau, for example) was spot-on. The administration deliberately went out of its way to re-write intelligence reports as less ambiguous than they really were — compare the classified and unclassified version of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq — and to ignore reports that didn’t match the administration position.

Last, at the actual moment during which Bush pulled the trigger on war, inspectors were on the ground in Iraq. Hans Blix and Mohmmaed ElBarradei were in an excellent position to improve our knowledge of Iraqi WMD activities. And both Blix and ElBarradei were saying that there were no weapons stockpiles and no active WMD programs. There were busy asking the United States to hand over whatever contrary intelligence we had so that they could check it out. But instead of listening, Bush plunged the country into a disastrous war. It wasn’t a decision he made alone, but it was his decision; not something “the intelligence” made him do.

Bush behaves like a little child, a bad little child who is also a bully and a liar. If only he had been given some adult supervision over the last eight years.

Let’s hope that such a weak, pathetic, immoral creature like Bush never becomes president again.

Winter Soldier Testimony

From Winter Soldier on the Hill: War Vets Testify Before Congress:

War veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan came to Capitol Hill earlier this year to testify before Congress and give an eyewitness account about the horrors of war. Like the Winter Soldier hearings in March, when more than 200 service members gathered for four days in Silver Spring, Maryland to give their eyewitness accounts of the injustices occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan, “Winter Soldier on the Hill” was designed to drive home the human cost of the war and occupation—this time, to the very people in charge of doing something about it.

Former Marine sniper, Sergio Kochergin:

Another thing I want to touch on is, problems with equipment are another big problem. Where is all the money going that is given to the military? During my first deployment, I had a Vietnam-era flak jacket without a plate. My M-16 was made back in the late ’70s. We did not have enough night-vision goggles for everyone. While Marines are patrolling in the Hummers every day and get blown up, because the only protection they have are the flak blankets hanging from the doors, while generals and colonels and other high-ranking officers that leave a base once in awhile have brand new, fully armored Hummers that are always spotless clean sitting on the base, while other Hummers are bleeding with our brothers’, sons’, daughters’, sisters’ blood every day.

Read more here.

How Much Change Will Obama Bring?

From Iraq War Supporters Have Bad Judgment Until They Work for Obama by W. James Antle, III:

So who does Obama turn to when he starts hiring people for major positions in his administration? Joe Biden for vice president, even though Biden voted to authorize the Iraq war. Rahm Emanuel for White House chief of staff, even though Emanuel supported the war and says he would have voted for it even if he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction.

Is It All That Oil That Makes Bush So Slimy?

From In Final Days, Bush Pushes for Iraq's Oil by Maya Schenwar:

As the Bush administration rumbles to an end, it is pushing with increasing urgency for a commitment to a long-term US presence in Iraq. Though the military aspect of this "commitment" has garnered substantial publicity, the administration is equally invested in the economic aspect: securing US control over Iraqi oil before Bush leaves office, according to experts in the field.

Many Iraqis fear that the Bush administration's last-ditch efforts to gain control of their oil will leave their resources in the hands of the US for decades to come.

Read the rest here.

Democracy?

What does democracy mean? What does representative government mean? How much democracy exists in Iraq? How much democracy exists in the United States?

Why is the United States still in Iraq? In the 2006 Congressional elections a clear signal was sent that most Americans want us out of Iraq. I’ve read articles for years that said that many Iraqis want us out. Here is another one.

From Protesters march against proposed U.S.-Iraq pact:

Thousands of people marched in central Baghdad on Saturday to protest a proposed U.S.-Iraqi security agreement that would extend the presence of U.S. troops in the country after the end of the year.

The political party of Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called for the rally. At one point, several speakers at a podium addressed the mass of people, urging the Iraqi government to reject the proposal.

"End the U.S. occupation of Iraq!" one speaker shouted in English.

Hazem al-Araji, a senior al-Sadr aide, told protesters their voices would be heard in America.

Baghdad has sought the power to arrest and try Americans accused of crimes not related to official military operations, plus jurisdiction over troops and contractors who commit grave mistakes in the course of their duties.

The United States has insisted its troops and contractors remain immune from Iraqi law.

Where is the will of the people in all of this?

Failure And Mass Destruction

From Tomgram: Chalmers Johnson, The Ultimate Election:

In the last year, the Bush administration's top officials have sunk much of their increasingly lame-duck energy into pacifying Iraq, and so getting it out of the news and the spotlight at least long enough for election '08 to happen (and undoubtedly long enough as well for them to get out of town in January). And then what happens? The administration is ambushed, not by Sunni militants or Shiite radicals but by its own people: investment bankers, lenders, hedge-fund managers, financial management types -- the very people for whom they organized the world and who had long been playing fast and loose (and profitably) with our economic system. The ambush, of course, took the form of a financial meltdown of massive proportions for which, as in Iraq in 2003, the administration had clearly done no significant preplanning or war-gaming. And, as with the insurgency then, so now they operated by the increasingly worn seats of their pants. Their attempted $700 billion "surge," as stock exchanges around the world indicated yesterday, wasn't likely to pacify a global financial system near cardiac arrest.

Five Million Dollars

From 'Way Of The World' Sees Fabricated Case For War:

In his new book, The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism, author Ron Suskind alleges that the Bush administration knew Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and eventually fabricated intelligence assets to support its case for war. Both the White House and the CIA deny his claims.

Suskind, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, tells Steve Inskeep that a secret mission was conducted, in which a British intelligence agent met with the head of Iraqi intelligence in a secret location in Jordan, and that the Iraqi conveyed that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

"What that meant is that we knew everything that became so obvious by the summer after the invasion, and the president made a decision essentially to ignore that intelligence," Suskind says.

He says once the final report went to President Bush, Condoleezza Rice and others, the U.S. cut off communications with the Iraqi intelligence chief and then moved forward. An agreement was made to resettle the Iraqi and pay him $5 million.

Read the rest here.

Soldiers Charged With Murder In Iraq

From Two U.S. soldiers charged with murder in Iraq:

The coalition command in Iraq has charged two U.S. soldiers with the murder of an Iraqi detainee.

Staff Sgt. Hal M. Warner and 1st Lt. Michael C. Behenna were charged with premeditated murder, assault, making a false official statement and obstruction of justice, according to a statement Saturday from the Multi-National Division.

The charges stemmed from a criminal investigation into the death of Ali Mansur Mohamed, a detainee initially believed to have been released by coalition forces in May, the statement said, without elaborating on the case.

Read the rest here.

Antiwar Republicans

Are there any antiwar Republicans? How many of us vote the party line without doing any research and thinking?

From Tribute to Seven Antiwar Republicans by couturma:

To celebrate the sixth year of the never-ending conflict in Mess-o-Potamia, this writer believes that the time has come to take a look back at the original Iraq War Resolution that Congress passed in 2002.

Specifically, I want to focus on seven courageous Republicans who bucked their party and voted “nay” on giving President George W. Bush a blank check to take the country to war against the regime of Saddam Hussein.

The greatest irony is that nearly half of these Republicans were voted out of office in the 2006 midterm elections, in part because of public dissatisfaction with the war they had opposed from the very beginning.

Because of the highly misleading Left/Right debate that rages in the mainstream media and talk radio, many Americans may not even be aware that ANY Republicans were against the Iraq War from the get-go. After all, everyone knows that Democrats are antiwar and Republicans are pro-war.

Although all of the members of Congress who voted “nay” on taking the U.S. into what has turned out to be an unnecessary and tragic conflict deserve kudos – regardless of party – it can be argued that those Republicans who did so paid a heavier price than their Democratic and Independent counterparts. To be a politician of any stripe and vote against the war resolution may not have been popular with many Americans at the time, but to be a Republican and vote against the will of your party – not to mention a president who happens to lead that party – was nothing short of heresy.

Here is the first comment to Tribute to Seven Antiwar Republicans by couturma:

rwahrens on July 29 2008 15:06:12
Besides not joining in on any "celebration" of the sixth year of any war, I also take umbrage on your characterization of the war as "unnecessary". "Tragic" fits any war, as that human activity is tragic by any description.

I am sure that most of the Iraqi population do not see the war as unnecessary, but rather as unmanaged or mismanaged, even as deliberately so. But I would say that most of them are glad to be rid of Saddam and his henchmen, especially that criminally insane son of his.

One can argue that it was badly timed, or that Bush was less than honest in his characterization for the immediacy of the need for it, as well as his excuses for doing it, but I will always assert that sooner or later, Saddam Hussein would have stepped over that line again and made it necessary. He was just that crazy.

I do not celebrate people being against war for the sake of being against it. One can oppose the idea of war itself, yet still realize the fact that it can be not only unavoidable, but at times better than the alternatives. Folks that oppose war, always, unequivocally, and without thinking, are doing so out of idealism, which is blind at best.

Of course, if these Republicans opposed that war out of an honest disagreement with Bush & Co. about the immediate timing of the war, or the need for it, as a mental exercise of opinion and not plain idealism, they do truly deserve kudos, for that is the hardest kind of thing to stick with of all.

I am singling out this comment because it is typical of much that I read and hear that basically leaves me shaking my head in wonder. Obviously the writer is no pacifist and seems to hold some animosity for those that are.

Why is he offended that the Iraq War was characterized as “unnecessary”? Obviously, he believes that it was necessary, but to be offended by someone who thinks the opposite seems like an overreaction and just plain weird. He then seems to imply that we must find the means to justify some wars as necessary, while at the same time acknowledging that all wars are tragic. Does this make sense? What sane person seeks tragedy? When does it become necessary to kill other people? Shouldn’t this be the last thing we consider doing?

The second paragraph is pure speculation without any facts at all to back it up. Yet, he is “sure that most of the Iraqi population do not see the war as unnecessary.” Anyone can win an argument if he is allowed to make up his own facts.

The third paragraph takes this non-use of facts to yet another level. Now he uses “facts” from the future. Saddam Hussein might do something bad in the future so let’s punish him for it now. Is this how justice is supposed to work? My neighbor might shoot me tomorrow so I better have the police arrest him today. The actual facts are that the United States broke international law by being the aggressor and actually invading, not one, but two countries.

As for the fourth paragraph, let’s just change one word.

I do not celebrate people being against murder for the sake of being against it. One can oppose the idea of murder itself, yet still realize the fact that it can be not only unavoidable, but at times better than the alternatives. Folks that oppose murder, always, unequivocally, and without thinking, are doing so out of idealism, which is blind at best.

Does this make any sense to you?

The last paragraph is simply more of the same. If you oppose war unequivocally then I suppose you are some sort of sap, and not worthy of the kudos of an illogical person who likes to make up his own facts, and also likes to justify killing people.

Why am I picking on this comment and the person that wrote it? Because I am tired of people pretending that what they say or write makes sense, when it actually makes no sense at all. If it were only this commenter doing this it would not matter to me very much. It becomes problematic when this kind of thinking is the same “logic” that is used by nearly every journalist, reporter, and politician in the United States. This “logic” (along with a strong dose of fear) was used by the Bush Administration to move the entire United States further away from the side of the righteous and just.

Self-defense is the only acceptable justification for murder. Self-defense is also the only acceptable justification for war.

Henry Waxman And Blackwater

From Waxman’s Strategy for Undoing Blackwater by Matthew Schwarzfeld:

Blackwater Worldwide may have misrepresented its size to obtain small business contracts, the House oversight committee announced on Monday. The finding is the result of an investigation by the Small Business Administration (SBA), and it's just the first of three reviews of the controversial security contractor requested by Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA).

Unlike a number of investigations by the FBI and the committee itself that have focused on the conduct of Blackwater's guards in Iraq and Afghanistan -- for instance, the allegedly unprovoked shooting of Iraqi civilians -- Waxman appears to be taking a new tack: scrutinizing the contractor's employment practices to make it ineligible for future federal contracts.

Read the rest here.

Be All You Can Be

This is how the army supports the troops.

From Soldier reported shocks before electrocution death:

An Army sergeant complained about faulty wiring in Iraq months before the fatal electrocution of another soldier in a shower in the same quarters, according to documents released Wednesday by a congressional committee.

Sgt. Justin Hummer filled out a work order in July 2007 that warned, “Pipes have voltage, get shocked in the shower.” Hummer told investigators from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that at least once, he had to use a wooden stick to turn off the shower “because the electrical current was so strong.”

Army records show electricians from contractor Kellogg, Brown and Root found “several safety issues concerning the improper grounding of electrical devices” in February 2007. In January 2008, Staff Sgt. Ryan Maseth was electrocuted in a shower in the same quarters Hummer occupied the previous summer — and a follow-up investigation “found nearly all of the same problems and deficiencies that had been reported one year previously,” a committee report states.

Is There Some Way We Can Make Bush Pay For This?

Bush is responsible for this. Let’s make him pay.

From Report: U.S. 'wasted' $560 million on Iraq repairs by Joe Sterling and Adam Levine:

The United States has "wasted" more than half a billion dollars in Iraq repairing facilities that were damaged because of poor security, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction says in a report released Wednesday.

Stuart Bowen's quarterly report arrived at a price tag of $560 million by tallying the results of more than 100 audits his office has conducted.

Further billions had to be diverted from reconstruction to security because the Bush administration did not adequately foresee how volatile Iraq would be when it began rebuilding the country, the report says.

"The U.S. government did not fully anticipate or plan for the unstable working environment that faced U.S. managers when reconstruction began in Iraq," it says.

Read the rest here.

Hate

Sometimes I receive comments to something I have posted here at No Countries No Religion. Sometimes the comments make no sense to me. More often than not they are interesting. Even if I don’t agree, I appreciate the feedback. Sometimes, a comment may have a way of forcing me to think. These are the most interesting comments, even though they have a way of exhausting me.

Yesterday I asked the question Why All The Hate? This question was prompted by the recent terrorist bombings in India. The first comment I received to this post was:

Apparently, it's not just the US they hate... they hate India, they hate Israel, they hate Denmark, they hate Britain, they hate Australia...

What DON'T they hate?! I think THAT list is a lot smaller.

There is not a lot to that comment, but for some reason it is one of those ones that made me think. So I am responding to it here. It sparked some thoughts that I would like to share. Since the comment is short and I don’t want to make any assumptions I wish to make it clear that not all of what follows is a direct response to this comment.

The point made by the comment is valid, and it is a good one. The most radical of terrorists do seem to hate everyone. I’d still like to know why they do. In simple terms I’d like to see an end to all the hate and the violence that comes from it. How do we do that? By adding more violence to the mix, or by trying to find out where all the hate comes from? Logically, it seems that if we could find the cause of the hate, we could possibly stop the hate, and the violence. I know that some have said this before. I know that many consider this to be naive. In spite of that, I think that it bears repeating, and that it is the best way of trying to solve the problem.

I do not condone anger or hate. I believe that what the terrorists are doing is wrong. That doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t try to understand their motivations.

I’ll repeat the last quote from the CNN article that I previously posted:

Indian Mujahedeen claimed responsibility in May for near-simultaneous bomb attacks that killed 63 people in the northwest Indian city of Jaipur. In that claim, the group declared "open war" against India in retaliation for what it said were 60 years of Muslim persecution and the country's support of U.S. policies.

This is the reason that I asked: “Why do they hate the United States so much?” Also, the reference to “60 years of Muslim persecution” seems to be a direct reference to Israel. After all, they recently celebrated 60 years of their existence. The United States picked sides. The United States strongly supports Israel. The United States strongly supports violence, and has for a very long time.

Anger and hate can be misdirected. Frequently it is directed at whoever happens to be the closest. If you are a stay-at-home parent, it is likely that you have experienced misdirected anger toward your child, when you are actually angry with your spouse, or something or someone else. Your child just happens to be the closest person at the time.

India is closer than the United States. The Indian Mujahedeen, I assume, are in India. If the United States were geographically closer to them I would think that they would be bombing in United States cities as well, since they specifically mention dislike of U.S. policy.

It is extremely distressing to me as a U.S. citizen that my government is acting in ways that I view as immoral, unfair, and unlawful. So while I definitely do not deny that the terrorists seem to hate nearly everyone, as a U.S. citizen I can take part in U.S. politics in a way that may effect a change for the better.

The big question is how to stop all the violence, anger, and hate? Do we do it with more violence, anger, and hate?

In my personal life talking has proven to be the best way for me to solve problems and deal with anger. It seems to me that this would be the best way to deal with global problems of anger. Yet, the United States leadership currently opposes this, and denigrates those that propose it as a solution. Why can’t we negotiate with terrorists in this case? This is not a hostage situation. Even if talking is not the best solution why eliminate the use of it? Can’t we use all the help and resources we can find to solve the problem of global terrorism? Why must violence be the only choice?

In the United States my views on this subject are not given very much credence, in fact they are usually mocked and ridiculed. More violence has become the accepted solution. I don’t believe this is the right course of action. I believe that it will only make things worse. I don’t want things to become worse. The world is in terrible shape as it is.

The Bush Administration has elevated the status of the terrorists into something that they are not. By using the full force of the United States military and declaring war on them the Administration has given them the equivalent status of a country. Because of Bush they are bigger than they deserve to be. It is very likely, as well, that they are bigger in numbers than before Bush, but that is not what I mean here.

I believe that the reason that the United States invaded Afghanistan and Iraq was because the Bush Administration felt that it had to do something in response to 9/11, and they were too stupid to come up with any other ideas.

Of course, the reasons for the terrorist strikes around the world pre-date 9/11. 9/11 didn’t really change anything (only its magnitude was different), but the Bush Administration certainly did make unprecedented changes to U.S. foreign policy in how it responded to what happened on that terrible day. The United States invaded two countries that were not directly responsible. The Bush Administration wrongly took advantage of an awestruck nation and utilized the worst parts of a mob mentality. This is not a sign of strong leadership.

From an emotional viewpoint what the Bush Administration did following 9/11 may have given short-term satisfaction to some. Some of those people are now finding that satisfaction to be short-lived and not carrying over into the long-term. From a moral standpoint what the Bush Administration did was wrong. Also from an international law standpoint. From an intellectual standpoint what they did was simply stupid. They have effectively severed the use of alternative solutions to the problem of global terrorism. Violence is their solution. Torture is their solution. Eviscerating civil liberties is their solution. Secrecy is their solution. Lack of accountability is their solution. Turning the United States into a terrorist nation is their solution. These are solutions that I abhor. In fact they are not solutions at all. Not only are they morally wrong, they will simply make the problems we face worse.

The Bush Administration, and unfortunately also John McCain, are grasping at any reason they can to point to their “success.” Most of these reasons such as “the surge is working, violence in Iraq is down” are illogical and short term. For the short term violence from terrorists may be down in Iraq and the United States, but it is not in the rest of the world. I think that the United States is indirectly responsible for this violence because of its violent and oppressive foreign policies. Unfortunately citizens of countries such as India are suffering because of this.

The Lesser Of Two Evils

The move I hear from Barack Obama, the more I think of him as the lesser of two evils. This morning on the television I heard him talking about wanting to move troops out of Iraq. However, instead of bringing them back to the United States where they belong, he wants to move them to Afghanistan. I am disappointed in Obama. He seems to be willing to abandon principle after principle in order to get elected as president.

Fear should not trump what is morally right. We do not belong in anyone else's country. If we have a right to be in Iraq and Afghanistan, then the French (or any other country’s) army has a right to be here in the United States.

From My Plan for Iraq by Barack Obama:

The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

Here is part of what Rob Payne says about this:

So for Obama the past is not remembered, all that exists is the here and now. We didn’t invade Iraq, lynch their leader, dismantle their government, and destroy their infrastructure. We didn’t murder them by the hundreds of thousands or send millions into exile. Quite clearly the problem all along has been that the people of Iraq have not been acting in a responsible manner. And now, at least according to Obama, we need more military, more helicopters, bombs, guns, bullets, and tanks in order to expand the war on terror into Pakistan and widen the war in Afghanistan.

So what this trip is really about is Obama needs to show us and the world that he is ready to take command of the imperial agenda and his little cock-a-doodle-do in the NYT assures the establishment that he is ready to pull the trigger. Ready, aim, fire, today Afghanistan tomorrow the world and not only will he not be afraid to slaughter and kill but he will be better and more efficient about it than his predecessor.

War is immoral. The occupation of another country is immoral. Think of all the talk you have heard about Iraq and Afghanistan for the last seven years. Rationalize this, rationalize that. Endless rationalization will never change the fact that war is immoral.

I’d like to see a president who recognized that fact, and believed it, and had the courage to act on it.

No Plan Required For FUBAR

Finally, a major news organization referring to the “occupation of Iraq”, rather than the “war in Iraq.” Let’s hope there is more of this. It took them long enough.

From Occupation Plan for Iraq Faulted in Army History by Michael R. Gordon:

The story of the American occupation of Iraq has been the subject of numerous books, studies and memoirs. But now the Army has waded into the highly charged debate with its own nearly 700-page account: “On Point II: Transition to the New Campaign.”

The unclassified study, the second volume in a continuing history of the Iraq conflict, is as noteworthy for who prepared it as for what it says. In essence, the study is an attempt by the Army to tell the story of one of the most contentious periods in its history to military experts — and to itself.

It adds to a growing body of literature about the problems the United States encountered in Iraq, not all of which has been embraced by Army leaders.

Read more here.

Doing The Time Warp With Edward Peck

All of the following quotes were made by Edward Peck on October 8, 2001. Edward Peck is former US Ambassador to Iraq and former deputy director of President Reagan's terrorism task force.

From Former US Ambassador to Iraq Calls US War Plan "Dumb":

…nobody in this world -- with the possible exception of Tony Blair -- gives us the right to decide who rules Iraq. That is not part of our charter. It is not part of our mandate. Now, they can't stop us, because we are who we are. But when you take out Saddam Hussein, the key question you have to ask then is, what happens after that? And we don't have a clue. Nobody knows, but it's probably going to be bad. And a lot of people are going to be very upset about that, because that really is not written into our role in this world is to decide who rules Iraq.

Just like the colonel here, I'm a veteran of the armed forces. I have had two tours of active duty in the Army. And I don't take a back seat to anybody in terms of patriotism. This is the greatest nation that ever was and may be the greatest nation that ever will be. But that's my view, and it is not universally shared. So we have come out with 21 pages of proof that Osama bin Laden was involved. I have read that material. That's allegations. That's not proof. It's an entirely different thing. Proof of what it means to us. So, yes, he's not a nice guy, Saddam Hussein. But I think that the costs to our nation and its interests of taking him out are probably vastly exceeding anything we would gain by doing it.

Saddam Hussein is not all that powerful. And we have been -- I have no -- I have an affection for that country because I lived there, but my job has been all these years to learn to understand these other countries so I could tell my country about them. Do not confuse, please, the message with the messenger. And the message is that we have been bombing Iraq whenever we feel like it for the last 10 years. Nobody likes that, least of all the Iraqis, and but lot of other people besides.

We have been responsible -- pardon, I'll take it back. We have accepted responsibility for the death of 500,000 Iraqi children on American television, a position taken by the then-ambassador to the United Nations. A lot of people don't want to excuse you for that. So if Saddam Hussein believes, in the words of Dr. Mylroie that he's still at war with the United States, could it be the daily bombings? Could it be the $94 million that Congress appropriated to finance his overthrow. Sir, that's an act of war. Whether you want to accept it as such, we are going to finance people to overthrow his government? That is -- that is called a hostile act, you see? So if he's upset with us, there may be a reason for it.

You cannot enforce democracy. You don't stuff it down people's throat.

So we will mercilessly, viciously, effectively attack and destroy all kinds of symptoms. When the rubble has settled and the dust is gone, the disease is still going to be out there untouched. Because we don't want to look at why, why it is that all of these people hate us. It's not because of freedom. It's not because Brittney Spears has a belly button or because we export hamburgers. They hate us because of things they see us doing to their part of the world that they definitely do not like.

Illegal Quagmires

All wars are illegal. All wars are quagmires.

War has become a part of our culture and our legacy. It is embedded into our consciousness as a nation. It is embedded into the consciousness of the world. War has damaged our collective psyche. Is this what we want? Is this the way it must be?

How many of us consider the consequences of the United States wielding its considerable military might with great frequency all around the world? Do we ever wonder what kind of emotional damage we cause to our soldiers, to our enemies, and to those civilians referred to as collateral damage?

What kind of damage is done to civilization when nations train people to kill, send them to face the horror of war, and then bring them back to civilization expecting them to fit in as if nothing has happened? Can we possibly be more cruel?

What kind of damage is done to civilization when nations savage the earth and its civilian population with the never ending memories of blood, dismemberment, and death? Can we possibly be more cruel?

Are any wars absolutely necessary? Are any of them worth the terrible price that must be paid? The true cost of war is paid by those who are witness to war. Unless they have previously experienced it first hand, the Generals and Commanders in Chiefs know nothing of war. The citizenry sitting safely back home know nothing of war. Those in the midst of it are the only ones who truly know. They deserve a voice. A voice that should be listened to.

Joe Allen has written a history of the movement against the war in Vietnam. It is called Vietnam: The (Last) War the U.S. Lost.

From Vietnam Blues by Ron Jacobs:

Although Allen does not mention the current US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan until the book’s last chapter, it is difficult to read Vietnam: The (Last) War the U.S. Lost without thinking about those quagmires. Both countries have an occupation government propped up by the US that have at times talked with opposition groups and individuals in the hopes that their government will survive; both are badgered by a US government intent on staying in the country despite even the puppet government’s opposition to the idea. To top it off, both occupations have also featured US GIs refusing to go on missions because in their understanding they have no real reason to be doing what they are doing. Yet, Washington continues to prevail, bankrupting the US national treasury and leaving death in its wake. Furthermore, the once thriving US antiwar movement has become a collection of groups waging occasionally noisy protests while too much of its leadership kisses the Democratic Party’s ass, futilely hoping that its elected representatives will vote against Washington’s interests without being pushed against the wall.

And here is a comment to Vietnam Blues by Ron Jacobs:

Erroll said on June 30th, 2008 at 11:16 am

Evie’s comments are confusing if not bizarre. Is she saying that soldiers who had returned from Vietnam should have been showered with praise for what they witnessed and/or participated in while in Vietnam? She complains that there was no “gratitude” given to returning veterans from Vietnam. This is the same knee-jerk response that I get from people who thank me for serving in Vietnam. After keeping buried what I went through over there for many years, I finally realized and acknowledged that I had contributed to the deaths of many innocent Vietnamese people. The last thing that I wish to hear is that I should be thanked for doing what I did to those wretched people.

Her comments are similar to what many on the left, as well as the right do, and that is to apparently confuse or conflate being victims with being heroes. I submit that there is nothing heroic about invading and occupying another country, whether that country is Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. Why in the world would one want to hold a parade for those who helped and aided in the subjugation of another country? Miss Evie may want to read the transcripts of those soldiers who participated in the Winter Soldier hearings of 1971 and the more recent one that took place a few months ago. If she were to do so, she would discover that there is nothing for Americans to be proud of regarding the military service of those who served in places like Vietnam and the Middle East.

Those who should be thanked and who should have parades given in their honor are those soldiers, such as the ones shown in the powerful documentary Sir! No Sir!, who had the courage to say no to taking part in the oppression of the Vietnamese people. Their equivalent today are the members of the IVAW, who have likewise said NO the illegal orders that they were given regarding the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

To reiterate, soldiers who have had the misfortune of being in a combat zone should not thanked or have people express gratitude [for what, killing people?] but rather lamented, because they had ended up being placed in an abattoir by their leaders. All the more reason for soldiers today to say NO to the illegal orders that they are given by their uncaring government.

IVAW stands for Iraq Veterans Against the War. You can find information on the Winter Soldier hearings of 1971 here.

Will the not-so-rich and not-so-powerful ever stand up to the rich and powerful and simply tell them to fight their own damn wars?