Of Straw Men and Dishonest Men

Of Straw Men and Dishonest Men

Vice President Dick Cheney claims that some Iraq war critics are 'dishonest,' not anything like good old honest Dick Cheney, whose chief of staff "Scooter" Libby allegedly lied through his teeth to Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury to secure a roadblock to a complete investigation of the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson and the smearing of her husband Joseph C. Wilson IV.

Former CIA official Ray McGovern has had Cheney's number for quite a while now. In the Downing Street Memo hearing on Capitol Hill last summer, Mr. McGovern testified that on August 26, 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney gave a major speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and he told them:

"...we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Among other sources, we've gotten this from the firsthand testimony of defectors -- including Saddam's own son-in-law, who was subsequently murdered at Saddam's direction. Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon."

Mr. McGovern made a very strong accusation, saying that Dick Cheney lied about Saddam's son-in-law in that VFW speech. McGovern quoted page 13 of his own debriefing report which said that Saddam's son-in-law confirmed that all WMD were destroyed in July of 1991, at his order, to prevent the UN inspectors from finding them after the first Gulf war. A whistleblower had leaked this debriefing to Newsweek magazine as the Bush administration's drumbeat for war got louder. The article about it appeared in Newsweek on February 24, 2003, weeks before the war began. The story never got much play because the timid media supressed the story. McGovern said that a "supine press" eager to accept official explanations contributed to the facilitation of this war.

In the DSM hearing, McGovern talked about VP Cheney's personal visits to CIA. He said not only were they "unusual", they were unprecedented. McGovern said that he believed 'the best of the CIA' is gone from the department now. In the old days, you never would have seen CIA acquiesce to fixing the facts around the Executive's policy whims. Yet, when Cheney went to CIA and told them he wanted certain intelligence to take priority to fit the case for war, too many CIA officials became yes-men. In McGovern's time, he said most of the CIA would have walked out if they'd been presented with such a request.

VP Cheney needs some serious reflecting in his own mirror before he sets out to accuse others of dishonesty.

__________________

Cheney couldn't call Salon.com's Peter Daou dishonest in laying out ten pro-Iraq-war fallacies. See: STRAW MEN OF IRAQ

At TPM Cafe, Ivo Daalder asks a question upon learning that then-Senator Bob Graham (D-Florida) had confirmed that there had been "troubling aspects" to the NIE presented to the Senate just before the Senators were expected to cast their 'Yes or No' vote on the Iraq Resolution.

Graham..confirms the point that the unclassified NIE released by the CIA only days before the Iraq vote bore little resemblance to the fully caveated classified version. But we, the public, of course did not know that....So why didn't those could have known call the administration on it? Is it because no more than six senators and a handful of House members bothered reading past the 5-page executive summary of the NIE before casting what may have been the most important vote of their congressional careers?

Todd Gitlin comments further.

Today too, the LA Times reveals in thousands of words that the Bush gang inflated ("bungled" is the authors' word) what they gleaned second-hand from "Curveball," the screwball informant who claimed Saddam had biowar establishments humming. Frankly, I can't keep up.
Ivo asks why senators who knew that the CIA pre-war public release version of the NIE was expurgated beyond recognition haven't said so. Good question. But it's not too late to yell bloody murder.

Related story:
CSM - Germany - CIA knew 'Curveball' was not trustworthy: German intelligence alleges Bush administration repeatedly 'exaggerated' informant's claims in run-up to war.

Misno's Story - Poverty Breeds Terrorism

Misno's Story - Poverty Breeds Terrorism

In the Jakarta Post, there is a thoughtful editorial on poverty - and how it breeds terrorism.

WaPo Editor Discusses Woodward's Holding Back on Plame Leak

WaPo Editor Discusses Woodward's Holding Back on Plame Leak
"..there is much about Mr. Woodward's conduct that is disturbing,".. but....

WaPo executive editor Leonard Downie Jr. discussed Bob Woodward's recent revelation that he'd had a role in the Valerie Plame Wilson leak over two years ago (a secret for which Woodward has apologized). Mr. Downie carefully criticizes Woodward, articulating Woodward's reason for holding the secret as wanting to "avoid being subpoenaed in the Fitzgerald investigation and being forced to reveal his source." Here are excerpts from Mr. Downie's chat:

I understand that, but he nevertheless should have come to me and we would have decided together how to proceed. It is quite possible that if he had come to me, as he should have, we still would not have been able to publish anything if his source had refused to release Woodward from their confidentiality agreement, as indeed the source has so far..
.. reporters should share with their editors significant information of his kind, even in a confidential source relationship, so that the editors can help the reporter decide what to do with it in the best interests of our readers, as well as making certain we do not violate a confidential source agreement.
..Bob should have told me about his conversation, even if we would have been unable to publish anything about it because of his confidentiality agreement with his source..
..Bob Woodward never lied. He failed to come to me sooner and tell me something he should have told me..
..In the future, I expect him to work within our newsroom's standards, as he always has except for these two mistakes.

Mr. Downie claims that Mr. Woodward has asked his source to release him from his confidentiality agreement. Downie says that he believes that Walter Pincus and Bob Woodward have "honestly different recollections of conversations two years ago." Downie asks that readers measure Woodward's exceptional record against his current error in professional judgement.

My favorite question came from Omaha, Nebraska:

Does Woodward always decide for us which information he feels we need to know? Does The Post approve of his filtering of information to your readers?

Leonard Downie Jr: No. His editors ultimately decide. That is why he should have told me sooner about this piece of information, whether or not we would have been able to report it because of the confidential source agreement.

The WaPo's ombudsman is less forgiving, rebuking Woodward for his professional reticence, saying that Mr. Woodward committed a "deeply serious sin" by keeping Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie in the dark about his source for more than two years.

"He also committed another journalistic sin -- commenting on National Public Radio and (CNN's) "Larry King Live" about the Plame investigation without disclosing his early knowledge. [CNN/Reuters]

John Edwards visits India

John Edwards visits India


photo: OneAmerica.com

The Business Process Outsourcing Services sector is thriving. Senator John Edwards recently traveled to India, and quite honestly, he told an audience of Young Parliamentarians under the auspices of The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India that increased unemployment in the U.S. creates complications and that many U.S. citizens are opposing the free-wheeling, job-crushing methods of business process outsourcing. Outsourcing companies in the U.S. are becoming more competitive and are earning 8 dollars by their outsourcing of work of 1 dollar to other countries - including India. (BPO IT laborers in India are considering unionizing.)

For Americans living abroad, asserting that the Democratic Party would win the next U.S. presidential elections, Senator Edwards opened a Democrats Abroad chapter in India.

He stressed that India and the US must cooperate closely to fight nuclear proliferation.

Senator Edwards intended to use his recent trip to India to underscore the need for correcting the poverty problem that exists, both in this country and globally.

“It was an eye-opening experience for me,” he said of his trip. Senator Edwards said stopping poverty at global and local levels can be accomplished with uniform political movements to capture the attention of politicians.

More can be read about the India trip from Josh at the One America blog.

Welcome, Paul "the soaring" Siegel

Welcome, Paul "the soaring" Siegel

The latest addition to my blogroll is Paul "the soaring" Siegel and his blog, which is called "We Don't Agree, But.."

Mr. Siegel has had a longtime internet presence as founder and administrator of the Learning Fountain. He gives inspirational speeches about vision; has given practical seminars on Internet marketing; and has taught computer subjects at universities, corporations and associations. He is currently speaking on "How to Live in a World of Terrorism." He is also an author and publisher. His latest book is titled "WE DON'T AGREE, BUT-How to Live in an Age of Terrorism" (See review here) Mr. Siegel expresses that, by being more cooperative, you, as an individual, can help reduce terrorism and at the same time achieve self-actualization. Whe are Americans afraid of terrorism? Mr. Speigel gives his thoughts.

Welcome, Paul!

Obama: Teaching Our Kids in a 21st Century Economy

Obama: Teaching Our Kids in a 21st Century Economy

Senator Barak Obama gave a speech on Education on October 25, 2005 at the Center for American Progress in Washington, DC. It's been printed in its entirety at Mother Jones.

Video here.

Fact sheet here (pdf).

An excerpt:

Thirty or forty years ago, they [high school dropouts/non-college graduates] may have gone on to find a factory job that could pay the bills and support a family. But we no longer live in that world. Today, the average salary of a high school graduate is only $33,000 a year. For high school dropouts, it’s even closer to the poverty line – just $25,000.

If we do nothing about this, if we accept this kind of economy; this kind of society, we face a future where the ideal of American meritocracy could turn into an American myth. A future that’s not only morally unacceptable for our children; but economically untenable for a nation that finds itself in a globalized world, as countries who are out-educating us today out-compete our workers tomorrow.

Now, the American people understand that government alone can’t meet this challenge. They understand that we need to transform our educational culture, from one of complacency to one that constantly strives for excellence. And they understand that government cannot replace parents as the primary motivator for the hard work and commitment that excellence requires.

But they also know that government, through the public schools, plays a critical role. And what they’ve seen from government for close to two decades is not innovation or bold calls to action. Instead, what they’ve seen is inaction and tinkering around the edges of our education system – a paralysis that is fueled by ideological battles that are as outdated as they are predictable.

Kerry Admits He Thought Election Was Stolen

John Kerry Admits He Thought Election Was Stolen

If John Kerry is telling people that the election was stolen [see Democracy Now], why did he give up so easily and concede so quickly last year? Mark Crispin Miller says:

That was a real body blow to the democratic system, and it demoralized a lot of people when Kerry pulled out. It’s hard to forgive him for that. Why did he do it? Well, according to my evidence and I’ve got this in Fooled Again, Kerry was swayed by the brain trust around him. These are people like, you know, Bob Shrum, Mary Beth Cahill – they’re, you know, Democratic Party war horses. I don't think they have a stellar record of winning campaigns, and I don't really understand how it is that they were hired to do this, but they persuaded him up in Martha's Vineyard that he should pull out, otherwise, he told John Edwards in his call, Kerry said, “They say that if I don't pull out, they are going to call us sore losers.”

Times couldn't have been harder for Senator John Edwards in November of 2004. He was faced with a running mate who wanted to concede the presidential election without so much as a question about the legitimacy of what happened in Ohio; he was faced with his wife being seriously ill with breast cancer that required immediate treatment.

Did Senator Edwards want Kerry to concede as quickly as he did?

No.

Mark Crispin Miller on Senator John Edwards:

"I spoke to someone, a relative of his who was with him when the phone call came from Kerry. This is this in the book, "Fooled Again." Kerry called him on the cell phone, and don't forget that Edwards himself, four hours before, had just been on national TV promising righteously to count every vote, got a big hand. Now he felt he was being made to look like a fool, and he argued with Kerry vehemently. He said, “It’s too soon, you know. Wait.” Kerry, you know, said this thing about how they will call us sore losers, as if that’s worse than the country, you know, going fascist, whatever. And Edwards said quite understandably, “So what?” You know, “So what if they call us sore losers?” I mean, they are going to call them names in any case. But it’s true, Mark is right, Kerry's caving in like that gave an enormous gift to the right wing. They could now claim, "Well, even their candidate doesn't think it was stolen."

Some people think that this is big news - and I agree. Why has John Kerry taken so long to say this? Why did he leave it to us bloggers and outsiders to hang with the heavy questions that need to be asked - making us look like conspiracy theorists for so long?

If Kerry thinks that the election was stolen, that is big, big news. And I think that it is very unfortunate that it took him 12 months to come around to that conclusion, because, you know, I want to stress this....John Conyers..was stonewalled by Ken Blackwell, the Secretary of State of Ohio and other officials, including the Triad Computer Company, who basically refused to answer his questions. Had he or another agency with subpoena power should go back and get that.. Look, this is the essence of our democracy. We deserve to have a persuasive answer to what happened in 2004. We probably would have gotten it if Kerry had shown the courage to say, on Election Day – on the day after Election Day a year ago what he apparently told Mark Crispin Miller the other night. If he had said then that “I suspect this election was stolen,” believe me, even the corporate media would have investigated this. It’s too juicy a story, but because Kerry dropped the ball there, you know, it’s now a year later, and it’s only the outsiders who are talking about it."

- Mark Hertsgaard, who has done an article in the current Mother Jones magazine, “Recounting Ohio: Was Ohio Stolen? You Might Not Like the Answer”

GOP: Losers For False-Choice Vote on Iraq

GOP: Losers For False-Choice Vote on Iraq

An immediate withdrawl from Iraq has been soundly rejected by the House in a 403-3 vote, and with good reason. Who in their right mind thinks we can pull out immediately, still being a responsible people who realize that Bush leadership has the Iraq war so FUBAR? I don't think GOP leaders have even tried to responsibly reach a consensus on what we should do to change the course in Iraq.

"Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on our present course," [John] Murtha said. He said the GOP resolution was not the thoughtful approach he had suggested to bring the troops safely home in six months.

From the "no-shit Dick Tracy" department:

"Congress in strong, bipartisan fashion rejected the call to cut and run," White House spokesman Scott McClellan, traveling with Bush in Asia, said a statement. Earlier Friday, the president called an immediate troop withdrawal "a recipe for disaster"

Duh. Scott McClellan must think Americans are really stupid. We need to have a real vote on a responsible plan with a timetable and an end game. The longer the majority Congress avoids getting down to the real work of accountable people working as true bipartisans, the lower their poll ratings will sink. Soon, they'll get a 100% no-confidence vote from the American public. Will they still be snarling and pointing fingers at Democrats then?

Representative Jean Schmidt from Ohio was protested, booed and belittled for her reprehensible and meaningless political hyperbole on the House floor yesterday. She looked like a total horse's ass to most Americans when she pulled out the tired "only cowards cut and run" line. What made her look even more disgusting was the thought that Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett, who lost a special election to her this year, could have been the one up there speaking the informed truth in her place. Why do we keep electing these divisive idiots? What's worse is this - according to reports, GOPers now want — you guessed it — an ethics investigation of John Murtha.

...that, coupled with the GOP's manuever today in trying to pass off its own amendment as Murtha's (then backtracking), the campaign against Murtha, him being called a coward brings to mind the famous quote Special Counsel for the Army Joseph N. Welch made to Senator Joseph McCarthy:

"Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

See: Moderate Voice

Let's look at the reality that the GOP leadership refuses to look at:

To defeat the insurgency we will need at least 400,000 troops on the ground. At the present time, the United States does not have sufficient troop strength to ramp up to that level. Our choice is simple - either we come up with the additional forces and commit ourselves to an effort that will stretch on for at least five years with 400,000 plus soldiers and marines in theatre or we withdraw.

How do we get 400,000 troops on the ground? That will require a draft or a commitment by NATO forces and other countries to provide forces. Even if we start a draft tomorrow, we will not be able to field combat capable divisions for at least two years. Basic training requires 10 weeks. Advance infantry training adds an additional six months. Once the troops are trained they need to train as units. The unit training, starting with companies and working up to division level exercises, will require at least 18 months (and that is an optimistic scenario).

In the interim we would need to call upon NATO forces to deploy to Iraq and conduct a coordinated counter insurgency effort. This effort, over the next two years, will likely produce at least 10,000 fatalities and 80,000 wounded. Are we willing as a country to pay that price? I don't think so.

- Larry Johnson

Being responsible adults (and leaders) means setting a timteable for moving our troops back home with a plan for international cooperation for the security of the Iraqi public, but this "immediate pullout or none at all" is a false choice and I'm sick of these bastards in the GOP hastily arranging false-choice votes that we all can see are politically motivated. It's a worn out tactic and they've beaten it to death. It doesn't work anymore. Partisanship must end here and now. The macho bullcrap about "cutting and running" gets us nowhere. When are we going to see our political leaders acting as if we are one America?

Republicans hoped to place Democrats in an unappealing position - at their own political peril. They've come out looking worse than ever for f**king around with petty politics while our troops are risking everything in a disastrous war.

Fitzgerald Goes On - Woodward at Center

Fitzgerald Goes On - Woodward at Center

US Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald will convene a new grand jury to hear testimony in the CIA leak case, which has already seen the indictment of L. Scooter Libby. See Jason Leopold's investigative report at Truthout. Sources say the evidence involved additional aides in the Vice President’s office as well as senior officials who were part of a clandestine faction known as the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), a group set up by WH Chief of Staff Andrew Card in August 2002 to "market" the Iraq war to the public via selective leaks to major newspapers about Iraq’s alleged WMD program. Reporter Bob Woodward said he'd first learned about Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity in mid-June 2003, during a time when Dick Cheney and his senior aides had gone to great lengths to find out her identity in the hopes of silencing her husband Joseph Wilson.

Let's get into Bob Woodward's head. Has he ever revealed his opinion about the cherry-picking of intelligence by Cheney's office? Yes, he has. In his book "Plan Of Attack", Bob Woodward had described a relationship between Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell that became so strained Cheney and Powell are barely on speaking terms. Cheney engaged in a bitter and eventually winning struggle over Iraq with Powell, an opponent of war who believed Cheney was obsessively trying to establish a connection between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network and treated ambiguous intelligence as fact. Powell felt Cheney and his allies -- his chief aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby; Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz; and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith and what Powell called Feith's "Gestapo" office -- had established what amounted to a separate government. That's a strong statement for Bob Woodward to have made.

Arianna Huffington makes an astute observation about Bob Woodward's questionable forthrightness:

In his spin, Woodward is trying to put a positive face on things by making it sound as if he decided to come forward and disclose his Plamegate involvement to Len Downie of his own free will (a claim Downie seemed to back up when he told the Post that Woodward told him about the contact to alert him to a possible story). But a tell-tale excerpt from Woodward's appearance on Larry King the night before the Libby indictment indicates that he had to be prodded into coming clean.

See Arianna's dynamite collection of Woodward-related blog commentary.

"I called Carl Bernstein to ask what he thought of his old partner's behavior. He was loyal as ever but he did say something very revealing -- and unintentionally damning. "This investigation," he told me, "has cast a constant searchlight that the White House can't turn off the way it has succeeded in turning off the press. So their methodology and their dishonesty and their disingenuousness -- particularly about how we went to war -- as well as their willingness to attack and rough up people who don't agree with them are now there for all to see. They can't turn off this searchlight, which is shining on a White House that runs a media apparatus so sophisticated in discrediting its critics it makes the Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Ziegler press shop look like a small-time operation." And these are the very thugs that Woodward was protecting while attacking the guy operating the searchlight. (my emphasis)

The question now is: how will the Post handle the story?"

Bora on Blog Books

Bora on Blog Books

Bora at Science and Politics has some suggestions about turning your blog archives into a book.

What About Bob?

What About Bob?

At the One America website, Joe Clarke has a round-up of links regarding the Bob Woodward testimony and respectful speculation about who the mysterious leaker might be. See Who Done It?

Michael J.W. Stickings has a round-up of his own. He asks a rather amusing question:

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. As a friend put it today, this Woodward is pretty much the exact opposite of the Woodward of Watergate. Redford played him then -- who would play him now? (I'll take your suggestions.)

I'm thinking Crispin Glover à la the
wimpy 50s Dad in "Back to the Future."

Homelessness in Charlotte

Homelessness in Charlotte

There was a great radio presentation, a look at the challenges of hunger and homelessness on Charlotte Talks at WFAE this morning.



At a time of year when a warm home and a hot meal bring families together, they looked at those who can't take food and shelter for granted. Guest host Chris Clackum and a panel of experts looked at the process of feeding the homeless and homebound in the Charlotte area. They explored how food is gathered, warehoused, and distributed and who receives it. The panel, including a former homeless man named James White (who has written of his transformation from a homeless person into an educator), looked at just how close any of us can be to homelessness.

Related sites:
Uptown Shelter
Urban Ministry Center
A Way Home

Here is the audio archive link at WFAE.org.

There will be a "Help The Homeless Awareness Walk" Saturday, November 19, 2005 at 7:30 AM. The walk will begin on Spratt Street in Charlotte.

It's part of a nationwide effort to increase awareness of the homeless on our American streets and in our shelters. See Help the Homeless

Ending homelessness is possible. One of the keys to ending homelessness is increasing the supply of permanent, affordable homes for people with low- to extremely low-income levels. In addition to stable housing, such prevention and supportive services as employment training, substance abuse recovery programs, and mental health assistance are often needed to help families get back on track.

______ ______ ______


Breaking News:
$275M project planned near Central Ave
Prices could range from about $150,000 to more than $1 million

In related news, a modest apartment complex in a lovely neighborhood in Charlotte for those with lower-incomes will likely soon disappear in favor of a new buyer with bigger plans for more expensive housing units. The Morningside Apartment complex will soon be no more. I wonder just how much assistance the people now living in this lovely neighborhood will receive from those who would buy their homes out from under them and replace those homes with million-dollar condos?

How many more homeless families will this create?

Americans are Angry with O'Reilly

Americans are Angry with O'Reilly

A lot of good Americans are extremely angry with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly right now.

Fred Bieling is my writing partner at Syracuse Progressive. He is a veteran of both Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Fred has had it with O'Reilly's smears.
Here's what he had to say to Mr. O'Reilly this week:

_______________

Mr. O'Reilly,

I would be honored if you'd add me to your "enemies list." As a veteran of both Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, and a proud American whose patriotism WILL NOT be besmirched by the likes of you, let me say that you should be ashamed of yourself. If there is anyone in the media today that undermines America more than you, encouraging terrorists, smearing good citizens, ect, ect, I don't know who that would be.

http://www.fredbieling.blogspot.com/

__________________

I'm so proud of Fred. It's time to put an end to this new McCarthyism. Bill O'Reilly can add me to his "enemies list," too - and I would be just as glad to have the exposure so that all Americans could see for themselves that I love this nation and refuse to have some pompous ideologue intimidating me - or you - or any intelligent and concerned patriot of this country.

Reason and Faith: What Does Winning the Culture War Mean?

Reason and Faith:
What Does Winning the Culture War Mean?

Fred Hutchison lays out his case for why he believes that Christianity and reason will be essential to winning the "culture war." What "winning" is supposed to mean here is unclear to me - Mr. Hutchinson has the right to his political views and so do you and I. This posting of mine is to point out the fact that we do have politically different perspectives, and the personal values to which our faith brings us as individuals should be discussed openly - and often. The freedom of exercising individual conscience was the focus of the Declaration of Independence, which was the only founding document that mentioned the Creator. I do not appreciate the way Mr. Hutchinson portrays Deism in the article. In my opinion, he waters it down to a belief that is under-developed - - a faith that a high-schooler would possess today. In truth, many of the founding fathers were committed and serious Deists.

The fact that Mr. Hutchinson is calling upon Christianity as a major power in "fighting for reason" will confuse some people, I'm certain. To clarify the path on which Mr. Hutchinson is taking us, he explains that it's his belief that Jonathan Edwards embodied "all the best traits of a great culture" and that we can "learn about the culture by observing" him. Mr. Hutchinson says that some Christians have forsaken the cause of reason, thinking that it is a realm of futility and a distraction from the cause of Christ.

I've formed many scars from the constant knife-in-the-heart betrayal of my religious values by the extremist leaders of the far religious right, who are more interested in taking over the Republican party in God's name than in actually being on God's side. Those scars have sometimes hardened my longing to speak of my personal faith in the public square.

I think it's high time for us to take back our faith in public debate about American and have open discussion about the politics that shape our society; our morals, ethics, and common faith-based values; and how we treat the least among us. To me, that is precisely what "winning the culture war" is about - social justice, peace/war issues, empathy, compassion, honesty, truth, and a full scope of life issues - not just the narrow one that seeks to criminalize an already-agonizing and desperate choice.

[Jonathan] Edwards, a man of extraordinary rational intelligence, found his mind utterly baffled with the idea of an empty void. It is an idea contrary to reason. In contrast, the idea that an eternal being has always existed is a necessity for the highest flights of reason. Like aircraft, which cannot fly in a vacuum, the flight of reason requires the atmosphere of an eternal omnipresent deity.



In contrast, an atheist must believe in a cosmic void prior to the mysterious appearance of the universe and an empty vacuum beyond the galaxies. Furthermore, the human mind must reason in a dark, empty, inner room unsupported and uncomforted by a divine presence. Edwards said that such an idea produces "convulsions and confusion" in the mind and a "contradiction" of the soul. Indeed, when one debates with an atheist, one finds a mind entangled in convulsions of thought, confusion of concepts, and contradictions of what it means to be human. In accordance with Romans 1:28, the atheist has a debased mind. Such ruined minds are quite common among postmodern liberals who are fighting against reason in the culture war.

Mr. Hutchinson says that he believes that atheists have thrown up the most intense defenses against reason and that some of the liberals he has debated are not far behind in their defenses "against reason." (Reason - meaning Mr Hutchinson's philosophical views on Reason, naturally). When he says that the absence of transcendent spirituality in the modern churches breeds cynicism which drains the intellectual energies in fending off irrationality in our culture, I admit that I pause and recall times when I've seen opportunity for meaningful debate that was dulled by a watered-down (and narrowed) understanding of Christian theology within the modern churches and shut off by a divisive mistrust of anyone in politics who might be wearing their faith on their sleeve.

Reason, of course, cannot rise to its highest potential without faith, and without the metaphysical anchors supplied by the existence of God. Why cannot the Christian philosophers of the modern era rise up to match the rational philosophers of prior centuries? It is possible, but very difficult. The ubiquitous presence of cynicism drains the intellectual energies in fending off irrationality in the culture. The mind is distracted from the mountaintop of reason by constantly having to quibble over first principles with skeptics. The strange absence of transcendent spirituality in the modern churches leaves the individual believer to a private quest to find God in the fullness of his majesty and glory, as Jonathan Edwards did.

The task of this generation of Christians is to restore transcendent spirituality to the churches, to win the culture war, and reclaim and reestablish reason throughout the land. This will make it possible for philosophers of a future generation to again produce works of world-class rational philosophy, which is part of the heritage of the West.

I hope there will be a lot more public discussion of faith in the public square. This nation has been damaged in ways we don't yet understand. Our sense of invulnerability was shattered on 9/11. Our President and his administration lied to us about the reasons he was sending our troops to war while his administration plotted out some evil political manipulations. If the war had been a success, the public trust may never have been damaged, but Bush's Iraq war was poorly planned, strategically wrong, morally wrong, socially unjust - in short - it is a disaster despite the best efforts of our loyal Military. On the homefront, the rich are getting richer by the day while poverty increases among the poorest. The middle class is shrinking - and most are going the route of the "working poor." This nation is divided; non-trusting; bruised; spiritually impoverished.

Our faith and our common values may be the only rational thing we have to hold on to at a time when all other institutions fail us. I believe that an honest and respectful debate about reason and faith is the only thing that is going to save this nation. While atheists are just as American as any other citizen, there is no moral superiority in their claiming that Religion is "magical thinking" - especially when you consider that the notion that God will cease to exist through an willful act of denial is also 'magical thinking.' Atheists and extremist secularists cannot blink and hope that Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and Wiccans will disappear from the public square. Respect is key to public debate about where we draw the line between our common (often faith-based) values and the rule of law.

Orchestration of Conventional Wisdom Gave US an Unjust War

Orchestration of Conventional Wisdom Gave US an Unjust War

At LewRockwell.com, Michael S. Rozeff wants to know how Saddam Hussein became such a "grave threat." He believes that our understanding of the history of how this all came to be conventional wisdom so quickly is important. We do not want our nation - our troops- our treasure - to go into avoidable wars. He says, "We have yet to see the full consequences of this war, in terms of shifting resources away from going after terrorists, in fostering new terrorists, in strengthening Iran’s hand in Iraq, in encouraging Islamic fundamentalism, in weakening the U.S., and in other as yet unrevealed ways."

"If Saddam Hussein was not a grave threat, how did so many people come to view him as one? When did common perception transform him into a mortal threat to America? Who stimulated this transformation and why? What accidental factors contributed to this error? .. If we can answer these questions in depth, perhaps we can learn more about the fundamental failings of our system of state and government. Perhaps we can change our system. Perhaps we can avoid similar errors in the future. This article merely begins to raise pertinent questions. It does not answer them. Perhaps it points in fruitful directions; perhaps not. It only begins to sort out the strange case of Saddam Hussein’s transformation from two-bit dictator and strong man into an evil the size of Hitler, capable of producing mushroom clouds over America, possessor of unmanned vehicles filled with biological diseases lying off the Atlantic shores.

We're in this strange place in time - where we must look back in order to avoid disastrous mistakes in the future. We're also in the middle of a war about which we cannot allow to bring our nation to be brought its knees - mired in failure and strung out alone playing unilateral savior to every nation whose geopolitical interests happen to coincide with ours. Bush's use of an alleged divinely-guided "national theology" as a reason for war is a perverted, partisan, and hollow abberation of religion and has not provided a sound moral basis to initiate war with another nation. Accusing Democrats of providing comfort to an enemy is the only defense of Bush's Iraq war policy that he can muster, and it also rings hollow and defies common sense. A patriot cares enough about his country and his people that he will gladly risk imprisonment, as H.D. Thoreau did in the nineteeth Century. (see Civil Disobedience)

Michael Rozeff's article is important. You were sold a war that your nation never needed to enter into. That much is true. It should be alarming that so many believed that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat.

Now that we are there - what will we do, as moral citizens with our careful eyes fixed upon America's best interests? How will we reconcile those interests with the due responsibility for what we have wrought in Iraq?

Why do we fail to trust political leaders who send out ideas to set things right? Is it because we see how one administration failed us so miserably (and betrayed our trust)? Is it because we hate war and know that there are better solutions to dealing with our international tensions?

Talk.

*tip of the hat to Charlene B - the Duchess.

American Soldier Talks About Katrina Aftermath

American Soldier Talks About Katrina Aftermath

"It really bothered me when I would see innocent people being terrorized or harmed by thugs that tried to take advantage of the helpless in the aftermath of this disaster."

- American Soldier

We ask a lot of our soldiers - and we often fail to think about the dire circumstances under which they are discharging their duty. Life isn't pretty and crime happens. In places as diverse as Iraq and New Orleans, they see it all. From the best of what we can be as human beings - to the worst.

"So there I was in the middle of water. Stepping out of a police car, M16 in hand and ready to lay down the law. Some areas were a haven for very bad people. They would slap their own mothers if they were still around. In a land where people are pissed already because all that they had got washed away."

I was particularly moved by the story told about a frail elderly woman that the American Soldier assisted in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I am reprinting his post with permission from the American Soldier
(Thanks, AS.):

American Soldier says,

I was asked if I really made a difference in the two weeks that I was in New Orleans. I sat back and I pondered the question for a moment. The faces still fresh in my head of the people I either helped or arrested. I took a deep breath of the country air that I now appreciate so much more. I responded with a solid yes.

I was busy from the moment I left. Not knowing what would come about in this mission. I was prepared for the worst. We arrived at a busy airstrip called Belle Chase. There were thousands of people there. This place normally only held about 500 or so people. Not now. It was the main hub for air support in the greater New Orleans area. Aircraft was coming in or out nearly every 2-3 minutes. One would take off and another would land. A very chaotic but amazing scene.



It wasn’t any more than a day or so and we were moved into the city area. On the way in under the cover of darkness the destruction could be seen. Poles ripped from the ground and thrown across the streets. Tree’s toppled and buildings pushed over like Lego’s.



Missions got under way quick and I found my nitch. I was tasked to work with the local police. Since LA was under martial law, the need for military assistance was obvious. These cops I must say are heroes. Despite losing all that they had, they still worked around the clock in order to preserve the city. My partner was normally a quiet and subdued guy. I think I brought out a side of him that he will appreciate moving forward. I was quickly known for the no bullshit approach that I have for stupid people but yet keeping that professional side of me.



We’d roll up on a call and normally people would just gracefully walk away but when some Army guys gets out of the vehicle with an M16 fully loaded people stop and just don’t know what to do. Some people tried to test the limits of the law but my partner and I were having nothing to do with that. You drop an attitude and you were finding yourself chin to hood and that distinct sound of handcuffs closing around your wrists. I can’t tell you how many times that scenario played out.



Not all calls were in response to bad guys. We did a lot of status checks on people. At first I was like whatever, lets go check this person out. Then the trend hit me. These people were elderly and their young and able family members were calling the police to check on them. Most of these older citizens were left behind. I began to get pissed when we would go to these calls. I wanted to call the son or daughter and ask them why in the hell they left their father or mother behind! There was a call that I will not soon forget. I touched on it slightly in my 9/11 post. There was a lady who was 90 years old. Some workers flagged us down and advised us of an older lady in her apartment. They felt she should be taken to safety.



As we approached the apartment, the side of it was completely blown off. The roof was also in bad shape. We went up the stairs walking around fallen dry wall and glass. We got to the door and knocked. At first there was no answer. We opened it up and there sat a very delicate lady. We walked in and she gave us a smile. I put my weapon behind my back. And I took a look at the condition of her home. Mangled was my first thought. Her apartment was complete exposed to the elements. Mold had already formed all over the ceiling. We asked her if she had enough water and food. She said that she was fine and comfortable. I was confused because all I saw was about 15 bottles of water and some MRE’s unopened. I asked her if we could bring her to a shelter or a place that she could be more comfortable. She looked at me and told me “Child, I’m going to be ok and I’m comfortable now.” As much of a man and tough soldier that I am, for that moment I felt vulnerable. I felt helpless. This woman, who has probably lived a full life, was choosing to stay. I took a look at the walls and I could see years of happiness. Pictures of family were all around her.



As I write this right now, I have tears in my eyes. The reason is because at the time I couldn’t help her and a few days later we responded back to her apartment where she had passed. She knew her fate and for whatever reasons she decided to live her final days in such chaos surrounded by remnants of happiness that once filled her life.

We got so many calls for looting. We’d either find people fresh out of a store with cartons of smokes or alcohol. Mind you, there were no stores open. We’d see these people just casually walking about like we weren’t going to stop them. We had a standing rule while on patrol. Arrest only felony subjects. So if a person had some items, it was at best a misdemeanor charge. So we’d stop them, search them for drugs and question them. Some people cooperated with us. Some decided to act like asshats and try to resist or run. I always enjoyed when they ran. Gave me a chance to flex my running skills and quick hog-tying skills of mine.

I will expand more on the run and snatch calls in another post. I’m still decompressing from this experience.

Note:
"American Soldier" is writing a book titled Soldier Life: A Day in the Life of an American Soldier.
I look forward to reading the book. It's a special kind of person who can write about his or her often-difficult experiences in a way such that we are made to better understand - to be shocked sometimes - to be inspired to make change where it's necessary. Many thanks to AS and all the soldiers who are out there doing their job in the service of their nation.

Who Voted For This Knife in the Constitution's Gut?

Who Voted For This Knife in the Constitution's Gut?
Most Republicans; A Few Democrats

Senator Lindsey Graham's Constitution-killing amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization Act was proposed and passed with no real debate about its far-ranging implications - and it was passed without any hearings. Our troops are fighting for Iraq's freedom while Constitutional freedoms become more and more limited - with fear used as a political tool to convince citizens that it's necessary. The lack of discussion calls to mind the Iraq Resolution of 2002 when, absent of meaningful debate, an all too trusting Congress hurriedly provided Bush and Rumsfeld the authorization to "do the right thing." That was a big mistake. Will we keep letting Congress make these big mistakes until our freedom has vanished altogether?

The Democrats who voted for this Amendment should be scrutinized. Who are they?

-Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut
-Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana
-Ben Nelson of Nebraska
-Kent Conrad of North Dakota
-Ron Wyden of Oregon


Republicans who deserve credit for voting against the bill were:

-Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania
-John E. Sununu of New Hampshire
-Gordon H. Smith of Oregon
-Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island

In blatant defiance of the Constitution's guarantees of Habeas Corpus and separation of powers, the Senate on Thursday approved the Graham Amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization Act by a vote of 49 to 42. Five Democrats joined all but 4 Republican Senators in giving the President unfettered power to hold prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, for the rest of their lives, with no criminal charges, and no right to challenge their confinement by Habeas Corpus [...]

Only a handful of prisoners at Guantánamo have been charged with crimes. Their cases will be heard in military commissions that George W. Bush established to impose long sentences and even execute detainees with virtually no judicial oversight. Without habeas access to federal courts, Bush and Donald Rumsfeld will ostensibly serve as prosecutor, judge and executioner in the military commissions. This flies in the face of the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. - Marjorie Cohn, Truthout

Edwards on Iraq - Leave Behind Success, Not Failure

Edwards on Iraq - Leave Behind Success, Not Failure

In today's Washington Post, Senator John Edwards is telling you that if he knew then what we all know now about the deeply flawed and politically manipulated intelligence, he never would have voted for the Iraq resolution in 2002.

It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a dear price.

The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth.

This could never have been easy for Senator Edwards to admit. Most political leaders in Washington still won't admit what we all can see - that they were mistaken. I admire Senator Edwards' honesty and humility. He's a man of outstanding moral character. It isn't the first time he's publically communicated his regret, and it may not be the last. It isn't so much the regret that we should focus upon - instead it is the ideas for bringing our troops home with full honor intact and with something we can all identify as "success" brought to Iraq that should be in focus.

I'd like all of my readers to put themselves in the position of being a responsible leader. All of you who've been calling for the troops to be sent home - what would you honestly do if you suddenly came to power? I've heard a lot of cocky answers on both sides of the political fence, but when I look reality straight in its face, the political leader who is speaking directly to my heart and mind is Senator Edwards.

The urgent question isn't how we got here but what we do now. We have to give our troops a way to end their mission honorably. That means leaving behind a success, not a failure.

Senator Edwards gives us a plan for success in Iraq, focusing on three interlocking objectives:

1. Reducing the American presence. (We've reached the point where the large number of our troops in Iraq hurts, not helps, our goals.)

2. Building Iraq's capacity. (A more effective training program for Iraqi forces, implementing a clear plan for training and hard deadlines for certain benchmarks to be met.)

3. Getting other countries to meet their responsibilities to help. (To create a unified international front.)

He honors the families who have lost their loved ones in this war by promising to implement clear plans for a definitive success, while removing the image of an imperialist America from the landscape of Iraq - even if that means asking American contractors who have taken unfair advantage of the turmoil in Iraq need to leave the country and hand the work over to Iraqi businesses.

More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives in this war, and more than 150,000 are fighting there today. They and their families deserve honesty from our country's leaders. And they also deserve a clear plan for a way out.

I'm proud of Senator Edwards for sending this message to the people of America - to Washington D.C. - and to the world. Integrity, honesty, courage, humility, and truth are values that are largely missing in Washington D.C. today. Clear ideas born of ethics are even more of a rarity. Is it any wonder that our vision has been lost? The vision has been emptied of all the values that give meaning and moral force to it. I believe that Senator Edwards can bring the vision back and make it work.

Related:

Think Progress
One America
Oliver Willis
Atrios
David Sirota
AmericaBlog
Editor and Publisher
Blogcritics

Peter and Stirling Turn Up the Volume

Peter and Stirling Turn Up the Volume

Peter Daou has come up with a set of killer questions, and Stirling Newberry has come up with some compelling replies. We need to be having this conversation.

1. Now that we know more about his real views on Bush, Kerry, and war, is Pat Tillman considered a “moonbat” by the right, and is he now a liberal or a conservative hero? Or both?

Jude: Pat Tillman's image as an American athlete-turned military volunteer was used with gleeful partisan craftsmanship by the Right - until the story of the circumstances of Pat's death was widely spread and the Tillman family's reactions and opinions came to light. Then the "Sunshine patriots" of the extreme rightwing, who will hold a soldier to angelic heights only when he and his family agree to their unspoken and undemocratic vow of silence, turned on their destruction machinery. "Pat Tillman could not have been a patriot," the extremists would say. I'd love to spit in the faces of any partisan who would raise a young man to heroic heights and then sully his good name when his political opinions come to light. I see Pat Tillman as a human being - a caring and patriotic American who believed in a vision of America as an indivisible nation. He was lifted to "hero" status by Americans who place a high cultural value on athletes and soldiers. I don't think it's probable that Pat gave too much weight to the divisive political elements that exist today when he decided to join the Military. I think he was moved by all that he'd seen. I think he wanted to put an end to the power of fear that terrorism held over his country. I think he was a brave young man. In 2004, long before the truth came out about Pat's political beliefs, I had written this about him:

The cause in which his country was engaged mattered more to Pat than the dull emptiness of greed. It mattered more to Pat than life.

If Pat was a hero, then all soldiers are heroes. They all risk the same thing - their lives - for their coutry.


2. Do bloggers who oppose an immediate pullout from Iraq (on the grounds that more people will suffer there if we leave) think that preserving Iraqi lives is a priority for Americans? Assuming the blood, toil, and money being paid there are limited resources, might those resources be put to better use saving dying children or feeding the starving in places other than Iraq? And if this is about the Pottery Barn rule, is there a statute of limitations on that rule? What if we can't fix what's broken in Iraq? Is there a point at which we acknowledge we can't fix it and stop trying? Also, are there other things we've broken that we're obliged to fix? Is there a reason our limited resources should go to fixing Iraq and not saving poor, sick, and hungry children in America?

Jude: It sounds cold, but this is a question that necessitates cold answers. I believe that most Americans would not wish to see their sons and daughters risk their lives for a police-action in Iraq that could (and should) be accomplished effectively with an international effort. American opinion today tells us that our nation is headed in the wrong direction - 'the vision' is confusing - or gone. It's one of two choices: George W. Bush either doesn't want to follow an international code that would involve material multilateral cooperation - or else he has no clue how to make it happen. I think most of us see his leadership twisting in the wind because he is lost between the voices of Dick Cheney's office and the voices of the many experienced Military generals (ie: Gen Pace, Gen. Zinni) and ex-State officials who firmly speak against the kind of war his administration is executing. There is a clear "Disconnect" and the public knows it - and to see the President hurling careless anti-American accusations toward Democrats (as he did in his defensive speech yesterday) rather than admitting clear mistakes and moving toward national unity - - that's lazy, proud, defensive, shitty leadership. America deserves better! I don't know about an implied statute of limitations on the Pottery Barn rule, but I do know that we broke it, we bought it, and the American people were conned into it. In a business contract, that would be deemed as fraud - and fraud just might make that contract legally null and void. Yet, here we are - looking at real lives shattered by our nation's doing. Is our nation made weaker by admitting our mistakes and asking and convincing the international community to return with full cooperation - or are we made weaker by sending more troops into the biggest damned mistake-hole that an American President has ever dug for the American people? If the American people were to have a real debate and referendum on how their money would best be spent - - if we were encouraged to really talk about our common values - it is my opinion that the children in the homeless shelters today, along with their mothers, would be a higher priority than the Utopian goal of the PNAC (especially knowing that we, the people, were LIED to - our worst fears were exploited to take us to an elective war that was unjust and unnecessary).
Is it an American value to heap failure upon failure?


3. Is there truth to the argument that because some of our troops don't have a problem fighting in Iraq, anti-war activists have no business trying to protect these troops from themselves? Soldiers fight, it's what they do, it's what they train to do, it's what they volunteer to do. Should anti-war activists/bloggers distinguish between opposition to the Iraq invasion on moral and legal grounds as opposed to "protecting the troops," or "bringing the troops home?"

Jude: When I say I support the troops, I mean it in the fullness of the consideration of my personal value system. Do I want to see my fellow Americans sent to risk their lives for what I believe is against my values as an American citizen? Is it wrong to talk about our values in the public square in the face of a war that we are told will have no foreseeable end? In past wars (until Vietnam), Americans were made to understand the cause; were united in that cause; sacrificed as a nation for the cause. Today, the cause in Iraq - and how it applies to the overall war against terrorism - is fuzzy(at best); the richest Americans are richly rewarded rather than called upon for sacrifice; most citizens believe Bush is dishonest; only a small fraction of Americans believe the Iraq war was the right thing to do (the same crowd who believe that Darwin and Liberace brought God's wrath upon America); all the world can see the strategic mistakes that have been made; no one can foresee an end because there is no end game; most citizens understand that terrorism must be defeated, but the Iraq war has made terror recruitment a booming success (literally and figuratively). Spinning our wheels might be morally acceptable on matters of certain governmental policies, but when we begin spinning our wheels on the issue of a war in which our nation is engaged - and when divisive politics are employed by the Commander-in-chief as more troops die every day - something's terribly wrong. To answer the last question, bloggers and anti-Iraq-war activists should not just be complaining - they should be offering alternatives to what we are doing in Iraq today. The protests of the 1960s are not effective today because their collective message is often as unclear as the President's message on the war on terror. Americans have lost their vision - in good part because of poor leadership. Without a discussion of our common moral values - and how those values apply to the rule of law, anti-war activists will go on as they are today - marginalized; demeaned by the cheap soundbites of the Sean Hannitys and the Rush Limbaughs. If the President cannot convince the public that he has a clear vision, yet he still plays and preys upon their worst prejudices and fears, we are still here with a responsibility. We need to remind Americans that we have not lost confidence and hope that we are still one America in pursuit of democratic policy that takes into consideration the rule of law and the citizens' common values. We bloggers need to create a vision in the absence of a vision from our leaders.



4. Is the obsession with terrorism symptomatic of a deeper-seated fear? In 2004 I lived and worked a few blocks from the White House and today I live a couple of hundred yards from Ground Zero. Not exactly safe zones. But I never hear my friends and neighbors discussing terrorism. So why is it a predominant topic in the media and on blogs? Is death by terrorist attack qualitatively worse than death by other causes? Why not have hourly, daily, and weekly freak-outs about heart disease or cancer or drunk driving?

Jude: The obsession with terrorism has everything to do with human nature. People can be overly-reliant upon their government to erase their vulnerability, when it just isn't possible for any government to accomplish that. At the time of the 9/11 attack, my brother-in-law worked for Moody's Investors Services in the shadow of the towers in Manhattan and saw the whole thing with his every sense - he heard and he saw the planes and his fellow citizens falling from the sky - he smelled the inferno - he tasted the acrid smoke - he felt his feet tire from running and then wandering the city searching for a way to get back home to Queens. When I visit my family and speak with them, terrorism isn't something that they are frenzied about. All risk is a fact of life - especially in a city like New York. You're more likely to be run down by a cab or trip in the subway. Cancer is quietly taking the lives of millions of us. The political leaders of the Right have found what they once thought was a perfect tool to win elections: Fear. It's easy for political leaders to invoke 9/11 - and all the fear that comes with the territory - on Fox News around election-time and have a vulnerable-feeling parent in a Red state start to believe that Osama's coming to Fumbuck to blow up the bus depot. When will Americans stop accepting fear-mongering as a campaign tool? It seems like they've already begun their protest, if you look at the latest polls. Bush is being seen as a dishonest President who has cried "Wolf!" "Orange Alert!" far too often. I saw Mayor Bloomberg take part in the fear-mongering just after the 2004 Democratic Convention, and I found it to be a sickening sight, as did many other New Yorkers. Was a sense of vulnerability shattered after 9/11? You bet. Can anyone give us back our fantasy-based national sense of invulnerability after 9/11? Not a chance. Has the Republican party taken the fear-mongering too far? Yes, to a deliberate extent - with full cooperation of cable news media as they go into their own unique 'obsession-mode.'


*My replies have been linked at the Daou Report.
(to be cont'd soon - Questions 5-10)

Veterans Day - For Our Mil-Bloggers

Veterans Day - For Our Mil-Bloggers
On Veterans Day, I want to pay tribute to our Mil-bloggers, past and present.

Often, I realize that I sound irreverent about the Bush administration, and I realize that sort of public talk and behavior is not freely allowed within the ranks of active American military service. My irreverence is wholly packed with the punch of the truth from my standpoint of individual conscience. I am grateful for the fact that our men and women of the armed forces serve our nation trustingly and loyally and to them, I am reflecting that essence for which I know they risk everything. By exercising the right and privilege to speak as a free and honest American citizen, a large part of my goal is to watch over these soldiers and to ensure they are being given a fair shake by the government (and people) they serve to protect. I know that their lives depend upon the stability and wisdom of their commander in chief.

Today, I honor the following websites--all written by members, past or present, of our Armed Forces:

http://www.voiceofaveteran.blogspot.com/-I got to know Vet when we mutually supported Howard Dean. He is an important rational voice in the blogging community.

A big shout out to my co-blogger at Syracuse Progressive - milblogger Fred Bieling, who's currently serving with the New York State Army National Guard. I'm so glad Fred and I have become acquainted. He has a lot of writing talent. Check him out.



Colby's book

http://cbftw.blogspot.com/ - Colby (aka CB) was stationed in Mosul with the Stryker brigade. He writes with the heart of the philosopher. He was cut off from blogging by the powers that be for a short time, but now he's back with a book called My War. He's my favorite 'Charlie Bravo.'

http://docinthebox.blogspot.com/ - Sean is a Navy medic. He's articulate and his writing is very well thought out. (Even though he dreads what his high school English teacher might think if she were to gaze upon his blog).

http://lt-smash.us/ - Iraq war veteran and war blogger, now he's a stateside citizen. He has a group called Protest Warriors. Go here for a sample of his thoughts and the discourse that follows in the Comments section.

The Daily Brief (SSDB) -A collaborative blog discussing the conflict day-today. Pay Stryker, Kevin Connors, Sgt. Mom, and Sparkey a visit. Good, honest writing.

http://www.dogtulosba.com/ I got to know Chad when he came to Iddybud to straighten me out on my military terminology. (I suck at it). He's the expert, and I deferred to him. I also became a fan. Note: Chad gets my vote for the category of 'Best blogger smile'. ;)

http://www.cimoli.com/blog/cimoli_blog - Gordo is a US Army Aviator. He's been in the Army since August 1988 and has been all over the world from Panama to Canada. In iraq now, Gordo recently expressed concern that his unit's embedded reporter, CBS Bob, is leaving to head back to the states. He was their link to the world--he had the sattelite internet connection and could keep the soldiers up to date on what was going on in the world.

http://livefromiraq.blogspot.com/ -Sorry, folks. He's been shut down and shut up.

http://scrimshaw.blogspot.com/ -91 Ghost- A literary vet, who recently wrote: "Say a little prayer that our enemies shall be defeated, that our Republic shall flourish in the light of its Constitutional intentions and guidances, and that our leaders, whomsoever they may be, will have the wisdom and discretion to do the right thing, whatever that may be...and say a little prayer that our politicians, on either side of the aisle, will defer to our war chiefs when it comes to making war decisions...because this situation we are in, is not a football game. Say a little prayer, above all, for the soldier walking point tonight, and for the soldier laying up in Walter Reed tonight, and for those whose last sight on earth was of a mzzle flash in some slum in Iraq, and not the fields they called home."

"If the coalition were to just pick up and go would the insurgency stop altogether? I mean these people have some plan right? I only wonder what their objective mission is? Seems to me that they are killing more of their own people then ours. If I take CNN's word for it, they killed 40 of their own and just 1 US Soldier today. So is it about the Coalition being there? Now when I say one of their own, I mean of Arab descendent. We all know that the insurgency is not just Iraqi's.

I couldn't imagine what goes through their thick stinking skulls as they are planning this shit. Do they really justify killing woman and children? Do they chalk it up as a casualty of war and Allah will compensate them when they go to Heaven?

I wonder what would make it all go away? I can bet that if we just left it wouldn't!"

--American Soldier, 30 September 2004

From American Soldier

American Soldier (was: here previously) states: "I sacrifice so others may never have to face war or adversity that plagues this nation that we live in."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski-arch.html -Karen Kwiatkowski recently retired from the active duty USAF as a Lieutenant Colonel. Her final assignment was as a political-military affairs officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Under Secretary for Policy, in the Sub-Saharan Africa and Near East South Asia (NESA) Policy directorates. Her work can be viewed at Lew Rockwell's website. See An interview with Karen Kwiatkowski, Oct 26, 2005


http://www.hackworth.com/ -David Hackworth's military career as a sailor, soldier and a military writer has spanned several dozen wars and conflicts, from the end of World War II to the first Gulf War to the present situation in Iraq -- which he described as “the biggest military miscalculation in our nation’s history.” David Hackworth died earlier this year and we will miss his voice.


http://www.ivaw.net/ -Iraq Veterans Against the War(IVAW) is currently working on a nation wide speaking tour and in 2004, they participated in a Vigil in Washington D.C., with speakers including Lila Lipscombe, who was a mother of a soldier who was killed in Iraq. I saw the entire event on CSPAN and found it to be very moving, but it never made the news, curiously. Other than CSPAN, the media was dead-silent for far too long. Some of them have been supporting Cindy Sheehan, mother of fallen soldier Casey Sheehan.

I'm including a blogging "Soldier's Angel" named Holly Aho and Patti Patton-Bader, mother of Sgt. Brandon Varn who served in Iraq, Soldier's Angels, who asks this of you:

Soldiers are truly enduring the horrible. We must pull together as a country. I ask, you no I get down on my knees and I beg you support a soldier TODAY. Do something now to help, Adopt A Soldier,. Write a letter, go to your local veterans association, see if there is a wife with a husband deployed and mow her lawn, watch her children, give her a hug.. Help the wounded, DO SOMETHING to support these precious heroes.

Here's to Ross Myers, Tara Sue Clark, and Jerry McClough of North Carolina who, along with their help with the Military WebCOM Video Conferencing Program and the VFW's Operation Uplink, enabled and facilitated a Milbloggers session at a Blog Conference in Nashville this year.

Other Milbloggers:

MilBlogging.com

Mudville Gazette
Black Five
The Word Unheard
Fourth Rail
One Hand Clapping
365 and a Wake Up
Four Knots to Nowhere
Bobby's World
Wordsmith at War
One Marine's View
The Will To Exist
When Last We Left Our Intrepid Home
Femme La Guerre
LZSally.com
VFW.org
Isaac Callahan (who recently deleted a shitload of bad memories)

John McCain's Impractical Iraq Ideas

"Do the math. Mosul is 1.1 million, Baghdad is about 6 million, Kirkuk is about a million. All are highly mixed ethnically, and all are
tinderboxes. If you put 50,000 US troops into each of those three cities and just abandoned Anbar province, you still could not control them."

- Juan Cole

John McCain's Impractical Iraq Ideas

Read Juan Cole to understand how John McCain's Iraq strategy is impractical. More troops? No way. Cole compares McCain's ideas to the Soviet concept for military occupation of Afghanistan - and you know how well that turned out!

In response to Mr. Cole's opinion, Michael Pollak says that the reality of the problems that come with controlling the countryside magnifies Cole's criticism:

How to control the countryside afterwards - that is the soul of the question facing the government. To say "And then we move on to control the countryside" is like saying "And then voila a miracle happens."...But this doesn't undercut your criticism, it only magnifies it. The problem with invoking the oil spot theory now is that the oil spot theory assumes you already control the cities. And it assumes that you already have a strong state. Neither of which is at all true now in Iraq. Iraq and Afghanistan are 4th generation wars, which are entirely different. Now you don't have weak forces trying to wrest control from a state. Rather the guerrillas are trying to stop a state from coming into being, which is much easier. In the entire history of colonialism and the cold war, a steady flow of random terrorism never accomplished the first. But in the world of post-cold war failed states, it can accomplish the second. It can stop strong states from coming into being.

Judith Miller leaves NY Times

Judith Miller leaves NY Times
Chalabi gets a pat on the back from the White House

Judith Miller's farewell is here.Her plans for the future?

I will continue speaking in support of a Federal shield law. In my future writing, I intend to call attention to the internal and external threats to our country’s freedoms – Al Qaeda and other forms of religious extremism, conventional and W.M.D. terrorism, and growing government secrecy in the name of national security – subjects that have long defined my work.

I find it to be ironic that, as Judith Miller's star falls, Ahmed Chalabi is honored once again by his White House friends. It's quite sickening. Chalabi and the war planners within the Bush administration were perpetrators of the biggest fraud ever palmed off on the American people. Justice is nowhere to be found. Only a lost national vision, a disillusioned public, and a once-popular journalist disappearing from the mainstream for the part she unwittingly-yet foolishly and unprofessionally played. I'm sorry for my nation that it has all happened this way.

Reverend Brown's Village

Reverend Brown's Village


Rev. Brown counsels a 'Camp Edwards village' resident
photo credit - Harvard Gazette

"I have never been involved in this kind of volunteer effort before ... This was the worst disaster in recent U.S. history, and it exposed an ugly side of the American ethos and [an] underside of American society, when talking about issues of race, poverty and class."

- Rev. Jeffrey Brown, unofficial mayor of the of Camp Edwards refugee shelter for Katrina evacuees, co-founder of the Boston Ten Point Coalition

I started out with thoughts of attempting a Veteran's Day memorial-post effort. My father is an Air Force and Korean War veteran and he'd once worked on a radar project at Otis AFB (now Air National Guard base) on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. When researching Otis Air National Guard Base , I found an inspirational story about something that has recently happened there - at a makeshift village called "Camp Edwards."

There's a Boston Globe story by Sally Jacobs about an inspirational leader, Rev. Jeffrey Brown, who was placed at the right place at the right time - and made a difference in 235 lives. It isn't a fairy tale - real life is too untidy for such notions. According to the Globe article, about 20% of the "villagers" had a serious mental illness - four times the national average. Two dozen were homeless, and several were illiterate. Most had been poor back home, and were poorer now. Among the last to leave New Orleans, they were, as one state official put it, "the people society left behind."

This wasn't a job for anyone seeking glory. It was the kind of job where you roll up your sleeves; get ready to hear (and face) the bald truth; bury your judgement; get some hard work done - while showing compassion and care for some people who are in a struggle for their very existence. Not an easy task. Rev. Jeffrey Brown is a special person - and our society would be lost without leaders like him.

It was, by definition, an extraordinary place. It brought together 235 human beings whose lives had been in some measure destroyed, and settled them upon a barren stretch of pine forest in a place few of them had ever heard of. During the 47 days that it existed, each of those lives would be recast.

.There were 35 children (under the age of 18), 157 adults, 43 elderly people (age 59 and over). There were 14 familes with children. For many of the evacuees, the care and attention they'd received in the village was like nothing they had known before in their lives. It was not a perfect place. By the end of tis past September, the mood in the village had flattened. There were not enough blankets, and the road trips had dropped off. The search policy offended many. No one knew how the FEMA housing money would be distributed, making it almost impossible for leases to be signed, and the solutions did not come overnight. It took time to care for these people, but as Ms. Jacoby has written, the pieces of their future were eventually "snapping into place." 100 decided to remain in Massachssetts. The majority of the rest headed back toward their native South.

Like many nameless Americans across the nation who helped Katrina refugees through a tremendously difficult time, Reverend Brown and the Camp Edwards crew and volunteers played a part in making these jarring transitions, after the trauma of rooftop rescues and near-drownings, a caring and healing experience. I'd like to take a moment to thank them and tell them that they are truly appreciated. I hope that Reverend Brown will take all that he learned from his selfless experience and lead us to understand how we, as citizens, can play a part to never again ignore the nameless, faceless numbers of our fellow Americans who suffer from poverty, homelessnes, mental illness, social isolation, or discrimination.

The Nation: Moser on Edwards

The Nation: Moser on Edwards

Bob Moser has written an illuminative piece on the political pathway and progress of former VP candidate John Edwards titled Cornbread and Roses.
- posted November 9, 2005 (November 28, 2005 issue)

Please Don't Loot

Mississippi Gulf Coast Van
Photo by Don Howerton

ANWR - Faith-Tradition Meets Politics

photo credit - ensnewswire

"The Gwich'in believe that a bit of human heart is in every caribou - and that a bit of caribou is in every person. Any threat to the animal is a threat to the Gwich'in."

ANWR - Faith-Tradition Meets Politics

In Alaska, a faith-related political dilemma has been reported in the news. The Gwich'in are the northernmost Indian Nation living in fifteen small villages scattered across vast area extending from northeast Alaska in the U.S. to the northern Yukon and Northwest Territories in Canada. The Gwich'in are carrying out their longstanding responsibility given to them by the Creator to take care of the caribou herds in the ANWR region of Alaska. In Gwich'in villages, caribou provide 60 to 70 percent of their food.

It is being said that drilling in ANWR would violate the Gwich'in people's rights guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was ratified by 154 countries, including the United States, in 1994 and the OAS charter, which is the treaty that founded the OAS shortly after World War II.

Excerpt from article in the Indian Country Today news:

"It represents who we are as a people," Beach said. "What happens to the caribou, happens to the Gwich'in."

Beach's comments came during the release of the new report, ''A Moral Choice for the United States: The Human Rights Implications for the Gwich'in of Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.''

The report was released by the Gwich'in Steering Committee; Trustees for Alaska; the Episcopal Church; and Professor Richard J. Wilson, director of the International Human Rights Law Clinic at American University in Washington, D.C.

The Gwich'in Nation, with a population of about 8,000, said it is now fighting its toughest battle yet: to ensure that Congress does not open AMWR to oil drilling.

Beach said that unlike tribes in the lower 48 states, Gwich'in are able to subsist off the land and continue to rely on the caribou for food and survival....

.... ..... During a national telephone conference with the media on Oct. 25 to release the report, Bishop Mark MacDonald of the Episcopal Church said it is a moral issue. MacDonald said while the United States uses morality to justify its presence in Iraq and the war, the United States proposes drilling in ANWR and passes this off as progress.

This is a human rights issue - a moral issue - a faith issue - an issue of respect for a religious tradition of the people - an issue involving international treaties. What will Congress do?