Chickenhawks Stay Home To Roost

BOB HERBERT writes in the New York Times:

"The air is filled with obsessive self-satisfied rhetoric about supporting the troops, giving them everything they need and not letting them down. But that rhetoric is as hollow as a jazzman’s drum because the overwhelming majority of Americans have no desire at all to share in the sacrifices that the service members and their families are making. Most Americans do not want to serve in the wars, do not want to give up their precious time to do volunteer work that would aid the nation’s warriors and their families, do not even want to fork over the taxes that are needed to pay for the wars.
To say that this is a national disgrace is to wallow in the shallowest understatement. The nation will always give lip-service to support for the troops, but for the most part Americans do not really care about the men and women we so blithely ship off to war, and the families they leave behind."

I seriously suggest you pass the link to the article around and join the conversation. My contribution is a simple observation - that when war becomes a cynical tool of partisan ambition, when it's an economic activity rather than an issue of common security, when the human costs here and now are justified in terms of supposed ideological threats in a future that is accessed by some mythical slippery slope greased with "tolerance" and "compassion," well. That's a problem. Because it means that in the process of trying to "win," you have lost far more than could ever have been taken from you.



Yellow Elephant, where were you? - Civilian by webcarve
Create customized shirts with zazzle

Diplomat:"OF COURSE you talk to enemies!!!" It takes me six paragrahs to say "Duh!"

27 year career diplomat agrees with Senator Obama on need for diplomacy, including talking with our enemies.

I was moved to digg and comment (digg link below, please use that one) and then realized that I really should follow my own lead on this. I frequently blog the better comments on news stories made by others. Well, this time, I think I nailed it.

Here's what I said.

"This whole "we don't talk to people we don't like" foreign policy has struck me as being on a level with seventh graders deciding who gets to sit at what table at lunch. And - clearly - our leaders do not choose to be seen in public with the auto-shop boys, the "smoker's corner" crowd or anyone from "the wrong side of the tracks."

This is a criticism that transcends any need to speak to politics, ideology or philosophy. I've seen absolutely nothing to indicate that those concepts have had any bearing on any approach to anything. Conservatism has been reduced to the level of a purple heart band-aid.

Remember that, when it was a sign of a Good Conservative to mock the service of a decorated war hero because his experience led him to disapprove of the war in Iraq?

Whatever one might feel about a political opponent, or whatever one might feel about the conclusions they drew from their time in service of country, it's utterly wrong and an utter betrayal of a decent appreciation of fundamental Conservative values to mock the wartime service of another. Nonetheless, the tactic was embraced by leaders and followers alike, because it looked like it would work toward a short-term political goal. Principles be damned. And that's our foreign policy in a nutshell.

It's first, last and only goal has been domestic political advantage within the current news cycle, a calculation that is common to ALL important decisions over the last, utterly disastrous eight years.Wise and mature leaders understand that you cannot, must not, pander to people informed in sound bites by political partisans, or even be terribly concerned about what those partisans might say. There are always such people and it's always easiest to convince them that they are somehow being "mistreated" or "betrayed" by someone in power dealing with a complex situation.

And let us remember that despite being genuinely likable and good with people, George Bush's leadership style has never led him to deal with difficult issues in any substantive way. I honestly cannot think of a single situation that has been improved by George Bush's involvement, or indeed, improved on the basis of the Bush leadership philosophy. It's been a government of, by and for the "popular kids" - and we are reminded why student governments have grownup advisers."

If you digg what I said, please digg it there. But of course, you are also encouraged to share this article directly with all the other bookmarking services. :P

read more | digg story

New York Times Publishes Terroristic Threats

Wanted for Treason and Murder T-Shirt by webcarve
Design Customized TShirts On Zazzle

There are certain things you simply do not publish. Terror threats for the benefit of one another nation against another are not things you need even bother running past the State Department. One is either the editor of one of the most respected newspapers in the world, or one is a willing shill and agent of a foreign power. And I word that latter part charitably, for without the context of the editorial page of the New York Times, Benny Morris would simply be one of many Strangelovian enablers of horror.

Joseph A. Palermo: Professor Benny Morris: Nuclear War to Avoid Nuclear War: "In today's New York Times the Israeli academic Benny Morris, in an article fittingly entitled 'Using Bombs to Stave Off War,' opines that a 'preemptive' nuclear conflagration in the Middle East could have some kind of positive outcome for Israel, the United States, and the world. It's a disgraceful piece of intellectual demagoguery based on mind-boggling, and really quite insane, situational ethics. 'Israel,' Morris's lead begins, 'will almost certainly attack Iran's nuclear sites in the next four to seven months.'"

I direct you to the full article at Huffpo. Meanwhile, I shall respond in the same general vein.

When threats are made that can reasonably be presumed, given context, to have the full, if veiled intent of two of the most powerful and dangerously touchy nations in the world behind them, it would be insane to not take precautions. Since Iran has no ability to match even Israel in terms of conventional war-fighting ability, it would make perfect sense to approach this issue asymmetrically.

Indeed, I would advise them to do so, for the great advantage of intelligently managed asymmetrical warfare is that it has the potential of directly addressing those who are responsible for a policy.

Yes, were I being consulted, I would advise Iran to take some immediate steps to neutralize this threat and fortunately, there are ways to do this without resort to the asymmetrical deterrents that trouble my dreams from time to time. One hopes that the government of Iran recognizes they are being baited and responds with cunning, rather than in kind.

In history, there are examples where envoys have been returned in pieces as the response to far less implacable threats, and of course that is your basic pretext for war. It's lovely to realize that GWB is willing to sacrifice New York City in order to achieve a goal.

Again.

I, personally, take great exception to the New York Times facilitating such a threat and allowing those issuing it the cover of a US population base - and their employees. I do hope that Iran is capable of a precisely calculated and measured response. I sincerely hope and encourage the use of words instead of bombs, blades or bullets.

But to say that the surgical use of bullets and blades would be inappropriate - that is not something I can bring myself to say, and I'm horrified that anyone could think to be a shill for such a proposition and think they can or should be held innocent of part of that intent.

The New York Times has published a terrorist threat, made by one Benny Morris. It would be laughable under the circumstances to think for a moment that this is NOT done with the full approval of Israel and the State Department - indeed, of George Bush, personally. And somehow it got past the editorial board, without anyone raising the obvious objection to an act.

Fortunately, this suggests a viable course of asymmetrical action that is apt, just and one which neither Israel NOR the US Government is likely to be able to effectively counter.

If I were president, and this happened on my watch, I'd be publicly peeling a strip off the New York Times AFTER recalling the Ambassador to Israel for "prolonged consultation." Indeed, I'd probably recall the embassy - citing the need for "asbestos abatement and structural enhancement."

So a case could be made (and an obvious alliance exists) that even tacit support of Israel's threats amounts to yet another impeachable offense, if it does not indeed rise to the level of acting as an agent of a foreign power. That's the polite phrase for treason.

I find it remarkable that the legal staff at the NYT have not raised the issue that furthering the ends of those who have already met the standard for impeachment and arguably for treason is a consequential act. But since they have not, allow me to explain why legitimizing the threats Israel is making is very bad policy for the Times - and for the United States.

I long ago learned that those who presume upon your friendship are not your friends. When they presume upon your friendship in ways that puts you in danger, they are neither friends nor allies; they have become dangerous parasites at best and enemies at worst. In neither case do you permit them to continue exploiting your good nature. When your President clearly considers that it's worthwhile putting the American civilian population at risk in order to perpetuate the current government of Israel and it's manifestly inhumane and unethical policies - it's time to remove that President from office.

I think this action shows such a public contempt for the good will and well-being of the American people in general, and the people of New York City in particular that it can only lend credibility to the premise that Israel was somehow involved in the 9/11 conspiracy by virtue of the fact that they are clearly trying to set the scene for this to happen again.

You see, if I happened to have a weapon of mass destruction available, or could construct one from bits purchased at home depot, and people were making such inadvisable threats toward MY nation and my interests, I would certainly consider arranging things so that even if my nation were to be turned into "a glazed crater," those responsible would not emerge unscathed.

That is such an obvious precaution that I'd be stunned if it has not been taken. And not JUST by Iran.

Indeed, it may well be that 9/11 was the result of such a long-extant "precaution" on the part of Israel. The problem is, things have been well arranged to ensure that we will likely never know. But let us face it; it's possible for such things to be done by any competent intelligence agency with any amount of foresight - and the evident possibility of the need for Iran (as well as any number of other small powers) to have such a "hole card" has been clear - or should have been clear - since the seventies.

Because, as I said, the only sane course of response - indeed, the only response a power like Iran is capable of is asymmetrical. Sane defense planners take such realities into consideration - on both sides of any potential conflict.

Well - the logical response here would be a more or less precise strike against targets that are related to the insult: The New York Times, the Israeli Embassy or the State Department would be on the short list as a response to this incident - if unleashing a pre-placed WMD were an appropriate or useful response.

I sincerely hope it is not seen as such. As I hinted above, and hint again - there's a far better and even more appropriate response.

Nonetheless, I think that if I were an employee of any of these and hundreds of other relevant response targets, I should greatly resent it and would deeply consider a change in career.

Regarding the New York Times, it would certainly cause me to reassess the prestige of working there and the regard and assumptions made about me due to my byline being seen upon their pages.

In short, I'm revolted. This was a contemptible act with potentially gravely dangerous implications. I hope the bribe was sufficient to sooth the consciences of those involved. Presuming there exists such a thing, of course.

For citizens of these United States, we who already have far too much evidence of the contempt for which our putative leaders have for us - there is but one possible response to a government that would even consider floating a trial balloon for a global thermonuclear conflict as a means of addressing personal and political goals.

Impeachment, removal from office, trials and convictions under relevant domestic laws for treason and then remand to the Hague for trial under international law for war crimes for those for whom such indictments have been issued.

We have (provisionally) free speech in this country. But free speech does not mean that when threats are freely spoken that it is at all reasonable to expect freedom from consequence. Indeed, the law recognize that the utterance of a threat is an exception.

Well, this is precisely such a case. It's an obvious, intended threat, meant to intimidate. And I would suggest to Iran that they hire the most vicious and effective firm they can find to sue the New York Times and Persons to Be Named Later immediately. I suggest further that they set up a web page for the effort and solicit donations for the legal and public campaign.

I would suggest that this be done in as many venues as possible, as soon as possible.

Economic warfare is also war - and has the advantage of being potentially vastly entertaining to we, the people of these here United States who will no doubt be the largest donors to the cause. And while, yes, you could blockade the Strait of Hormuz and cause gas prices to spike to ten bucks a gallon - this response is far better tactically and cost-efficient. Nor does it offer any legitimate pretext to either Israel OR the United States to wage war against you - rather, it sets up a considerable political deterrent.

Should you do this - and I would suggest doing this as openly and as transparently as possible - I will support it. This response is not terrorism. It's a legal and civilized response to uncivil, illegal and terroristic acts that are aimed at you.

Potential prize - legitimate ownership of the New York Times. Certainly a great deal of expense, mental pain and suffering for those directly and subsequently responsible for the injury. The satisfaction of seeing a few moderately conspicuous Satans held financially if not legally accountable, and a not-bad shot of contributing to the latter outcome as well.

I mean, seriously, you-all who make such decisions worldwide - is this not exactly the course Sun Tsu would advise?

For want of a friend, a pair of shoes were lost...

Yellow Elephant Keychain by webcarve
Create your own personalized keychains On www.zazzle.com

The Dark Wraith Forums / Mortar Man

It's a story about an ordinary soldier being "stop-lossed," presumably because he's got a vital skill and nobody (Republican or otherwise) has stepped up to do their presumable duty in a time of legitimate war. So much for the republicans arguing from the home front that this war is vital and necessary - were that true, they'd be sending their own sons.

As they are not, ordinary Joes are sent time and time again, until they are dead or used up completely.

The story is best read in original context; this is one. Suffice it to say that all the really informative war stories are about people and the connections between them, both made and abruptly severed. Oh, and the fact that much can be made about which soldiers get sent where.

You see, the vital skill for this particular soldier is "Mortarman."

That's what we call "human intelligence" folks. We could use more of it in Washington. In ALL senses of the phrase.

Meet the New Smirk; Same as the old Smirk.

Obama knows my hot buttons template by webcarve
Make your custom shirt from this template at Zazzle

It's important to remind our leadership that our support is conditional, and contingent upon performance. We have had eight years to savor the burn of leadership that could not care less about such "intangibles" as honoring promises or even living up to the most minimal expectations. That's why I made this shirt template. YOUR reasons go into the design. Wear it (or your own design) often, so that everyone knows that your support is conditional on performance.

I support Obama, but in doing so, I intend to hold him to a much higher standard than I applied to George Bush or, for that matter, Bill Clinton. Frankly, we haven't had our eyes on the ball since Ronnie Ray-Gun took office.

I happen to think that Obama can live up to high expectations. But I also expect him to understand that in any area in which he feels less than totally sure of himself - he has a telephone. He should pick it up and call a citizen in whom he does have confidence due to evident competence. In other words, Sir; we are Citizens. And it is both the honor and the duty of a Citizen to serve at the pleasure of the President, regardless of their politics. Or it should be.

I do not shill for myself. There damn well ought to be a long list of more obvious choices, in and out of political life. And that, Sir, is my point.

Presume, Sir, that you have not just the right, but the duty to lead as broad a mandate as possible, and to continue to broaden it pro-actively for as long as you have the privilege to shape this nation.

You are the Democratic nominee for sure, and the outcome of the floor fight 'twixt Ron Paul and John McCain is going to be interesting, but the ultimate outcome isn't in doubt. I suggest very strongly to you that Ron Paul himself and those of the Ron Paul Revolution have earned a place in history as significant as your own.

Forcing Principle and Reason upon Republicans, one nickel and one hand-painted banner at a time, in service to the Constitutional principles you will be pledging to uphold - Sir, I think that deserves acknowledgment.

At the very least, I very much hope you will be insisting on him being included in any candidate debates for as long as he is still a candidate - whatever the other side may feel about it. It would be great politics - but aside from that, people might actually watch the debate and learn something from it.

Indeed, I think he (and a great many of the citizen-activists behind him) should be on the very top of that pile I mentioned earlier.

Let's get down to specifics. I support you, Barack Hussein Obama for President. Why?


That hurt to watch, even given the mercifully brief excerpts between the stunned honesty of pundit reactions. I've seen more of the actual speech, and I have to honestly say - the editing was not unfair to McCain.

Quentin Tarantio could not have come up with a good cut of that speech. And the content - "Change is Scary," delivered to a roomful of senior citizens in Louisiana - well, clearly, the professionals are sitting this election out. Change may be scary - but only if the way things are remains tolerable. Bet there weren't many supporters there from the Big Easy.

The "heir apparent" to Bush's "legacy" is no better at expressing and projecting his ideas in a compelling manner and persuading a tough room that he's worth supporting in his endeavors than was Bush. No - though it pains me to say this - he's not as good as Bush. He has a marginally better command of English, and at least he's not too proud to pretend he doesn't need a teleprompter, but, on his best day ever, Ronald Regan couldn't have made that reeking pile of crap work, and even Bush would have asked for a do-over.

Mercifully; I now have a positive choice running against a positively idiotic choice instead of a duel between mediocrities.

Barack, we are all fortunate that you had the chance to prove yourself against a truly remarkable slate of competing positive choices, coming down to the wire in a down and dirty slugfest with Hillary.

Our Republican friends had to decide, really, which candidate would be the least embarrassing representative for a carpetbag filled with broken promises and the reeking tissues used to mop up the aftermath of Imperial fantasies. Since Ron Paul wan't going to carry that sack of shit, they simply ignored him and are still ignoring him - even though he's the least worst choice.

Coulda been worse. Could have been Romney. But he and every other alternative stood for something - and whatever something you picked, it was intolerable to some other "core constituency."

So they settled on the candidate who somehow managed to be least offensive to the fewest members of the Coalition of the Damned.

I used to respect John McCain a great deal. But I'm afraid that he's lost his way; while politics is the art of compromise, it is not supposed to be the art of compromising one's principles to the end of gaining power.

He's now forthright for torture and supports the police state tactics that the Bush Cabal desires - most lately endorsing warrantless wiretapping "In this time of war." A "war" will last just as long as needed to justify the "emergency procedures" Karl Rove desires.

Whatever the orthodoxy of the Republican Party thinks, whatever their media machine believes, McCain's actual chance of winning an even somewhat honest election at this point, with the Bush Albatross around his neck and a ringing promise of a hundred more years of war in the middle east if that's what it takes to "win" is that of a urinal puck in a Texas Honky-Tonk.

James Baker: "Diplomacy is not Appeasement"

Uttered on Fox News, no less...




One more reason to wake up and smell the bullshit, people. This "appeasement" meme regarding Obama was not just odious, it's factually wrong, and had anyone taken it seriously might have done even more damage to our international credibility. I'd say "If that were possible..." but I look up and there are no black helicopters yet, and no troops wearing blue berets and driving white jeeps.

But that eventuality hasn't been completely inconceivable since 2004, and it IS the sort of outcome that we as citizens should be concerned about. Especially since as humiliating as such an outcome would be, the alternative would have us all waving little blue flags.

For ONCE I agree with Bush

WASHINGTON (yahoo/AP) - President Bush compared Congress' Democratic leaders Thursday to people who ignored the rise of Lenin and Hitler early in the last century, saying "the world paid a terrible price" then and risks similar consequences for inaction today.

Bush accused Congress of stalling important pieces of the fight to prevent new terrorist attacks by: dragging out and possibly jeopardizing confirmation of Michael Mukasey as attorney general, a key part of his national security team; failing to act on a bill governing eavesdropping on terrorist suspects; and moving too slowly to approve spending measures for the Iraq war, Pentagon and veterans programs.

"Unfortunately, on too many issues, some in Congress are behaving as if America is not at war," Bush said during a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. "This is no time for Congress to weaken the Department of Justice by denying it a strong and effective leader. ... It's no time for Congress to weaken our ability to intercept information from terrorists about potential attacks on the United States of America. And this is no time for Congress to hold back vital funding for our troops as they fight al-Qaida terrorists and radicals in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Ironic that he should make that comparison to "ignoring Hitler and Stalin." Ordinarily, I try to avoid such comparisons, but Geez, George - YOU are the only one in the equasion with verifiable stocks of nuclear weapons and the will to use them. So if people are going to be comparing world leaders and fugitive ter'rust leaders with Hitler and Stalin - guess who's name is gonna come up first?

And yes, I agree with you about the Congress. They ARE gutless wonders and shoulda done something to put a stop to you as a New Year's Gift to the American People. ALL American People. You got a whole hemisphere chewing their nails, wondering what they are gonna have to do about you if Congress doesn't do it's duty.