Happy Birthday, Pat Tillman.

Via truthdig and myspace
After Pat’s Birthday
By Kevin Tillman

Posted on Oct 19, 2006

It is Pat’s birthday on November 6, and elections are the day after. It gets me thinking about a conversation I had with Pat before we joined the military. He spoke about the risks with signing the papers. How once we committed, we were at the mercy of the American leadership and the American people. How we could be thrown in a direction not of our volition. How fighting as a soldier would leave us without a voice… until we got out.

Much has happened since we handed over our voice: Somehow we were sent to invade a nation because it was a direct threat to the American people, or to the world, or harbored terrorists, or was involved in the September 11 attacks, or received weapons-grade uranium from Niger, or had mobile weapons labs, or WMD, or had a need to be liberated, or we needed to establish a democracy, or stop an insurgency, or stop a civil war we created that can’t be called a civil war even though it is. Something like that. ...

Go read the rest.

Then go vote.

If you don't have anything bad to say about someone, don't say anything at all

Negativity in Nevada.

Maurice Washington is running to keep his seat in the Nevada state senate, and I caught his ad against his opponent, John Emerson.

The worst things Washington could dredge up against his opponent was that he supports the ACLU and has endorsements from major labor unions. including both major teachers unions. Worse yet - oh horrors - the Emerson opposes the death penalty.

Or in other words - Emerson is a Democrat. God, the man's incisive command of the subtle nuances of the principles involved is just boggling.

Want to know where Washington stands on the death penalty?

Washington has cast votes against banning the death penalty for juveniles in Nevada, despite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the practice constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

Opposes the ACLU and wants to execute children. Clearly the problem with our society is the lack of good old-fashioned lynchings.

The rest of the story shows why Washington isn't running on his record of positive social achievements.

It just stuns me that a black minister - would go on record as being against civil rights, against unions and against good education, while being for killing more people - people who are statistically poor, black and minority citizens; citizens with civil rights, despite convictions.

To me, "Conservatism" involves conserving things that you, personally know to be of value. Seems to me that a black man who was born in 1956 - a year before me - should have some appreciation for the forces that made it possible to reach as high as he has. And it seems to me that a minister should have some concept of What Jesus Would Do.

But, somehow, I don't think Washington's Jesus is the same as Martin Luther King's, so I guess that's why he has to be a Republican.

And then there is the case of our US Senator, the distinguished hair and teeth from Nevada.

"Senator Ensign Might As Well Be From Texas"

Oh, why did I know that John Ensign would get down-low and make use of this supposed "carpetbagger" issue? I did a little research on this a while back and it turned out that not one of the Senators elected to John Ensign's seat were born in Nevada. This includes the ensignificant Senator himself: Ensign was born in Roseville, California. His family moved to Nevada when he was a child. His mo...
Turn Tahoe Blue - Sun 5:15 p.m.

Ensign is actually having to work to maintain his lead against Carter against increasing blog buzz, and against the damned accurate observations that he really doesn't do one hell of a lot for us. I can understand that going negative is a huge temptation - but first, you should have something bad to say. The worst thing he can come up with is "he ain't from around here." Indeed, it establishes that Carter is an unusually well-traveled man.

With all that money slushing and sloshing about his coffers, the most damning thing he could come up with is something that Carter himself talks about at length? I suppose Ensign really can't run on his own record, either - seeing that's what Carter is doing.

Imagine the horrible specter of a politician from Nevada who's most questionable judgements have been to move to Las Vegas from Bermuda and to wear a bucket hat in public. How could we possibly live that down?

His "Vote for me, I have great hair and I love kittens" ads were less embarrassing. I'm really tired of being embarrassed by my political representatives and my government.

tag: Ensign, Nevada Senate, US Senate, 2006, Maurice Washington, Negative Ads, Republicans

It's National Charactor Counts Week!

A howler from TPMuckraker's Daily Muck Archives

Milbank Tells Olbermann About Further Page Rumors
"[On] MSNBC, Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank told Keith Olbermann that 'there are rumors now about a third [page scandal], this one involving a 16-year-old girl.'

"Milbank later noted that 'political news is starting to sound more and more like you’re reading the police blotter, with Ney last week, the eighth guilty plea or conviction in the Abramoff case, piled on top of Scooter Libby and Tom DeLay and Curt Weldon. It goes on and on. And, of course, the punchline is that President Bush has declared this to be National Character Counts Week.'" (Think Progress)

tag: congressional pages, corruption, impeach, elections, 2006, 2008

How could I have missed this?

Rape, Murder, It's Just a Shot Away - Wonkette

A couple of mysterious 911 calls to Las Vegas police — all apparently made from the bathroom of a Starbucks on Paradise Road by a terrified drunk gal — have suddenly derailed Congressman Jim Gibbons and his campaign for Nevada governor.

The story is changing so quick we can’t even get a timeline in order, so let’s just randomly toss together some of the filthier details, after the jump.

And there are lots, none of which I intend to verify, because I no longer fucking care. I've spent all day already wading in revelations of the formally private perversions of politicians... god, I'm so alliterate... and they all seem to be Republican.

I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth... but it ain't the mouth end I find myself looking at.

So, a story about this tomorrow, I think, afer I've ruminated a bit.

Meanwhile, as the joke goes, "This Congress Sucks. And not particularly well, either."

Bigger than Before; Bigger, Stronger, Brassier!

Kerry Grows a new pair, and it's about damn time.

John Kerry, writing in a fundraiser for the The Patriot Project:

"The Patriot Project has an incredibly important and concise mission. 'Freedom of speech and the right to dissent are cornerstones of our democracy. The Patriot Project will defend any man or woman, regardless of party or affiliation, who is attacked or defamed and whose patriotism is questioned simply because they exercise their rights as Americans. This is our mission.'

That's pretty damn fundamental in itself to who we are. But there's a human face behind it. The fight is intensely personal to me. Veterans are running for office all over our country. A lot of them got interested in politics as part of my campaign, and some got involved in Wes Clark's race. Some of us had disagreements for thirty five years -- like me and Jim Webb, we didn't see eye to eye over the war we fought in. But no matter where we came from, something much bigger now brings us together -- we're all a band of brothers now. When I got off the phone with Patrick Murphy after the chickenshit attacks on his military record, something felt awfully familiar and it got me pissed off. I care about these men and women. They've got guts and they've got brains and they've got heart and I'm telling you they will change the character of this pathetic Congress, and I'm boiling mad watching people who didn't serve attack those who did because they can't win a debate on the merits."

There is nothing, nothing that infuriates me more viscerally than assaults on the honor and dignity of a combat veteran. Oh, I know there are a lot of vets on the "wrong" side of the political divide, and some of them are the most self-righteous, pompous asshats you well ever hear or read. Ordinarily I'd link to one to prove my point, but not in this context. Not ever in this context!

There is only one reason to insult the service of a veteran, and that is if they were found dishonorable and court-martialed. If their service was good enough for the men and women of his unit, you, civvy, have no damn right to question that judgement.

And while I do not take stupid shit from vets about how I don't have a right to my opinion because I haven't served, I will nonetheless put up with a lot more from a combat vet, because he damn well has earned an above-average right to be listened to, even if he IS full of crap.

No-one who has ever stood in Arlington National Cemetery, or upon the blood-soaked field of Appomattox and felt that amazing presence can seriously argue that point.

But my respect for the right to be loudly, patriotically and provably wrong stops at the point where it becomes an attack on the service of those who took equal or greater risks on behalf of my personal pink ass, and I'm starting to loudly question the values they teach recruits and cadets these days, because there are too damn many vets willing to do that.

The armed forces damn well need to clean house, and it needs to start at the Pentagon and work it's way down to the foxholes and humvees. But is not something to be done by civilians, unless we are forced to do so.

Soldiers should hold themselves to higher standards of behavior, because so often they are alone with nothing but a gun and their own integrity. You know what a warrior with a gun and no integrity is? He's a fucking terrorist!

Soldiers need to know that when they make the hardest judgement calls any human being will ever make; the ones involving life, death and personal sacrifice, that integrity will be honored, and those who hew to a lesser standard will be scorned. Not by civilians who have never been shot at, or by vengeful civilians who have been shot at and survived; but by their own; by men and women who know the difference between the handle and the sharp end and the situations a soldier faces.

Every veteran put their ass on the line for their country for those of you who did not, so even if their motives were less than pure, their understanding of the world less than complete, their ability to distinguish shades of gray, much less a rainbow of alternate possibilities is beside the point most days.

This regard is even more vital for those who served in combat; what is a potential risk for most members of the armed forces was daily reality for those who are decorated combat veterans.

So there is absolutely nothing slimier or more dishonorable, no greater stain to the emblems of the units with which they served than a combat veteran who takes money to slander their comrades in arms.

It speaks to their reasons for serving; a question we do not ordinarily ask, but there are people who join because they are patriots and people who join up for the opportunity to dick-size with a gun, with an eye out toward a bit of rape and pillage if the sergeant ain't lookin',

We do not wish to think of this, we do not wish to speak of it, but those who have served know the truth; not every soldier is a plaster saint, nor all motives pure.

But unless they prove otherwise, we honor the service they gave us even when it was for selfish reasons. Being an asshole doesn't make you bulletproof, and besides, more than a few such assholes have been changed by their service into honorable men and women.

But clearly, it does not always take, and "By their fruits ye shall know them." Some go on to become mercenaries, and some go on to put money above their honor in other ways.

These "Blackwater Boys" need to be dealt with as is the just tradition for dealing who choose to dishonor the soldier's trade and the laws of just warfare, on and off the battlefield.

Summarily, and with all due prejudice.

tag: Summary Justice, swiftboating, swift boat veterans for truth, Jack Murtha, John Kerry, Purple Heart, Combat Veterans, Blackwater, Haliburton, dishonorable conduct, Republicans

Reality Bites Republicans; Film at Eleven

Have you noticed that there is a widespread lack of confidence in legitimacy of the electoral process? Yes, me too, and the reason is Republican-controlled electronic voting. But according to the Spinning Heads of the Right, the REAL concern is the voters themselves; massive hordes of illegal votes coming from graveyards and illegal immigrants; or in other words, what they think of as the Democratic "base."

That's a great line, actually.

But the reality is quite different. According to People for the American Way, USA Today has broken a story that shows that the Government has learned there is no legitimate reason for concern.

You’ve heard the expression, “the cure is worse than the disease.” Well that’s especially true when you don’t even have the disease in question!

Right-wing members of Congress and state legislators have been passing onerous laws that make it harder for citizens to vote. Despite erecting barriers to the ballot box and disenfranchising voters, they’ve claimed these laws are necessary to stop rampant voter fraud.

Thanks to a press leak, it is now public that the US Elections Assistance Commission (EAC) commissioned a report to find out about voter fraud. According to USA Today, the EAC’s report shows that there is no evidence that significant numbers of voters are lying about their identity at the polls, voting twice, or voting in the name of dead people. Let me repeat that: NO EVIDENCE.

While this has long been suspected by those of us who have fought discriminatory attempts to address “voter fraud” (e.g. voter ID bills that would, in effect, create a poll tax for poor, elderly and minority citizens who don’t have or need government issued ID in their regular lives), the EAC report makes it official: voter fraud does not present a health risk to our democracy. That is, it would be official if the EAC had released it. … But it won’t release it.

Please petition the EAC to release the report at http://www.ReleaseTheReport.com!

Across the country, states have been introducing legislation requiring voters to show identification before voting, preventing eligible voters from casting ballots. Indeed, the US Congress has tried to pass national Voter ID legislation four times in the last four months – all in the name of stopping the one electoral cancer from which we don’t appear to be suffering. Worse, the mostly Republican legislators who are pushing such “prescriptions” are more like doctors who are getting kickbacks for prescribing cancer drugs to healthy people, insofar as they are keeping away from the polls voters who tend to cast ballots for the other party.

Sign the petition to the EAC urging that this report be released and that hearings be held on its findings. We deserve to know which threats are real and which threats are imaginary.

http://www.ReleaseTheReport.com

-- Your Allies at People For the American Way Clearly

they are more concerned about legitimate voters. They can make up fraudulent voters all by themselves. Ordinarily, dirty politics are aimed at opponents and critics, but now the Republicans have simply skipped the middleman and are attempting to disenfranchise anyone who is statistically less likely to vote Republican.

You may wish to communicate your displeasure about this to your elected officials of all parties. I think they need to hear that you are willing to "pay any price and bear any burden" to vote.

tag: Vote Fraud, Diebold, Elections, Poll Tax, Voter ID, Disenfranchisement, Electoral Fraud, Election Rigging, Republicans, 2006, 2008, 2000, 2004

Jack Carter - Independent Voice

In a one-two punch directly aimed at Sen. Ensign's Good Ol' boy school of politics and squarely aimed at the center-right-rural votes that will likely determine this election, Carter challenges preconceptions about Ensign's performance on national security and his value to Nevadans as their Representative.

Jack is also steering clear of being too closely identified with Democrats.

"I don't want to be one of the Democrats like my opponent is One of the Republicans." Obviously he's running away form our own Sen. Harry Reid. So would I, as if my hair were on fire.

tag: Harry Reid, John Ensign, Jack Carter, Nevada Senate Race, You Tube, Telvision Ads

Invisible Alligators and the Reclamation of Suburban Iraqi Wetlands.

I quote from the link below:

Author Stan Goff, a retired 26-year veteran of the U.S. Army Special Forces, sounds a warning call that many of the historical precursors of fascism—white supremacy, militarization of culture, vigilantism, masculine fear of female power, xenophobia and economic destabilization—are ascendant in America today.

Truthdig - Sowing the Seeds of Fascism in America
Stan Goff (Master Sergeant, US Army, Special Forces (Ret.)

It's a long read, but a fascinating one, and it doesn't have the tone of pansy-assed peacenikism you might use to dismiss critics who make the very same points. It's told from an internal perspective, by someone who was inside the Sharp End.

There is a point that was left out that I do think obvious. Probably the author thought it so obvious that it was unworthy of mention. I've learned that the really obvious things are often made invisible by their own conspicuousness.

Means can conflict with ends, and if your end is to peacefully occupy a nation of brown skinned folks with different social constructs, it might be a good idea to not send troops that include even a tiny percentage of xenophobic racists.

It's pretty easy to predict that Bad Things Will Happen that will get in the way of the mission - and as the saying goes, "When you are up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember that the mission was to drain the swamp."

I think it's an inherently bad idea to invade a sovereign nation in the first place; it's bound to lead to trouble and one should be damn sure that the alternative is much worse to spend that much blood and treasure. But dewy-eyed civilian optimism often leads to such ill-advised adventures; it's fairly much a military truism. Therefore, a soldier who has a desire to retire somewhere other than Arlington needs to work to ensure that the guy next to him isn't going to be reducing his odds.

Success in any military adventure requires the sort of cold-eyed realism that ideology and mythic belief structures inherently degrade. It's bad enough to be up to your ass in alligators; in the middle east it appears that we are up to our collective asses in invisible alligators that are officially deemed to not exist.

The largest invisible alligator in the swamp is the large body of "military contractors." When it's public knowledge that certain large forces employed by Americans are immune from the law and from military justice, it's not all that surprising that the response of first resort is to blow them up and anyone else who isn't actually shooting AT them. That initiative probably includes allied Iraqi military and police, as well as the various militias.

I would too. It's not terrorism; it's not even immoral. it's prudence; the same prudence that requires that you shoot any dog that's foaming at the mouth.

Whatever other realities exist, it's a damn bad idea to allow murderers to participate in a war, and it can be a suicidally bad idea to get between them and the logical consequences of their actions.

They are a danger to the citizens of Iraq, obviously - and they are a danger to everyone they are near, because any citizen of Iraq with a gun is fully justified in shooting in the general direction of such monsters as would be anyone entrusted with the safety of Iraqi civilians.

tag: Contractors, fascism, Stan Goff, Truthdig, racists, skinheads, xenophobia, Special Forces

Digital Brownshirts make pretty blond teen cry.

When Julia Wilson was "investigated" by Secret Service agents their procedure likely planted the seeds of radicalism in the entire school.

Teen questioned for online Bush threats - Yahoo! News

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Upset by the war in
Iraq, Julia Wilson vented her frustrations with
President Bush last spring on her Web page on MySpace.com. She posted a picture of the president, scrawled "Kill Bush" across the top and drew a dagger stabbing his outstretched hand. She later replaced her page on the social-networking site after learning in her eighth-grade history class that such threats are a federal offense.

Now, to me it is obvious that when you are investigating the potential of a possible threat, knowing that the person of interest is young and impressionable and surrounded by young and impressionable persons, you would want to make a very GOOD impression. Otherwise, there is a slight but real potential of creating the exact threat that you were trying to prevent.

You would also wish to avoid creating the impression that you have the right to act with impunity, disrupting the lives and educations of hundreds of students. You would certainly wish to avoid the appearance of an improper interrogation without benefit of council or parents even if the statutes permitting that are technically in favor of doing that. That might create the wrong impression in the minds of taxpayers who had not been closely following politics.

In this situation, there was absolutely nothing whatsoever to lose by proceeding in a courteous and considerate manner. Every investigator - and especially those who's duties require broad latitude and discretion - should be extremely conservative about approaching the boundaries of their authority. In this case, it looks a lot like they behaved in an intimidating way due either to thoughtlessness or in some pin-headed attempt to "send a message."

And indeed they did. Congratulations, gentlemen - the reply will be delivered to your supervisor by your employers.

That would be us.

The 14-year-old freshman was taken out of class Wednesday and questioned for about 15 minutes by two Secret Service agents. The incident has upset her parents, who said the agents should have included them when they questioned their daughter.

On Friday, the teenager said the agents' questioning led her to tears.

"I wasn't dangerous. I mean, look at what's (stenciled) on my backpack — it's a heart. I'm a very peace-loving person," said Wilson, an honor student who describes herself as politically passionate. "I'm against the war in Iraq. I'm not going to kill the president."

Had you investigated discreetly, you could have easily figured out that she was not a threat. Goodness, you might even have steered her safely into a career in the Secret Service. I understand that the federal government is finding it difficult to entice recruits of her potential caliber, and ironclad opportunities to speak to school age persons are not exactly leaping to the fore.

But no, you had to jerks. I admit that is an accurate representation of the current administration, and I suppose it may be difficult to resist slipping into that mindset, but I expect far, far more of one of the proudest and most respected enforcement agencies in the land.

On the rare occasions when I hear of your activities, I expect your actions to make me proud - not squirm in horrified embarrassment.

Yelling at 14 year old girls and making them cry is not a shining example of professionalism, nor is angering and frightening thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of parents. These "Internet tubes" go everywhere, these days.

Cindy Sheehan became a personal nightmare of this Administration simply because she was snubbed. Having your child personally threatened by armed paranoids in brown suits is an order of magnitude beyond that.

I believe that someone owes someone a public, personal apology. I would suggest that there are two agents who could use some sensitivity training, because if they cannot treat white, blond children with due courtesy according to the spirit of the constitution, it's not a big leap to assume that no-one will be afforded their rights.

When the rottweiler cannot tell the difference between a threat and a challenge, the rottweiler is put down.

We don't shoot agents, of course. We just have them fired, revoke their carry permits, their security clearances and suggest they pursue a less stressful career path that doesn't require much human interaction. I've always felt that unmanning lighthouses was a foolish mistake.

I do not believe it's part of the overall mandate of the Secret Service to create political problems for the Administration - much less create public situations that could crystallize a potential threat into a madman's plan. Gentles, as you never know what sort of nut is reading the news, it would behoove you to stay out of it. These days, you can't just rely on a couple of phone calls to ensure such a story goes away.

tag: Secret Service, Julia Wilson, Kirstie Wilson, Myspace.com, Digital Brownshirts, Cindy Sheehan, radicalization, unnecessarily mean, authority abuse, authoritarianism, constitutional rights, ACLU

Is October Surprise a Blitzkrieg into Iran?

This article documents recent developments, focusing on military deployment and preparations in the event of a US led war on Iran. This text follows a number of earlier reports published by Global Research pertaining to the War on Iran (See Iran dossier, Nuclear War dossier, Lebanon dossier )

read more | digg story

Jobless man asks judge for jail time

A man who couldn't find steady work came up with a plan to make it through the next few years until he could collect Social Security: He robbed a bank, then handed the money to a guard and waited for police. The comments on digg from the Compassionate Conservatives will - or should - outrage you.

read more | digg story

Lancet Estimates range from 400000

Echidne is my go-to Goddess for analytical rigor. I wanted to see what she had to say about the Lancet study which was so airily dismissed by Bushco.

ECHIDNE OF THE SNAKES: On the Lancet Study of Iraqi War-Related Deaths

I'm still reading the study and its critiques. If I have anything useful to say on the statistical aspects of the study it will most likely be tomorrow. It is sad to note that opinions about the validity of the study split almost exactly along political lines.

But what is unbearably sadder is the violent death and dying in Iraq, whatever the actual numbers of victims might be.

The comments are meaty and filled with insight

From what I can tell so far - and this is a developing story - the Lancet study is being deliberately conservative in it's estimates. Estimates, by the way, done with rigorous methodology of the same kind as a Pentagon Battle-Damage estimate. Or in other words, these numbers are being held low, not inflated as you would expect if this were a propaganda exercise.

Majikthise : More on the Lancet study of Iraqi deaths: "The Lancet study is quite simply the best evidence we have about the death toll attributable to the invasion. The Iraqi investigators interviewed almost thirteen thousand people all over Iraq, except two regions that were too dangerous visit.

Sure, there's a wide margin of error. The takehome message of this study is that vastly more people have died in Iraq than the government or the media have told us. The study has a wide margin of error. Between 400,000 and 800,000. "

There's not a lot I could find that strikes me both to be valid critique and written in words I could understand - although I'm sure it's about to come. Lancet was criticised in 2004 for a similar study that suggested a number of 100,000, apparently with some rigor; at least, enough to affect their methodology, and there is a spritely debate as to the validity of the current study there as well.

Interestingly enough, the casualty figures for the first gulf war are in dispute, and the person who dared try to come to some reasonable estimate - against the will of the Defense Department - was forced out of government for trying. Again, estimates are just that, but this figure is within a fermi of 100,000, the largest proportion being attributed to "indirect health effects" post-war.

Update: Just found these two links. A Debunking of Right-Wing "debunkings"
and Flypaper for Innumerates.

Reading all this has led me to understand a problem with much right-wing critique - the belief that disbelief in a result IS a "debunking." But then, we are dealing with folks who also harbor a larger than average belief that teaching evolution is a communist plot to brainwash our children into becoming morally-relative secular humanists who will use critical reasoning to attack the throne of God.

That last bit was an editorial moment.

tag: Lancet Study, Iraqi Deaths, Iraq Survey, George W. Bush, Collateral Damage, Morality, Ethics., Donald Rumsfeld

Meet the "other" Kerrey

"For those who have fought in war, decisions about war and peace and how you send men and women to war become personal in a hurry. Wars -- even when we agree they are necessary -- are not the result of our successes; they are the result of our failures." -Senator Bob Kerrey

I'm bumping this May post back up to the top because it's become even more urgent.

Full text of the message below, but first, a word from your Blogger.

The words above, for all their power, are not an original thought, nor are they derived from some sort of fuzzy-minded Liberalism. They are a distillation of the words of many men who went to war, both victoriously and not. They are the words of Von Clauzwitz, Sun Tsu, Erwin Rommel, Patton, Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Generals Grant and Lee. They are the words of those who's job it is was to reduce the cost political failure to a body count in the pursuit of "diplomacy by other means."

It is not cowardice to point these truths out. No war fighter can be ignorant of these facts of life and death, though one hopes that contemplating the truths makes them less fearful than those who hide behind self-delusion and rhetoric based on wishful thinking.

Both Kerry and Kerrey have gone and "seen the elephant," have learned first hand the brutal principle stated by Von Clauswitz. "War is fought by human beings."

He stated that as a path to victory; an explanation of why a small, well motivated force could often defeat a much larger force. The force that wants the victory the most, the one who has the least to lose, the one with the best leadership and the best morale has a tremendous advantage over any force composed of those who are unsure of the worth of their task or unable to see the correspondence between what their leaders say and what the enemy actually looks like and does.

You don't need to be much of a student of history to find examples as to how this works, a fact that may explain why Vietnam is yet to be included in general US high school history texts.

Nor do you need much insight into the Iraq war to understand why we have so little to show for what we have spent. Wars are not fought for nebulous ideals; they are fought by human beings for things that matter to them. Pep rallies, incoherent speechification and airy dismissals of the importance of the reality on the ground makes warriors cynical and risk-averse.

A war is won when you achieve something as the result of it that you could not have achieved in any other way. National survival, freedom from oppression, access to resources, strategic control, or a tangible, just and visible outcome; whatever it may be, and whatever the justice of the cause, that is what must be weighed in the balance against the price paid by those who fought - and those who tried and failed to avoid the fighting.

This is why we lost the Vietnam War. This is why we have lost the Iraq war and will lose the Iranian conflict, should there be one.

Not because we have lost battles - we lost very few indeed. If warfare were scored on points, well, there would have been no contest, and indeed, against almost any conceivable enemy, there can be no contest.

But in the end, General Giap got what he set out to get - a unified Vietnam, free of foreign domination. They achieved national self-determination for the first time in centuries.

We can say that we went to Afghanistan to liberate it from the Taliban and make it's people free - but the Taliban has returned in force.

We could say that we went to Iraq to free it from Saddam - and we did. We may count that as a victory, and one that was certainly cheap enough had we been satisfied with that outcome. Clearly, our leaders have reasons for not being satisfied with that - and are yet unable to comprehend that geopolitical positioning for a New World Order dominated by American military power is not a goal shared by most members of our actual military.

Not, at least, under our current leadership.

I have never once heard a coherent and credible enumeration of what we were fighting for that could be put in terms of a tangible achievement, or that was reflected in (rather than refuted by) actual policy. This makes me doubt the sincerity of our leadership, and I have far less access to pragmatic policy than the sons and daughters of our nation who face death every day for reasons that must seem unclear at best.

Now, one may say that we should not focus entirely on the short term. We do have a fairly stable Southeast Asia, dedicated to the principle that a rising economic tide lifts all boats. And that is an achievement that is the result, in no small part, of Vietnam veterans who have been there - on both sides - and know that the way to avoid war is to wage peace with equal dedication. Perhaps that could not have achieved without the contrast given by those years of warfare and privation, and the unified purpose given the Vietnamese people by the experience. Nonetheless, I note that we did not try very hard, when trying would have been both cheap and the course of action most in accord with our national principles.

Likewise, we and the rest of the world have much to gain from a stable middle east, and I think it is a goal that is achievable in the region - once it is made possible for the results to benefit the people that actually live there and are directly affected by our policies and statements to that end.

In order to do that, though, we must again act in accordance with our own principles while respecting and understanding the principles, needs and drives of those we need to co-operate with us.

Diplomacy is an unspectacular way to achieve great things. There are many popular biographies of victorious war leaders, but few wish to read an accurate account of the struggles of Senators and diplomats.

But they are the people on the front line of Civilization and without them armies are rather pointless institutions. For the carrot is more attractive than the stick when, and only when the stick is at least as big as the carrot - and kept mostly out of sight.

"I believed then, just as I believe now, that the best way to support the troops is to oppose a course that squanders their lives, dishonors their sacrifice, and disserves our people and our principles." -- John Kerry, April 22nd, 2006 in Boston Dear Robert, When we were in the Senate together, John Kerry and I shared a lot more than a last name. We both came to public service after having served our country in Vietnam. And that experience caused us to make a fifteen year effort to bring peace to Cambodia, resolve the POW-MIA issue, write a road map to normalization with our former enemy, and follow that road map until a former prisoner of war returned as our ambassador in 1998. That diplomatic voyage was long and very contentious. It began with President George Herbert Walker Bush and ended with President Clinton. It was not possible without the courageous leadership of Senator John McCain and many other Vietnam veterans who served in Congress. It was angrily opposed by many and reignited many of the bitter, personal debates surrounding the war itself. It's among my proudest accomplishments. We were able -- Republicans and Democrats together -- to achieve a great foreign policy success at the site of our worst foreign policy mistake. We stood shoulder to shoulder for peace and reconciliation. Millions of Cambodians and Vietnamese are better off today because of it. For me this was an effort worthy of our sacrifices and reflects my strongest desire for America's destiny as a peace maker. For those who have fought in war, decisions about war and peace and how you send men and women to war become personal in a hurry. Wars -- even when we agree they are necessary -- are not the result of our successes; they are the result of our failures. Something more, though, was seared into both John and me by our Vietnam experiences. Half of the names on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall are the names of Americans who died after the policy makers knew our nation was on the wrong course, after both political parties called for expeditious withdrawal. And yet the war dragged on for five more years. "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Thirty-five years ago, John Kerry asked that question as a recently returned Vietnam veteran testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He acted because he believed it was right to dissent from a war he believed was wrong -- and he was willing to endure the attacks of the Nixon Administration which hated John for saying what he believed. This testimony provoked more than partisan attacks. Even many of his fellow veterans were angry and some never forgave him. I remember this well because I nearly lost my first race for Governor because people thought I was John. Say what you want about the content of that testimony, it was an act of profound courage. And say what you want about that testimony, there is little doubt that Vietnam and the United States would have been spared tens of thousands of its youth had John's advice been taken. Ten days ago, in a powerful speech on Iraq and dissent at Boston's Faneuil Hall, John made it clear that those who disagree with President Bush's course in Iraq have a right and an obligation to challenge a President who they believe is wrong, a policy they believe is wrong, and a war in Iraq they believe weakens our nation. John stood up and defended the dissenters -- whether retired generals or our fellow Vietnam veteran Congressman Jack Murtha. In an age where those who speak out are too often vilified or worse, John spoke out about and acted on the real meaning of patriotism: having the courage to speak your mind, heart, and gut even when it's unpopular. I urge you to watch this vitally important speech and to forward it to as many people as possible. VIEW HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FANEUIL HALL SPEECH ON DISSENT AND IRAQ We're at a big moment here - one where each and every one of us must reject attempts to silence criticism of the rudderless course Washington has charted, one in which each of us must absolutely refuse to let soldiers and civilians die to save face for politicians unwilling to admit their mistakes or change course. I urge you to watch this speech and to join with John Kerry in speaking out and doing everything possible to make 2006 the year that we did what's right for our soldiers in Iraq, our nation's foreign policy values, and our national security. Sincerely, Senator Bob Kerrey

tag: kerrey kerry, free speech, torture, iran, iraq, lies, miserable failure, george w. bush, vote, voting, dissent, protest, democracy, patriotism, commander in chief

Remember "The Sting?" Book reveals how Karl Rove led the faithful astray.

Not that it's a surprise to anyone who was paying attention, but this scam was aimed at those who's faith reqires that they avoid "worldly" things, like "liberal media."

Think Progress » BOOK EXCERPT: Rove Demands ‘Just Get Me A F—ing Faith-Based Thing. Got it?’:

"David Kuo, the former second-in-command of President Bush’s Office on Faith-Based Initiatives, has a new book detailing how the office was “used almost exclusively to win political points with both evangelical Christians and traditionally Democratic minorities.”

MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann had an exclusive report on the book last night (watch the video), and part two of his report airs tonight at 8 PM ET.

ThinkProgress has obtained an excerpt from the book, set shortly after Bush’s 2001 inauguration:

Every other White House office was up and running. The faith-based initiative still operated out of the nearly vacant transition offices.

Three days later, a Tuesday, Karl Rove summoned [Don] Willett [a former Bush aide from Texas who initially shepharded the program] to his office to announce that the entire faith-based initiative would be rolled out the following Monday. Willett asked just how — without a director, staff, office, or plan — the president could do that. Rove looked at him, took a deep breath, and said, “I don’t know. Just get me a f—ing faith-based thing. Got it?” Willett was shown the door."

Olbermann on the Murder of Habeus Corpus

This latest power grab should have all americans talking.

Jazzaphant

Jazzaphant
Originally uploaded by teetsy.

This may be the cutest tee-shirt ever. If you want one, I think you have to pester the folks at Teetsy.

Media Matters debunks Foley Myths

Like cats covering up on linoleum, it seems this particular crop of "Republicans" and paid flacks like O'Rielly, Limbaugh and Coulter say and do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons out of sheer instinct.


read more | digg story

Snow in Reno

Reno snow
Originally uploaded by Ilikethenight.

This was the scene at the Reno Arch in December, 2004. This is a not bad sort of storm for us. We've had some memorably bad winters when those of us living in the north valleys had to shovel our cars out - once the plows had gotten to us.

The forecasts say that we are looking at a mild, el-nino winter this time around. As concerned as I am with the issues of global warming, I'll take the good with the bad and smile.

tag: Reno, Winter, Neon, Weather, global warming, Reno Arch

Is Political Affiliation Just Blind Loyalty? Why I'm Leaving the GOP

From LewRockwell; a Republican writes: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." We Republicans must give first loyalty to the vision of America we share with Franklin, that of a nation that is better than momentary fear and anger."

read more | digg story

Bush's Downward Slide

President Bush's approval ratings appear to be dropping to their lowest levels ever -- and this time, to the enormous apprehension of the White House, there's something voters can do about it. Great roundup article includes some news you may have missed.

read more | digg story