Who cares? Truth IS NOT IMPORTANT TO REPUBLICANS at this point in time.
Winning is. The media by and large aren’t journalists, or keepers of the “truth” flame, either; they by and large sell advertising and entertain; they have no discipline or sensitivity or even any reason to ask hard questions. Why, oh why, do people always seem surprised? It’s playing the victim, and that seems to be the role they’ve assigned for yourselves. When they get over it, and strike back to reclaim the electorate by asking the hard questions and not dumbing down statements like “Bush or Lott lied today”, or “Bush or Lott made wildly conflicting statements today” or “Bush or Lott didn’t answer the question he was asked.” When this begins to happen, when influential people say, Stop the madness, they won’t be victims any more. So if you help Republicans in any way, by not voting or by not persuading your friends and family to vote, by not contributing to the Democrats, you’ll be helping to promote a draft, among other things too stupid to mention. So make sure the Democrats win this time around, and don’t jawbone about it or prevaricate or think about how inept or stupid they are, just vote for them. Right now the Democrats are the only force that will balance off the Republican’s march to a totalitarian state; they may become corrupt but it’ll take some time for that to happen.

It seems to me that the good Republicans and Allies and the press and the media and the Liberals and Democrats have been playing the victim, as in “Poor me!”, for much too long. First, they let the Republicans mount an attack on them and their positions or do something unjust like holding up intelligence or a report. Then they act surprised at the “bad” Republicans for doing this. Then they protest, calling what the Republicans do “despicable” or “dirty tricks” or “untrue” or, worse yet, as you do, “unfair”. All of which only makes all parties, the press and the involved organizations look even more like victims. And so you dig your own fate. I also sense that, when you do this and ring your hands, you are hoping the “bad” Republicans will receive their comeuppance from some mysterious force, and that they will self-destruct of their own accord. The Democrats have been out of power for so long they’re afraid to lose any handhold they have, and the press and media have become so used to truckling to the Administration, it is almost a lost battle. It is important to recognize that the Republicans who have lived up to Lord Acton’s maxim: “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Hope the Democrats come into power again; if they remain uncorrupted for a short period of time, it will have balance the veniality of the existing Republican Administration.

Let's not blunder into substituting -- and without proof or argument -- "ought" for "is."

The question up for honest debate is whether Lott's observation is correct? And from my sources, limited though they be, I'd say he is.

Even 5000 dead American soldiers and 50,000 horribly maimed soldiers will not change the indifference of the majority of voters.  What will change it is a millitary draft.  Once everyone realizes that they, their children and grandchildren, their cousins and nephews, their wives and girlfriends, all may be the next to die or lose a limb or their mind, then and only then, the majority will obsess over this. That is why I am strongly in favor of a draft anytime we have a war - even a half baked "war" like this one. Being supportive of or indifferent about a war is never a moral position.

Hoppy in Sacramento

I don't usually reply to my own posts, but it's kind of funny that just 30 seconds ago a peace march went down my street. It was only about 75 people and they weren't really rallying against Iraq but against Bush. It was cool to see. You gotta love Seattle.

I don't see any protests in the streets. I don't see any outrage at all. Maybe when 5000 soldiers are dead people will care. I've seen (and participated in) a few here, and returning veterans are doing some anti-war organizing, but you're right, there's very little outrage. The absence of a draft, the media's treatment of the war as entertainment, anesthetization to images of death and violence, the administration's cagey move to prevent coverage of coffins coming home? I don't know.

I think a part of the reluctance to protest openly is the realization that many of the soldiers enlisted after 9/11 out of pure love of country, and we don't want to give even the appearance of denigrating their courage or patiotism or sacrifice. The administration's misuse of this patriotism is one of its worst crimes.

Trent Lott can say that because the Democratic Party is too gutless to come out against the war. I'm going to have to vote for an Independent for US Senate because I will not vote for the Democrat who cares as little about this war as Lott does.

I don't disagree, there were some really questionable things going on in the last two elections. However, complaining about these things is like complaining about bad referees - it's loser talk. Al Gore didn't fight in 2000 on behalf of voters and John Kerry didn't in '04, if there was illegal voter suppression and rigging, the democrats didn't seem to care.

If the people were truly opposed to the war, they would vote overwhelming against politicians who support the war - that hasn't happened. Maybe it will happen this year - I hope so, but I'm not going to count on it. I'm always amazed at how little people care about such important issues as war.

We will soon know the answer to this question.

It brings to mind the saying: Conservatives believe life begins at conception and ends at birth.

Be careful what you wish for. The US military has one of the world's best records for accepting civilian control. Even when the Civil War broke out, officers resigned their commissions before going to the Confederacy, and no units mutinied.

Possibly the closest we have been to the sentiment of military coup was the firing of Douglas MacArthur, who, after a triumphant return, in his own words, "just faded away". A less well known general that tried to instill far-right ideology, MG Edwin Walker, was forced into retirement as soon as his acts became known.

Soldiers take an oath to the Constitution when entering service. They don't take an oath to be "moral", whatever that may mean. As an example of problems that could result from basing actions on other than the Constitution or Uniform Code of Military Justice, there was, in the fifties, legislation called the Lodge Act that gave US citizenship to immigrants going into the military. Eastern European emigres were especially valued by Army Special Forces. It's unnerving to talk to such a person, and ask them why they joined. They often uttered, in a reverent tone, "to kill communists".

One of the first Vietnamese Boat People to graduate, with distinction, from West Point also said her motivation was killing Communists. For some reason, she stopped getting interviews.

A military without discipline is a rabble and a political threat. From what I understand, he joined voluntarily, but then chose to refuse a specific order to deploy. His refusal, IIRC, wasn't based on legal but on moral grounds, grounds that cannot be part of the judicial system, military or civilian.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

There was also 500,000 troops in Vietnam. It was a much bigger war. If we had 500,000 troops in Iraq we might be looking at 10,000 dead. Or we might win - who knows.

I wonder if the goal is to win. Perhaps the Halliburtons of the U.S. like pulling billion dollar contracts in Iraq. There is a profit motive by some in the U.S. for this war and there is a direct connection between those people and the White House (e.g. Vice President Dick Cheney the former CEO of Halliburton).

It has been argued that manpower policies for prosecuting the war are chosen precisely to limit the number of affected families.

The small number of troops used, the large number of non-military conractors, the redeployments instead of expanded callups, all keep the impact hidden.

So it is not only that Lott, et al don't care, the WH ensured few Americans would care, beyond the predictable support for "defending" against a ballyhooed threat.

If the people were truly opposed to the war, they would vote overwhelming against politicians who support the war

So now we need some sort of super majority to vote these criminals out? Talk about conceding defeat before the battle.

Whining about the otherside not playing fair is counterproductive, making the electorate aware and pushing them to demand fair elections is very productive and we should not confabulate the two.

I'm upset at the desire for a draft for two reasons, quite apart from its being in fantasy land not worth our debating anyhow, as we're not going to get one. I think it's terribly wrong both practically and morally.

Practically, it suggests that people would have opposed the war if only. Yet most people for a while now have opposed it, and it took quite some time for that opposition to grow during the Vietnam War. We do have what we want from the public. We just need political change.

The key time to have had an opposition was during the run-up to war and early sense of triumph, and a draft wouldn't have changd anything then. The key people to get fighting the war now are those in power who avoided the first draft and whose lives and children aren't at risk.

True, more young people then were active, and that was a good thing. But it's still only one factor. One can even argue that it was the core of a culture war we don't want back. Besides, young people were more active then in other ways, as with the civil rights movement. The culture and even the presidency had encouraged high ideals; the mass media were not making everyone complacent.

In fact, one could argue that the draft actually encourages war. Remember the GOP line about starving the beast? Surely one reason we don't have public support for this war and haven't invaded Iran is the futility of an army stretched too thin. Feeding the war machine may make a few young citizens angry, but it doesn't discourage war.

There are also other ways to make people suffer for war politically. As a war hawk like Friedman keeps pointing out, people should have had to suffer in taxes and at the gas pump. But then, as with the draft, we're not going to get that either.

Morally, the idea of sending Americans now to die is bad enough. Sending Americans who didn't volunteer to die is truly horrible. That's in part why the Vietnam War draft lottery ended before the war did. We talk about the immorality of torturing someone in the fantasy of a GWOT. How many young Americans are we liberals then asking to kill in hope of ending it?

I had a lottery number of 17, the last year of the lottery and the first year of no draft. I don't like thinking that someone would have sacrificed my life in hope of political change.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

You can give me a troll rating if you like, but I challenge you to find Iraq mentioned in any TV ad the Democrat in my state is running. War? What war?