Don't worry about Mitt romney: he'll flip-flop on the issue by noon tomorrow. Or, rather, he flip-flopped on the issue immediately after making his anti-rule-of-law statement, which the news will report at noon tomorrow.

Which it will then have to correct with a late-breaking announcement that Romney flip-flopped again, and their reporter on the scene reports that he lost track of which side of the issue Romney is on at the moment.

Alert: for the moment, Romney is against stem cell research.

Thompson? Is he the alleged "actor" lost in the evil illusions of "Liberal" Hollywood? Isn't that why he mistakenly believes his act as a Republican, instead of realizing that he's "Left-Liberal," therefore unqualified for US citizenship?

Guliani? Seems I heard something about him being a serial-adulterer or somesuch. A Catholic not execommunicated even though that's the punishment for (repeatedly) divorcing and remarrying? And that he informed one of his wives that he was filing for divorce via a press conference, with his loyal mistress at his side?

Isn't he the guy who lived in the Governor's mansion, or some such upscale shack, with his mistress?

And the mayor who became a "hero" for tirelessly running the streets, hour after hour, because his Emergency Command Center bunker collapsed as part of one of the World Trade Center towers?

This country doesn't need a plugged nickle. It needs Republican candidates for president with their mouths plugged against uttering holier-than-thou moralistic obscenities.

All the stuff Thomson said is repeated by countless wingers on a daily basis on the major rt wing sites. Along with the notion Saddam did 9/11, the WMD are either hidden or moved to Syria, and other things totally disconnected from reality that these people get from FOX News, Limbaugh and such.

Was it always this bad? Have there always been so many liars and people utterly disconnected from reality running the Republican party? At what point do those people just revert to cave men?

Conservative talk show PR version of Yellowcake/Libby story:

Hillary to Bill: "How can we attack Bush and the Repubs and get me elected Persident?"

Bill: "Lets trap them in a scheme."

Hillary; "ok, how?"

Bill: "Well, there's this covert CIA agent I've been boinking, Valerie Plame, lets get her ideas."

Valerie Plame: "I'll send my husband to Niger to dispel the Yellowcake story (pssst, Bill, we on for tonight?)

Hillary: "I want to be President, I don't care what we have to do, that's why I killed Vince Foster who was going to spill the beans on my cattle futures bonanza!"

Joe Wilson: 'Sure, I'll go to Niger, then I'll return and make up lot of lies about what I found. I'm sure I can get a book deal out of this and make a few bucks."

Hillary: "Bill, do you think we can out Valerie Plame and blame Scooter Libby?"

Bill, "Sure, let me call Matt Cooper and I'll imitate Libby's voice."

Hillary: "Good idea, I'll call Judy Miller, my lesbian lover, and get her to help."

Valerie: "Don't forget the Liberal Media, maybe we can get them to involve Cheney."

Joe Wilson: "WOW, the $$$payoff has started, the NY Times wants to pay me to do an Op-ed about my trip."

Bill: "Joe, now that you have the Op ed thing and the book deal going, we expect you to donate to Hillary's campaign."

Limbaugh/Hannity: "So you see folks, the Libby case was a grand scheme by the Clintons to get Hillary elected President and get Bill and Monica back in the White House."

Caller: "Megadittos, Rush!!"

What the Libby defenders accomplish to is to further downgrade the silly impeachment of Clinton into a transparently cynical political attack.

Thompson had a few plus points for having asked the break-open question during Watergate hearings. Personal ambition trumps principle, obviously.

The comments by the Republican Congressmen during the Doan hearing this last week was just as egregious with out and out accusations that Valerie Wilson committed perjury in her testimony. Demands to issue subpoenas to Valerie Wilson to grill her about her inconstancy with others past testimony.

I was shocked that they were allowed to continually slander her. But again, it was bring up the sins of Democrats going back to Kennedy.

Thank you Larry for your continual efforts to correct the record and keep swinging that sledge hammer of truth.

Does anyone suppose that the statements supporting Libby are merely a prelude to Bush granting him a pardon?

When Bush I pardoned DOD head Weinberger, NSA McFarlane, and four other officials linked to the Iran-Contra Affair, it basically closed the book on Independent Counsel Walsh's investigation into Iran-Contra. At the time, Walsh considered Bush I to be a subject of the investigation. (It could be said that Bush I pardoned himself?)

If the Libby thing is the can opener potentially capable of revealing the Bush bunch to be the worms that everyone thinks they are, would a Libby pardon put the lid back on the can?

Lying under oath is lying under oath is lying under oath is lying under oath.  What about this is so hard for Guliani, Romney and Thompson to understand?  And I hope they are asked about the views on perjury repeatedly.  A President of the United States is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.  And if they show they don't have the abilioty to do that they are unfit for the job.

I am apalled that Thompson would even suggest that Plame's outting was her getting "what she deserved" because who she is married to.  And again by taking that position Thompson seems to give at least tacit (more likely "real") support to breaking the law for partisan political reasons.  He lacks the requisite character and therefore is unfit to lead this country...

There is no symmettry here. One side has trashed the reputation of CIA employees and the other side has not. One side is at fault.

This is not a breakdown of the system but moral collapse of the GOP. They have been in charge since Jan. 2001, and all results to date are their responsibilty.

What is corruptive about Wilson speaking truth?

I'm glad to see that people are really seeing what a shameful (shameless?) flip flopping panderer Newt* Romney is. He will say anything, anytime, regardless of the timing, to curry favor with his latest desired voting bloc.

* I know the name is Mitt (actually, Willard), but I've taken to referring to him as Newt because it looks similar to Mitt, comes out like spit when I say it, and is politically akin to the original Newt (Gingrich). I know, I know, call me petty.

The attacks on Fitz et.al are part of a bigger pattern of attacking the democracy (voter suppression, corruption for rich etc., FOX relentless propaganda and demagoguery)

The Republicans and a big swath of MSM are now controlled by privileged conformist, authoritarians (called Fascists in the 30s): The rich who would be happy to see the constitution destroyed so as to preserve their wealth and stature, conformists/fundamentalists who deep down despise pluralism and individual liberties, and the Neocons who would sell out all our civil rights and national interests to further their mideast dreams.

Dems have a historic opportunity and duty to point out the simple truths right under our noses that the Republicans are dishonest, reckless and a clear and present danger to our way of life, ours and our children’s safety, security and opportunity to share in the American dream.

J. McCutchen

Let's see how loyal George is to his Beltway neocon cabal.

Throw Scooter in the slammer and under the bus

Whacking good bit of satire.  (It was satire, of course)

aMike

Yep, 'twas....satire. :-)

-snort-
lol, stop that.

That is the second drink you've caused me to spill. The boss won't replace another key board

jack

I am wondering when the Publican party became the Peronist Party.

He's an actor!!!! Why are you appalled? He's in character ... someone or several someones are paying him to say those lines. Who???

Morgan

With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plea; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost.
-- William Lloyd Garrison (1805 - 1879)

We must have fallen into a word trap of some sort, as I am not asking you to approve the existing process. Of course, there aren't any alternatives handy.

I am asking you to avoid reflexive pox-on-both-your-houses formulations such as this--"...their obdurate thinking toward one another..."

I pointed out, and you agree, one side has screwed up. Can we stop there?

~

Before this *gem* get's lost in the 7500 words of mental gymnastics...

Pace is not a neocon or a yes man.

If the mainstream media touches this at all, it will be a hit and run.... The media is not about to expose wrong doing by the Bush administration unless it's just been made so obvious by other independent media that the mainsteam can't ignore it.

We have a sorry mainstream media in this country.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

I'm afraid Laura Bush just won't replace Evita. Within the Republican Party, Ann Coulter doesn't qualify, and, for completeness in current events, I don't think Paris Hilton makes a reasonable facsimile.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Try Sylvan learning centers on that reading attention span problem.

I read Pace's letter and he qualified it as to his "interactions" with Libby. SEC Chair Christopher Cox ad others also wrote in.

Uniformed military are to keep quiet on elections, as I understand it; and on public policy matters. Now if you are saying that Pace's letter was a political act as you seem to have done, you are saying his was not a legal as much as a political prosecution. Otherwise, Pace's letter would have only been a character by reputation testimony offered in a case involving honesty and crimes of moral turpitude. Pace's interactions with Libby were just that; Pace's interactions.

As for Libby answering prosecutors' questions dishonestly, Pace's interactions with Libby did not include interviews of Libby by prosecutors and / or FBI or a GJury.

It seems that Pace must respect Libby for reasons unknown to us. Before I could buy your assumption that Pace should be trashed because of his letter, I'd want to know more. Pace may have some insight about Libby and/or his behind-the-scenes understanding of higher level pressures used with Libby.

See also that Pace did not call Libby a man of integrity, limiting his comments to job performance and professionalism when interacting with Pace. This omission may be a sort of communication itself.

Consider that Pace was let go because he would tell the truth.

Listen!

What is that strain playing softly in the background?

...I believe it is Brazil.

 Now if you are saying that Pace's letter was a political act as you seem to have done, you are saying his was not a legal as much as a political prosecution.

No, you are being completely dishonest.  Libby's trial was a legal act.  The heavy hitting by Publican big-wigs is political.  Do you think readers here are stupid enough to follow your skewed logic? 

But if you want to carry it all the way, then let's keep going backwards: if the trial was political, then leaking Plame's name MUST have been political, and by THAT line of thinking, the whole Bush administration is guilty.  Why?  Because the only reason they were not charged for leaking is that Fitzpatrick couldn't prove motive.  If the motive was political, they should all go to jail.

OK, I agree with you.  Bush, Cheney and all their partners in crime should be locked up and the keys thrown away.  Back to you..........................

Jan

"It seems that Pace must respect Libby for reasons unknown to us. Before I could buy your assumption that Pace should be trashed because of his letter, I'd want to know more. Pace may have some insight about Libby and/or his behind-the-scenes understanding of higher level pressures used with Libby."

You are such a funny guy.  Perhaps you are suggesting that Pace is Libby's gay lover? No?  I didn't think so.

Pace has been responsible for the prosecution of a war that, as he is almost singularly is in the best position to see what the vast majority of Americans have known for several years now, was started on pretexts that were lies and have led led to a half million unnecessary Iraqi deaths as well as (counting all nationalities and statuses) more than 5000 international deaths, plus 100 thousand severely injured Americans and who knows, maybe 2 million severely injured Iraqis.  News accounts indicate that we have spawned a prostitution growth industry in Jordan as dependent women and teens arrive with no other means of support.

Pace should not be confused about Libby's role in this disaster.

Pace should also know how much of a crime it is for a senior government official to expose a government agent who puts her life at risk to perform security work for the government.  How immoral an act can the official be?  To excuse this official as if this is a minor mistake is outrageous.

Pace has no business writing anything in behalf of Libby.  He, Pace, should be shunned by all decent Americans. 

Jail is the right result for leaking a covert operative's name. Never doubted it; in fact the opposite. You don't seem to understand: I don't care about Democrats or Republicans.

However, attacking Pace and assuming his motives were bad in writing the letter he wrote, is first prejudiced conjecture. Where's your proof of Pace's motives? I read the letter. He testified to what he knew, not to what he didn't know. If you have proof, let's hear it.

He's a professional warrior and you're dragging him into the political fray merely because he is serving under an unpopular president who you love to hate.

Did Pace's letter get used as a direct piece of defense testimony tending to prove honesty of character? If so, it wasn't very effective for that purpose.

It seemed more of an attempt to mitigate punishment. That used to be a bedrock "progressive" value.

Miky, I have spent considerable time on this list pointing out that space does not equal content. When I endorse OGD, it is because I am glad other people are also willing to risk being mocked by arrogant space hogs to point out the same error of thought.

Almost ALL teaching of nonfiction writing (which I do in part) involves telling amateurs how to cut unnecessary words.  Your verbal farts only get in my way of finding out if you have anything worth saying.

There is also something called an arrogant sound byte, or a loaded statement, which is more of a trolling behavior than "space hogging."

What you call space hogging is to me making an attempt to answer loaded statements or interesting, complex topics in a comprehensive, in-context way. I'm not better than anyone here that I can just deliver short, derisive and non-substantive bytes that I know everyone will find juicy because of their controversialness.

I'm a mortal who, while I may need to take your class, would just as soon not take the class from a posterior pawn like yourself.

OGD, I see that you are still intellectually lazy. When will you grow up, stop the ad hominem space-wasting, and engage in productive discourse?

The extremes wag the two frankenstein mongrels called parties. They're undead dogs because their policies are internally inconsistent. Dems claim to look after the poor, but they approve of infanticide in the womb. GOP folks claim to care about folks in the womb, but loosely target collaterals without real military objectives and lust mercernary in steep conflicts of interest; and they claim to be pro-life.

Don't tell me what to think about these two organizations that are fundamentally pox-ridden in the first place. I'm just reporting the fact that they are, a fact you well know.

The organizations are not real people -- they're artificial, resource consuming and wasting COI.orgs -- Conflict of Interest organizations. They fundamentally and consistently disserve the American people and the world.

The result? Bombs on babies abroad, and knives in them at home. Both sides come up with rationales which blame the other party as to why they must follow their respective politics. They're not fooling people anymore. Their false-choice status quo is one key reason why there is so little voter participation these days.

Did you read what I said?  Pace, as the senior military officer of the United States, has a special duty to be concerned about the protection of people who are in roles such as Valerie Wilson was in when she was outed with the help of people that clear public facts demonstrate I Lewis Libby helped cover up, which is why he was prosecuted.

By speaking up for Libby he is violating that special duty.

End of story. 

~

Wow...

OGD, I see that blah blah blah blah blah. When will you blah blah, stop the blah blah blah-blah, and blah blah blah blah blah?

Maybe after you wipe that powdered sugar off you mug ... but I DOUBT IT.

Oh and once again ...

The JOB of the chief of the JCS is to provide, to his civilian boss, direct unadulterated no bullshit truth about the military's abilities. His job is NOT to be sitting around composing letters to some judge in reference to some crook who took an active roll as a conspirator to treason. The perception alone doesn't sit well with the troops.

~OGD~

ps: There's someone over here you may wish to conduct long-winded, unending comments with, to your little pea-picking heart's desire. But of course that individual actually has something of worthwhile substance to present in their posts... So beware.

Enforce that universally.

There's nothing wrong with your logic if you omit the thrust of the comment it responds to.

Based on the outsider information you have, Pace should condemn Libby because he should feel comraderie with Valerie Plame-Wilson. I told you: Pace did not damage the prosecution in favor of Plame-Wilson and like-situated CIA officers.

Your logic is also black and white thinking that does not take into account the unknown variables, such as Pace's personal experience in the meetings in which Pace sat with Libby and upper levels. We don't know what Libby has told Pace. I am fairly certain that Pace knows what Libby knows: to take the fall for a perjury charge is preferable to the fallout and punishment which could befall a whistleblower. Tell me, if you will, how whistleblowers have traditionally been treated by the parties' officials after their political usefulness or threat has waned? An honest soul is disdained for being a threat to those who see a political entitlement to commit crimes, unethical acts and sins against those of the other party because of course, the other party's defendants deserve it, right? Not one's own. Yep, if we were to go and read all of the letters of mitigation written by both party's officials over time, including the pardons and what not, each side would be eaten alive by such criticism as yours. But even that seems to overstate a comparison with Pace's situation.

First, I infer from Pace's letter that it was worded so as not to help Libby with proving that he, Libby, was of honest character. It seems it could only go to mitigating his punishment. Why would he do that? The most probable answer is that he shares an experience of being micromanaged from above, and his own departure shows me that he has fallen victim to every other military leader who has disagreed with the cabinet level. He is not being let go because it would be a tough confirmation . . I think he is being let go because he knows too much and would tell the truth during confirmation. So the Administration hits him with an iron fist covered by a velvet glove, and leaves Pace to be buzzard torn by the other party.

Many have said that Libby is the fall guy for Dick Cheney et al. I would not necessarily disagree with that, and I would say that Pace is aware of other matters in which this has been the practice of the Administration -- something goes wrong with policies and the buck drops there . . . and there . . and there . . . on lower level officers' heads. Classification of information; related matters; unrelated matters; leverages you and I can't ever see because of the powers possessed by the actors involved, must be considered before willy-nilly throwing the black'n'white judgments at Pace.

The letter also greatly limited Pace's basis in time and opportunity for knowing of Libby's working style. Unless Libby lied to federal agents in front of Pace, Pace's basis for his letter could not go to Libby's exoneration for the act for which Libby was being prosecuted.

I've got a hunch from reading the reports on this matter over time, and more particularly because I have read in detail about Pace's career and what he has given as a marine; what he has lost. And the notion that you would judge him and impugn his motives without knowing why he did what he did, seems to me dead wrong.

Your statement of principles is not at issue with me . . the immorality of non-national defense warfare; the responsibility for those deciding on it; however, Pace didn't initiate the action, any more than Pace initiated Vietnam in which he fought, saw compatriots fall dead by him, and tried to make sense of it all. Pace I believe is dangerous to this Administration and that is why he is not testifying . . . it is why he was un-appointed so that another person with a clean slate would come before the Senate.

If you don't agree, fine. Tell me why. That's the way I see this unfolding. And if it is true that Libby is the fall guy and Pace is dangerous and therefore fired, then your and others' target fixation on Libby and Pace is rewarding Cheney. It is rewarding the strategy to send these men into the career crematory. You are participating in it and loading it down. Your party is also allowing it. They are building some capital from the other side, a sense of comity for a rainy day when their elected officials will need it.

You are a funny guy too if you let yourself march to the dualism that makes this sort of crap not only possible, but routine.

I'll refer you to this comment above which deals with a discussion of the duty of the JCS, and I'd hope that you'd read it and think about it before responding, instead of the usual off the point of your head ad hominem:

Pace / Libby

It isn't enough to state the job description of an office from which a Marine officer has been fired for false pretexts (tough confirmation for him) because he knows too much and has (I'll bet you the farm) more likely than not privately and strenuously objected to the course taken by the admin in Iraq and his testimony would embarass the administration immensely. How I think this relates to his letter to Libby is via the link above.

On Pace's face when it was announced he would be replaced, I saw a resistant resolve and a touch of anger. Maybe that's just me, but I believe he is being relieved because he would tell the truth, they know he will, and it would hurt them. That's my belief until there is evidence to the contrary, because that is what has happened to the rest of the combat seasoned officers who opposed the administration's course. Read my response to G4A for more detail.

The man's job description isn't enough to explain why he did what he did, and whether he wrote the letter on or off the job. I see more in the letter than you do.

You do not know that Pace didn't give the president his unvarnished advice per the job description. It is likely he did, otherwise, why is he being let go under other pretexts? Bush doesn't get rid of his appointees unless they're deemed in opposition (disloyal) to his power structure.

You haven't addressed these variations on the normal situation.

Writing that letter may be incompatible with his role as JCS, but he may have felt his role as JCS was too deeply undermined for it to matter. If all of your advice is not heeded, but ignored, what have you left to do?

If you change your advice for approval, then you sell out. If you keep your advice consistent but become a pariah in the Admin, you are a lame duck. What do you do? Openly engage in insubordination? Quit while the troops need leadership? Or, do you adapt and try to find ways to get your message out. Was the Libby letter a way of signalling that Libby was a fall guy for an admin which used them both, however, without buying into Libby's dishonesty? Look at the wording. It doesn't vouch for honesty. (this theory assumes Libby was a fall guy).

Interference from above may have made that letter a message. It would be Pace's desire to help the troops but the Admin could keep him from doing so by micromanagement and pushing ideological agendas.

BTW: the CINC leads the military. He uses the JCS and and Sec Def. The Chairman of JCS is the military equivalent of the civilian cabinet Chief of Staff (formerly Card) b/w the CINC and the Armed Services' top generals; he's the president's liaison and advisor and the communicator of the guidance from the Joint Chiefs (services top generals) to the Pres. -- he's a leader one way and servant two ways.

Someone else may better explain the relationship and difference in authority and the reasoning for same among the Chair of JCS and the Sec Def between the president, the pentagon and the military rank and file.

~

The
JOB
of
the
chief
of
the
JCS
is
to
provide,
to
his
civilian
boss,
direct
unadulterated
no
bullshit
truth
about
the
military's
abilities.

His
job
is
NOT
to
be
sitting
around
composing
letters
to
some
judge
in
reference
to
some
crook
who
took
an
active
roll
as
a
conspirator
to
treason.

The perception alone doesn't sit well with the troops.

~OGD~

~

BOO! Again...

Peter Pace? For a person to have attained the highest military rank in the United States Armed Forces, the following list is quite a cast of characters to have thrown your hat in with...

John Bolton, Moustache with an Attitude
Donald Duck, Retired Actor
Douglas Feith, Thief in the Night
Henry Kissinger, Nixon's Hatchetman
Mary Matalin and James Carville, Spinmiesters Extraordinaire
Mickey Mouse, Theme Park Greeter
Alfred E. Newman, Social Commentator
Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Richard Perle, Pig in a Suit
Popeye, The Sailor Man
Donald Rumsfeld, Torturer
Natan Sharansky, Is not Alexander Solzenitzen
Alan Simpson, Bart's Joking Uncle
Paul Wolfowitz, Rummy's Hatchetman
James Woolsey, ex-CIA director and Energy Lobbyist

~OGD~

OGD, read this Newsweek account of Pace's ouster and his career. Here's an excerpt that backs up my view that he was a dissenter yet not publicly. Whatever Gates' reasoning in replacing him, here is a telling excerpt:

Pace was widely disparaged on Capitol Hill as Rumsfeld's main man. The reputation is understandable; Pace did owe his promotion to chairman (the first Marine to ever hold the job) to the fact that, in his previous job as vice chairman, he found a way to get along with the demanding and irascible Rumsfeld, a knack that eluded most of Pace's colleagues. (Giambastiani, who announced his retirement last weekend, similarly owed his vice chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs to his successful spell as Rumsfeld's military assistant.) But the reality was more complicated. Behind the scenes, Pace battled Rumsfeld and his more ideological aides. Pace thought Guantánamo ought to be closed; he believed the U.S. should follow the Geneva Conventions even in its treatment of Al Qaeda; he supported efforts to reopen dialogue with China—and he consistently warned of the folly of risking war with Iran. Last fall, it was Pace who cajoled both civilian and Army leaders in the Pentagon to recognize that the time had come for a new strategy in Iraq.

And despite this dissenting posture behind the scenes, he is tossed. Tactical decision by Gates? Or, was Gates told to dump him because of his dissents on the issues discussed above? I'm not so quick to assume that Pace is "to blame" for the way the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been carried out; I think the tradition is more often that these advisors are ignored by the civilian leadership.

Can you deny the reported facts above? If you do, please explain yourself.

~

And there is someone else with the more detailed technical command structure info. Thank you HCB.

That's all well and good and very educational, but how does all that jibber-jabber change or affect what I originally stated?

The
JOB
of
the
chief
of
the
JCS
is
to
provide,
to
his
civilian
boss,
direct
unadulterated
no
bullshit
truth
about
the
military's
abilities.

His
job
is
NOT
to
be
sitting
around
composing
letters
to
some
judge
in
reference
to
some
crook
who
took
an
active
roll
as
a
conspirator
to
treason.

The perception alone doesn't sit well with the troops.

~OGD~

I'll preface this by saying I have no inside information on Pace. I believe, however, that there is a potential discussion here about how, without interfering with the fundamental idea of civilian control, that cautionary military advice can better serve the Congress and the democratic process.

There is a delicate line among senior military serving the Commander in Chief, advising the other branches of government, and not trying to become a loose cannon. I recommend HR McMaster's book, Dereliction of Duty.

IIRC, the book grew out of his doctoral dissertation. He is an active-duty colonel with an excellent reputation inside the Army, and managed to get some interviews and have some documents declassified that a random civilian scholar might not.

He writes extensively about the senior military's concern about how the war in Vietnam was being directed at the policy level. Several senior officers were on the edge of resigning in protest and going public, but, after much agonizing, decided they could be more effective on the inside.

McMaster has an extensive discussion with GEN (ret) Harold Johnson, Army Chief of Staff during much of the conflict. Johnson (no relation to LBJ) apparently was closest to resigning, and later, in the interview, said hindsight told him that he should have resigned.

We are seeing more pushback from active duty, if sometimes about to retire (e.g., Abizaid), officers. Closed testimony to Congress, without executive branch preapproval, may be an appropriate way to do this. As I read Petraeus' comments at his confirmation hearing, he seemed to commit to consultation with Congress.

I don't mean to suggest there are easy answers, but I think thare are grounds for a serious discussion.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

~

I don't agree that one "aw-shit" wipes out a thousand "atta-boys".

The
JOB
of
the
chief
of
the
JCS
is
to
provide,
to
his
civilian
boss,
direct
unadulterated
no
bullshit
truth
about
the
military's
abilities.

His
job
is
NOT
to
be
sitting
around
composing
letters
to
some
judge
in
reference
to
some
crook
who
took
an
active
roll
as
a
conspirator
to
treason.

The perception alone doesn't sit well with the troops.

~OGD~

Warning, long comment with pasted references from Armed Services Committee hearings in the late 90s: 

I can understand how poorly perceived a profligate, disinterested, non-combat experienced leader would be. I don't think Pace is such a leader. He did fight, as those who were subject to his military advice fought.

Libby was convicted. Are you suggesting that this one letter holds so much weight as to cause the troops to think ill of Pace? I believe that is an overstatement of the letter's effect.

The perception of Pace in the rank and file has not been studied, has it? Do you have the data to support that Pace's letter to the judge doesn't sit well with the troops, or that they are thinking about it at all? For an aw-shit to burn all of the atta-boys Pace has ever earned in his career, to include battling with his men to survive fights surrounding Tet and dissenting from the neocons these past years.

The letter, after I read it, seemed more of a statement by Pace disassociating himself from the Libby meetings and events which gave rise to Libby's lying to the feds. It said that Libby did a good job in the matters with which Pace personally observed him working and withheld any judgment about Libby's ethics. At the same time it openly implies that Pace did not know of illegal activities by Libby. Was the Chairman Pace protecting his office so he may best serve in it? We have to consider that possibility.

In Pace I do not see someone loyal to Libby, unless, of course, he knows something of Libby's situation that we don't and it would be a paradigm shift on these incidents. It's possible, as in your Aunt May, of course. But saying there isn't such unknown info is also speculative.

Libby's conviction was not for treason. Perhaps with more evidence it would have been. Treason is not the same as outing a covert officer, however equivalently immoral the act is. Treason is an act that directs one's enemies against one's own forces. Which enemies were intentionally directed against Valerie Plame that treason could hold up as the charge in her despicable outing? Treason requires intent, as I understand it. Official intimidation; obstruction; and other abuse-of-power crimes could and should apply -- but treason requires more. There are some areas in which treason could make its way into a charge -- I've written about that elsewhere.

By the strict definition of the JCS Chairman's job that you've written above, this letter never should have been written by Chairman of the JCS General Taylor to President Diem of S. Vietnam (wrong prez):

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/vietnam/frus_61-63_4/html/Vol4_0177b.htm

Neither should Taylor have written this memorandum, if your job description applies as literally as you say (Pacific Commander's job?):

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/vietnam/frus_61-63_4/html/Vol4_0241a.htm

And this letter does not seek an open-question no bullshit full-on military capability report from Admiral Felt or General Harkins; instead it directs them to answer specific questions which themselves make several assumptions which may not be true:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/vietnam/frus_61-63_4/html/Vol4_0340a.htm

Neither should this letter have been written by Gen. Colin Powell in 1993 regarding the Antelope Island helo crash of October 2002, because it doesn't really fit into the Chairman's job description that you keep pasting into your comment field:

http://www.ranger.org/documents/antelopeIsland/powell.pdf

Kay Bailey Hutchinson spoke about a letter from the Chairman of JCS in 1998 proceedings comparing then defense bills, one of which the Chairman JCS personally favored and told the Congress so in this letter. Hutchinson said:

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has written us a letter. I hope every Member of this body will take some time to read this letter--it is dated April 21, 1998--in which he compares the bill that we are discussing now, S. 1873, to the current program, the so-called National Defense Deployment Readiness Program. Under the current program, we are going to develop the capability to have a missile defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles. We are going to do it as fast as we can.

She quotes and paraphrases CJCS letters to the Armed Services Committee:

Now, the letter from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to me compares the two bills, as I started to say, and it says that `the bill and the program that we currently have are consistent on many points. However, the following differences make it difficult to support enactment.'

Now, these are the reasons why the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Shelton, in his letter to me, says it is difficult to support enactment.

First, he says:

[Page: S4622]

The bill would establish a policy to deploy as soon as technology allows. The NMD program, on the other hand, requires an emerging ballistic missile threat as well as achievement of a technological capability for an effective defense before deployment of missile defenses.

Secondly, as to why General Shelton says it is difficult to support enactment of this bill, he points out that:

The bill asserts that the United States has no policy to deploy an NMD system. In fact, the NMD effort is currently a robust research and development program that provides the flexibility to deploy an initial capability within 3 years of a deployment decision. This prudent hedge ensures that the United States will be capable of meeting the need for missile defenses with the latest technology when a threat emerges.

Third, General Shelton says:

I disagree with the bill's contention that the United States ability to anticipate future ballistic missile threats is questionable. It is possible, of course, that there could be surprises, particularly were a rogue state to receive outside assistance. However, given the substantial intelligence resources being devoted to this issue, I am confident that we will have the 3 years' warning on which our strategy is based.

The fourth point in his letter he has subsequently modified, I understand, so I won't quote that point. I believe he sent a subsequent letter to Senator Cochran advising that it no longer is relevant or that the point is now moot, I believe, agreeing with Senator Cochran on that point.

But the fifth point he makes as to why he says that `it is difficult to support enactment,' as he phrases it, is that `the bill does not consider affordability or the impact a deployment would have on arms control agreements and nuclear arms reductions. Both points are addressed in the NMD Deployment Readiness Program and should be included in any bill on NMD.'

Now, those are his reasons. We have a letter from the Secretary of Defense, as well, saying that he does not support this bill, and describing the current system, which is basically the hedge strategy that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs described in his letter.

General Shalikashvili, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote us in May of 1996 the following:

In this regard, efforts which suggest changes to or withdrawal from the ABM Treaty may jeopardize Russian ratification of START II and, as articulated in the Soviet statement of 13 June 1991, could prompt Russia to withdraw from START I. I am concerned that failure of either START initiative will result in Russian retention of hundreds or even thousands more nuclear weapons, thereby increasing both the costs and the risks that we face.

By your strict definition, a Chairman of the JCS ought not to be getting involved in pushing for one authorization bill versus another on the basis of an advanced weapons system, but only advising the president which would better serve the military. But apparently, the CJCS does advise the Senate on questions such as the risk/cost/benefits of a Star Wars anti-missile defense. He sits down and composes letters on matters in which members of the Administration may have conflics of interest b/c of ties to Defense contractors hinging their fortunes on whether a weapons system wins or loses in Armed Services and or in Appropriations.

~

Warning, long comment with pasted references from Armed Services Committee hearings in the late 90s:

The JOB of the chief of the JCS is to provide, to his civilian boss, direct unadulterated no bullshit truth about the military's abilities. His job is NOT to be sitting around composing letters to some judge in reference to some crook who took an active roll as a conspirator to treason. The perception alone doesn't sit well with the troops.

Now, how does my statement there, morph into this?

By your strict definition, a Chairman of the JCS ought not to be getting involved in pushing for one authorization bill versus another on the basis of an advanced weapons system, but only advising the president which would better serve the military.

No sir, that's your red-herring. It's a million miles away from "...sitting around composing letters to some judge in reference to some crook who took an active roll as a conspirator to treason..." to "...getting involved in pushing for one authorization bill versus another on the basis of an advanced weapons system..." You've set up a diversionary tactic there and it's not working with me.

Please recall that quote "...the tongue is a smoldering fire, and excess of speech a deadly poison..." I mentioned to you last Monday...

You sir, ought to control that smoldering tongue of your's more closely so as not to affect the questionable credibility you have left.

It's like those aw-shits and them atta-boys I've referenced previously.

~OGD~

Think it needs that fifth vote to make it over the top, and if it takes too long it drops away.

What a waste of time, defending Pace. He'll do fine in industry, if he wishes. And he won't be thought a total idiot, although his employers should be considered such.

There's serious stuff to discuss, like restoring citizens' respect for the Justice Dept. and law in general, by not letting the wheels of justice grind too slowly re current subpoenas.

What Pace knows and why he was put out is serious stuff that goes to the center of abuse and or disregard of the counsel of the JCS.

As I said before, what he had to tell is what likely motivated his deft diversion as if he were a wallflower who couldn't handle a boisterous confirmation process after 40 years of service, including combat, as a US Marine.

You dismissal of the seriousness of such a discussion is itself not serious.

Fair enough. It is within the Congress's investigation power.

~

Dear Sir,

Not only do I think you are too verbose to the point of nausea, you're as full of feces as the proverbial Christmas Goose.

But the majority of folks 'round these parts already know that.

BTW -- You failed to paste your complete line of bull-pucky at the beginning of what apparently was to be your sixth paragraph and your post cut-off at the word, "You've...."

Not that anyone is missing anything.

~OGD~

Sir:

Here's what I have to serve up...

Related to your little dig in the ribs of, "you duck out of the fight ..." and that line of verbose vapid vaporings of bullshit, "It's easy for you to throw mud at Pace. For all I know, you've got ulterior motives to hurt the guy -- a chip on the shoulder."

Uh pally ... You ... DON'T "KNOW" SHIT!

Now... Remember that article you wrote for DefenseWatch back in the heady halcyon days of the Iraq war? Understanding Mountain Warfare Training ??? Do you remember what I wrote in my closing remarks in this post? I know you do. Would really like to understand "IT" .... up close and personal, instead of from the warm confines of your home or office? You wouldn't happen to be interested in a week of high altitude SERE training with a real warrior, now would you? A 7 days life changing experience, guaranteed to never be forgotten? I loved to show such a "warrior" as you (you did serve in the military ... oops) what a real "fight for freedom" is all about.

Now go away little boy, and let the folks wearing the big boy pants, like General Pace and the entire military, that you've never served one minute in, do your fighting for you.

You "sir" write a great fight but are nothing short of a keyboard charlatan!

Now get back to eating those donuts that you accused Tom of making on Pluto...

~OGD~

~

By the way #2, sir ...

I noticed in the logo there at DefenseWatch above that perfectly penned pile of pachyderm poop of yours, the words.... DefenseWatch "The Voice of the Grunt" ...

The voice of what grunt?  I take that to mean that the articles they publish are from those who have actually served. What's up with that? How many keyboard warriors did they have running around there that never actually served, but were published?

I do note that between the dates of August 5, 2003 and October 10, 2005 you contributed a total of some 30+ articles. Some very very good articles to boot.

Why, all of sudden, no more articles after 10/2005?

Inquiring minds wish to know...

~OGD~

Quoting the article out of context over and over again OGD isn't going to work.

I've told you again and again the reasoning in that article . . . and you don't get it. It's about moving military service away from the commercialized cannon fodder GI Joe model and into more of a mainstream national service choice beginning young w/out all of the hype and focusing on skills should the nation need to defend itself within or without.

The samurai reference refers to the martial virtues sans the suicide redress which American kids lack in larger numbers today as they merge their minds with video game, video game killing and war, and with gang/prison culture. Virtues such as courtesy, bravery, veracity, honor, empathy, discernment and loyalty. With a deeper sense of the personal sacrifice and best purposes involved in martial training and virtue figuring into our children's development, this could help avoid the constant commercially driven warfare system which breeds such obscenities as fantastical glorification of war and death to drive people with fewer options into a field where their self-esteem requirments makes them more manipulable. But you won't deal with the status quo problems. You'll keep attacking others for trying to do so within the system. 

And, I didn't say the program would be mandated for all kids in the idea. Surely I'd be willing to flesh out the idea more with someone reasonable, with someone who doesn't condemn people for matters well out of context. You lack contextual honesty at this time, and prove it again here.

~

Sir:

Stop hugging yourself for a moment, and listen up!

Let me remind you. You've questioned a fellow person's manhood by saying, "you duck out of the fight ..." Try this test. Run down to the local VFW, belly up to the bar and tell some ol' vet the same damn thing. In 3D...


First:

It's a long long way, and a huge leap and quite a stretch of mental gymnastics from me saying of Pace, "The JOB of the chief of the JCS is to provide, to his civilian boss, direct unadulterated no bullshit truth about the military's abilities. His job is NOT to be sitting around composing letters to some judge in reference to some crook who took an active roll as a conspirator to treason. The perception alone doesn't sit well with the troops." to your silly, sophomoric, ignorant statement that somehow I "...abandon Pace to the politically partisan scapegoating and buzzard feast often made of military public servants like Pace..." or your other line of crap, "It's easy for you to throw mud at Pace. For all I know, you've got ulterior motives to hurt the guy -- a chip on the shoulder." Plus uh... "What you're really doing by focusing on Pace is protecting Cheney...." Poppycock v.6.2 ... Wow, who ghost writes for you? That stuff is very reminiscent of another fellow cafer 'round these parts, who will remain unnamed (he's lurking and he'll figure it out).

See... That's just more of your verbose vapid vaporings of bullshit again that I rightfully accuse you of continuing to spew. You ... DON'T "KNOW" SHIT! So stuff that crap!

But at least you didn't wish me to "....Keep effluviating on this topic..."


Second:

By the way tough guy, speaking of effluvium, where the hell did you get this vapid vaporing of bullshit,

"....brag about your SERE training for 7 days..." ?

You haven't a clue what SERE school training even consisted of at the time I served. You have no clue what SERE is. That's where you DON'T "KNOW" SHIT! comes in again.

My actual SERE schooling was 6 weeks. From that, I was selected to attend Instructor School, which I accepted and attended for another 10 weeks. After that I was an instructor for 4 years, tough guy! This was all in addition to my regular billet. Oh and, did you say something about "...jungle..."? Ever spend 3 months in the late '60s in Cambodia, in live-fire combat areas without even carrying a weapon? And no one knew you're there. I did ... by way of Thailand. Kind of weird for a active-duty Navy conscientious-objector (CO-1a) who you accused to "..duck out of the fight ..." ... eh? Although, be it that this is really none of your fucking business, I elect not to talk further of it.

And as far as my reference to you attending 7 days of SERE training: You do understand what an illustration by example is, don't you? Of course you do.

Well here is a further expansion on my illustration: It wouldn't be just a hike and, "....train at 13K to 14K plus, not the MMWTC's 10 to 11.5K in the Sierras..." That's just you bullshiting yourself to get you through that specific line of moronic crap you opened with. Mountain Warfare Training at MMWTC was not SERE training. See, I told you, you DON'T "KNOW" SHIT! Totally different and separate animal. MMWTC was but one of three LOCATIONS that Navy SERE training was conducted in the 60s.

The specific part of the SERE training I refer to that I'd love for a know-it-all person like you to attend, can be accomplished at sea level. It'd be 24/7 in a hooch and mock POW encampment with people you'd hate after only 36 hours. And for sure, you would very quickly become very self introspective when faced with who you never thought you were. I guarantee, you'd eventually crawl on your tough guy belly just to get a drink of scum infested water, and within 5 days the experience could "...induce anyone to give away their first child...." Even you. Even General Pace. The toughest bastards I ever saw, succumbed. It would make your OCS training seem like the proverbial walk in the park. Don't be so sure of yourself, that you think you know what's really lurking there between your ears.

Read this one tough guy, from an old post of mine here at the Cafe from February 2006. It may help exapand what I'm saying, but with your blusterers ego, I have serious doubts:

I find in your comments some good points, but also a somewhat overly stated anguish and a little self deception that I've seen many, many times in my past experience. While training individuals in the US Navy and Marine Corps while stationed as an instructor in SERE training school at NAS North Island and Camp Pendleton California, many fine physically and mentally strong men would come to the training with their very own ideas of what they thought made them tough and what made them tick. Understandably, they invariably would think that what was good for them was also good for others. Quickly, within the first three days of training they became very self introspective when faced with that which they never expected. What they almost all came to face was their own weaknesses that they never even realized they had. Now if they never realized their own weaknesses, they sure the hell couldn't be a very good judge of others, now could they? One of the things I've never forgotten from those days were the words and teachings from one Dr. Stanley Milgrim
used in training us, the instructors to instill in our pupils. It was Dr. Milgrim who said: "Often it is not so much the kind of person a man is as the kind of situation in which he finds himself that determines how he will act." My own personal self discipline learned from those days taught me to refrain from second guessing a fellow human being ever since.

But, until you've actually been in the reality-based crucible of SERE, I can't expect a keyboard charlatan to fully understand that.

Now let's hear you again accuse me of second guessing Pace's actions of writing that letter for Libby. Because what I have stated is far from it. It's a fact that what he did is not part of his job. No matter how you attempt to spin it.

And I hate to repeat myself, but just so you clearly understand me, tough guy.

Uh pally ... You still ... DON'T "KNOW" SHIT!

Over and out, big guy!

~OGD~

ps: As to your reason for not continuing to write articles for DefenseWatch? That being, as you said, "Affording volunteer pieces forever wasn't in my budget." Simple as that? That there alone says more to me, about you, than anything you could ever say in relationship to your vain glorious words of, "... that is one reason I used writing to fulfill that promise in service to those who went on to serve in the Marine Corps when I fell."