The idiot is a bad joke. Don't enable him by adding to the Google trail of references. Let's not waste any more bandwidth on these dead-enders. No more mention of their names, no more quotes. They should be beneath notice by now.

Time to act, not complain. Kick their heroes out of office, and they'll be old news.

The neocons have been remarkably fortunate that no opinion leader has been willing to confront them head on and connect for the public at large all the dots about their organizations, publications, lobbying, and influence inside and outside of public office. Every lost war needs some scapegoats and how well they deserve that role!

Watching Kristol become unhinged is quite fun.

I have to disagree about TNR, though. The magazine does seem to be failing (it's now smaller as a biweekly than it was as a weekly) but it's not a neocon rag, despite Peretz. This issue has a pretty hillarious take on Fred Thompson by Michelle Cottle. Also smart stuff by Jeffrey Rosen on John Roberts, though I disagreed with Rosen's conclusions. An article about the Armenian genocide and Turkey's lobbying efforts to keep our government from acknowledging it happened was also very good.

I admit, I get TNR for free, from work. I wouldn't pay for it. It's also infuriating at times. But some of those writers are damned good.

I also noticed that the blogging style has effected TNR. In Cottle's piece on Fred Thompson she actually used the phrase "man crush." That's one of our digs!

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Most of us service moms who oppose the war have been extremely uncomfortable with Cindy Sheehan being played up by MSM as The Voice of Service Families. God bless her--I have always said I would not criticize her because my son lives and hers does not--

That said.

Many of us disagreed very much with her tactics, her extremist rants, and the fact that she was co-opted by an anti-war group that, well, just made a lot of us with active-duty family uncomfortable.

What happened was, she was embraced as THE VOICE of--let's face it--nutcase peace activists, and in so doing, THOSE OF US WITH VERY REAL ANGUISH ABOUT THIS WAR WERE COMPLETELY OVERLOOKED BECAUSE WE WEREN'T GETTING ARRESTED AT THE CAPITOL or whatever else she was doing.

I'm grateful to her for drawing a nation's attention to the Forgotten War Dead, but I feel that her extremism has completely gotten off the subject. Now she's talking about running against Pelosi, fergodsake--and it's just stunts like that that draw attention away from the fact that there are many, many active-duty military families who want to see this war end.

According to the most recent polls, SEVENTY PERCENT OF ACTIVE-DUTY MILITARY FAMILIES NOW BELIEVE THIS WAR IS A MISTAKE AND WANT TO SEE IT END, but the neocons keep dragging out that tired old saw about "supporting the troops" as if the troops are nothing but cardboard cut-outs and not real people.

She's a very handy scapegoat for them, a very easy way to DIMINISH those of us who have had to send our beloveds back to fight this miserable war over and over and over again, just WAITING all that time, for the dreaded knock on the door.

By dismissing Cindy Sheehan, they can now dismiss ALL of us, the less than one-percent of us who are groaning under the weight of Bush's War.

I watch CNN and I don't know how may times I've seen this;

Wolf Blitzer asks a Democrat guest a question on Iraq, or some such. The Democrat answers, then Blitzer says; "Well, let me read you what the President says," which is usually opposite of what the Dem suggested, and Blitzer then asks the Dem, "What about that?"

What I find amazing about this is no matter how many times "what the President said" turned out to be a lie or flat out wrong over the years, Blitzer still uses this tool. Kristol is much the same, regardless of how wrong he's been about Iraq/Middle East, he still shows up on CNN, MSNBC, Meet the Press, etc......... though I do expect to see him on FOX.

One more thing about Kristol; wearing a smile, I saw him tell Russert on MTP that he "supports a robust foreign policy."

With Kristol I take that to mean using our military to elbow our war around the world.
People like Kristol, Perle, Kagin, Wolfowitz, Bush, Cheney, the gang that signed PNAC, etc. are the best example I have to argue against a $500 billion per year defense budget.

J. McCutchen

Great to hear that TNR continues its slow circle to the bottom of the bowl. Happier still that I discontinued my subscription a few years ago

Destor23, you are right, in that Sheehan asked a question that HAS YET to be answered: Why did my son have to die?

And no, I did not mean to imply that anybody against the war, even in 2003, was an extremist--I've been opposed to it since they first mentioned it in 2002 or whenever it was. Sept. 12, 2001, to tell the truth. Or even anybody who agreed with Sheehan. She did a very great service; I take nothing away from that.

But her methods played right into the hands of those who wished to dismiss ANY war protest as the act of desperate crazies and not representative of the very real concerns, not just of many in this country, but many from active military families.

To this day, her name sparks debate on things unrelated to the REAL issue, and that is that, if you truly want to "support the troops"...maybe you should start by asking THEM.

You'd find a whopping majority who feel the same way as the rest of the country does, but that one fact has been completely lost in recent debates.

Even the way this debate is framed in the national media makes me scream. Just this morning, on NPR, while explaining the recent Senate all-nighter, the reporter was saying that the Dems misinterpreted public support for their policies, saying something like, "While most Americans would like to see the war brought to an end, they just DIDN'T WANT TO PULL THE RUG OUT FROM UNDER THE TROOPS."

I see this in different phrasing in every single solitary mainstream news article I read or hear.

The powerful implication is that, to vote against the war now, or to vote for phased redeployment, is somehow to leave the troops hanging or otherwise not support what they are doing.

Nothing could be further from the truth, but right now, the WH STILL controls the narrative, and that narrative is that continuing the war supports the troops--all evidence to the contrary.

Along with Destor's list, I'll throw in praise for Jonathan Chait on "the middle way."

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

For fear of being labeled dirty Vietnam-era hippies, anti-war leftists climbed on the Support-the-Troops bandwagon four years ago. They should have listened to Mark Twain: "History doesn't repeat itself - at best it sometimes rhymes."

A self-inflicted wound; and they've got no one but themselves to blame if they now find that their moral cowardice has come back to bite them.

Although I was pretty young during the Vietnam era and don't remember it too well, it seems there is a world of difference as to how anti-war people relate to the US military then and now. At that time, soldiers who served in Vietnam were stigmatized as "baby-killers" and commanders as blood-thirsty fascists (Dan Rowan's "General Bull Wright" from the immortal show "Laugh-In"). Today, at least in the coverage I see, the soldiers serving in Iraq seem to be highly respected and seen as highly courageous, and the commanders are seen as highly respected people trying to make the best of a terrible situation. I am glad to see that the criticism has shifted to those who deserve it...those who make the policy.

As a separate question, I wonder what those in Congress and other places of influence think will happen in Iraq when the US finally does pull out, assuming that "the surge" doesn't succeed, and what will the foreign-policy fallout be for the US?

I agree.  Slaves should not be held morally accountable for the sins of their masters.

The neocons have been remarkably fortunate that no opinion leader has been willing to confront them head on and connect for the public at large all the dots about their organizations, publications, lobbying, and influence inside and outside of public office.

I nominate Keith Olbermann for the job.  Just as often as possible.  Has he done a Worst Man in the World on Kristol lately?  Ever?

aMike

As a separate question, I wonder what those in Congress and other places of influence think will happen in Iraq when the US finally does pull out, assuming that "the surge" doesn't succeed, and what will the foreign-policy fallout be for the US?

After we're gone, there will be some bloodletting. The militias will probably seriously start fighting and gaining control of some areas. A warlord or strongman might eventually appear who takes control of the country. Or maybe the disappearance of American troops will reduce the incentive for violence and some insurgents will return to their families. Who knows, maybe both things will happen. I'm ok with either option. We can't force the Iraqis to not kill each other, and we can't force them to be our friends. It's their country. It's their responsibility. If they want a stable and safe democracy, they have to build it. If they want a war torn hell hole, they can have it. It's not our responsibility.

I almost don't care about the "foreign policy fallout for the U.S." but there won't really be any. Pulling out and repudiating the policies that took us into Iraq will improve our reputation among our allies.

Here's another perspective on Billy and Friends.

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)

The other interesting thing in this piece is that Kristol argues pretty persuasively that the New Republic is again publishing fake stories. Of course, Kristol only cares about this because the story in question questions the war. But it is sweet seeing the New Republic caught plagiarizing again.

First of all, the "again" in that last sentence is no doubt obliquely referring to the infamous Stephen Glass case of 10-odd years ago. But that was not a case of plagiarism but a case of simply making shit up.

In any case, it is worth pointing out that TNR has not been "caught" in any way.  It has been accused.  Big difference.  And accused by Bill Kristol.  It's interesting how MJ just takes Kristol's word for things on this, while dismissing him as wrong on just about everything else.

Curious, I trekked over the tnr.com and found a note by Franklin Foer saying the following:

Several conservative blogs have raised questions about the Diarist "Shock Troops," written by a soldier in Iraq using the pseudonym Scott Thomas. Whenever anybody levels serious accusations against a piece published in our magazine, we take those charges seriously. Indeed, we're in the process of investigating them. I've spoken extensively with the author of the piece and have communicated with other soldiers who witnessed the events described in the diarist. Thus far, these conversations have done nothing to undermine--and much to corroborate--the author's descriptions. I will let you know more after we complete our investigation.

My guess is that they will probably find a few minor embellishments but the core of the story will be found to be factual.  I will find it "sweet" when TNR finishes its internal investigation and finds the published story credible.  Not only because I am quite sure that events like what was described in the story do indeed happen and need to be understood, but also because it will prove once again - as if any more proof is needed - that MJ Rosenberg is a fool.

There's only one reason he hates TNR, and that's because it takes a reality-based line on the Israel/Palestine issue.  And anyone or anything that doesn't inhabit the loony lefty world he lives in is a Nazi or a neocon.

I think we need to all agree that his name is now Kristol Meth and that the country has a Kristol Meth problem.

The dude can make you paranoid, prolonged exposure can be bad for your circulatory system, and he can rot your teeth.

He can probably also lower your inhibitions and make you have sex with ugly people.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

It's probably more significant for those who are there.

WASHINGTON, July 20 (Reuters) - Attacks in Iraq last month reached their highest daily average since May 2003, showing a surge in violence as President George W. Bush completed a buildup of U.S. troops, Pentagon statistics show.

Deanie Mills,

I'm curious--whom do you see as "nutcase peace activists"? And do you use the same (nutcase) terminology for warmongers, or only peace activists?

Let's not forget that peace is the normal and best condition of mankind, war the abnormal, despite what the profit-driven warmongers say, and this being the case extremists in the cause of peace can't be "nutcases", can they?

I'm sorry that you were uncomfortable with anti-war groups but someday you will realize, I hope, that they were acting in your own best interest. Their and Cindy's "dismissal", which you decry, was a function of government/media propaganda and had nothing to do with the purity of their purpose or your (un-demonstrated?) anguish over the wars.

And why shouldn't Sheehan run against Pelosi, who has poorly represented her lefty district, San Francisco? Isn't this a democracy? Should we all just wring our hands and suffer? What do you propose we do?

I personally don't use the terminology "nutcase", but I am quite willing to consider people who see war as a solution to everything, or as a solution to nothing, as ill-informed about the many ways of dispute resolution, and of the evil that can sometimes be stopped only one way.

I will not forget that peace is the best condition of mankind, but I suggest that history does not show it is the normal condition. Extremists in the cause of anything can be unbalanced. Combat veterans I've known hate what they saw, but those that liberated Nazi concentration camps or Japanese POW camps, or helped clean up an Vietnamese village after Viet Cong "armed propaganda teams" had made examples of the village leaders, could well think of people to kill. My late father-in-law was torn by PTSD from being ordered to strafe refugee columns from which North Korean troops were firing on UN forces, but he longed to have a chance to...discuss...the matter with those who had ordered those troops to use human shields.

You seem to suggest that "someday", I would find every antiwar group always acted in my best interest. Looking back forty years or so, some indeed were well-intentioned and contributed to the US political process. Some simply used Vietnam as an opportunity to push overall political agendas. I knew some soldiers and activists as superb human examples, and some soldiers and antiwar activists as slime. I suppose a few decades of experience have taught me things aren't as simple and pure as you seem to assume.

Sheehan can run against anyone she pleases. I certainly would not have suggested that George McClellan not run against Abraham Lincoln. It's Sheehan's right. Whether or not I think Sheehan running against Pelosi is wise, at a national political level, is quite another matter.

It must be nice to have a world where everything is so black and white. I'd be interested in where it would be found.

--
Howard

"It is well war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it" [Robert E. Lee]

"Nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won." [Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington]

To be fair to the stock market, we've had good returns in the last 12 months but... the economy Bush had inherited from Clinton would have given us 14,000 a long time ago.

The business press needs to report the truth -- we've reached new highs but only after 7 years of a pretty sideways market.

A return only matters when you pick the starting point. If you put that point at the start of Bush's presidency, 14,000 is unimepressive for the Dow. The broader S&P is unimpressive as well. And the ol Nasdaq is still down around half of its highs.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I just find the fact that Kristol seems to think of the New Republic as on "the cutting edge of progressive thought" incredibly hilarious.

"On July 21, 2007 - 2:59pm JohnW1141 said:

". . . . Democrat candidate . . . ."

". . . . Democrat takeover . . . ."

The correct word is DemocratIC. The form you use is the disrediting effort of the extreme right wing.

SeeDee

I'm not one for un-due hyperbole, but I can only wonder if Bill Kristol and his ilk (like the disgusting gaggle of 'Young Republicans' portrayed by Max Blumenthal), have any idea of the utter contempt and, yes, hatred, that is generated toward them in those of us who have flesh and blood serving in the useless, even criminal, military exercise in Iraq when they engage in their yellow-bellied, cowardly b/s about the service of troops in the combat-zone?

What, in the name of God, do a damned one of them know about combat?...including the top cowards, the 'Smirk' and the 'Snarl'???

We were fed a bucket-ful of lies to start the war, we've been subjected to un-relenting lies RE the conduct of the 'war', and, now, we are being covered with more lies from Bush's hand-picked syncophantic generals about the 'plans' for the future 'war'.

Why any worth-while publication would continue to give credence to ANYTHING coming from the likes of Bill Kristol is beyond comprehension.

"For fear of being labeled dirty Vietnam-era hippies, anti-war leftists climbed on the Support-the-Troops bandwagon four years ago. They should have listened to Mark Twain: "History doesn't repeat itself - at best it sometimes rhymes.""

Exactly. During the Vietnam era, we were criticizing the policy -- not the troops. But in order to avoid the actual issue -- criticism of the policy -- "we" were accused of "attacking" the troops. This time around, in effort to avoid that accusation/distraction, the "Left" defensively helped obscure their position and message by joining the warmongers on the point.

The best response to the accusation thus became, "Support the troops: bring them home."

The troops have never been the target; it is the policy which puts them into such situations. So when accused that one doesn't "support the troops," one must stick to the issue: "The policy is not the troops. I oppose the policy."

Today it is: You can support Bushit, or you can support the troops. But you cannot support both.

...it takes a reality-based line on the Israel/Palestine issue...

and Israel/Palestine 'reality' according to TNR and BradtheDad is...?

Volunteers are "slaves"?

Not if they can "volunteer" their way out.

I think there's plenty of bullying to go around. What was it Saudi Arabia told Bushit about pulling out of Iraq? Is Saudi Arabia Shi'a or Sunni? Which of those two stand to be slaughtered should the US pull out?

Israel can do no wrong, because the supremacists who established and support it are the "chosen people" -- annointed so by the "God" they themselves invented to do exactly that.

I think people over simplify the reaction against the turmoil in the late 60's. For one thing, we were up against the WWII generation and that war was definitely the signature event of their generation and they were much less cyncial than people are today. For that matter, so were we! We boomers really believed we had the power to change things in a major way. Young people today don't even seem to want to much bother to try.

Plus, you have to put Vietnam in the context of the other enormous social changes going on at the same time, particularly the Civil Rights movement and the reaction to that when forced busing was a bridge too far for working class whites.

The right is very good at blaming a bunch of college kids for events that were much beyond our power to change however much we boomers believed we could!

This is where you lose my interest, JNagarya. You've revealed to me that you didn't learn a damn thing since Vietnam. It must be pretty safe and secure on your EXTREME left side of life.

You and Billy would make interesting roommates.

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)

I try to be priceless, but sometimes I'm just worth a couple bucks.

The top four in general order of support:

Richardson is saying complete, immediate withdrawal, leaving only Marines to protect the embassy.

Edwards is saying immediate withdrawal of 50k troops and complete withdrawal in a year.

Obama wants a reduction in troop levels and a phased withdrawal.

Clinton wants to leave a large residual force in Iraq, though she swears there won't be permanent bases or any of that sort of thing.

It's interesting that you mention Ron Paul and third parties, because, you know, Ron Paul is a Republican. Last time I checked, they weren't a third party, but what do I know?

As I've said before, I'm not particularly happy with our candidates so far. Richardson was my early favorite, but he hasn't lived up to his potential. As I've also said before, in Nov. of '08, I'll be voting for whichever candidate has a little "D" next to their name.

But I'm sure you can make a lot out of that since you appear to have the ability to find in my comments things that I didn't say.

Many WWI German soldiers wore belt buckles with words, "Gott mit uns", or "God is with us". This was occasionally a battle cry.

Jumping ahead to WWII, a senior German staff officer commented "War is chaos. The Americans do it so well because they constantly practice chaos."

Returning to WWI, the Germans were rather confused to have American units screaming back, "We got mittens too!" Presumably, the chaplains of both sides praised the Lord and passed the ammunition.

War is never a desirable thing. While the content of Barbara Tuchman's history of WWI was not the best historical writing, her title, The March of Folly, was a magnificent phrase that applies to most wars, or the diplomatic and policy failures that created them, or the problems of wars prolonged when a side starts to confuse its propaganda with policy.

As an example of the latter, FDR's original throwaway line of "unconditional surrender" prevented any real support of the resistance elements in the German military. Whether the 20th of July plot could have succeeded had more military officers been more encouraged is an unknown, but US intelligence elements in contact with the resistance were not allowed to say US policy could possibly include any negotiation -- and those Germans detested Nazi war crimes as much as anyone else.

The Allies had much poorer intelligence about the internal power struggles of WWII Japan, and we probably didn't know that a peace faction started to form after the Battle of Saipan and the fall of the Tojo government in July 1944. It was probably early 1945 when there was Allied awareness of such a faction, which was utterly stymied by the hardliners' insistence on the preservation of the monarchy. It took nuclear attacks for the Emperor to intervene -- and the Allies did agree to the single condition of the preservation of the monarchy. How many lives were lost due to the lack of any clue to the Japanese that there was any room for negotiation?

It must be nice to be so sure that all war is wrong. I have never supported the operations in Iraq, and I long have been able to trace US policy errors in Southeast Asia going back to the 1945-ish Patti Mission.

Nevertheless, if all war is wrong, what does one do to stop a Hitler? What does one do to stop the savageries in the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere?

Mutual Assured Destruction was an incredibly ugly (and even ungrammatical) proposition, but the reality is that with it as a doctrine, the Cold War did not explode into a hot nuclear one.

Snark is all very nice, and Mark Twain indeed a master hunter of snarks. Nevertheless, you seem awfully sure that military action can somehow always be avoided -- and I haven't heard you mention deterrence.

Just because an Administration commits idiocy does not mean that militaries can and should be dismissed.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Were soldiers who served in Vietnam really stigmatized as 'baby-killers' by the anti-war people?

Yes indeed.

Revisionists have trick memories.

There doesn't actually seem to be a documented case of an anti-war activist or hippy spitting on a vet.

Of course baby killers would naturally be liars too you think?

How would this documentation occur except by the word of certified baby killers?

Best, Terry

You are correct, They invented exactly that ("God") 5000 years ago and have been screwing humankind for all this time.

Howard,

Let's not debate historical events. To argue about how the US could have avoided participation in two world wars and two Asian conflicts is pointless.

The United States has not been invaded since 1912.

In today's world the United States is not threatened by any military force, and so does not need a standing military except to invade other countries under contrived conditions. In fact the mere existence of a standing military force, which was denounced by the Founders, encourages its use. What good is the finest military in the world if you don't use it? the argument goes (Madeline Albright). And that way we get a full-time Commander-in Chief. Oh joy.

Any terrorist threat facing the US can be countered by effective intelligence and efficient police work, elements that were absent on 9/11.

The proposed 2008 Pentagon budget exceeds half a trillion dollars, not counting war expenses, and the army and marines are expanding their ranks, all of which is utter foolishness under any rational examination. The problem is that war expenditures have become a drug with congress-critters fighting to keep bases open and war materiel contracts alive in their districts. America is now the arsenal of state terror.

"War is a racket . . . the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."--Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC, recipient of two Congressional Medals of Honor, 1935

Wow, Terry, you raise some interesting points. Let me check my watch...

Gosh, look at the time! The war ended 35 years ago, and you're still fighting it. You figure that there's still time to win?

Here's the reality: You lost. You didn't win. You didn't win on points. You weren't stabbed in the back. It wasn't Jane Fonda. It wasn't the hippies. It wasn't even Walter Cronkite. It wasn't because America didn't try hard enough. It wasn't a noble cause.

Vietnam was a fiasco. It was a horrific waste of money. It was a horrific waste of American lives and resources. It was unnecessary, unmitigated, brutal, pointless and wrong headed.

America lost in Vietnam because it deserved to lose. America lost in Vietnam because it had no plan, no strategy, no ideas, no principles and no clues. America lost in Vietnam because all it offered was corruption and killing, money and bombs. America lost in Vietnam because the Vietnamese were simply better. Because they were willing to fight harder, fight longer, take more casualties, make more sacrifices, and simply not give up. In the test of wills, America blinked.

Get over it.

As far as I'm concerned the people whining about Jane Fonda and the whole 'babykillers' thing are ball-less pussies who need to get a life. People obsessed with fighting the Vietnam war or blaming hippies for the loss, belong to that same category of people who deny that Hitler actually killed all those Jews, or that the Confederacy was a noble cause. History is full of unpleasant things that we all have to learn to live with.

And frankly, if you're going to sit there and tell me that some Vet who spent two or three tours in country in Vietnam dodging real bullets, sidestepping real traps, and actually risking his life is going to get all choked up and traumatized at getting called a name, and how that's the real tragedy of Vietnam, I'm going to laugh.

I certainly hope that this hasn't offended you. But if it does, consider it well deserved.

The real tragedy of Vietnam is the same of Iraq: neither were fought for a "nobel cause."

Therefore, the veterans of Iraq will share the same post war trauma as the veterans of all other wars. For the rest of their lives, they will be seeking to find a divine purpose in their war, an event that changed them forever, made them strangers to themselves, to their families and friends, to their community. Always in the back of their minds, they will be searching for the "WHY" -- the WHY they went through hell, the WHY they had to watch their friends die and the WHY they had to take another human being's life.

This president and his followers are under the mistaken belief that if enough time passes, if enough people die, if the war can just keep going a little while longer, eventually the divine purpose for going through all this hell will reveal itself to all who choose to see. And they're asking us to trust them in this belief.

Like the compulsive gambler or alcoholic or religious fanatic who thinks the next wager will bring him fortune, the next drink will be his last, or the next catastrophy will reveal to him God's will, Bush and his followers cannot end this war, because they will not allow themselves to believe they've lost control of it.

What they can't see is that when they begin to look to history for providing meaning to the loss and sacrifice of this war, that's when we should be bringing our troops home -- because the war is over. And it's over because that's the point when war as a political tool is no longer effective.

It's no longer a war, but rather a continuous series of pointless acts of violence. Much like the rest of the Middle East is today, has been in the past and probably always will be. Only time and writers of history will tell whether our participation in this war, with all our sacrifice, loss of life and depleted treasure, was justified -- or unjustified.

It's time to bring our troops home. It's time for the people of Iraq to determine their own fate, to create their own destiny, to find their own meaning.

We've done all we can do.

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)

Utter and absolute bullshit, asshole.

Do you think you can cover up your contemptible attacks on those of us who opposed the war but didn't take to your brand of misinformation by obscenity and false allegations?

What did Jane Fonda apologize for?

Why do you support the occupation now?

Best, Terry

Howard, I myself would never say "all wars are wrong", but I would say: "all unjustified wars are wrong."

How do I define a 'justified war'?

Um, I know it when I see it. :-)

Since WWII we have been involved in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War 1,
Yugoslavia/Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq.

WWll was justified.

Korea may have been partially justified due to its being a UN Operation.

Afghanistan was justified, but only to the extent that we were searching for Osama. Overthrowing the Taliban quite possibly may have been a major mistake because it puts us in a position of not allowing them to come back.

Give some people a $500 Billion defense budget and they're gonna want to use the toys it buys.

Sometimes I think the only difference between Vietnam and Iraq is the news media of the time.

I can still visualize the Dick Cheney appearance on Meet the Press not long after the 2000 election. The smile on Russert's face, ear to ear, was almost orgasmic as he fawned over Cheney and his "gravitas."

The flag draped coffins returning to Dover AFB are still off limits to the press.

If I had the Bush propaganda machine and the compliant press the Bush gang had in the run up to the Iraq debacle, I could make a factual case for an invasion of Saudi Arabia. There would be no need for lies or innuendo, I would sell truth; the nationality (no Iraqis) of those who attacked us on 9/11, the Wahabi schools and what they teach about the West, where many "insurgents" who are killing our troops in Iraq are coming from, the Saudi financial support to Palestinian suicide bombers (terrorists), going so far as to have an auction to raise money, and probably a few other truths that escape me at the moment.

The Bush Family Evil Empire and their long term connection to the Saudis are the real Axis of Evil.

Another perfectly good discussion hijacked, Kristol long forgot.  <sighmode></sighmode>  Oh well.  I guess shrugging one's shoulders is a form of exercise.

aMike

You're still a far better person than I am, Morgan, as my remarks upthread show.

mea culpa

When is Kissinger going to apologize?

When hell freezes over.

About the same time you do.

Best, Terry

It's the supreme irony that Hitler becomes the justification for any and all wars. Hitler rather proves the opposite case! It's the Hitler-like mindset that begins wars in the first place.

War is wrong because it kills people. Twain was not snarking here, he was commenting on the those who read "thou shalt not kill" and then set about the business of killing tens and hundreds of thousands and millions in His name.

Whining about Jane Fonda, grousing about all those damned hippies who disrespected you back home... that's wallowing in self pity.

And not only do I have a heartbeat, but I have a brain. Which puts me two up on you, I think.

Another perfectly good discussion hijacked, Kristol long forgot.

But isn't it good to forget that idiot? :-)

Best, Terry

Cindy et al are launching the Orange Revolution tomorrow.

For info, the honor of your presence is requested at The Blogging Activist.

"No nation is conquered until the hearts of its women are on the  ground."  Cherokee saying

We are pretty much in agreement. Gulf I, and to a lesser extent Panama, are debatable both ways. What I'd like to see is a serious national discussion of our international roles that do, or do not, involve a military capability. I make no argument that there is enormous waste in some aspects of the defense budget, yet there are legitimate areas that are starved for money.

Among the latter is the case that if US troops are sent into combat, they are not sitting ducks for reasonably predictable threats. If we expect allies, they aren't cannon fodder and deserve equal treatment. Some of the CSIS/Anthony Cordesman reports of US troops going into joint operations, with the US personnel in armored vehicles and the Iraqis in busses and pickup trucks, are disgusting.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Well, the news coverage is indeed different, isn't it? I remember, night after night, watching television news clips of bloodied bodies of soldiers being carried on stretchers to waiting helicopters in the grass and palm covered fields of Vietnam, while my parents, siblings and I sat with eyes transfixed to these TV images trying to eat dinner.

It was macabre and surreal. I'm certain this administration is very aware of how traumatizing it was for us at home to be subjected to those scenes -- night after night. Vietnam had a profound mental and emotional effect on many, many Americans -- not just the vets and their families.

And the draft? The draft hung out there like Damocles's sword over us all -- well, nearly all. It was 1971, I was 19, newly married, had a new baby only weeks old and was preparing to run to Canada because the college my husband was attending failed to send in his student deferment papers and he learned he was bumped up to 1-A status and drew number 76 in the next lottery -- at a time the government was calling up for active duty the first 100 number-holders.

We were young, we were scared -- just like the kids going to Iraq today. But unlike Iraq, we knew EXACTLY what we were going to -- hell. Because we witnessed it up close and personal, blood, guts and all, EVERY EVENING. Today's Army is different. I can speak with authority, as my son is now voluntarily serving in the Army in Iraq, that for the most part, it does take better care of its troops. And as crazy as it may sound, my son loves to serve -- he reminded me of this just today in an e-mail.

And unlike what some in this blog have tried to portray of our troops, the last thing most of these guys want to do is hurt or kill someone -- but they will if they have to to protect themselves, their buddies or any civilians in harms way. They don't want to be there, doing what they've been ordered to do by their civilian leadership who knows or cares nothing about their welfare. They know they have a job to do -- to take out the enemy -- and they want to do it as quickly and as efficiently as possible and then come home to their families.

But the problem with Iraq, like the problem in Vietnam, is the enemy is either unknown or hidden amongst the civilians. And everyone -- the troops, the civilians, even the insurgents -- are very, very afraid.

Part of the indifference or apathy that most feel here at home stems from how much of this war has been hidden away from us and how small is the number of people who actually go there or have family there. This administration doesn't want the truth to interfere with the "reality" they're trying to make up. In sparing the country the harsh reality of this war in Iraq, they're also sparing themselves being subjected to the private seething rage of criticism that exploded into violent public protests during the '60s and'70s.

Our media is acting as enablers to this administration that is pulling off the greatest deception and government conspiracy in American history. Bush & Company make Sen. Joe McCarthy and Pres. Richard Nixon look like school children.

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)

My own view is to amend Santayana. People who do not remember the past are compelled to make it up.

History is not a cycle, but it does tend to be a spiral, with the same themes and the same sorts of trains of events.

People remember history, but more properly, it is misremembered, the wrong lessons are constantly taken, self serving interpretations rewrite events, the past is treated as a sore tooth that the present must worry into a new future.

Even now, the lesson that is taken from Vietnam is 'we shoulda won', when the truth is 'we shouldna been there at all.'

Agreed about Cindy Sheehan, yet, as somebody who lives in Pelosi's district, I'd welcome a challenge to her comfy status quo arrangement.

Personally, I think that the Tillman family have taken over as the figurehead for the troops and their families. While the death of Casey Sheehan was a tragedy, the coverup of Pat Tillman's death was a crime. Even though the wingnuts have tried their usual smear and deny tactics, they don't wash with Tillman, and I hope that his family will keep the drumbeat going.

This war is a criminal tragedy, with our troops fighting for a lie. Cheney/Bush and their neocon supporters can bray all they want, but America is much less secure than it was before they abducted the Presidency.

Godspeed home your son and the rest of the troops.

I have yet to have a negative feeling brought on by a Cordesman analysis.

OK,

BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOOOOMMMM BOOMBOOM, DA DA DADA DAAAAAAAAAAAA DA DA DAAAAAAAAA

Ha! We've found out Brad's 'real identity'--he's really Bill Kristol!

You're a real hammer, Brad--you're so wrapped up in your special interest politics that your slip is showing; while the topic of the article is Kristol's chickenhawking in Iraq. Why would anybody hate Billy Kristol? Perhaps because he's been wrong about everything he's said about this war, since before it started?

As a true PNACer, you know the true purpose of the 'war' is all about Israel, and nothing else matters, least of all the cannon fodder US troops.

On July 22, 2007 - 12:41pm Morgan Pardee said:

Well, the news coverage is indeed different, isn't it? I remember, night after night, watching television news clips of bloodied bodies of soldiers being carried on stretchers to waiting helicopters in the grass and palm covered fields of Vietnam, while my parents, siblings and I sat with eyes transfixed to these TV images trying to eat dinner.

For some time, during WWll the news media were not allowed to show dead American troops. Eventually FDR took the ban off so the public could see the horror of war and why they were making the sacrifices they were making.

After Vietnam, the lid came down far more tightly than it ever had in World War II. In Grenada (1983), Panama (1989), the Gulf War (1991), and Haiti (1994), American military officials kept the press out entirely or restricted press access to small pools that were taken only to places and events approved beforehand by military press officers.

If the carnage in Iraq was being broadcast today as it was during the Vietnam years it would be more difficult to continue to support this frikkin war. Embedding reporters with the troops was a masterstroke by the Bush gang, it guaranteed them the coverage would be mellowed.

Given the choice, I wouldn't go to fight in Iraq.

And today, with an all-volunteer Army, the only reason anyone would have to enlist is an actual attack on our country -- as in 9/11. This administration has exploited 9/11 so that it can keep feeding strong young bodies ruled by naive impressionable brains into the maw of our military machinery.

Embedding the media with the military served the purposes of the Pentagon when Rummy told them they would be greeted with open arms.

It's much, much harder to get embedded with them now and they usually don't send them to where the REAL action is. Read the foreign newspapers, such as the Guardian, to get a more accurate picture of what's really happening at ground level. My son says most of the reporters that are with them are very, very VERY young and scared out of their wits. CNN's Michael Ware is with the brass so that he can get the bigger picture from the top.

And for a good reason: Journalists get killed. (Note the names ... how many are AMERICAN journalists?)

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)

An internal TNR investigation is unlikely to "prove" anything to the satisfaction of folks who do not take TNR's views as dispositive, certainly not on a matter such as this where the magazine has an interest in a favorable finding.

I often disagree with Brad the Dad on his I-P views but his post was not a "1". I think he's a bright guy and doesn't deserve snark responses. We're not supposed to downrate folks around here simply on the basis of disagreement.

Ellen,
Like many hispanics in the US, and you, I will never forget Francisco Villa and his successful evasion of General Pershing's army after his (Villa's) raid on Columbus, New Mexico.

Howard,

1. The US has not been invaded since 1812. The Hawaiian Islands were not part of the US in 1941. They were illegally taken from the native people and were an occupied territory. The war against Japan had essentailly already started, and fleet defenses were inadequate and so Husband and Kimmel were court-martialed. Your "other events, not on a large scale" were obviously not invasions.

2. Your belief that we "make the correct choice" when we go to war is an academic one, made without any personal risk to yourself but resulting in considerable risk to others. How noble of you. Actually war is a criminal act, as well as immoral, and your support of it is therefore criminal. You calling some war a "peace operation" is of course doubletalk, isn't it. War is peace, sure. You ought to work for the Pentagon.

3. Yes, the only American military role should be against physical threats to US territory. That's the way most countries behave. Ask your neighbors if they'd be willing to go on a (hypothetical) suicide mission to liberate France, as many were ordered to do, and watch them choke on their freedom fries.

4. The highjacking of four planes on 9/11 could have been prevented by an administration that was doing its job. Warnings were disregarded in the State Department, and the FBI and CIA, which didn't communicate with each other. Bush's stonewalling of the subsequent investigation is an indicator of administration failings (some say complicitness).

5. Since there is no military threat against the US, the huge Pentagon budget is simply corporate welfare, supported by congress-critters because of the pork being distributed to most congressional districts. The new F-22 fighter plane, for example, has zero usefulness but since its subcontractors have been carefully situated in over 200 congressional districts it is guaranteed support. Every operational army brigade brings 4,000 jobs to a district, and so on and on, and what good is the world's finest military if you don't use it, which results in the drug of war.

6. In my opinion you are naive when it comes to the way things work in this world we live in. You may not be motivated by money but our rulers are. The economic health of the United States is not ever measured by the income of middle- or lower-class working people but by the stock market, where people are making money screwing lower- and middle-class working people with out-sourcing and any other nefarious scheme they can think of including the useless Pentagon budget which is a huge contributor to corporate bottom lines, and is why militarism (including war) is supported by the media and always has been. I fear that you are a victim of this media.

I don't know what's the matter with you guys. you overlook the famous Battle of Fort Stevens during WWII:

In what became the only attack on a mainland American military installation during World War II, the Japanese submarine I-25 under commander Tagami Meiji [4]surfaced near the mouth of the Columbia River, Oregon on the night of June 21-June 22, 1942, and fired shells toward Fort Stevens. The only damage recorded was to a baseball field's backstop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_United_States_territory_in_North_America_during_World_War_II

The story I heard was that one brave soul fired an antique cannon that presumably is still in place on top of a sea wall; the cannon ball plunked harmlessly short.

Japan 1; America 0

Best, Terry