OK, not really. But laughter really IS the best medicine for PTSD. Take my word for it - it's one of the few things in Reader's Digest that's inarguably true, other than the fine print in the hemorrhoid ads.
"Support the Troops" yellow ribbons are about as funny as the crutches they don't buy. Send a bunch of these to Iraq and you buy some guys a moment of laughter. That's better than all the Faux Patriotism you could possibly slap on the ass of your car.
These stickers come with real adhesive. Magnets are for people who want to be able to change their minds.
Three days before her actual redeployment, she was packed and ready to go, she had her car keys in her hand, and she turned to me and said, "I don't think I can do this." I was shocked but knew any type of coercion on my part would not help, so I said, "Are you serious?" She replied, "I just can't do it, Mom." She could not go back there to the misery. She told me that being separated from her family and living and breathing Army for a year at a time in a war zone was a constant source of distress for her. Where nobody cares whether you live or die as long as you do what you are told and they look good afterwards. Nor could she handle another deployment, dealing with the daily hour-to-hour sexual harassment that she endured from 99% of her male officers and fellow soldiers. The isolation and fear of being attacked, harassed, molested and raped was a huge part of her life in Iraq. She was always full of anxiety and stress just keeping herself safe when her commanding officers would show up banging on her door in the middle of the night, intoxicated and wanting to have sex with her. The intimidation and sexual harassment that our female soldiers are enduring is leading to massive stress and in some cases even death for our military women in Iraq. They are not supported but shamed when they bring these to the attention of their superiors.
I TOOK A DEEP BREATH and I told her either way she is my hero and I will support her decision. She decided that she was going to go AWOL and to leave the Army.
Now, as a retired female officer points out in the video, this crap is simple to deal with. You make it clear that if shit like this happens, or even seems to be happening, heads roll - starting with the head of the unit commander and the first Sargent.
Remember, the Army doesn't have to "prove" a goddamn thing in order to discipline an officer for failing to "maintain unit cohesion." Hell, they don't even have to give a reason for "promoting" an officer to command of a "corrosion prevention unit" in Alaska. It is an authoritarian society, and what happens happens or does NOT happen is entirely due to whether or not the Authorities wish it to occur or not.
IF you care about rape of female soldiers, you make it clear that cases, if fully proven, will result in hard time in Leavenworth, not administrative slaps on the wrist. You make it clear that if rape is suspected, but unproven, that the very least that will happen is that more effective leadership will be found for the unit in question, while the unit itself will find itself doing most unpleasant collective penance for the sins of the fellows they have chosen to shield. And you make it extremely clear that if a rape DOES occur in a unit, it had goddamn well better be brought to light as a result of command authority, not in spite of it, or heads will not just roll, they will be used as soccer balls.
The armed forces definitely do pass the word on such matters when it matters, one really has to wonder if in this case, the idea IS to drive women out of the military - along with gays and persons of insufficiently evangelical faith, persons who also have been subject to such unwelcome attentions that also seem to be "unofficial" official policy.
Why, it's almost as if the army were trying to purge itself of anyone likely to have objections to things that reasonable persons might object to, like rape and torture. Certainly if they won't defend a squadmate from rape, civilians are shit outta luck. And I betcha that's the plan and this is how you go about creating a hard core of utterly soulless followers; create situations that reasonable people KNOW they should object to - torture, rape, harrassment of all sorts - make them complicit in it, even if only by silence - and then they will be easily led down the slippery slope to complete moral depravity.
Of course, this does open the question as to why one would want an army composed of and led by white, superficially Christian, socially conservative, reflexively obedient white people.
Hm. What does the phraise "I was just obeying orders" bring to your mind?
More importantly - how DID that work out?
Such comparisons are supposedly odious. More to the point though, they are beside the point - pointing out that a sin or a stupidity is unoriginal serves little point, especially if people tend to think that UNorignal sins are somehow justified by being routine.
Ultimately, we are all accountable to ourselves and our consciences - which is for ethical persons leaves a lot less theoretical wiggle room than "being accountable before God."
But the rain falls equally on the just and the unjust - as the Bible points out. Equally are we gifted with the consequences of our own choices. So if you take only one thought from this, take this; sins that are committed wholesale are repaid retail.
Every casual injustice, every callus act, every clear violation of standards of decent behavior will be noted somewhere, by someone, and as each instance adds up, those someones add up as well. Sooner or later, statistically, one such straw will land somewhere that will cause an action or predispose a decision.
And even if no-one other than you knows of an injustice or atrocity that you will never be truly held accountable for in this life; all I can say is, "you poor motherless bastard. Without atonement there is no redemption."
That's not bible or, indeed any particular faith speaking - that's human nature. Sometimes the worst punishments are the ones we extract from ourselves for our unspoken and unspeakable sins.
This sort of stress results in what we refer to as PTSD, and we know well the toll it takes. And yet, our Lords and Masters seem obvious to the toll in human life and tortured souls their ambitions require - leaving one to be tempted to think they are not human, have no souls themselves and take dark joy in their unholy harvest.
But that, I think, would be to give them too much credit. And certainly they do not give enough credit to the potential liablity of thousands of extremely pissed off women and their mothers, as they start to realize that it wasn't JUST official embarrassment or indifference, but arguably the result of policy decisions made by grossly irresponsible men undeserving of the respect they think they deserve, much less the rank and offices they hold.
And understand this: Accountable they are, and accountable they will be. This is a fact of the universe which is apparent to any observer over time; "as you sew, so shall you reap."
Major Andrew Olmsted, who posted a blog since May 2007, was killed in Iraq on Thursday, Jan. 3. Major Olmsted, who had been based at Fort Carson in Colorado Springs, began blogging after his unit was sent to Iraq with the mission of helping to train the Iraqi Army. No official details have been released on his death, but reports say that he and a second member of his unit were killed during an enemy ambush in Diyala province, northeast of Baghdad. Olmsted was determined to make a difference in Iraq. "The sooner the Iraqi government doesn't need U.S. support to provide security for its people, the sooner we will probably be asked to leave."
Andy was a wonderful person: decent, honorable, generous, principled, courageous, sweet, and very funny. The world has a horrible hole in it that nothing can fill. I'm glad Andy -- generous as always -- wrote something for me to publish now, since I have no words at all. Beyond: Andy, I will miss you.
My thoughts are with his wife, his parents, and his brother and sister.
What follows is Andy's post: a bit here; the rest below the fold. [UPDATE: I'm adding links to Andy's last post at his Rocky Mountain News blogs, from about a week ago, where friends and family are expressing support in comments; to an article from yesterday that I believe is about his death; and to a post he wrote on his reasons for going to Iraq last June.]
There are so many blogs so many things worth reading and so many people who write them that it's impossible to know everyone, and it is therefore inevitable that sooner or later, someone you wish you had known dies before you have the chance to know them in even a virtual sense.
Whatever my feelings about the Commander In Chief or the wars he has chosen, this is not the time for that, and I choose to honor Maj. Olmstead's wishes that his death NOT be politicized.
I shall do only this - to take the time to read the words of a man who has damn well earned our attention the hard way.
And second: I ask that whatever status and situation in life, whatever view you have about wars and soldiers, that you honor his choices and do him the courage of "Piping him Out" as he would have wished. I have no Coke on hand, so my toast will be in good Kentucky whiskey. I have plenty of eighties music, though - and so first I shall spin up Leonard Cohen's "Closing Time," and then re-read a bit of Kipling, who should be read more often, and not always at times such as this.
Between 20 March 2007 and 20 March 2008 (the fifth year of the war), we will attempt to sign up One Million Blogs for Peace. By signing up, a blogger is stating his or her agreement with The Pledge below. They will then be able to participate in various challenges launched by One Million Blogs for Peace. They will also be listed on this website with a link to their blog.
The Pledge
I believe in the immediate withdrawal of all foreign combat troops from the nation of Iraq. I believe in using my blog, in whole or in part, as a tool toward this end
There will be two counts (toward 1,000,000). For one, a blog must be based in the home country of a nation currently engaged in the Iraq War
we will not post your name to the website, only your blog & URL.
20 March 2008:Deadline for One Million Blogs
I'll be signing up on the 1 Million Blogs for Peace site in a moment. If you have a blog, you should too.
If you want reasons beside the obvious, here are mine. My view is the best arguments against the war are the words of those who support it. I have come to the conclusion that their arguments are stupid because there is no possible intelligent, ethical defense for this war, even if it had been true that Hussein had WMD and was up to his eyeballs in an undeclared war of terror against the United States.
Had that been the case, the need to do something would have been compelling, but an inadequately prepared invasion into a foreign nation with no significant world support against an enemy in fortified positions with the ability to kill both troops and our civilian population would have been the very last scenario anyone who graduated from the War College would have suggested.
I'm not some bleeding heart that thinks that in understanding our enemies, we can make them our friends, or that you should be nice to rabid doggies. Nope, not at all.
I think the proper way to deal with such matters is smoothly, routinely and effortlessly. In other words, there is an ideal correlation between terrorists and smoking holes - one to one. Any course of action that treats the disease of terrorism as anything more significant than the threat rabid dogs, feral bears or stray tornadoes represents grants it a significance it does not deserve. (All the above threats are, in fact, a significantly greater threat to the typical US citizen than all of the terrorist networks combined.)
We are just smart enough that we do not declare a "war on tornadoes." However, if we did, and if it were prosecuted as well as the war on Terror has been, we would be losing. Just as we are losing the "War on Terror" in general and the conflict in Iraq in specific."
In war, the simplest and most common way to lose is to pick a fight you cannot win, in a situation where you cannot easily extract yourself, under conditions where just being there rouses the population against you. In observing this, I'm saying nothing that Sun Tsu, Erwin Rommel, or Dwight Eisenhower would not have said to a particularly dim lieutenant placed on staff so he couldn't fuck up anything more important than a pot of coffee.
It is sometimes the case that it's possible to negotiate from a position of strength on the basis of understanding. But more directly, understanding your enemy means that you can maneuver them into defeating themselves.
Well, unfortunately, our involvement in Iraq is a text-book example of that principle. We done gone and sucker-punched dat tar-baby, an' B'rer Wolf, he be laughin!
Here's what one of the "deadenders" said in response to one commenter in the Clipmarks thread.
Sounds more like they should be called "Blogs for Ethnic Cleansing" or "Blogs for Insurgency" or "Blogs for Al Qaeda in Iraq"
When the first voices heard in defense of an agenda are those of fools and bigots, it's time to consider whether or not the agenda itself reflects the people in favor of it.
If you define "working" as proving that a slightly larger, but still inadequate force will reduce violence, yes, the Surge Worked - duh. Thirty odd violent incidents that would be headline news for weeks in any other nation, as opposed to double or more. It's an improvement, but it's not the fundamental change the situation requires.
Of course, this assumes that there's a legitimate reason to be there - and there is not.
It assumes that a victory in Iraq is critical to the war on terror - which it isn't, even if you could define "victory" in either case, which you can't.
I don't oppose this war because I'm a pacifist, a "peacenik" or a "liberal," I oppose it for the same reasons that SunTsu, George S. Patton, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Stonewall Jackson would. I oppose it from the perspectives and for the reasons it would have been opposed by great "liberal" thinkers like Barry Goldwater.
I could - and have - explained it in depth, but it boils down to this: Never stick your dick in a pencil sharpener and dare the enemy to turn the crank.
There are two reasons for this:
First - it proves your dick will fit in a pencil sharpener. To validate the metaphor, in making such a threat, you demonstrate that your ability to project force in a way that successfully achieves your end is sharply limited by your ability to cope with an intelligent and resourceful enemy or by other things that become obvious once you engage.
Second - It occurs to the enemy that a man with his dick stuck in a pencil sharpener tends to be completely focused on the situation at hand.
From the viewpoint of the worldwide strategic goals of any putative "Islamofacist" movement, there could be no better recruiting tool than Iraq - and no easier way to keep our forces pinned down than to maintain just enough pressure on the crank to keep us focused on "the job at hand."
Of course, I believe the same rationale appeals strongly to Bushco, so compellingly that I have personal suspicions that the war between the US and Al-Queda exists only to serve the ends of each - and any decisive engagement, with ANY outcome would be a disaster from both perspectives. This whole "we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" meme is nonsense. Any decent military leader will tell you that if you want to win a war decisively, you pick ground the enemy has difficulty getting to, is not familiar with, where it's difficult for them to blend into the countryside. For most of our history, our entire national security has depended on the fact that "fighting them over here" is far superior to "fighting them over there." It's better, far better, to BE the pencil sharpener.
This philosophy has been seriously degraded by dick waving cold warriors talking about "projecting force," but the fact is that our founders, in choosing to rely on militias to defend until a scratch regular army could come running, were displaying both political AND strategic brilliance. That's an essay for another time; but let's remember that many of them were noted for their military services and successes, unlike the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
If there is a "war on terror," wherein "turrists" from "Islamofacists" are motivated to come and try their tricks, it would be a hell of a lot easier - and far more decisive - to let them come.
But the Dubai ports deal - and many other key infrastructure ownership issues, as well as the insistence on security measures that have the effect - and only the effect - of restricting the movement of US citizens, while habituating them to intrusive searches and arbitrary abuses tells us all we really need to know.
You see, I don't much put my faith in what people in authority say. There are all kinds of reasons why they might be less than totally forthcoming, even if their motives are as pure as the driven snow. What I place my faith in is evidence of actions achieving a visible end - and using what is visible as an indicator of the general shape and form of that which is unseen.
I base my views on a very solid appreciation of what war can and cannot achieve, human nature, and of course, cause and effect.
The only clear, certain and measurable benefit to anyone is the consolidation of executive power and the erosion of individual liberties within the United States.
Further, the most seriously defended actions on the part of the Administration, it's highest priorities for covert action - have been aimed at US. Warrentless wiretapping. The elimination of habious corpus. The pernicious idea that anyone - including US citizens - may be detained indefinitely without trial or even public notice as "enemy combatants" on the say-so of George or his designated heir to power.
These are the fruits of victory Bush seeks, I must conclude. And that means that "a terrorist" is anyone who doesn't think Bushco should own their ass and be able to sell it off wholesale.
In joining this effort, I'm also calling for a return to the fundamentals of Constitutional National Security - which means a return to state and local defense networks that are on polite, but distant terms with federal authorities, and who's proper response to being told to drop everything and prosecute a foreign war of choice is "Sir, fuck you, Sir; I'm needed at home."
WASHINGTON (yahoo/AP) - President Bush compared Congress' Democratic leaders Thursday to people who ignored the rise of Lenin and Hitler early in the last century, saying "the world paid a terrible price" then and risks similar consequences for inaction today.
Bush accused Congress of stalling important pieces of the fight to prevent new terrorist attacks by: dragging out and possibly jeopardizing confirmation of Michael Mukasey as attorney general, a key part of his national security team; failing to act on a bill governing eavesdropping on terrorist suspects; and moving too slowly to approve spending measures for the Iraq war, Pentagon and veterans programs.
"Unfortunately, on too many issues, some in Congress are behaving as if America is not at war," Bush said during a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. "This is no time for Congress to weaken the Department of Justice by denying it a strong and effective leader. ... It's no time for Congress to weaken our ability to intercept information from terrorists about potential attacks on the United States of America. And this is no time for Congress to hold back vital funding for our troops as they fight al-Qaida terrorists and radicals in Afghanistan and Iraq."
Ironic that he should make that comparison to "ignoring Hitler and Stalin." Ordinarily, I try to avoid such comparisons, but Geez, George - YOU are the only one in the equasion with verifiable stocks of nuclear weapons and the will to use them. So if people are going to be comparing world leaders and fugitive ter'rust leaders with Hitler and Stalin - guess who's name is gonna come up first?
And yes, I agree with you about the Congress. They ARE gutless wonders and shoulda done something to put a stop to you as a New Year's Gift to the American People. ALL American People. You got a whole hemisphere chewing their nails, wondering what they are gonna have to do about you if Congress doesn't do it's duty.
As seen in this clip dating from 1994, Vice-President Dick Cheney had a very solid appreciation of the problems inherent in invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussain.
The Cheney tape re-aired for the first time since 1994 on July 11, 2007. But it wasn't until C-SPAN aired the interview again on August 9 (on the same channel, at the same time) that the blogosphere noticed.
As far as we know, the Cheney remarks on Iraq were first noticed by the site Grand Theft Country.
Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride said she was not authorized to comment.
She did, however, direct us to an interview that ABC News conducted with Cheney in February of this year in which Cheney was asked how his views had changed from 1991, when he also spoke of military action in Iraq as a "quagmire."
"Well, I stand by what I said in '91," Cheney told ABC. "But look what's happened since then -- we had 9/11."
But 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, and changed none of the fundamental and obvious calculations that made the invasion of Iraq an obvious, losing proposition. 9/11 was merely an opportunity, a pretext upon which to build a massive edifice of fear, panic, theft, subversion and lies, the apparent point being to create the conditions for another protracted, expensive, bloody conflict such as Vietnam for the twin goals of consolidating power and looting the treasuries of two nations.
Leaving aside the obvious - that Cheney is an evil bastard who has no fundamental objection to mass casualties when it's profitable to him - we need to look at why an effort that was untenable in '94, despite widespread right-wing demands for just such an invasion became profitable enough to go to such lengths to implement. I think we need to back up and look at the larger picture.
Warfare is a magnificent distraction - and in it's own way, a very unpopular war is an even better distraction. If you fundamentally do not care about the opinion of the American People, save as a means of manipulating them, an unpopular war is very useful tool, for it concentrates the minds of the opposition on the obvious. It casts long shadows that one may hide anything within.
So let us look back at the net effects of this administration. The first thing it did, of course, was to squander a budget surplus and start to build the most massive debt in US history, debt that is held in part in the Middle East and in part in China, due to our massive trade imbalances. Laws were passed that gave tax breaks to large corporations moving offshore - taking HUGE tax revenues with them, while monetary and credit policies were pursued that encouraged the middle class to take on unsustainable levels of personal debt. Then, the mousetrap was sprung - completely unconscionable revisions in the Bankruptcy act.
Meanwhile, the War On Terror was declared, and many steps were taken - almost none of them having any effect on actual terrorism, save to increase the potential for it, while obvious precautions, such as securing ports, rail transport and airline baggage screening were dismissed in favor of purely cosmetic harassment that had the effect of ensuring that the American people became used to being arbitrarily questioned and inconvenienced by barely competent officials of the state, often in conspicuous violation of both the Constitution and personal dignity.
The Patriot act - along with widespread, clandestine and illegal activities, such as arbitrary arrest, suspension of habius corpus and of course the quite deliberate specter of torture as one possible fate for Administration critics became part of the national consciousness, with most of us still believing that, fearful and potentially disastrous as these policies were, the idea was to combat terrorism.
But in hindsight, it's clear that our national policies have taken what was a potential threat - one worth attention and concern, but by no means something to panic about - and turned it into a world-wide emergency situation. The only conclusion I can come to reasonably is that US policy has the direct and probably intentional effect of creating conditions where terrorism will flourish, both abroad and domestically.
How will domestic terror arise as a widespread thing? Well, the first acts will likely be "black operations." But Bush's domestic policies and what appears to be a calculated campaign of focused contempt for the sensibilities and needs of the vast majority of the citizenry can be reliably expected to result in an incident here and there, at least if the pump is primed by an example or two that is suitably publicised.
And what that permits is the imposition of martial law, the suspension of elections and the Constitution itself - "for the duration of the emergency."
It is very difficult to impose a dictatorship on a wealthy, secure nation - which is what we were when President Clinton handed off the Presidency to the Shrub. Now we are a debtor nation, both personally and nationally, with such levels of debts that many of us are effectively slaves to giant corporations that are no longer headquartered in the US, making them far less accountable to US law.
What we are seeing is the engineered collapse of the US economy - and far more critically, it's position of moral and social influence over the world's population.
But I am distinctly concerned that this agenda is one that is broadly advantageous to people of power and influence within and without the Government to a degree that it pushes politics aside. To be blunt - I think it's a pretty obvious agenda by now, that the Democrats are not idiots and that they are, in essence, furthering it by offering token and ineffective resistance.
So, we must shed our illusions that we can assume that anyone in Washington is concerned about our welfare, and go back to the state and local levels to organise, resist and adjust - for the very best possible response to Washington's meddling and interference would be to ignore it.
The individual States still hold enormous economic and political power, and there are cities and metropolitan areas that in themselves wield power that many states - and indeed, many sovereign nations - would envy.
When it's clear that the Federal Government is doing everything it can to disempower citizens, it''s time for the citizens to band together and address the emergent threat - which is not terrorism. It is the Federal Government, and it needs to be reminded of and returned to it's Constitutionally intended status. The Federal Government exists because it is permitted to exist. It governs with the consent of the governed - as do all governments.
So let us be clear - if there are acts of resistance against federal power, against arbitrary federal laws, this is not terrorism, treason or disloyalty. It is the withdrawal of consent by the governed. We all have the inalienable right to say "no," providing we have the courage to face the probable consequences.
But if enough citizens in enough states demand it, there will be habius corpus, there will be safety and security. State laws and existing regional state conferences and associations will serve us as well or better than a Federal Government that has chosen to disregard it's duty.
I would suggest a simple starting point; a general passage of laws and constitutional amendments restricting unsupervised access of federal agents and agencies to anything. That, in other words, by state law, all federal agencies must comply with state oversight, so that there are witnesses. I would suggest that states assert jurisdiction over state communications networks and make wiretapping a state felony, if it is not already.) I would suggest that the various states begin investigations of and prosecutions of federal crimes against state citizens. And recall - the vast majority of the Federal Government - and most particularly, agents and employees tasked with various violations of privacy do not live within Federal preserves. The vast majority are subject to state laws and state sanctions.
Finally - and I think this should be blindingly obvious, but I suppose it needs to be said - the various States need to ensure that they are prepared for all eventualities, to face the possibility of a general collapse of central authority. They need to look to what areas of their budgets are dependent upon federal largess and make some hard choices. They need to call upon their citizens to take up the slack. Perhaps that will mean tax increases, but I would suggest that organized volunteerism in the face of emergency is a reasonable approach. Or in other words, set up a co-ordinated "Phone tree" where, in an emergency, the Governor can communicate with the state as a whole, and everyone in the state has something they are willing to do already on record, whether that be driving trucks, filling sandbags or toting a rifle.
This was the concept of the "Milita," way back when - organized LOCAL response plans that could "hold the line" against civil unrest or natural disaster until help arrived. If we have learned nothing else from Katrina and 9/11, it's that deferring to the judgment of federal responders is a very bad idea. The people who are already on the scene are the ones who know best what is needed - and to the greatest extent possible, they should have done as much pre-planning and pre-positioning as possible.
All of this has a very important goal, both long-term and short term. First, in the short-term, it may preempt attempts by the Federal government to take further steps toward restricting individual and state's rights, or even imposing direct dictatorship. In the longer term, it will make our nation more secure and less vulnerable to both terrorism and civil war.
But as much as I would like to see an outcome that sees the United States still united, with it's borders where they are now, my personal view is that we will see the US fragment into several viable nations based on culture, history and economics, and the United States will pass into history much the same way that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics did - as the result of manifest centralized ineptitude combined with imperial ambitions that demanded too much of it's citizens.
The entire Administration agenda depends upon several factors, but they all boil down to us, as Citizens, being willing or at least accepting of this Brave New World Order. I think, quite frankly, that is a dangerously foolish assumption, one that only someone who's contacts are restricted to fellow-thinkers and fellow-travelers could or would contemplate. In the end, it is fundimentally unethical and unjust and therefore, as a matter of what might as well be a natural law, it will blow up in catistrophic, chaotic and unpredictable ways.
And as General Petraius has observed in Iraq - there will be no military solution.
Apparently Harry is out of patience with Republican procedural obstructionism! Yay, and it's about damn time, says almost everyone referring to the Think Progress alert.
Reid accused conservatives of “protecting the President rather than protecting our troops” by “denying us an up or down vote on the most important issue our country faces.” He said that if a vote on the Reed/Levin Iraq legislation is not allowed today or tomorrow, he will keep the Senate in session “straight through the night on Tuesday” and force a filibuster."
Here's Reid's reasoning, which I support, for what it's worth.
So the record here is clear. The President’s decision to stubbornly cling to the current course leaves this body no choice but to enact binding language.
He has failed to lead us out of Iraq. We are ready to show him the way.
M. President, my worst fears on this bill have been realized. We have just seen the Republican leadership again resort to technical maneuver to block progress on this crucial amendment.
It would be one thing for Republicans to vote against this bill. If they honestly believe that “stay the course” is the right strategy — they have the right to vote “no.”
But now, Republicans are using a filibuster to block us from even voting on an amendment that could bring the war to a responsible end.
They are protecting the President rather than protecting our troops.
They are denying us an up or down — yes or no — vote on the most important issue our country faces.
I would like to inform the Republican leadership and all my colleagues that we have no intention of backing down.
If Republicans do not allow a vote on Levin/Reed today or tomorrow, we will work straight through the night on Tuesday.
The American people deserve an open and honest debate on this war, and they deserve an up or down vote on this amendment to end it.
Given the Republican leadership’s decision to block the amendment, we have no choice but to do everything we can in the coming days to highlight Republican obstruction.
We do this in hopes of ultimately getting a simple up or down vote on this and other important amendments that could change the direction of the war.
All Senators will be welcome to speak their mind. Those of us who are ready to end the war will make our case to the American people. Those who support the status quo are welcome to equal floor time to make their case.
Let the American people hear the arguments. Let them see their elected representatives engaging in a full, open and honest debate.
Let them hear why Republicans are obstructing us on this amendment.
Whenever Republicans are ready to allow a vote on this most crucial legislation, we stand ready to deliver the new course that has been so long in coming.
So, it's already tomorrow and if everything is going well, individual Republicans will have to be on record as "Supporting the President instead of supporting the troops." Sooner or later, one or more will break and , as detailed below, cloture will be invoked and a vote will follow, as Bob Geiger explains below.
The Reed-Levin amendment to the Department of Defense (DoD) Authorization Bill requires George W. Bush to "commence the reduction of the number of United States forces in Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act" and mandates a withdrawal of most combat forces by April 30, 2008.
The legislation, S.AMDT.2087, has bipartisan support and is cosponsored by Gordon Smith (R-OR), Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME).
In making this move (based on my understanding of Senate rules), Reid is invoking the provisions of Rule 22 (Precedence of Motions) of the Standing Rules of the Senate, which provides, at the Majority Leader's discretion, up to 30 hours of debate if a filibuster is initiated -- as the Republicans will most certainly do, knowing that Reed-Levin may very well have the 51 votes needed for passage.
Sixty votes are needed to achieve cloture (end debate) and move legislation to a full, deciding vote.
Reid will be using the provision of Rule 22 that allows for up to 30 hours of continuous debate once it's made clear -- in this case, by Republicans trying to avoid an up-or-down vote on Reed-Levin -- that there is a desire to continue debating the issue.
In other words, the Majority Leader is saying "You want to debate? We'll stay all night and debate."
If you don't read Crooks and Liars for the articles, read it for the comments. The comments thread on this article is bipartisan as all hell, with even Force Protection weighing in.
The study, which was requested by Democratic Congresswoman Louise Slaughter of New York, found that since 2000 the DoD has awarded “sole-source” contracts valued at $2.2 billion to just two companies, Force Protection, Inc.(FPI) and Armor Holdings, Inc (AHI).
Inspector General auditors found that the Marine Corps Systems Command (MCSC) made these two companies the sole providers of armored vehicles and armor kits for troops, despite knowing that other suppliers may have produced the equipment so desperately needed in Iraq substantially faster. Both manufacturers fell far behind delivery schedules, while AHI also produced inadequate and faulty equipment.
The consensus seems to be that the Force Protection builds the best and perhaps only suitable unit for the job - and that they can't build enough of them. While one intended role of the Cheetah would be convoy escort, there simply aren't enough in theater to do the job.
And as soldiers testify, the lack of a suitable convoy escort doesn't mean you get a less capable convoy escort. Bupkis is what you get.
Marines got their armor made for them? We had to make our own armor for our vehicles. I was a gunner for convoys a couple weeks ago (just got back) and our turrets were hand made Haji metal welded toegether by some 92A (paper pushers). It got so bad that we had to make our own weldshop to armor up our vehicles. We got metal from the locals and welded them together. The armor was so weak that the glass was better protection than the armor. We called them: Haji Turrets, because the guys shooting at us probably sold us the metal. The metal was rusted/corrodid/etc beyond imagination, some even warped and riddled with holes (just welded another peice behind it). Turrets looked like cardboard boxes really. Man… i cant type anymore.
The Red Ball Express didn't get any respect in WWII, either. Logistics just ain't sexy, even though it wins wars.
But the devil is in the details. Is Force Protection the villain, or simply a victim of it's own success?
Wait a minute. I really need to set the record straight on this. Force Protection’s mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles are vastly superior to any other being manufactured anywhere, including countries like Israel and South Africa. That’s the reason the DOD gave the entire contract to them. Ask any soldier what kind of vehicle he wants to be in, the unanimous answer is the Cougar from Force Protection. Armor holdings builds them under license from Force Protection. General Dynamics is also working with Force Protection to expand production. The Buffalo mine clearing vehicle is the only vehicle in its class and is the baddest truck you have ever seen. It has a liitle crane mounted to the front with a camera that is used to dig up mines and IEDs. The Buffalo units have saved countless lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. To date, only two soldiers have been killed in Force Protection vehicles.
The reason the troops haven’t gotten these vehicles sooner is the DOD waited too long to order them. They are expensive to build, and weigh so much they are expensive to transport. Remember, Donald Rumsfeld thought he could conquer the Middle East on a budget. Going to war with the army you have, and all that bullshit.
It is true that Force Protection’s management overpromised and underdelivered. But the other side of the coin is, no one else makes these things, and the DOD didn’t start ordering them until at least two years after they knew they were facing a new type of threat.
Others argue the classic "I don't want it perfect, I want it TUESDAY" argument against "toughing out" long production delays to get the best equipment for this war just in time for the next one, pointing out that former SADF vehicles (which the Force Protection vehicles are based on) are availible in large numbers and going for a song.
But, speaking of the "next one," in seeking out a photo for this post, I ran into this bit of hype about one of Force Protections newest vehicles, obviously intended as a competitor to the HumVee.
The Cheetah is Force Protection's newest vehicle series.. It is designed specifically for reconnaisance, forward command and control, and urban operations, and combines state-of-the-art ballistic and blast protection with the mobility of a unique light-armored vehicle. Its speed and road handling make it ideal for homeland security missions.
Hm. Expecting many IED attacks in Nebraska? What do you know that I don't?
Susie Bright is one of my reality checks. You see, people who have come to a level of comfort with sex, sexuality and talking about sex are, in my experience, not all that easily bothered by ephemeral trivia or taken in with obvious sublimations and substitutes for the real thing - in any sense.
Susie's take on figuring out why putting Democrats into the majority failed to stop the war is brutally pragmatic. "Follow the money."
The war profiteers cannot be altruistic or public-spirited. They can't be fulfilled. It's like asking a scorpion to give you a free ride. They can't be talked into a wind-down, a slowdown, or letting up on the gas. Their existence as a permanent arms economy can only survive by expansion.
Until we take away their toys, they will break them; they will break us. We have to stop paying for them, voting for them, working for them. It's a vision thing, as King George might say— to stop seeing that we share the slightest, tiniest, mutual interest.
Remember, it was Eisenhower who warned us of the dangers of the "military-industrial compelx." Not some faint-hearted draft-card-burning pansy-ass "liberal."
MoveOn.org is supporting a petition drive to pressure CBS into re-hiring General John Batiste.
While I think CBS should offer him his job back, I'm not at all certain that returning to work there is appropriate to a man of his stature and dignity. When CBS clearly was more reluctant to dispose of Don Imus for racist remarks than the General for speaking truth to power, CBS declared itself to be on the Bushite side of reality, and no longer worthy of the mantle or privileges of the Fifth Estate.
There are far more worthy outlets for the General's words and I imagine that even now, many are making their wishes clear. He is of course, welcome here - but alas, I cannot pay him what he's worth. These days, military officers who understand their constitutional oaths are depressingly scarce - and like most of such officers, Batiste is not welcome in the military.
Perhaps the Great States of California, Kansas or the City of New York might be interested in acquiring his services to establish "well regulated militias" to fill in for the missing National Guard troops and equipment.
And, well, obviously they are having a lot - repeat, A LOT of trouble finding any real ammo to use against Olbermann, since the worst thing they can say about him is that his ratings are low (on MSNBC? Imagine that!) and this:
Keith Olbermann's career schizophrenia continues. He's a Sports Guy. He's a News Guy. He's a Sports Guy (again). Oops, back to News. And guess what? Now he's back to Sports, according to Keith's personal PR flack aka TVNewser:
Yep, being able to do more than one thing well is a clear sign of inherent, invidious, elitist Liberalism. Judging by the journalistic standards of this blog, so is walking and chewing gum at the same time.
This link was advertised to me via google promising to "Expose Olbermann's lies." As I expected, this was a usage of the term, "lie," that I was previously unfamiliar with. A "lie" in this usage seems to be a truth that makes you want to stick your fingers in your ears and chant "la la la la I can't HEAR you!"
I see this as symptomatic of the sad, impotent and pathetic devolution of the right-wing blogosphere, that this blog gets enough eyeballs to justify a google Adwords account. They don't take just ANYONE, you know.
So, the dead-enders are still out there - but clearly, they are being driven to a subsistence diet of undiluted stupidity as the former stars of the Right are, one by one, falling away toward the center, leaving the core ideologues exposed in their dogged determination to win their Culture War against everyone and every institution that is smart enough to know better.
Hell, if you are smart enough to put three thoughts in a row, you are savvy enough to realize that the Administration can't. And a lot of former Republicans have come to the conclusion that what they stood for, indeed, what they still stand for, was seen as simply a set of talking points by the Administration; a means to get to an end that was nothing good, Republican, conservative or apparently achievable.
There is only so far wanting to believe can take you in the face of an overwhelming flood of fact. Bloggers, to be relevant at all, have to swim in facts and even (gasp) differing perspectives on them. After a while, it's hard to ignore that of the facts that are in, the facts speak against the President, that:
He has indeed lied in order to wage war against Iraq.
entered office with the intention of waging war against Iraq.
used (or even contrived) 9/11 as a pretext for that war (and in that, did nothing to actually find, prosecute and execute those who were actually responsible).
Illegally wiretapped citizens.
Suspended Habius Corpus.
Kidnapped and tortured people without even the pretense of due process.
Tried to establish a legal basis for torture - despite it being explicitly illegal and ineffective.
Is in Contempt of Congress on multiple counts (signing statements)
And yet, given nearly totalitarian powers even FDR did not wish to have, has managed to completely fail to win a war our armed forces were equipped and trained to win - a war of maneuver in the deserts of the middle east - by putting them into urban combat zones, the sort of warfare that eats armies for lunch.
Understand this very clearly; there was absolutely no reason for anyone to expect that our military forces would be unsuccessful in securing Iraq with good intelligence, solid planning, competent leadership and enough boots on the ground. Even those of us who doubted that it would be as easy as described would not have gone so far as to use the word "difficult."
We asked "why Iraq, and why now." I cannot recall many asking "what if we can't win?"
So, not only did he lie us into war, he fucked up that war. Why? Well, never presume malice when stupidity is a sufficient explanation. But if George Bush's intent were to destroy this nation, cripple our vital alliances, isolate us in terms of world opinion and still lead us open to a far more probable threat of terrorism, in that light, he's been consistently correct in his choices of policy and personnel.
What we are seeing here is the result of a total failure of leadership, even by the standards of a corrupt, corporatist, kleptocratic, nepotist and increasingly fascist-lite ruling elite.
It would be wise to recall that, first, the French Revolution occurred because of and in response to leadership of such quality. And second - the outcome, driven as it was by a situation driven beyond extremes, resulted in some extremely Bad Things.
Now, I don't know about you, but I think that the existence of social stresses that could lead to civil war to be a very significant National Security Issue. So, I think it's time we all took a deep breath, got over ourselves, and made a choice to stop making war on other people. Especially when those people are fellow Americans.
Update: this post was linked on Olbermann Watch and this was the only comment there:
You know what I see as symptomatic of the sad, impotent, and pathetic devolution of the LEFT-wing blogosphere? They can't even spell Olbermann's first name correctly while trying to defend him. Kieth? How hard is it to spell K-E-I-T-H?
If that's the only criticism, I believe we can take every actual point as being unaddressable by those who I am addressing.
Sad, ain't it? That, and the fact that once again I'm accused of being "a liberal."
Keith Olbermann lists all the various reasons and excuses Bush has used to justify the Iraq war.
I had a roommate once who was a total sociopath, and it took me less than a month to realize that all his "reasons" were really excuses. In fact, he did what he did because he wanted to do it and gave whatever excuse he thought would work that moment. He really had no clue that sane people keep track of these things.
It's been clear for a long, long time that whatever reason exists in George Bush's mind for the war - if any mind or reason exists in any commonly understood sense - it probably isn't one of his utterly disposable excuses.
I stopped keeping score long ago, so I hadn't realized how very damming the sum of his lies had become. But it is truly damning, and indicative of someone utterly incapable of being responsible for the consequences of his decisions. Whether he's a sociopath, a dry drunk, or simply too stupid and isolated to comprehend the issues on his desk does not matter to me, any more than his statements about his political philosophy or his "deep, Christian faith."
He's as inconsistent in those areas as he is in the context of the war, so I conclude that these positions are just as momentarily convenient as any other.
Some of his statements are particularly revealing of an incapacity to deal with the reality of other people, and the idea that his actions give legitimate cause for offense. The latest example is his dismissive reaction to Matthiew Dowd in particular and all parents of service members in harm's way as being "too emotional" to have a valid opinion.
It's pretty easy to demonstrate a widespread skepticism about our misleader.
Then, of course, there was his amazingly insensitive and inept handling of Cindy Sheehan. Whatever you think of her,she's a nightmare of his own making, a visible symbol illustrating his contempt for and impatience with an increasingly critical citizenry.
It has long since become impossible for me to have any respect for the man - and if I am to maintain respect for the office of the President of these United States, I must continue to loudly call for his immediate resignation. If he will not do that, he must be impeached.
Meanwhile, whatever he wants of Congress, and whatever he says to justify his demands must be presumed to be as disingenuous as all his previous interactions with that body, and, I must add, with people representing all parties. I would strongly suggest that various members get together and compare notes on what he has said to them to justify particular votes. I'd bet money that these stories will neither add up nor bear any great resemblance. And I'd be stunned if he's delivered on promises made to secure votes, even with solid supporters such as our own Sen. Ensign.
Congress - and particularly the Republican members - had best realized that the supporters of a liar and a fool are likely to be associated with the lies and foolishness in the public mind. People cannot help but wonder, in the face of overwhelming evidence of his willful, callus and incompetent leadership and contempt for the citizenry, whether that support is the result of blackmail, gullibility or corruption.
More to the point, they probably don't care. They just know that loyalty to a miserable failure is placed above loyalty to their constituents, and there can be no good reason for that.
"IT IS REMARKABLE, this spirit we inherit, this blood we inherit, these dreams and these roads that we wake to find wound around our wrists and across our cheeks like war paint, like sleeplines, like shooting stars tattooed as gentle but indelible reminders. We are children for so long. Our desaturated comic strips blow into pulpy confetti clouds of memory and the palms open to reveal magenta astral charts...alien and familiar all at once. Nameless glyphs that reappear. Faultlines and gold-laden veins that bleed through old tests and texts and packaging slips. Emerald grit upon the fingertips. The voice that sings the moon to sleep reprises her reminders in the secrets that we speak. Drafts of warm air, cool lilac exhalations, and sunset's shadow. Desert sun and greyhound buses and memories of a home you've never touched with your hands."
Daayaam, that's fine writing; goes down like a stubby of Bohemian after a hot day riding a stuker and tossing bales of wet alfalfa - which is what blogging feels like some days, and no Bohemian pilsner to be found here in Reno.
This blog is a challenge and a joy - for I have to say that while it is beautiful, it's template needs a little tweaking for those of us who cannot read six point gold type on a parchment background.
But unlike most pretty blogs - it's worth highlighting or even fuzting with your browser text settings. That was a pretty post. But this is Graphictruth, where pretty is valued only to the extent that it helps the blade of truth slip between the ribs of ignorance.
PERHAPS A READER cannot readily agree with the stance of holding soldiers personally accountable for aiding such massive crimes as the invasion of Iraq. Perhaps even though it is made clear to us in everything from time-worn fables to Self-Help books to music lyrics to television shows to age old films to mama's words to our own inner urging—that each person in life is born alone, dies alone, and in the meantime, must stand up and be counted for what they have lent their hand to while here—we still imagine somehow that culpability for anything from kidnapping to assault and battery to murder is mitigated and even nullified, nay—justified, by immersing the self into a collective such as the military. Those who argue as much enable the State to carry out unmentionable crimes and and will do so for the end of time, justifying such dangerous and indiscriminate allegiance by arguing that the cohesion of their nation-state justifies all. These are the people who hand over their will and thought with but a slight gesture, and so they are that oppressive State. They forfeit the discernment and skepticism and autonomy necessary to mark one as a reasonable individual and they do it for a song, for a mediocre fee, for a fable, for a fluffed-up casus belli. For these people, even questioning the codified if unspoken set of rules that make these wars possible is taboo, after a point. And yet those who hold this ideology see fit, somehow, to bemoan the wars waged by the greedy elite when it is only their own ideology of Human as Mindless Tool that makes these wars a reality.
CHI-CHING!
Please tell me why should I not form a militia, or my own government? My own group of people who decide upon a book of laws? Why are they, then, not justified in killing where killing would otherwise be thought a crime? Because they are not your gang? Yes. And that is all. So at least we can be clear on that. There is no great morality that can be defended by any nation, and especially one that operates on the dictums the US does and engages in the hypocrisies that she historically has.
BLAMMO!
There is no such thing as Liberty and Democracy, nor Freedom when you seek dispensation of same from a Government. Because in the end, those glorious ideals and speeches and laws will be communicated with steel and blood and agony and murder, and based on reasons you may or may not agree with. Just as we see now. Just as we have seen in the past. Just as we will see again. For there is no law of society but force. Everything else is a conditional addendum. And to loan your body and will and force to the State—and unconditionally—is to forego your humanity and forge of your self a dull weapon.
KABOOM!
A dramatic - and damnably accurate assessment of the current situation. Nonetheless, I do support the troops. Not because I support the war, or even the supposed intent behind the war. I support their survival, so that they may internalize the experience of being cynically used as if they were Janissaries instead of free citizen-soldiers. I also remind all US Soldiers of their nearly unique oath of service - to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic."
I remind everyone that in supporting the troops, we are supporting fellow citizens in dire straits that are not of their choosing, and if many do not have the courage to take a principled stand such as First Lieutenant Ehren Watada it's due to having families to support - or due to what their friends and families would say. Sadly, many are willing to do wrong in order to be seen as "doing the right thing" by those who do not know better.
If they are unaware - as many are - as to their rights and duties as Citizen-Soldiers under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the Constitution of the United States, it's our duty to find out and tell them. They are kinda, well, busy.
So my support to them is specific and limited to doing what is needful to survive. I discourage adventurous heroism. Dead heroes can't vote. I suggest that every non-citizen in US service who wishes to do so, pursue the citizenship they have - in my humble opinion - earned in the most honorable possible way.
But I'd also suggest requesting written orders for any actions that could be considered a war crime. Hell. in this clusterfuck, get written orders for everything, and make multiple copies, especially if related to combat injuries. Funny how hard it is for the VA to find such things.
Most of all, come back alive, in as close to original condition of issue as possible, and rejoin civilian life as an armed, dangerous and motivated citizen voter. We will help, and that, too, is Supporting the Troops.
And hey, we may need you, should it become clear that it's time for a Constitutional Convention.
In reference to Seymour M. Hersh's New Yorker article, "The Redirection." Tom Engelhardt wonders where the media reaction is to something that looks like Iran-Contra, seems as naive and inept as Iran-Contra and likely to create far more problems than Iran-Contra ever did.
"Iran-Contra alumni in the Bush administration at one time or another included former Reagan National Security Advisor John Poindexter, Otto Reich, John Negroponte (who, Hersh claims, recently left his post as Director of National Intelligence in order to avoid the twenty-first century version of Iran-Contra -- "No way. I'm not going down that road again, with the N.S.C. [National Security Council] running operations off the books, with no [presidential] finding."),"
Negroponte - that old cold warrier and worse - scared of blowback from a repeat of his "glory days?" What the hell does he know that Hersh has NOT found out? And dare we wait to know?
"In this country, it's a no-brainer that the Iranians have no right whatsoever to put their people, overtly or covertly, into neighboring Iraq, a country which, back in the 1980s, invaded Iran and fought a bitter eight-year war with it, resulting in perhaps a million casualties; but it's just normal behavior for the Pentagon to have traveled halfway across the planet to dominate the Iraqi military, garrison Iraq with a string of vast permanent bases, build the largest embassy on the planet in Baghdad's Green Zone, and send special-operations teams (and undoubtedly CIA teams as well) across the Iranian border, or to insert them in Iran to do '
"Don't Shoot! I'm voting for Obama!" and "Don't Shoot! I'm Voting for Ron Paul!"
