Iraq War @ MindSay

Does it matter anymore?

And this is where it gets awkward.  Yes, he's absolutely right. To get honorably discharged, then get recalled for a legacy-building war is a bit rich.  Not only that, but it is an undeclared "war," so, technically, he's not AWOL any more than Congress has been since World War 2.

Further, I get tired of hearing the chickenhawks calling for him to be shot and strung up.  If you want to take his place, DO IT.  You've been talking about it since 9/11.  You've been talking about it since we invaded Iraq in 2003.  Do it, already.  If you have something to contribute to the national sacrifice, do so.  Until then, shut the hell up.

And, yeah, I signed on that dotted line.  I knew what I was doing, and so did he. Even so, how exactly does one negotiate a fair contract with the all-powerful federal government?  You tell me.  I support this guy, but I know they'll destroy him.  The bigger question to me out of this is how 435 Representatives and 100 Senators neglect to declare war, but this one man who served honorably will be counted as a deserter?

When we answer that riddle, we'll have discovered the true depth of our collapse as a society.

So they have finally come out to tell us what we already know. But you know what the best part of this is? Only 2 channels covered this: MSNBC (sorta) and Comedy Central.



So what's worse?  (A)The fact that an administration fed us false information. (B)The fact that our free press dropped the ball. or (C)The fact that the only show that covered this news piece in depth was a self-dubbed "fake news show" on a basic cable TV station.?

Well, Scott McClellan earned his place in history the other day.  His book tell us where the bodies are buried.  The response is classic:

"Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House," she said. "For those of us who fully supported him, before, during and after he was press secretary, we are puzzled. It is sad - this is not the Scott we knew."-Donna Perino

This is not unheard-of, as the last round of cashers-in wrote their books toward the end of the first term.  Sadly, this is, by far, the most extensive tell-all.  It sounds like a great book, though it is probably countless civil liberties, thousands of dead, and years too late.  Thanks for telling us what we already knew:

McClellan stops short of saying that Bush purposely lied about his reasons for invading Iraq, writing that he and his subordinates were not "employing out-and-out deception" to make their case for war in 2002.

But in a chapter titled "Selling the War," he alleges that the administration repeatedly shaded the truth and that Bush "managed the crisis in a way that almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option."

"Over that summer of 2002," he writes, "top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war. . . . In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage."

McClellan, once a staunch defender of the war from the podium, comes to a stark conclusion, writing, "What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary. (Source)

Thousands lie dead.  That war was unnecessary.  Yet, amazingly, no one is guilty.  There is no villain, and no hero will bring us justice.  The war is the deceiver, not Bush, who is an unwitting victim.  Sure, he may have been "plenty smart enough to be president," he just didn't act like and no explanation is forthcoming.

To put this in perspective, 2800 people died on 9/11.  On September 12, 2001, we knew who was guilty.  To date, 4084 people have died in Iraq, yet we are afraid to blame the culprits.  It is still "unpatriotic"to call for accountability on the subject.  Even as the GOP immolates itself, it can't help trying to save the Bush Legacy.  In the moment of betrayal, the snitches can't even bring themselves to place blame

This is every bit as demented as the Clinton Legacy goofiness, but it has far-reaching implications for the nation. Clinton didn't inhale, but Bush can't even remember if he did cocaine. There is room for repentance, like Bob Barr's, but without blame, guilt, and a change, this book is just an interesting footnote.  After all, it's hard to put more blame on the liberal media for not stopping the war you perpetrated than you can safely put on the guy who created the war our of bad intel and propaganda.

I love the anti-war crowd.  There is about a third of the movement that is conservative, the Ron Paul crowd.  They love the troops, but hate the war.  Good for them, and I agree with them.  I am one of them.

Then there's the other crowd, the troop-hating dingbats.  Unfortunately, they're unreachable.  I contacted one of them today.  I'll let you read the correspondence for your edification and instruction.  This is why we have such a hard time breaking through to the pro-Iraq Bush fans as pro-peace activists...the troop-haters won't shut up.  They want their moment in the spotlight.  They want to let it all hang out, no matter how it hurts the movement.  That's fine, you fools, because all you are doing is enabling the war.  Here's the proof, his response is in red:

you are such a dupe to rejoin the military. you should be ashamed of yourself.
*******
Dear Mr. Vance,

I clicked on your article, "Heroes or Dupes?," this morning, and was deeply upset.  I'm not sure which upset me more: the actual text of your article or the fact that I knew how it would read before I read it.  I think, sir, that you may not fully appreciate the harm this sort of writing does to the anti-war movement.

Let's get all the cards out on the table.  You are writing a book on the subject, so you stand to make a profit.  Like yourself, I am not completely removed from the problem. Recently, I reenlisted in the military.  I was one of those "tuition mercenaries" of which you speak, save that I have not been to Iraq.  Ironically, perhaps, I find myself in both camps, that which supports the troops and that which opposes the war.

Recently, I worked to support Ron Paul's candidacy.  Unfortunately, Dr. Paul's time has passed, due in large part to articles and sentiments like those I read this morning from you.  It was hard to preach against the war to the Republican Party in the first place, but the task is made manifestly more difficult when all anti-war folks find themselves painted as anti-troop.  One may oppose an idea easily enough, but to oppose the idea and the icon of that idea, the uniformed loved one of the pro-War Republican, is madness that will be answered with defeat.

I do not seek to offend, and you are, of course, free to your opinion.  In fact, judging by some of the more radical elements of the anti-Iraq movement, you are probably poised to make much more profit from such articulations and devices.  People who oppose the war are often angry enough that taking their hatred of Iraq, and transferring such anger to the troops is but a small step for many.

If, on the other hand, you should choose the cause over the dollar, I would ask that you not make our job on the front lines of this culture war that much harder.  After all, sir, it is hard enough to convince most Bush Republicans that the war is wrong without having to also convince them that we aren't raving troop-haters, as well.  This was one of the hardest parts about supporting Ron Paul, and the words of the Bush supporters still ring in my ears.  As a veteran and a military member, I was actually accused of "aiding the enemy" and "supporting the killers of our soldiers."

If you want to do the greatest good, I would suggest doing so by attracting people with the message of liberty rather than by driving them away by reviling their heroes and relatives in harm's way.  Should you choose to do that, you will be making the mission of spreading the message of peace that much easier on those of us in the political trenches.  Remember, anyone can throw a barb and attack in anger, but not everyone can stand bravely in the face of injustice and refuse to sink to the level of the oppressor.  You are right about John McCain, but comparing him to today's soldier benefits no one.

In this conflict, we are called to a higher, more noble destiny.  We are called to oppose the war on principle, not on emotional bile.  If we have the fortitude to look beyond this fight to win the cultural war by appealing to the reason of the nation, we will not only win this conflict, but we may actually prevent another Iraq or Vietnam from ever happening again.  If, however, we insist on dealing in daggers and loathing, we are condemned to lose not only this fight, but the next one, too, and so on and so forth.  I appeal to you to take the high road.

Sincerely,

"C. Durden"

I'm getting tired of defending these asshats.  They are stealing all legitimacy from anyone opposing the war.  THEY are why Bush's surrogates can get away with calling all pro-peace people "unpatriotic troop-haters." 

Your words are crippling us, people.  Be careful what you say.  The person you piss off next might be someone you could have convinced to agree with you.

Why Hillary Clinton is the Best Choice for America....

This is an op-ed piece that I had some issues with. If I could only say one thing about the article, I would have to say that it is by a Republican who says that says he'll probably vote for McCain in November, even though he claims that Hillary is the best choice. That was the big flashing warning sign saying that this person was going to be misleading.

Another one of those misleading statements was his conflicting view of Clinton compared to Obama. He said:

On domestic policy he comes down as hard liberal, advocating things like nationalized health care, major social programs, expansion of federal role in education and so on.

I'm not going to debate whether or not the statement itself is true. That isn't the most misleading thing... it is his failure to mention that these are also things you could say about Clinton, except many would say that Clinton's Health Care plan is more "liberal" than Obama's.

"On national security I am also concerned by Senator Obama. His opposition to the war in Iraq and discussion of a gradual process of withdrawal is a good idea, but he simply wants to pull out right away without any consideration of the long term impact."

So Obama's opposition to the war is a good thing. His discussion of a gradual process of withdrawal is a good idea. How did the author get from discussing a gradual withdrawal to withdrawing the troops immediately with no consideration? Did he suddenly confuse Obama and Richardson?

All that aside, there were more alarming things:

"The next four years are not going to be pleasant for whoever takes over the White House. On the domestic scene we have the falling dollar, the mortgage crisis, a slumping economy and a number of other brewing problems.

Internationally we have Iraq, the war on Terror, growing threats from China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. Other issues like trade and immigration combine the worst of both arenas."

I have to agree that the job of the next president is not going to be pleasant. I just think that these "growing threats" from our infamous go-to bad guys is a little overblown. I have a feeling that a more diplomatic presence in the seat of power in our country will relax a lot of tension in the world. A question I have to ask is: Do we really have growing threats from these countries, or is our relationship with them damaged by a president who doesn't play nice with others? President Bush, although some would say it is his strongest point, has not been that great for US foreign policy.

As for Iraq, you have to wonder just how dire the circumstances are there. I'm very happy with Obama's questions to Gen. Petraeus. It really reflected how I've been feeling lately about Iraq. We should have went in with an idea of what success in Iraq was. Instead, the terms of success were never clearly stated to the general public going into Iraq, and any measure of success that we could see (WMDs, Saddam, Iraq freedom...) were always replaced with something else. The only thing we can hope for now is relative success... and we may be closing in on a point where our continued presence only hinders the chances for that relative success.

I have to wonder... is our involvement persisting in Iraq because our president views the avenues for relative success in Iraq as failure? Any time that someone mentioned a plan to get out of Iraq, it was denounced as "cut and run.". The next president might have a much easier time dealing with Iraq than we think if it turns out that the only reason we are still there is that they think leaving will be seen as weak. I think we've got to decide where our priorities are. The men that President Bush was supposed to be after with the War on Terror, Bin Laden and his fellow terrorist leaders, are still out there. No amount of fighting in Iraq will change that. At this point, our priorities are either here or there. The sooner we can focus our attention on the home front, the better it is for everyone.

"From my point of view, there is little chance that the next President will have much success in solving these problems, largely because they are far too complex to resolve and well beyond the control of any person or any country.

I think this is true largely because I do not think that the problems were created by any one administration or country. It is of course all too common in modern politics for one side to blame the other for the bad things or to try and take credit for the good, and often it works."

My main problem with this is its misleading nature. Sometimes there is unwarranted blame placed on the predecessor. This isn't one of those cases. If we can't look back at the Bush Presidency and see how he exacerbated all of the above issues, both domestic and foreign, then we must be blind. We know who is to blame for Iraq, because it was unprompted. We invaded them for no substantial reason and, even if there was reason to invade, it certainly didn't have to happen like this. But that is a big IF.

Without getting out of Iraq, I don't see the next President being able to turn the other issues around either. That is why not being there should be the highest priority.

He goes on to say....

"History has shown us that when one party gets too much power it is a very bad thing for the country. We can see this in many parts of the country today where one party has been in complete control and the result is corruption and stagnation.

Many people were concerned when Bush and the GOP held the White House and Congress, but even then the numbers in Congress were close enough for the Democrats to provide something of a check.

Imagine how bad things could be with no check at all, such as occurred during periods under FDR or LBJ. The results then were abuses of power that make the Bush period look mild (for those who wonder, I used these two Democratic examples because the GOP has not recently had those kinds of super majorities)."

I find it VERY odd that suddenly FDR and LBJ are the subject of so much ire. FDR is undenibly one the the best presidents we've ever had. This is why he consistently ranks with Presidents like Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson. LBJ's biggest flub was not domestic, but foreign. I took a pretty good look at the effects of the Great Society programs, and I can honestly say that they were not ineffective. They worked, but not as good as Johnson predicted. These programs were long term solutions that could not get the focus they deserved because of the Vietnam war and were dismantled and/or cut before the long term effects were realized. LBJ's opposition brilliantly latched on to the perceived weakness with the War on Poverty and his actual weakness as a "war president", and tore it and him apart.

Oddly enough, it was Nixon who supported Universal Health Care and implemented SSI. In the end, all of these presidents did less harm to the US economy than Reagan, whose spending and economic changes allowed for a presidency like GWB's to occur.

You can read the article for yourself here.