Bring It On

A Daughters Letter

Jessica Blankenbecler, 14, e-mailed this final letter to her father, Command Sgt. Maj. James Blankenbecler, at 1:29 a.m. on Friday, Oct. 3, 2003, two days after he was killed when his convoy was ambushed in Samara, Iraq.

Hat tip to Ross, click here to check out a very touching video he put together to honor the fallen.

Hi Daddy,

Sorry I haven't written to you in a while. A lot of things have been going on. I miss you so much. How have you been? Is heaven everything it says it is? I know it's probably that and more. I can't wait 'till I can come join you again. I miss you so much - just being here for me to hold your hand and you calling me "princess." But one day we can do this again. But it will be even better because Jesus will be with us. I keep going in your office to see all your things and your awards that you have gotten over the years. You accomplished so much. I am proud you were my daddy; I would not have chosen anyone else. I like to go into your closet, too and just touch and smell all your clothes ... it gives me so many memories that I miss so much. Sitting at this table I see your writing on a little piece of paper telling me and mom what e-mail and address in Iraq to write to you ... CSM JAMES D. BLANKENBECLER, 1-44 ADA. I love to just look at your handwriting so much. I have your military ring on right now. It's kind of big for my little finger, but it makes me feel you're holding my hand when I have it on....

It's been on since we found out the news. I have your driver's license with me, too, so I can just look at you whenever I want. You have a little smile this time. When we went to get them done in El Paso I asked you to just smile this time ... and you did it just for me. I also was looking at your car keys and that little brown leather pouch you always had on your key chain. It made me cry a lot when I picked it up. Everything reminds me of you so much. When we pass by Chili's I remember you sitting across from me eating your favorite salad. You always told the waiter to take off the little white crunchy things ... because you hated them. And when we drive by billboards that say "An Army of One," it makes me remember you in your military uniform. How you always made a crunching sound when you walked, and how you shined your big boots every night before you went to bed. I miss seeing that all the time. Little things that I took for granted when you were here seem priceless now. One thing that I regret is when you wanted to open my car door for me, but I always got it myself. I wish I would have let you do it. And when you wanted to hold my hand, I sometimes would pull away because I didn't want people to see me holding my daddy's hand ... I feel so ashamed that I cared what people thought of me walking down the parking lot holding your hand. But now I would give anything just to feel the warmth of your hand holding mine.

I can't believe this has happened to my daddy ... the best daddy in thewhole world. It feels so unreal, like you're still in Iraq. You were only there for 17 days. Why did they have to kill you? Why couldn't they know how loved you are here? Why couldn't they know? You have so many friends that love you with all their hearts and you affected each and every person you have met in your lifetime. Why couldn't they know? When I get shots at the hospital I won't have my daddy's thumb to hold tight. Why couldn't they know I loved for you to call me "princess"? Why couldn't they know if they killed you I would not have a daddy to walk me down the aisle when I get married? Why couldn't they know all this? Why? I know that you are gone now, but it only means that I have another angel watching over me for the rest of my life. That's the only way I can think of this being good. There is no other way I can think of it.

All the kids at my school know about your death. They even had a moment of silence for you at our football game. A lot of my teachers came over to try to comfort me and mom. They all ask if they can get us anything, but the only thing anyone can do is give me my daddy back ... and I don't think anyone can do that. You always told me and mom you never wanted to die in a stupid way like a car accident or something like that. And you really didn't die in a stupid way ... you died in the most honorable way a man like you could - protecting me, mom, Joseph, Amanda and the rest of the United States.

In the Bible it says everyone is put on this earth for a purpose, and once they accomplished this you can return to Jesus. I did not know at first what you did so soon to come home to God. But I thought about it - you have done everything. You have been the best husband, father, son and soldier in the world. And everyone knows this.

One of my teachers called me from El Paso and told me that when her  dad died. he always told her, "when you walk outside the first star you see is me." She told me that it is the same for me and you. I needed to talk to you last night, and I walked outside and looked up ... and I saw the brightest star in the sky. I knew that was you right away, because you are now the brightest star in heaven.

I love you so much, daddy. Only you and I know this. Words can't even begin to show how much. But I tried to tell you in this letter, just a portion of my love for you. I will miss you, daddy, with all of my heart. I will always be your little girl and I will never forget that...

I love you daddy, I will miss you!!

P.S. I have never been so proud of my last name.
Sunrise - June 27, 1963
Sunset - October 1, 2003

Body Count

Written by: Liberal Jarhead

This is Liberal Jarhead's response to the first comment left on this post.

James,

Pretty impressive numbers you tossed out. Now let's compare the population of California to the number of Americans and Brits in Iraq and get per capita death rates.

The US Census Bureau estimates that 35,893,799 people lived in that state as of 2004, making that about 1 homicide for every 14,933 people. The combined US and UK troop strength in Iraq is about 160,000, making that one death for every 177 troops. In other words, the casualty rate in Iraq is over 84 times the murder rate in California. So which place would you rather take your chances? Ready to sign up, get that "we O U body and vehicle armor" chit, and go on patrol in Baghdad? I didn't think so.

As the man said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Which category does your misleading presentation of the numbers fall into?

Anyway, you can't measure the rightness or wrongness, necessity or otherwise, evil or less evil of a war by body counts. Human beings are not beans, no matter what the bean counters think, and that the fact that fewer Americans have died than in other wars doesn't make this okay. They used to call this kind of war LIC, or Low Intensity Conflict, as if it was less of a big deal than a High Intensity Conflict; but as the tactics instructors at Quantico used to tell us, if you're the one with the sucking chest wound, it's pretty fucking high intensity as far as you're concerned that day.

If this war were for a legitimate cause, as WW2 was, deaths (of whatever nationality) would be necessary but still tragic and obscene, the lesser of evils. When the whole thing is based on lies, egos, and self-delusions, it's not necessary - just tragic and obscene.

I had an epiphany when I was 18, the first time I had to search a mangled corpse for ID and try to match up the pieces (there were lots of mismatched pieces that day) and get them all together in the right body bag. I realized that if it was a movie, there would have been some sweet wistful music playing, and it would have all had some higher meaning. But all I could hear was the buzzing of the flies, and there was no higher meaning, and it smelled like the devil's barbecue, and it was making me crazy that I couldn't get the sticky gore off my hands (I can't stand the feel of finger foods to this day.) I realized that this was horror, and my job was to try my hardest to do this to other people while they tried to do it to my friends and me. And I felt an obscene shame and humiliation at having been naive enough to buy into the glamorization and the intellectualization and the tough-guy rhetoric.

Yes, when we volunteer we commit ourselves to fight where we are sent. It has to be that way, because if the military starts usurping those decisions from the civilian government, you end up with a military dictatorship. My prayer was never "Don't let them send me to die." But it sure as hell was "Don't let them throw my life away - if they're going to spend me, make it for a good reason."

There have been a very few wars that were necessary, but this isn't one of them. If it was, they wouldn't have needed to make up one lie after another to justify it - they could have just told the truth about their reasons and most of the American people would have understood and agreed.

I am a proud patriotic Democrat who put my ass on the line for 20 years to protect my country, unlike that strutting bully Bush who got Daddy to help him dodge it, unlike Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Frist, Delay, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. (Rumsfeld did serve, and John McCain is a hero - but Bush trashed McCain.) And I am AWAKE, thank you very much. When I was 18, I was a conservative Republican. Those 20 years turned me into a liberal Democrat.

We have been lied to by both Republicans and Democrats many times - but this administration is the most dishonest and corrupt since at least Harding and possibly ever. And the fact that Democrats have lied doesn't make it okay for Republicans to lie, any more than it works the other way around when Democrats are in power. Any administration that starts an illegitimate war or, if it inherits one, continues it a day longer than necessary to get out in a reasonable way, is guilty of crimes against humanity.

By their fruits ye shall know them... look at who is benefiting from this war. No one, except contractors, Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, and the Republicans in 2004. A pretty damn weird way to fight a war on terrorists (not war on terror - terror is an emotion, not a country, not a group of people, not a political movement. Anyway, on the American political scene, this administration has done more to scare Americans than Bin Laden has.) If I was going to fight terrorists, I wouldn't do it by polarizing the formerly moderate and fairly friendly majority of Muslims against us, turning Iraq into a permanent recruiting film and training ground for them, grinding the US military into the dust, breaking the US economy in the process, and cutting funding for domestic first responders and veterans' benefits.

This isn't about Democrats and Republicans. It's about what's good for this country. And what's happening now isn't good.

The Fighting Dems...

One thing that has to have you wondering is why are there so many veterans returning home to run as Democrats as opposed to Republicans. I mean we aren’t talking about 50/50 here; we are talking about an ass kicking.

You think it might have anything to do with the complete incompetence in which the war was waged? You think it might have anything to do with the fact that soldiers can see through the thinly veiled mask of gross negligence that blankets the Bush Administration?

As of now there are 11 Iraqi War veterans who will be running on the Democratic ticket come next November, how many does the GOP have? 2.

Could it be a sense of national service, one that they know can only fulfilled by joining the ranks of the new Democratic Party? Could it be a sense of urgency brought on by being in the middle of the biggest military quagmire since

Somalia?

Politics don’t belong to the soldier, matters that politicians quibble over mean nothing on the battlefield, all that matters to a soldier who has bullets flying over his head is an intense and burning desire to make it home and make sure the guy standing to his right and left are coming home with him. Let the officials back home worry about school vouchers, let them worry about defending our social systems, let the men in the suits argue about the necessities of protecting the environment.

It’s all meaningless if you don’t make it home.

If there is one thing that the modern GOP needs to worry about it is men and women hardened by the battlefield. Men and women who are instilled with values, men and women who will not bend to pressures from either big business or the new American Taliban. Men and women who have one central and uniting strength; integrity.

I can’t say I know why a disproportionate number of veterans are running as Democrats, but I can take a few stabs at it. They probably realize that the modern GOP in an effort to save its soul has sold their soul to the highest bidder. It’s all about the power, being in control at all cost to the GOP, they no longer concern themselves with their task of looking out for Americans and making

America a better place for future generations.

They are more concerned with funding bridges that go no where; they are more concerned with legislation defending the symbols of a corporate

Christmas.

If there is one thing that these Fighting Dems are looking for it is integrity, one thing that the GOP no longer has.

They have energy and they have the strength to pull our party together, they have to strength to bring the imploding GOP to its knees.

More on the fighting Dems:

L. Tammy Duckworth (IL-06)
David Harris (TX-06)
Andrew Duck (MD-06)
Patrick Murphy (PA-08)
Paul Hackett (OH-Sen)
Bryan Lentz (PA-07)
David Ashe (VA-02)

Fighting Dems website from The Majority Report...

America: Seduced By War

Dr. Andrew Bacevich is a graduate of West Point and a Vietnam veteran. He’s currently a Professor of International Relations at Boston University.

His newest book is titled “The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War.”

Bacevich describes himself as conservative, and he says Americans have become seduced by a “military metaphysic.” All international problems are seen as military problems, and inevitably a military solution is always sought. It’s a variation on that old saying: if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

According to Bacevich, up through the end of World War II, America’s military needs were always gauged by the current situation. At the end of all of our major wars – including the Civil War, World War I and World War II – the extra troops raised for that war were disbanded when they were no longer needed.

Since the end of the Cold War, America has valued military power for its own sake. It’s now standard policy to maintain military capacity far beyond that of any adversary or any possible combination of adversaries. The defense budget is now 12% larger (adjusted for inflation) than the average defense budget during the Cold War era.

“By some calculations” (sorry, the author doesn’t get more specific than that) the United States now spends more on defense than every other country in the world put together. There’s no historical precedent for anything like this.

There are American bases and forces in dozens of countries. A lot of these countries are perfectly capable of providing their own defense. In every corner of the world, U.S. forces are training, planning, exercising. This has been standard for so long now that practically nobody – liberal or conservative – gives it a second thought.  It’s gradually become the norm, sort of like a huge glaring billboard that you’ve gotten used to and now you don’t even notice it any more.

Bacevich says “Whether any correlation exists between this vast panoply of forward-deployed forces on the one hand and antipathy to the United States abroad on the other has remained for the most part a taboo subject.”

I first heard of Andrew Bacevich through this article written by Pastor Anthony Robinson.

At some point in our recent history, “religious” leaders began promoting a “Crusade theory of warfare.” This has replaced the earlier doctrine of “Just War.” Under the mindset of the Crusade theory, supposedly “preventive” wars – like the Iraqi invasion – are justified.

This is a carryover from the Cold War. Some conservative religious leaders framed the Cold War as a worldwide struggle between Christianity and godless communism. In order to maintain our Crusade mindset, Islam has now been substituted for communism. Franklin Graham (Billy’s offspring) has denounced Islam as “a very evil and wicked religion.”

Other “Christian” leaders just lash out blindly at anyone and everyone who doesn’t meet their approval. Southern Baptist President Jack Graham has said, “Satan is the ultimate terrorist” and “this is a war between Christians and the forces of evil, by whatever name they choose to use.”

Yup, there’s evil everywhere, and it’s our job to stamp it out.

Ironically, during the third century some Christians splintered off into their own branch (called Manichaeism). This school of “Christianity” divided the world into good and evil, and thought it was the duty of all “good” people to stamp out evil. Manichaeism was branded by the Church as heresy from the time it first reared its head. It blinded people to their own capacity for evil, and it made self-delusion too easy.

As we can see, the Manichaeism school of “Christianity” has been alive and well in America for the past few decades.

Under our traditional doctrine of a Just War, war is considered the last option. In order to be “just,” a war has to meet the following requirements: “just cause” (i.e. self-defense); public declaration of war by a lawful authority; and no ulterior motives (vengeance, personal gain, etc.).

Which of these criteria does the Iraqi war meet?

“Christian” leaders who are pushing this modern-day Crusade have betrayed their faith. Andrew Bacevich – a Christian and a soldier – believes Christianity should serve as a check against the excesses of war and an over-reliance on the military. Christians should not be cheerleading for war.

cross-posted at Who Hijacked Our Country

Bush - A Dimestore Stickup Artist

The following is a comment in response to this post by Liberal Jarhead

Hoy, Jarheads! I'm a twenty-year man, myself. And this 'war president' reminded me of a story told by a Marine aviator who saved his own life by skillful use of his service pistol - yes, the ubiquitous 1911A1 .45. He was shot down in Korea while covering an urgent rearward advance, and held off the enemy patrol until his own troops could extricate him to safety.

He would sit at the picnic table in the back yard and (lovingly, reverently) clean it as he told us that story. Strong stuff for ten-year olds. Apparently, though, his kid was unimpressed; he swiped his dad's gun and used it to stick up a liquor store. Nobody got hurt, but the cops caught him and the gun was destroyed after the judge sent him to prison. The old man was never the same after that. His old, trusted friend was gone, and dishonorably at that.

The gun wasn't a bad thing or a good thing - just a thing. It's having been used to save (his) life made it a noble thing. The kid profaned that nobility by using it for a completely selfish and ignoble purpose.

So it is with the president and his military (which is really OUR military). The military is neither good or bad, it is made noble or ignoble by the way it is used. By the way in which we allow it to be used.

This president is brandishing OUR military like a dimestore stickup artist brandishes a Saturday Night Special. In doing so, he dishonors not only the commitment of those serving today, but the commitment of all who have served throughout our history. He turns them into thugs and gunsels.
When we put on the uniform of our country, we mindfully place our lives in forfeit for our nation. But more than that, we agree to do the things which are not acceptable in civilized society. We willfully suspend our deeply ingrained prohibitions on killing, for instance. And in doing so, we are forever changed.

So, when we are ordered to do so and it turns out that the reasons are ignoble, are lies,... then the commitment, the sacrifice, the honor of service to our nation and it's ideals is voided and becomes merely the actions of another well trained, well equipped gang of thugs. Another mob of Vandals or Huns acting as muscle for an Empire.

Tale Number One: Demoralization

written by: Liberal Jarhead

Bush took a swipe at his congressional critics and opposition Democrats, saying that although he respected a healthy debate on his Iraq policy, it was discouraging American forces in Iraq.

"For our men and women in uniform, this debate can be unsettling," Bush said. "When you're risking your life to accomplish a mission, the last thing you want to hear is that mission being questioned in our nation's capital. While there may be a lot of heated rhetoric in Washington, DC, one thing is not in dispute: The American people stand behind you," he said.

After being one of the troops for 20 years, I think I can talk about what really demoralizes the troops.

When you’re in uniform, the things most likely to demoralize you are apathy on the home front and the awareness that the decision-makers don’t value or respect you. One thing that is painfully obvious is that the President and his people don’t give our military people credit for being very bright or very observant. Message for them: we pay more attention than anyone else to how their actions actually affect the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines that have to walk their talk. We pay attention to how much attention they pay to us when we try to give them input or feedback based on our experience. These guys keep making the classic boot lieutenant mistake of thinking it’s a sign of weakness or something to get the advice of their subordinates who are the experts on the task at hand.

I was enlisted for nine years, then an officer for eleven, and when I got commissioned I knew that my Staff NCOs and NCOs would make me or break me – I’d been one of them. So everything that had to be done I ran past them, and got their input before making a plan, and listened when (not if) they spotted holes in the plan. Then I looked out for their interests while they got the job done. And things worked out great, after which my main function was to make sure they got the recognition and credit they deserved for our success. That’s the opposite of the way these guys are operating, and that’s damned demoralizing. They ignore the input of their generals when it isn’t what they want to hear, and when something bad happens (Abu Ghraib?) they blame the troops instead of standing up and saying, "Yes, I was in charge, so I was responsible for making sure this didn’t happen – I failed as a leader. I take the hit along with the troops that actually committed the offenses."

Lip service without substance behind it is demoralizing, as in seeing people wave flags and hug the more photogenic troops for the cameras, right before you go back to your muddy hole in the ground and running patrols at 2:00 a.m. while they go back to Washington and try to cut your combat pay and the benefits they’ve promised to your food-stamp-dependent family and to you in the future as a possibly disabled vet … so they can give another tax break to Bill Gates and Donald Trump and vote themselves another raise to their already-six-figure salaries and then go on vacation for a few weeks.

Being used as toy soldiers and crowd extras for dog-and-pony show photo ops – e.g., being lined up in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner or getting served plastic turkey by a plastic turkey - is demoralizing. I’ve always thought that must be what it’s like to be one of those dogs whose owners dress them in humiliating costumes and parade them around. It does a pretty thorough job of rubbing your nose in the fact that to them, you are an object, a minor prop for their narcissism.

Being given defective equipment, or not getting the necessary equipment at all, is about as demoralizing as it gets – you’re far from home and utterly dependent on those people, and they’re letting you down. Kind of like when your deadbeat dad doesn’t pay his child support and you don’t have a coat for school for the winter, except a lot worse – very few children die because of deadbeat dads, but lots of soldiers and Marines die when Uncle Sam welshes. Ask the guys who became unwitting beta testers for the not-ready-for-prime-time version of the M-16; the folks digging through scrap heaps and welding hillbilly armor onto non-armored hummers that weren’t meant for combat use are in the same kind of fix.

It’s terrifyingly demoralizing to be deployed for your second, third or fourth tour in a place where the situation keeps slowly sliding downhill, more of the citizens hate and fear you every day, and you can almost see the odds stacking up against you making it home in one piece – while people who have never been and will never be shot at strike belligerent poses, talk about your willingness to sacrifice for a noble cause, and from behind fortifications two continents away, invite the people down the street from you who are trying to kill you and your friends to "Bring it on!" Being put in a three-way shooting gallery with a target painted on your back, like Reagan did to the Marines and their Navy Corpsmen in Beirut.

Here are some things that are not demoralizing – they’re morale-boosting.

It’s wonderful to hear that most Americans are concerned enough about your safety and welfare, paying enough attention to know about and raise hell about demoralizing things like those we talked about above.

It’s morale-building when people on the home front demand that you be given satisfactory equipment.

It’s great for morale to learn that mainstream America is making the administration stop trying to cut your pay and benefits while you're getting shot at.

When you read in the newspaper or a magazine that Congress and your senior military leaders are yelling that the multiple combat deployments are grinding you, your family, and your gear into the dust and something has to change, it feels good to know they see your pain and are trying to do something about it.

When you can see that what’s in front of your face doesn’t match what the plastic turkeys are telling people, and that more and more people are raising the bullshit flag and demanding straight answers that make sense, it feels pretty good – validating, as the psychologists say.

Bush is operating at the same level of moral and emotional development as a child of about three. You know, that age when you catch the kid with his hand in the cookie jar, and he stares at you with his hand still in the jar and tells you he didn’t do it. The age when everything’s about them. So if something is demoralizing them, it must be demoralizing the troops that are just extensions of their egos! Kind of like the woman who told her daughter she couldn’t buy the red dress she wanted because "I don’t look good in red."

Truth is, Mr. Bush, each of those troops is a real human with his or her own life, dreams, worries, and so on, and believe it or not, you aren’t the center of that human’s universe – he or she is. So something demoralizing you may suit them just fine.

Truth is, most of us are gaining nothing and losing our freedoms, our treasure that we could be using to help people here at home in a thousand ways, and most of all a steady stream of our loved ones coming home (at night, no photos allowed) in boxes or wheelchairs. That demoralizes me. The only people demoralized by criticism of this war are the people who are financially and ideologically invested in it, i.e., war profiteers and neocons.

Truth is, as an old friend used to say, the truth doesn’t give a damn whether you believe it or not. It just sits there grinning at you and being true. Whether you find it demoralizing or not.

Iraq: Exit Strategy

Since John Murtha set off a firestorm with his blunt diagnosis of the Iraqi quagmire, more and more conservative hawks have “come out.” Most senior Pentagon officials are thinking about an exit strategy rather than how to win the Iraqi war.

As Robert Dreyfuss says in this Rolling Stone article,    George Bush is just about the only person in Washington these days who doesn't know that the United States has lost the war in Iraq. Top U.S. generals in Iraq are saying there’s no longer a military solution; our presence in Iraq is detrimental.

Because of our continued presence there, ethnic rivalries in Iraq are stronger than ever, and Iraq’s civil war threatens to spill over into Iran, Turkey and the entire Arab world. The groups in Iraq who hate each other all agree on one thing: they don’t want foreign troops occupying their country.

Max Cleland, former Democratic Senator from Georgia, said “the key word in 'exit strategy' is not ‘exit’ but 'strategy.’ ” Cleland is a Vietnam veteran who lost both legs and an arm in combat. He was slandered out of office by America’s most infamous chickenhawk, Saxby Chambliss. Chambliss ran a series of TV ads where Max Cleland’s picture would segue into a picture of Osama bin Laden. Too many stupid voters fell for it, and Cleland was out.

Cleland also said “we need an exit strategy that we choose – or it will certainly be chosen for us. I've seen this movie before. I know how it ends.”

The main argument for staying in Iraq is that the region is so volatile and unpredictable, it needs America’s presence to serve as a steadying hand. Bush 43 has said “this enemy considers every retreat of the civilized world as an invitation to greater violence. In Iraq, there is no peace without victory.”

But more and more hardliners are thinking just the opposite: that America’s presence in Iraq is increasing the hatred and violence. General William Odom, National Security Director under President Reagan and currently affiliated with the rightwing Hudson Institute, says the longer we remain in Iraq, the more of a haven it becomes for Islamic terrorists. Our continued presence is also giving Iran more and more influence in the region.

America’s presence in Iraq is the single largest recruiting tool for Islamic terrorists. This recruiting pitch would start to evaporate after U.S. troops have pulled out.

The most popular argument against setting a timetable for withdrawal is that the insurgents could just keep a low profile until after we’ve pulled out, and then let ‘er rip. But other people are taking the opposite view: setting a timetable would force rival groups to settle their differences themselves without relying on U.S. troops. Wayne White, a former senior intelligence official on Iraq said “For better or worse, the United States has to step back and let Iraqis do it themselves.”

Another thing we need to do is (warning to conservatives: an offensive swear word will follow) – negotiate. No, not with the terrorists, but with the least radical of the groups, who probably represent most of the population. Wayne White also said “there is a whole rainbow of armed groups, including organizations that are tired of fighting and want to make a deal.”

Retired Gen. Joseph Hoar, chief of the U.S. Central Command for Bush 41, said “the reality is, you've got to talk. But this administration is so fucking stupid. They've pissed in the soup.” Hoar thinks Jordan’s King Abdullah would be a good negotiator among the United States, the interim Iraqi government and the resistance.

The Russian government has been pushing for over a year to have this type of conference. A spokesman for the Russian mission to the United Nations said “we have favored the idea of bringing in the Iraqi opposition – the patriotic, nationalist opposition. We are not talking about the jihadists, but the legitimate nationalist forces.”

The United Nations, Europe and Russia should all be involved in brokering a settlement. Max Cleland said “you need the international community to cover your rear end as you get out.” Retired General Wesley Clark blasted the Bush administration for seeking only a military solution. He said “why are you putting all this on the military? You and your neocons, you and Dick Cheney, you got us into this. You've got to think about diplomacy.”

Clark says Syria and every other neighboring country needs to be involved in settling the conflict. He said “it’s in the interest of all these countries to want us to leave. They don't want a big conflict in the region.”

The American ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War said “the two countries we most need the help of are Syria and Iran. But instead of trying to involve them, we’re upping the ante by confronting them.”

So, is it possible that we might set a timetable for withdrawal, start negotiating and get out of this endless “stay the course” loop? Maybe the top military commanders can persuade Rumsfeld to talk sense to Bush. Karl Rove, seeing how the Iraqi quagmire is dragging down the administration, might persuade Bush of the importance of ending the war. We can hope.

cross-posted at Who Hijacked Our Country

Off to See the Wizard

I've never been a big fan of George Jr., but I have to admit that I supported the invasion of Iraq, at first.  When Bush announced on national television that Saddam Hussein was actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program and insinuated that 'the proof could be in the form of a mushroom cloud' it freaked me out more than a little bit.

What we've found out since then, though, has really pissed me off. And while commenters here at BIO have pointed out, quite correctly, that the Downing Street Memos alone are not enough damning evidence to call the Bush administration out on the carpet, those documents should be prompting our legislators to demand explanations for the nagging questions that they raise.

What did we hope to gain by deposing Hussein? Why was military intervention unavoidable? What was so goddamned urgent that it couldn't await more international support? What contingency plans did we have in the event that non-conventional weapons were unleashed against US troops? What did we plan to do if our opponents didn't 'lay down and die'? What was our long term plan for the reconstruction of Iraq?

Enquiring minds want to know.

The Downing Street Memos may not be a 'smoking gun', but they are a sharp report in an identifiable direction. That our one major ally in all of this was asking these questions beforehand certainly raises concerns that deserve to be addressed.  This is especially true now, several years later, when the toll in human lives and taxpayer dollars continues to grow by the day.

I'd like to present you with a tongue-in-cheek look at the 'whopper' that kicked off the invasion, a few of the more eyebrow-raising quotes from the Downing Street Memos, some low blows, and a gratuitous shot of Monica Lewinsky -- all set to the Beatles. ( I never got a call back from Paul McCartney, but somehow I don't think he or John would mind.)

Bush Escalates the War Rhetoric (Again)

The best defense is a good offense, and Bush sure got plenty of mileage out of that truism last Friday.  He used Veterans’ Day as  an opportunity   to attack opponents of the Iraqi war.  He also pretended he was just horrified and insulted that anyone could have doubted his motives for the invasion.

He got so carried away with his attacks and pro-war rhetoric that he barely had time to mention anything about the millions of veterans who were supposed to be honored on this day.  Bush continued his Karl Joseph Goebbels Rove tactic of equating criticism of the Iraqi war with “undermining and demoralizing” the troops.  Referring to his critics, Bush said “these baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America’s will.”

You’d think that with the easy, cushy military “service” that Bush performed during the Vietnam war, he’d at least have some sympathy for those who didn’t get out of Vietnam or Iraq by begging Daddy to make a few phone calls.  There but for the grace of his family connections…

Again today,  just before leaving for an image-building trip to Asia (::smirks:: sometimes a comedy skit just writes itself), Bush got off another parting shot.  He accused his critics of “sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy.  That is irresponsible.”

Meanwhile, whatever anyone thinks of the war in Iraq, one inescapable fact gets clearer every day:   “The Army’s commitments have dangerously and rapidly expanded, while recruitment has plunged” according to  the New York Times. 

Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Operation Truth  is a former Army lieutenant who served in Iraq.  He said soldiers “feel like they’re the only ones sacrificing.”  Operation Truth is an advocacy group for service members and veterans.  When Rieckhoff was asked what was happening with the Army, he said “the wheels are coming off.”

Rieckhoff also said soldiers are “starting to look around and say ‘you know, it’s me and my buddies over and over again, and everybody else is living life uninterrupted.’”  It sure seems that way.  Some people are getting killed or wounded in Iraq; others are living uninterrupted easy lives cruising along with Support The Magnetic Ribbon Industry Support Our Troops plastered all over their vehicles.  It’s too easy to be a fierce devotee of the Iraqi war without making a single sacrifice for it.  People who just give lip service to supporting the war are upstanding Patriotic Americans; veterans who question the war “hate America.”  Go figure.

As the motto at  Operation Yellow Elephant    goes:  “It’s their war.  Why aren’t they fighting it?”

Rieckhoff also said “As sustained combat in Iraq makes it harder than ever to fill the ranks of the all-volunteer force, newly released Pentagon demographic data show that the military is leaning heavily for recruits in economically depressed rural areas where youths’ need for jobs may outweigh the risks of going to war.”

And don’t forget the ever-rising maximum age for enlisting — currently 39 and climbing.  At some point, retirees might be spending their golden years fighting in Iraq instead of working at McDonalds.

Operation Truth released a statement responding to Bush’s Veterans’ Day speech: 

On Veterans’ Day, the President spoke a lot about the reasons for the war in Iraq, but very little about how he plans to take care of the people fighting that war, and what the future holds for them.  Those of us who fought in Iraq deserve to know why we became Veterans in the first place. On today of all days there should be consensus on the need to rise above partisan bickering over who said what in Washington and begin real investigations into prewar intelligence. It’s unfortunate that the President doesn’t think he owes that to the people who have been unwavering in their bravery while carrying out his plans.”

We’re all too familiar with the disgraceful scandals over the past year:  insufficient supplies (and inferior quality) of bullets and body armor; shortages of armored vehicles (with the manufacturer responding that they were never asked by the Pentagon to increase production); Rumsfeld dismissing a soldier’s question with “you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had,” etc.  There’s been too much of a disconnect between those who support this war — with rhetoric but no action — and those who are doing the fighting and dying.

Blind “patriotism” and character assassination of opponents are not the answer.  There have been too many divisive slogans and talking points:   “you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists,” “you can’t be against the war and support the troops,” people who criticize the war are “demoralizing our troops” and “aiding and abetting the enemy,” etc.

The Bush Administration may or may not be guilty of manipulating pre-war intelligence, but when Congressional Republicans keep thwarting any and all attempts to investigate, they look like they’re hiding something.  Almost three years ago this war was supposed to be a cakewalk that would only last a few weeks at the most, and there would be  no American casualties.

WHAT HAPPENED????

Either the planners of this war are so stupid they’d get lost in a one-room apartment, or the Iraqi invasion was part of a Neocon master plan that had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction or bringing democracy to Iraq.  Which is it?

We need to find out how our “intelligence” and predictions could have been so wrong, and how to prevent fuckups like this from ever happening again.  We need to be sure our troops have all the equipment they need while they’re over there and all the support they’ll need when they come back.

Last summer Operation Truth ran a full page newspaper ad urging Bush to ensure funding for veterans’ benefits.  The ad was titled “Mr. President, you’re either with us or against us.”

cross-posted at Who Hijacked Our Country

Another Vietnam - Iraq Parallel - Cooked Intel

From Political Gateway:

Vietnam calls report that false intelligence escalated war a 'historic fact'

HANOI, Nov 3 (PG) - Vietnam on Thursday described as a "historic fact" a US report that false intelligence given to the White House in 1964 led to the first major escalation of the Vietnam War.

A US historian has revealed that officials of the super-secret US National Security Agency knowingly provided erroneous intelligence to the White House about a clash between US and North Vietnamese ships in 1964.

Citing an internal NSA history that the agency has refused to release, independent historian Matthew Aid said NSA officials knew that their report about an alleged attack was false but covered up the error.

Reacting to the report, Vietnamese foreign ministry spokesman Le Dung told AFP: "Everybody knows that the Tonkin Gulf event in 1964 was created by the then US administration, using it as a reason to extend war to the whole territory of Vietnam. This is a historic fact."

The NSA officials' report was used to justify the US Congress's historic Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which gave then-president Lyndon Johnson authority to sharply increase military operations in Vietnam without declaring war.

Aid said he believed the NSA's deputy director blocked the release of the internal history in August because of parallels with the controversy over 'cooked' intelligence allegedly used to justify the US invasion of Iraq.

US Uses Napalm in Iraq

From Project Censored:

Reviewed by Cole Ryan and David Abbott

The U.S. has been secretly using napalm in Iraq despite a 1980 international ban on the use of incendiary weapons by the United Nations. The US never signed the UN protocol banning incendiary weapons and uses semantic deception to cover up the use of napalm by calling the weapons firebombs or Mk-77s. Sources follow.

Nice, huh?

Technorati Tags

Iraq War Napalm Crimes Against Humanity Firebombs MK-77s

Cross-posted to neo-hippie ramblings.

Libby's Indictment

Five indictments for Scooter Libby; none (so far) for Rove, Cheney or their sockpuppet named George.  OK, so it wasn’t the Holly Jolly Fitzmas that liberals were hoping for.  But it’s a little early for conservatives to start going “neener neener neener.”  Nobody’s out of the woods yet.

Perhaps Scooter Libby was just a wayward employee, doing illegal activities on his own, and Rove, Cheney and Bush would’ve been just shocked — shocked! — if they had any knowledge of this.  And if you believe that, I can get you a great deal on some oceanfront property in Kansas.

So where do we go from here?  Will Libby do the honorable thing and fall on his sword?  Will he sing like a canary (or make a noise like a pig, whichever metaphor you like better)?  Will he plead guilty to avoid a trial, and then be pardoned by Bush?

Did he act on his own, without any knowledge of his longtime bosses, or was he just following orders?  Let's take a closer look  at just who I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby is.

One of his nicknames is Dick Cheney’s Dick Cheney:  a quiet but powerful force behind the scenes.  In other words, the man behind the man behind the curtain.

He was one of the main architects of Bush’s policies in general, and the Iraqi invasion in particular.  He’s a longtime protégé of World Bank President (and Grand Wizard of the Neocons) Paul Wolfowitz.  A former co-worker described him as “a deep thinker and problem-solver who gives ‘discreet advice.’”

In 1992,  Libby and Wolfowitz co-wrote a policy guidance document for a post-Cold War defense posture.  This document stated that the U.S. should actively deter other nations from "aspiring to a larger regional or global role," use pre-emptive force to prevent countries from developing weapons of mass destruction, and act alone if necessary.  Sound familiar?  This version of the document was quashed after it got leaked to the New York Times, but its main ideas are clearly alive and well 13 years later.

Before the Iraqi invasion, Libby provided “evidence” of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and a connection between top Iraqi officials and al Qaeda.  Both claims have been discredited.

Like Bush, Libby went to Yale; graduated in 1972.  Like most members of the Bush Administration, he’s a fierce armchair warrior who’s willing to fight to the last drop of someone else’s blood.

He joined the State Department during Reagan’s first term.  He worked in the Pentagon during Bush 41’s term.  He also used to be a managing partner in the law firm of Dechert, Price and Rhoads.  One of his better-known clients was Marc Rich, the fugitive financier whom Bill Clinton pardoned in 2001.

Libby is one of the founding members of the Project for the New American Century, a rightwing think tank created in 1997.  This organization expands on the ideas that Libby and Wolfowitz first formulated in their 1992 document.

In addition to acting alone and using pre-emptive strikes, the PNAC advocates:  developing and deploying a global missile defense system; developing a “strategic dominance” of space; controlling the “International Commons” of cyberspace; and vastly increasing defense spending in order to pay for all these far-reaching ideas.

In addition to Libby, members of the PNAC include almost the entire roster of American Empire-builders:  Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Eliot Abrams (one of the architects of our 1980s adventures in Nicaragua), Jeb Bush, and William Kristol.

When Judith Miller was serving her 85-day prison sentence for refusing to name her source in the Valerie Plame investigation (which turned out to be Scooter Libby), Libby sent her a letter.  There was lots of speculation that maybe this letter contained some sort of secret code.  The letter said in part:

“You went to jail in summer. It is fall now. You will have stories to cover ...Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them. Come back to work — and life.”

Well, what do you think?  Secret code or just bad poetry?

Libby’s trial — assuming he doesn’t have a mysterious “accident” beforehand — promises to shine some light on the most secretive and unaccountable administration in our nation’s history.

cross-posted at Who Hijacked Our Country

From 9/11/2001 to 10/28/2005: a World Trade Center Survivor Story

Bonnie is a blogger who has become a real life friend of mine.  For as long as New Yorkers live we will hear each others 9/11 stories and be endlessly fascinated.  Bonnie can say to me "then I found myself next to Sbarro's," and I will know exactly where she was.  It was the defining day of our lives for many reasons; including: another day, another hour, another five minutes, I could have been killed.

So much has happened since then; it's been hard to heal.  We find ourselves in the unique position of having had a much loved, much used civilian complex attacked and yet being asked "why do you hate America so much?"  An offensive question if ever there was one. 

Bonnie left this comment on a post I did yesterday for my blog.  I asked if I could put it in Bring it on! because it expresses so much better than I can ever the feelings so many of us have been feeling.  And yes I also wanted the war in Afghanistan; for months before we entered Iraq I thought maybe...but by the time we did...

Yesterday felt as if there might be light at the end of the tunnel.  For the first time in so long we felt hope, and you don't know how how great that feels until you realize how helpless and hopeless you were feeling.

Hi. Full disclosure first, I am a regular reader & fan of Pia's blog.

I am also a NYC resident and I was AT the WTC on September 11th. I ran for my life and over 80 former co-workers there were not so fortunate. I was ferociously in favor of the war in Afghanistan; I have never been a big fan of Bush but I actually admired the way that the administration took the time to investigate & pull together a coalition rather than rushing blindly to attack.

But when Osama escaped justice, and the war drums started beating for Saddam, I felt like the administration was using Saddam to distract the rest of the country - (you can’t fool New Yorkers that way, we were there, we lived it, we knew the story and we didn't’t forget Osama even when months would go by without Bush so much as mentioning the name - that’s part of why so many of us have gone solidly into the anti-Bush camp) from noticing that we had failed to “smoke ‘em out”.

Eagerness for a war is a heinous thing, and I think Bush found the concept of being a “war president” a little too heady, was a little too eager to look around for more once the situation in Afghanistan began to quiet down. I wanted to see Osama captured; I wanted to see Afghanistan recover from the years after we congratulated the Mujaheddin for driving out the Soviets, then abandoned them to the tender mercies of the mullahs who invited Osama there to train the people who flew those planes into the towers above my head that day (if I had been 15 minutes earlier, or even made the wrong turn while I was fleeing, I do not know if I would still be here) - in short, I thought that what we did in Afghanistan was justified and for a good cause and I wanted to see us finish THAT mission (meaning seeing Afghanistan on her way to a true recovery and Osama on trial for 9/11).

Maybe attending more closely to that before rushing back to war would have made for a better, stronger, happier Afghanistan more quickly. Maybe that would’ve started some positive ripples spreading in a way that “shock and awe” never could - but that would’ve taken time & patience - and instead we rushed back into a second invasion that’s now entangled us there in a terrible way.

I felt utterly and very personally betrayed when suddenly that mission was replaced with Iraq. There was no proven connection between Iraq and the WTC but that was lost in the obfuscations leading up to the invasions. Al Qaeda is certainly there now - and the one thing that scares me that makes me hesitate to join in the “bring them home” chorus - is that I think that they WILL work to turn Iraq into what Afghanistan was before - but they are there BECAUSE OF OUR WAR. Let’s not lose sight of this. This war has us in a damned if we do, damned if we don’t situation the likes of which I’m not quite old enough to have seen before. And I hate it. And I wish that we actually knew what the majority of Iraqis wanted us to do because that is what I think I would want us to do.

Saddam was evil. I’m not arguing that fact. NOBODY is. Had the administration’s case in fact turned out to be true, I might even have been mollified. In fact I really would have LIKED to be wrong, it actually would have been so much better if things had happened the way Bush thought they were going to - would’ve been the most delicious crow ever served, I think.

As it is, that wasn’t the case - and now we’ve got 2,000 dead of our own plus 26K+ Iraqi casualties, which makes me ill - and Osama’s still free, and the Taliban is still in Afghanistan, and…and every revelation of even the SLIGHTEST underhanded dealing here at home feels like a little more betrayal. I trust these people less and less.

Can’t You Smell That Smell?

My eighteen year old nephew is in boot camp now. He is the fifth close friend or relative serving for me and millions of others. Two are Army, two are Air Force and one is Navy. Each is strong in mind and body. Each is ready for the challenge. Truly, these hands will hold us well.

How well are we holding them?

Citizens in this country are not railing against a political system that has a decades-long history of benefit attrition for veterans. We are comfortable with assumptions that confusing issues are best left to lawmakers. Who told us they were confusing? Why, I believe it was the lawmakers. Paint me skeptical.

When Osama bin Laden attacked America, I wanted his head on a pike. We sent our people out with that as their mission. Another nephew of mine went to Afghanistan we hoped and prayed for his success. I believed we are the most formidable force in the world. I knew success would be ours.

At that point in time, Bush should have asked Americans to forgo their tax cuts to fund our forces. There wasn’t an American in this country who would not have supported that idea.

Instead, he told us to go shopping. Shopping! It's been four years, and the still annoys the hell out of me.

Troops fighting against the people who attacked us were pulled and redeployed against a country that didn’t attack us. We have never been told why, at least not truthfully, but that can’t matter to the troops. They have their mission. They must remain focused. Our citizen mission is to demand accountability for their deaths and maimings.

Meanwhile, this administration’s round of Veteran’s benefits cuts began, partnered with an insidious attempt to re-classify which vets could even receive services. While Moms and Dads, neighbors and friends prayed for their service people, American tax money was diverted from Veteran’s benefit programs.

Three years later, congress is now looking at re-opening this year’s budget in an effort to add cuts to it.

So far, the federal government has allocated about $62 billion to help New Orleans and the Gulf Coast recover from Hurricane Katrina and rebuild, and some members of Congress have said final costs could approach $200 billion. With the federal budget soaring past $300 billion even before Katrina hit, conservatives threatened a revolt against House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's leadership if he didn't embrace further cuts. – Boston Globe

So, are the Gulf Coast evacuees and veterans what we care about? Are they immune to the budget pen?

Oh, yeah. Riiiight.

Democrats on the House budget committee released an analysis yesterday of the effect of the GOP cuts. They painted a dire portrait: $600 million less for veterans healthcare; a $40 million reduction on top of the $175 million already cut from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program; and $154 million from environmental programs, including those protecting water supplies and funding cleanups at Superfund sites. – Boston Globe

It’s a screw the poor, those that served and the planet we all just happen to call home kind of deal. The bloated transportation bill, the one that oinked all the way to Bush’s desk, is a sacred cow. The tax cuts that should have been repealed immediately after 9/11 are a sacred cow. These guys are making manure while the sun shines.

It’s a funky smelling farmyard in DC. Bad funky.

The next time you contact your representation, think about how they spend your money. Think about my 18 year-old nephew in full battle rattle, riding down check point Irish, hoping today isn’t HIS day. Hell, he can’t even drink yet. Think about the lies, the stolen and diverted funds, and the dishonor this administration shows our troops.

Then give them hell. It’s your money. It’s your country.

And VOTE, dammit!

Pat Robertson and Hugo Chavez

As we all know, this past summer Pat Robertson called for the assassination of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.  He’s “apologized” since then, but he still has Chavez in his crosshairs.

Robertson is privy to  some incredible intelligence information  that nobody else has.  Where does he get this info — from God?  According to Robertson’s secret hotline, Chavez tried to funnel money to Osama bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks.  He’s also trying to obtain nuclear materials from Iran.

Sounds like a variation on “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein has sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”  Is there a pattern here?  Let’s see, “Weapons of Mass Destruction!” has already been done.  Let’s change the wording a little.

Robertson said “The truth is, this man is setting up a Marxist-type dictatorship in Venezuela, he’s trying to spread Marxism throughout South America, he’s negotiating with the Iranians to get nuclear material and he also sent $US 1.2 million in cash to Osama bin Laden right after 9/11.  I apologized and I said I will be praying for him, but one day we will be staring at nuclear weapons and it won't be (Hurricane) Katrina facing New Orleans, it’s going to be a Venezuelan nuke.”

In addition to getting exclusive intelligence information — from God or whoever — Pat Robertson is also a meteorologist.     The forecast:  fire and brimstone, hurricanes, earthquakes, leading to the End of Times — and then The Rapture.  Hallelujah!!

Now, is Pat Robertson just an oddball, a wacko has-been televangelist who’s barely tolerated by our government?  Or is there a method here?  Maybe Robertson is serving a purpose.  Instead of the Bush Administration having to do even more saber-rattling — leave it to someone like Pat.  And if anyone calls him on it, they can just say “oh, come on, nobody listens to that doddering old fool.  Just let him ramble.  He’s harmless.”

Our government is very concerned about Hugo Chavez.   That is, the corporations that have our government by the shorthairs are threatened by him.  He’s a Leftist; his ambition is to redistribute wealth and reduce the gap between rich and poor.  This is intolerable to Bechtel, Halliburton, the oil companies and the international banking cartel.

OK, so his government sucks.  He’s taken away a lot of freedoms that Venezuela has enjoyed since 1958.  Do you think that’s why our government is worried about him?  Riiight.

Venezuela, along with Bolivia  to a lesser extent, has been thumbing its nose at its corporate colonizers.  Like most of Latin America, there’s a huge gap between Venezuela’s rich and poor.  The wealthiest people are mostly of European ancestry, and the poor — who make up the vast majority — are mostly Indians.  Chavez is trying — without much success so far — to remedy this.

Venezuela is experimenting with the kind of “socialism” that  Guatemala  was trying in the early 1950s.  The CIA organized a coup and overthrew their government in 1954.

If our government is terrified of communism spreading throughout Latin America, the best way to counter it would be to rein in the excesses of the corporations that control this region.  When millions of poor people are treated like just so much raw material by their colonizers, communism or socialism might sound like an alternative.  The grass is always greener…

Our “leaders” probably won’t drum up much interest by talking about the rights of Halliburton and the oil companies to acquire even more wealth.  It makes a much better sales pitch to push the right buttons — Communism is spreading like a cancer throughout Latin America!  Venezuela is acquiring nuclear weapons from Iran!  Chavez is donating money to Osama bin Laden!

Well, whaddya think?  Shall we topple Hugo Chavez?  Come on, it’ll be a cakewalk.  Our soldiers will be greeted as liberators.  They’ll be showered with candy and flowers by throngs of grateful Venezuelans.

Cross-posted at Who Hijacked Our Country

What, When, Where, Why and How?

Some people are born to blog.  JC of Further Ironies is. Both JC and her blog are part of the fabric of my life. Yes she can talk about issues better than almost anybody I know.  But there's something way comforting about JC. 

When I visit JC's blog I feel as if I'm sitting on her front porch looking at cornfields.  While I love front porches, I have never had a desire to sit and watch the corn grow. But I really enjoy it at JC's.

Now that I have said that I'm proud to show another side to JC.   As a mother of two sons who lives in Middle America, JC's words can make more of an impact than I could ever.  Why? She's walked the walk not just talked the talk.  Her words are powerful and haunting.

I went to the store today. Going to the store doesn’t sound like such a big deal, but it was for me today. I had to go; I didn’t have a choice with my empty cupboards, because my grandson had come to visit me. His visit delivered me from the TV news and many hours spent at the computer, searching for some word on the recent crisis situation in Louisiana.

I mentioned that I am a grandmother, but I am also an aunt and mother. In my dealings with the kids in my family, I’ve tried to teach them that life is about the choices. When you make a good choice, you usually have a good outcome; if you make a poor choice, you will pay a price for it. I question his election, so I can’t say that George W. Bush was the people’s choice. I can, however, say that many people have dealt with the consequences of that choice anyway, because of his leadership, or lack thereof--my own family among them. The president of the United States stands, not only as our representative, but as a symbol for who we are as Americans. Today, because of him, I have heard many say they are ashamed, due to the hurricane response. This is a day when even that other great symbol, our flag, should be flying half mast, not only for the loss of lives in New Orleans, but because it no longer has the ability to fly proudly, which it has done for as long as it’s represented our country.

My youngest son was born in a military hospital. His father had been a policeman and was a Vietnam-era veteran--he had spent his life serving the country. It shouldn’t have surprised me that my son would want to follow in his father's footsteps. My son wanted to serve in the armed forces. I was surprised though, and was all too aware that his service might put him in harm's way.

I think that the fact of potential military service during war time hits a mother almost as soon as her child is pronounced male. I realized it in the delivery room and I also found out that my son had a birth defect. The early years of his life were a nightmare of surgeries and pain. It was grueling for everyone, but my son made it through those years with a strength and character, which few adults display. By the time he was an adult, I felt that the worst of the hardships were over for him; that’s when he told me he wanted to join the service. I talked him out of enlisting full time, and suggested that instead he join the National Guard and finish school.

There was a question about whether he would pass his physical, because of his birth defect. He fought to be accepted and was enlisted. Just prior to leaving for boot camp, he found out that he was to become a father. He left, knowing that Shannon, his wife, would face her pregnancy alone. He found, while he was away, that his son would also have a birth defect. I am sure that being away made that knowledge even harder for him to bear. 

Since the attacks of 9-11, I have worried about my son being ordered to Iraq. Every mother would worry, but because he had already suffered so many hardships in life, I felt it would be terribly unfair. Of course, life isn’t fair; so even though he had just gotten married and had his whole life ahead, he got orders to deploy. Suddenly I was living a mother’s worst nightmare.

I am sure that he could have gotten out of going, for medical reasons, but his character precluded this. He would go proudly and fight for our country. The weeks leading up to his departure were difficult for all of us. At home, the night before he left, he stood watching his son asleep on the couch for a very, long time. It was as though he was trying to burn that image in his mind. He then reached out and gently touched his son's head. I knew that his heart was breaking. To see him struggle with saying goodbye to his son and his new wife broke my heart, too. The going-away ceremonies were emotional. As a mother, I wanted to be strong and supportive of the younger gals, yet all the while I was trying to deal with my own sorrow. It wasn’t just my grandchild crying in the group; it was all the children, mothers and wives. Each time they played “Proud to be an American,” the family members started to cry.  It was bittersweet. We didn’t want him to go, we may not have even believed in the morality of the war, but we wanted to support our soldier. We didn’t want his experience to be that of his Vietnam-era father; we wanted this young man to know how proud we were of him. I was and I am proud. I will continue to be proud of my soldier, yet at the same time I am angry about the war he has been sent to fight.

I no longer want to hear “Proud to be an American,” because today I’m not sure that I am. My pride in being an American is like the flag; it’s at half mast. I didn’t do anything wrong personally, yet like all Americans I bear the responsibility of our presidential choice. That responsibility continues to grow with each death in New Orleans as surely as the levee was breached.

When I first started to blog, it was an outlet for my feelings about our choice of president and also about the war. I couldn’t do this near my son; he needed to maintain a positive attitude as he headed for Iraq. He shouldn’t hear my feelings about the war, or the Commander in Chief, so I blogged anonymously to vent my feelings. As I wandered the blog world though, I realized that there were already great political blogs, so mine became more of a journal and tool to fight what I considered to be an unjust war.

As the months of his absence went by, I adjusted to his being gone. I feel that I haven’t been able to take a deep breath since he left, the ensuing lack of oxygen has snuffed the flames of my anger, and those flames have been only smoldering. Although I’ve had to hold my breath this week, I am in a state of burning anger once again.

Yes, I did go to the grocery store; it was a big deal, because it represented normal life. Even though my life has been on hold since my youngest son left, I was hanging in there, and I was getting a grasp on the situation. Then last weekend I lost my grasp. Normal life ceased to exist for me. Just last Saturday I had no idea, that not only my younger son, but also the life of my oldest, who lives in a hurricane affected state, would be in the hands of our nation's presidential choice.

Recently I saw a picture Bush driving over the crosses that had been posted near his ranch. They were placed there to honor those who lost their lives in Iraq. After he did this, Bush jumped out and waved to the journalists present. At that point, his ignorance started to feel rather personal and I disliked him even more than I had in the past. After Katrina hit land and traveled over my oldest son, I know that it is personal and those feelings have grown into certain knowledge of his evil.

During the past week, every thirsty, wet, hungry, hot, tired, or drowned person could have just as easily been my oldest son. I watched so many faces as their hope for rescue, slowly, extinguished. I waited, held my breath and I prayed; yet the faces just kept popping up on my television and computer screens. I know that I’m not the only one to whom Bush’s ignorance feels personal. In fact, I’ve read that many of you feel this way as well. It should, because it has become personal! How much more personal can it get than realizing that your families' lives mean less to the President than a couple of photo ops? Reports say that Bush had to cut his vacation short by a few days. Since many lives have been cut short, and the sheer number of vacation weeks he’s had, I find it repugnant that someone would even report it. Many say now isn’t the time to lay blame. If not now, when? Do we wait until every family member's life hangs in the balance? I want accountability for this nightmare in New Orleans. I want accountability for the lives of my sons, your sons, those children in New Orleans and the lady in the wheelchair. I’m not a political journalist or a writer, I’m simply a mother suffering from the consequences of this nation’s poor choice. In thinking about that choice, I am filled with questions. I don’t have the answers, so I’ll simply list the ones that occupy my mind right now:

• I wonder why many questions about the Bush election came from Florida where his brother holds office?
• How people can lay the tragedy of 9-11 to rest if in ‘97 a group called ‘Project for a New American Century,’ whose supporters Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney, urged then President Clinton in 2000 to take assertive action against Saddam and his regime? That action was to include the use of force. They predicted the shift in power would come about slowly, unless there was “some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor.”

In September 2001, at the time of the 9-11 tragedy in New York, Donald Rumsfeld was, by then, the Secretary of Defense. Paul Wolfowitz was in charge of the Pentagon and Dick Cheney was then Vice President. The very next morning, before it was even clear who was even behind the attacks, Rumsfeld insisted at a cabinet meeting that Saddams’ Iraq should be a principal target. Someone had also ordered simulated dogfights on 9-11, including one scenario that “a plane has hit the Pentagon.” My questions about this are:

• Did the government have prior knowledge of the attack?
• If there was prior knowledge, did the president know, or was it something that happened behind the scenes?
• Did bombs go off that day inside the World Trade Center?
• Why did the president fight the investigation and try to suppress reports about that day?
• Was the situation allowed to happen in an effort to gain political advantage?

It was reported to Bush, as he sat in a classroom, that the towers were under attack.

• Why did it take a full seven minutes for him to move out of his chair?

He had the oddest look that looked like, “OK, it is happening,” “Who’ll handle this,” or “Where’s my dad?” It could have been “Yippee!! Gosh durn, here comes duh war we all been talkin’ bout tryin' ta' start!”

• Who thought disrupting lives in the Middle East would help or make us safer?
• Did they think we’d believe that our soldiers would be welcomed with open arms?
• Did they think about responsibility for destroying a country and killing innocent people?
• I know everyone has asked, but where are the weapons of mass destruction?
• Was the attack on 9-11 used as a reason to intervene, when we didn’t have another that was legal?
• Is this about oil, revenge or money to be made by the war machine?
• Why was it the World Trade Center and not the Statue of Liberty?
• Was there a hope of disrupting commerce in some way? Was it instead, that lots of Americans had to die to get Americans outraged enough to allow a Homeland Security Department and a war to be forced down their throats ?                                     
• Did anyone think that we’re more of a target for terrorists if so many of our National Guardmen are deployed?
• Did anyone realize that in a major disaster we’d have problems handling it while so many Guardmen were deployed elsewhere?
• Was my son, a Guardman, deployed because Bush knew he couldn’t get away with a draft for a war that is immoral and unjust?

In the Karl Rove/Valerie Plame situation:

• If you could seek revenge, exposing an ambassador's wife as a CIA agent who tried to prevent lies about the reasons for war, why should I believe that you have concern about the average American citizen?

Daniel Shore wrote, “Let me remind you that the underlying issue in the Karl Rove controversy is not a leak, but a war and how America was misled into that war.”

What happened? There was a partially forged and incomplete report from an Italian agency stating that Saddam was trying to buy yellowcake uranium in Sudan. Bush, hoping for a legal reason to declare war, sent Ambassador Wilson to check. After running down all leads for over a month, Wilson reported there was no evidence of purchase. Despite the report, Bush stated that the uranium had been purchased. Thus allowing war to be legally declared based on evidence of “weapons of mass destruction.” 

Wilson knew this was not true. He wasn’t quiet about the fact that the president was mistaken or had simply lied.

Five days after Wilson refuted the Bush claim, a reporter e-mailed his bureau chief that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA agent. The reporter refused to say who his source was, but Karl Rove is implicated. This looks like the administration taking revenge and disregard for the very lives of the persons involved.

As far as the hurricane goes, I was surprised to see reports that were free of political spin.  That little TV station in New Orleans, blog writers, members of message boards and folks who sent e-mail, told the real story at the scene. Politicians didn’t control them or what they reported, so this disaster is very different than those reported in the past. I doubt if politics will ever be quite the same again. I wonder at so many conflicting reports on the situation. My son was there, so I watched and listened to the news, day and night. Katrina left me with new questions:

• Mayor Nagin ordered an evacuation of low lying areas on Saturday. On Sunday he ordered an evacuation of the city. Why do I keep reading that the governor had not declared a state of emergency, when in fact she had written the president requesting assistance?
• Why appoint someone who had never worked in any type of disaster recovery and falsified his resume to work at FEMA?
• Was he part of Bush's political crowd? Was it repayment in some way?
• Why take the monies earmarked for the levee and barrier islands in Louisiana and use them to go to Iraq? We are now responsible for rebuilding. Now a generation of people hates us. We have killed innocent women and children. Their country doesn’t want us there.
• Is it so Bush's connections can make more money on oil?
• Why such focus on the drug bill for Medicare? Is it because Bush or Rumsfeld own a lot of pharmaceutical stock?
• Is it feared Mayor Nagin or Governor Blanco, who seem to be savvy and straight-talking people, would end up as heroes? Here is a link for a streaming audio of one of Nagin's straight talks.
• Are we getting too close to the next election to allow that to happen, particularly when the people mentioned were minorities?
• Why on August 29, the day Katrina made landfall, did FEMA’s Brown state that “they were well prepared. That there were groups of teams poised in a semicircle around New Orleans; that the Department of Agriculture had meals ready to go and baby formula; that FEMA had water and ice ready to go; that the EPA was on top of the situation should there be oil spills; that the Coast Guard had closed the ports and evacuated; that the Defense Department Emergency Coordination had search and rescue, medical teams, supplies and an array or relief services waiting in the wings.” He also stated that Bush was “impressed by these efforts.” It seems to me that his statements were untrue. Why would anyone think that in the age of the Internet no one would figure that out?
• Why on August 30 did Bush say that “we are moving quickly to save lives” when it was obvious that only the local government on the scene were moving at all?
• Why did the Red Cross give volunteers only two hours after training to be ready to leave for the scene when Brown didn’t start moving until the day of the disaster and gave personnel 48 hours to report in? At that point they were to train?
• Why was it reported by FEMA that the hospitals and Superdome were being evacuated almost from the start, yet a news reporter passing a hospital late in the week found people there? They said that the hospitals hadn’t been evacuated and in fact had yet to see a single aid worker, had received no help, no supplies and no water?
• Why say that people could not “get in there” if the news crews and celebrities had no problem doing so?
  **Why did Brown report that 1000 to 2000 people were rescued from rooftops the first day, when in fact it was only 100 to 200?
• Why on Thursday, was the FEMA stating that folks at the convention center and Superdome had been receiving one or two meals a day?
• Why did Bush say that all looters should be treated the same regardless of what they took?
  If his daughters were literally dying of thirst, would he “take” a bottle of water from a store, which he knew would be collecting for all their stock later, anyway?
• Why on Friday, when people died at the Superdome, people were murdered, and young girls were being raped and stabbed, was Bush telling Brown that he was doing a “heck of a job”?
• Why on Sunday, were thousands still stranded in parishes outside New Orleans? They said that they still had folks on roofs, yet had not seen the first rescue worker, helicopter, and so forth?
• Mayor Nagin stated the first day that his first concern was to stem the loss of life, then to fix the levee to prevent further flooding. Why didn’t anyone cooperate with him?
• Why would Laura Bush, visiting a shelter say, “Oh, this isn’t like what I am seeing on television at all?”
• Why the heck couldn’t those helicopters drop some food for those folks?
• Would moving a large percentage of the residents of New Orleans help increase oil production, or facilitate its movement through the region?
• Why is it that on September 1 Halliburton already had a contract for work to repair hurricane damage? When you buy a hammer for the government, I thought they had to take bids! Yet countries that have been prepared to send much needed help have still not gotten a response from the United States?
• Did these folks die because they were poor or because they were mostly black Democrats?
• Why did I from my son, who is very near New Orleans, which is dealing with no electric, phone service, gasoline, with food and supplies running low, sewage in the ditches, gunshots heard all night from looters, that they had yet to see the first relief personnel?
• Why aren’t our flags at half mast?
• Why try to spin this as though it was the fault of the poor who didn’t evacuate, when the storm never picked up speed until Saturday?
• I don’t care how many buses they show sitting in a lot, it wasn’t the five or six hundred that would have taken days to evacuate everyone needing a ride. Also, how long would it take to travel to and from each trip given the traffic standing still on the highways?
• Why was it announced that Roberts will head the Supreme Court, when he has only been a corporate and government attorney and haven’t even been appointed yet?
• Is this more careful hiring of the "best person" for the job? Roberts seems to be as qualified as Brown was. I guess he does at least have some knowledge of the law.

I live in a town that is economically depressed. Our Maytag, Briggs and Butler plants have shut down. Those jobs are now overseas. I asked folks in my area if they would be able to evacuate. Most everyone I talked to said that they wouldn’t afford to leave.

My birth family was poor. My father never missed work. He wore his uniform pants on the weekend, because he didn’t own any others. Each day, he took a dollar to work with him to buy soda on his lunch break. My mother had one outfit and each day she would stay in her nightgown until she washed it. It wasn’t always like that, but these times did happen. Despite the sacrifices, my parents raised four children and kept our family together. My parents now raise my niece. My father is wonderful, hard working, loyal, loving--the person you’d want with you in times of trouble. He would help with anything he had to give. My parents are still together in a neat, tiny house with a yard that looks like a golf course. My Dad recycles because he worries about the next generation. He cared for his mother prior to her death. He never complained, though I am sure when he went to help her he was already tired, from working in the cold or heat all day.

Would they die because they are poor? My father and mother have never taken a drink, never been in a fight, never been arrested. In fact, my dad served twenty years on the auxiliary police department.

Would they matter? My parents never had food stamps or Medicaid. They paid their bills on time, even if that meant that they had little. Would they be allowed to die?

Folks that are on public assistance usually receive their checks at the first of the month.

• Do you think that the poor in New Orleans had any money to leave town at the end of the month? They probably had spent their last dime a week or more prior to Katrina making land fall. Folks in that situation may spend a week, or more with nothing but change in their pocket, waiting for money to arrive; it happens month after month for them.
• Why should the month of August be different? How were they to blame? You may say that all in America have opportunity, but if you grew up worrying about where dinner was coming from, if your parents didn’t have an education, if you hadn’t had many life experiences as a child, somehow that sense of endless possibilities just doesn’t seem real to you.
• Has Bush ever been truly, hungry or thirsty in his life?

I am rambling along and feel as though I need to stop asking questions, but I have just a few more:

• Why the heck should we allow Bush to run the investigation on the poor response to Katrina? Is it so that he can do damage control so that someone else can be blamed?
• Does he think I trust him to be honest now? Does he want to look like the capable person who’s going to get to the bottom of this nightmare?
• Can Bush look at himself as he shaves in the morning?

Oh, one more thing we should all be asking. Would he have let our families die?

Star Wars the Bush Way

On September 12, 1962, President John F. Kennedy gave a speech at Rice University announcing his goal to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade.  In that speech, JFK said

For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding.

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) has worked toward the tradition of exploration ever since.  Yesterday, after 2 and 1/2 years, NASA was hoping to return to space with the launch of Discovery.  A problem with the Engine Cut-Off sensor on Discovery's External Tank caused the mission to be called off until the problem could be rectified.  If the problem is minor, Discovery should be able to launch on July 16, 2005. 

You're probably thinking, "So what?  What does this have to do with politics?  Why is she writing about this?" 

I was born in Huntsville, Alabama.  When I was the ripe old age of 3 months, my family moved to Cocoa Beach, Florida so that my father could be part of the group of people working at the Kennedy Space Center on the Mercury rockets.  I have a card that says I was present in the viewing stands to watch the first manned moon launch.  I was too young to remember that launch, though.  Growing up we watched every single launch from KSC that we could.  Even when my family moved to Orlando, we were still able to watch the launches. 

I was taking a test when the Challenger blew up.  2 and 1/2 years later everyone on campus at my university came out to watch Discovery launch.  I was at a conference when Columbia exploded.  I was hoping to watch Discovery launch once again today.

Needless to say, I've spent a lot of time paying attention to the space program.  But I probably haven't answered all your questions.  After all, what does the space program have to do with current events?  Plenty.

On January 14, 2004, Bush gave a speech detailing his own plans for the space program.  One of his goals was to go to Mars.  Skeptics pointed out that his lofty goals were announced during an election year.   Indeed, little has been said about these plans since that speech.

NASA is working toward that goal but is not getting much support from this administration.  NASA's budget is limited and the timetable to reach Mars is incredibly long (2020).  In the meantime, both Russia and China have been sending people into space. 

So where is the commitment toward space exploration from the administration?  Non-existent. 

In the near future, Bush will be releasing his new National Space Policy.  His policy will change the aim from space exploration to space militarization.

Rumsfeld has been pushing for this since 2001.  A report from his space commission stated

...explicit national security guidance and defense policy is needed to direct development of doctrine, concepts of operations and capabilities for space, including weapons systems that operate in space.

On December 14, 2001, Bush announced that the United States would be withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia.  This allowed the administration to begin the creation of an anti-missile defense system.   

This isn't the first time that a president has had plans to militarize space.  Reagan first broached the Strategic Defense Initiative plan on March 23, 1983.  Since then, the United States spent $92 billion with few results to show progress on this so-called Star Wars plan.  So, yes, what Bush wants to do is nothing new.

So what's the big deal, right?  It's all a pipe dream anyway. 

Well, the amount of money that will be fed into this is a big deal.  How much?  See, that's part of the problem.  At least half of the Department of Defense's budget for space is classified.  A large number of agencies and military services are involved as well.  Some research is reported in unspecified funding lines, basically hidden in plain sight.  The budgeted amount for the DoD's space research is $22.5 billion in 2006.  That's really all we know. 

Another big deal?  Efficiency.  Okay, technically we're getting back to costs on this one.  It is cheaper to launch land based ballistic missiles than to launch missiles from space.  How much cheaper?  About 10 times cheaper.  It costs $22,000 per kilogram to launch a satellite into space.  Just one typically weighs in at 4,000 kilograms.  That means a cost of  $88,000,000 just to launch one satellite.  It would take many more than one to set up an effective defense shield.  A single ballistic missile can be launched just as effectively at a fraction of the costs.  In other words, a single ballistic missile is more efficient than this Star Wars plan.

Another big deal?  Reliability.  What happens when one of these defensive satellites need repairs?  We won't be able to just send some private out to fix it as part of his daily chores.  Look at the Hubble Telescope.  The decision has been made to retire the Hubble due to the cost and difficulty trying to fix the telescope. 

If this space policy isn't all it's cracked up to be why is Bush going to push it?  Simple, dominance. 

When General Lance Lord, Commander, Air Force Space Command, Peterson Air Force Base, Colo. spoke at the Air Warfare Symposium in 2004, he said

Space is an indispensable partner in our American way of war.

At the 2004 AFA Air & Space Conference, General Lord said

So space superiority really is our day-to-day mission and space supremacy is our mission and vision for the future. We will accomplish space superiority by working hard every day, and in doing so we'll be able to achieve and maintain space dominance through our people.

You may think it's no big deal, but without space exploration we wouldn't have cell phones.  We wouldn't be able to track hurricanes.  We wouldn't even be able to take a virtual tour of a home.  Advances in medicine would not have happened.  Heck, we wouldn't even have Tang.

Crossposted on Can't Keep Quiet!

Round and round we go...

From BBC:

The head of the US Central Intelligence Agency has said he has an "excellent idea" where Osama Bin Laden is hiding.

But CIA director Porter Goss did not say when the world's most wanted man would be caught, nor his location.

He told Time magazi