A Time Out from War

Hawkeye,

Thank you.

I just discovered that John Evans, the veteran whose picture is on the front page today, had a heart attack last week, while he was carrying his signs in front of the White House, on the World Can't Wait Day.

Mr. Evans has been carrying those signs for a long time.

We'll try to keep you posted as we find out how he is doing.

Best to Mr. Evans - just looked at that photo
& thankful to him

Bert in Mpls will be having breakfast today with Max Clelland and some other vets - we'll hear more later (with photos)

We featured Mr. Evans on our front page once before in this photo...

http://www.democracycellproject.net/images/Vetforgotten.jpg

You can learn more about Mr. Evans' life story at this website:

http://www.forgottenvets.com/

Please stop by dailykos and recommend this diary ASAP...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/11/93552/450

thanks

"I voted for the resolution. It was a mistake."

-- Former Sen. John Edwards, quoted by The Nation, on his vote to authorize the Iraq war.

Thank you, Sen. Edwards. I now could actively support you if you decide to run for president in 2008. I will not, and cannot support any Democrat, ever again, who does not admit that this war and any vote made for it was wrong. Democrats cannot continue to make excuses such as "we were duped," or "I didn't really think we were actually authorizing the president to go to war." Democrats have to take their share of the responsibility, and admit that they were wrong- that it was a mistake in judgment. Anything else, any other explanation, is not enough.
Maybe John Edwards' statement will be the first in a series of "mea culpas." Otherwise, the American people will continue to see no difference in the two parties at all.
This is a positive first step for our party. I hope other Senators and Representatives will follow John Edwards' lead.

Veterans' Day thoughts...
The whole point of having a national military is to have a group of people that will kill others. All this business about "national defense" is a smokescreen. No country in history has had a national military to simply defend itself. No country wants to be simply able to turn away enemies...countries want to be able to soundly defeat enemies and send them running back to their doghouses and then trample all over them on their own soil. Militaries are used to assert dominance, whether economically, religiously, scientifically, ideologically, or otherwise.
Furthermore, what war is a "just war"? How can it be defined? Where do you draw the line between the part of the war that is just and the part that is unjust?
To say "I support the troops by wanting to bring them home" is playing with the language some. You can support the troops as individual citizens - children, parents, friends - by wanting to bring them home safe. But you cannot support the concept of troops in general, the concept of a military, by wanting them never to engage in battle.
Can a country survive without a military, in other words, without a fighting force that engages in, even seeks out, battle? Can a country be an economic powerhouse without a military? Our country was built on the blood of not only our soldiers, but of the hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children that they killed in wars.
Must we sometimes strike the first blow? Must we sometimes intervene in what seems like other countries' affairs? Is the life of our soldier more precious than the life of their soldier, or the lives of our fighting forces more valuable than the lives of our brothers, our sisters, our children, our parents, our neighbors - the citizens they are dying to protect? How do we determine what signifies sufficient provocation to engage our military?
How do we determine an ending point; how do we play out our endgame? What is our definition of defeat and of victory when the blood of so many of our brothers and sisters soaks the battlefield?
How do you counsel a soldier to rationalize what he has done on the battlefield? How can we erase their horrific memories or assuage their consciences that they did otherwise than kill their brothers and sisters in cold blood? How do we reverse the brainwashings we give our soldiers to tell them that their enemies are targets to be taken out with precision guided weapons like pixellated villains in video games when those enemies are soldiers just like them, soldiers who carry a worn picture of their wife or husband in their pocket, who are a father or a mother to young children, whose friends and families and countries eagerly await their return, who want a hearty hot meal and a cold beer; soldiers who in another time might have been their neighbor or friend but now by their professions and nationalities must engage in cold-blooded duels to the death? How do we re-humanize our soldiers after we have so effectively de-humanized them?
Finally, how can we justify that bringing home our troops from battle might well occasion an earlier death for them? Our young men and women are more likely to die in a car crash or in the violence of the crime-ridden ghettos that so many of them escape from into the military than they are to die on the battlefield? Will their lives have more meaning if they die on the side of a busy highway in America than if they die on the side of a bombed-out road elsewhere? Is it better to breathe the poisoned air of a battlefield or the poisoned air of a neighborhood built in the shadow of a Superfund site? Once the parades are over and the yellow ribbons are gone, how much of a homecoming is it to find that there are no more jobs, no healthcare, no housing, no clean water, no law and order, no freedoms? Why bring our troops back from one third-world country to live in the vestiges of another?
Our troops are, as callous as it may seem, pawns on a chessboard. They have volunteered to be pawns on a chessboard because they know that once in a very rare time, a pawn can, by fate and luck and shrewd planning, wield tremendous power. But we the people wield even greater power. We elect the player and we choose the pieces that surround our pawns on the chessboard. We can remove the player. We can even shake the table on which the chessboard sits. But with any power comes an equal amount of responsibility. When our player sacrifices our pawns recklessly, attacks ruthlessly, cheats deviously, and rushes through with no plan for an endgame, it is our responsibility to remove that player. Not the pawns, not even the knights or bishops or queen, but the player himself.
To do less is to wear the blood of all the dead soldiers and all the lives they trampled in defense of our country.

Veritas, thank you for sharing these thoughts.

Veritas- I have to disagree with a lot of what you just wrote. The concept that a country wants to "send it's enemies back to their doghouses and then trample them on their own soil" is not my view of what I want America to be about.
I DO want my military to be used for national defense, or for the occasional absolutely necessary righting of a wrong, such as what we used them for in WWII.
The concept of sending your enemies back into the stone age with your military might is an Old Testament concept. It comes from the scriptures where, supposedly, God ordered the Israelites to kill every living thing when they went into enemy territory, including the sheep and cattle.
I would like to think that civilization and mankind have advanced beyond those notions. If we haven't, then there is truly no point for the human race to continue to exist, because we aren't maturing, we aren't learning, we are accomplishing nothing.
I believe that life is about acquiring knowledge, maturing, and learning to love others. If it isn't about those things, I really don't much care to be here.
For instance, If there were no New Testament, I would not believe in God. I, quite frankly, would not want to believe in God. Because I would know that in some ways, my instincts as a human being would be superior to HIS. I don't want to obliterate my enemies, I only want them to leave me in Peace. I don't want destruction. Until the Prince of Peace came in the New Testament, quite frankly, God himself wasn't a very likable person. But then, until he came down here , I'm not too sure he "got it." I don't want to be arrogant, but I do think that Christ's coming down here was a learning experience for Him as well as it was for us. And as a follower of His, destroying my enemy is NOT my number one goal in life.
I'm sorry, but I just have to disagree with you in most of what you said. Yes, I agree with you that we need to change the leaders who use our soldiers for the wrong purposes. But our soldiers are here to defend us, not to obliterate our enemies and to obtain power. That's negative concept to my way of thinking. And their task is an honorable one. Someone has to do the dirty work, and killing is involved. It is an honorable profession to defend those that we love from the violence of others. And that's why I honor them today- because they've somehow made our country more powerful because of their presence. It's because they've made our country more safe because of their presence.
That's the way I look at it anyway.

I meant "not because they've made our country more powerful because of their presence", obviously.

Hawkeye,

That's a great reminder for all of us. Thanks for sharing it with us.

Chuck in Doha with Veteran's Day Greetings!

Remembering my dad, who volunteered for the Army Air Corps in December, 1941, retired USAF in 1968. My dad liked Jimmy Stewart and George McGovern for a lot of reasons, including the fact that they served in the same branch at the same time (though my dad was a ground mechanic at the time). My dad made officer during WWII, and when the demob came around, chose the status that meant he would be subject to the first recall but would re-enter at his brevet officer rank. So in 1950 (I think) he was recalled into SAC and was a flight engineer on first B-39's, then 47's, then 52's. He helped do the movie sound-track (engine noises) for the Jimmy Stewart movie "Strategic Air Command." I was born on Tachikawa Air Base near Tokyo, Japan. His favorite movie (I think) was "Doctor Strangelove." My dad voted for Adelai Stevenson! (Well, my dad was from Chicago). My dad was on second highest alert during the Cuban Missle Crisis. My dad voted for McGovern. He liked "All in the Family" and "Colombo." He passed away in 1979, so he didn't have to witness the "Reagan Revolution" from this side. I am sure it would have made him quite upset. Miss you dad!

Chuck in Doha

Interesting that self identified Conservatives believe others high up in this adminsitration were responsible for outing Valerie Plane. 60% of conservatives are not wrong. No wonder his poll numbers are so low.

"John Harwood drills down in the WSJ/NBC poll and reports, "Six in 10, including 43% of Republicans, say there should be a public investigation and hearings into exposure of operative Valerie Plame's identity. Republican congressional leaders don't plan to go along. Among conservatives, 60% say other administration officials aside from Libby may have acted illegally."

Chuck in Doha for Linda:

Linda, on the IWR, I just wanted to point something out that NEVER seems to get mentioned. At the time, unless I have completely lost my mind, the line was that this leverage was required in order to get inspectors back into Iraq because the WMD risk was considerable. I believe President Bush said at the time (October 2002?) that the IWR made it more likely to have a peaceful resolution. Against many people's suppositions (mine included), Iraq DID largely comply with the inspections -- the VERY BEST way to contain or assess any WMD risk vis-a-vis Iraq -- AND THEY WERE WORKING! Regardless of that development, POTUS invoked its sole discretion, based on IWR, to attack, invade and occupy another country. THAT is the decision-point that should be under examination but never seems to be.

Thanks, Linda, for providing me with a pretext to get that off my chest! Hope all is well in the panhandle.

Chuck in Doha

Posted by: Veritas at November 11, 2005 10:22 AM

Veritas,

I agree with your comment:

"Our troops are, as callous as it may seem, pawns on a chessboard. They have volunteered to be pawns on a chessboard because they know that once in a very rare time, a pawn can, by fate and luck and shrewd planning, wield tremendous power. But we the people wield even greater power. We elect the player and we choose the pieces that surround our pawns on the chessboard. We can remove the player. We can even shake the table on which the chessboard sits. But with any power comes an equal amount of responsibility. When our player sacrifices our pawns recklessly, attacks ruthlessly, cheats deviously, and rushes through with no plan for an endgame, it is our responsibility to remove that player. Not the pawns, not even the knights or bishops or queen, but the player himself.
To do less is to wear the blood of all the dead soldiers and all the lives they trampled in defense of our country."

It's why when I saying "I support the troops" HAS to be more than a bumpersticker. It has to support them there by giving them PROPER equipment, a real plan (strategy), AND by making sure their needs are provided for. It also means you NEVER EVER send them to war based on lies. Then when they come home, they will need treatments and medical care and jobs and they deserve it.

Your post reminded me of a conversation I once had with a former Chicago resident who now lives in Israel under the constant threat of terrorists. I asked her if she was afraid to die by a suicide bomber.

Her response to me was, "I could die on the streets of Chicago by a bullet (just as easily)but HERE in Isreal I am dying for my cause-a noble cause. My death means something."

Sparrow:

To my mind, the best way to support our troops is to take care that, in our name, our government only goes to was as a LAST resort.

Chuck in Doha

Oops, "was" = "war" in the last post -- kinda changes the meaning. Where is was anyway?

Chuck in Doha

chuck- Hmmm- that sounds like it might just be something Wes Clark used to say in his speeches, doesn't it :-)
My, my, you do get around a lot.

Posted by: chuck at November 11, 2005 11:09 AM

You're right about the IWR. Thanks for stating it so succinctly.

I too have a hard time believing that the military is used for only peacekeeping reasons--and I also feel that the use of military force is on a case-by-case basis by wise chessmasters, to use Veritas' metaphor.

I completely agree with both Veritas and Linda that the current chessmaster/CIC needs to be removed, replaced, or otherwise fired. And it occurs to me that this is the single most uniting issue we share as Americans.

Over the last few weeks, when I was standing with the World Can't Wait people in front of the White House, many tourists would stop and ask questions about what we planned to do after the end of the Bush regime.

After explaining that "we" were not in charge of what would happen, but *ALL* of us could have that discussion and come to democratic agreement whenever that became possible, we pointed out that there is one thing we all DO agree on--this regime is a disaster, for the country and the planet. Let's start with where we do agree. Let's act on THAT, and then we can wrestle with the mess cleanup.

And on that note, this just in:

Put on your hip boots and get ready to push back. Here's a great letter-writing opportunity for everyone, particularly vets:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051111/pl_nm/bush_iraq_dc

Yahoo! News
Bush to swing back at Democrats

Fri Nov 11, 5:07 AM ET

U.S. President George W. Bush will use a Veterans Day speech on Friday to fight back against Democratic charges that the White House misused intelligence to gain support for the Iraq war, administration officials said.

"The president is going to directly take on the false attacks that Democratic leaders have been making," a senior administration official told Reuters.

Democrats in recent weeks have been accusing the White House of manipulating intelligence on Iraq and leaking classified information to discredit critics of the war.

Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, was indicted last month for obstructing justice, perjury and lying after a two-year investigation into the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

Opinion polls show Bush's approval ratings sinking as the public becomes increasingly wary of the Iraq war.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said on Thursday Democrats were insisting that Americans "get the truth about why the White House cherry-picked and leaked intelligence to sell the war in Iraq."

He added: "The president may think this matter can be swept under the rug or pardoned away, but Democrats know America can do better."

Bush was expected to fight back in a speech on the U.S. war against terrorism at the Tobyhanna Army Depot in Pennsylvania that will also pay tribute to military veterans.

The Bush administration's main justification for the Iraq war was that it posed a threat because it had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, but none have been found.

Administration officials have acknowledged the intelligence on Iraqi weapons was faulty, but have said Democrats, Republicans and foreign intelligence agencies had believed Baghdad had deadly weapons before the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

"I point out that some of the critics today believed, themselves, in 2002 that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. They stated that belief, and they voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq," said Stephen Hadley, the president's national security adviser, on Thursday.

"For those critics to ignore their own past statements, exposes the hollowness of their current attacks," he said.

Copyright © 2005 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

Posted by: chuck at November 11, 2005 11:13 AM

a last resort and NEVER ever a lie (or a series of lies).

Habeas Schmabeas

The Senate passed it's end run around the Supreme Court and the Constitution bill. Thanks, Lindsey Graham. Wanker.
The Senate voted Thursday to strip captured "enemy combatants" at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, of the principal legal tool given to them last year by the Supreme Court when it allowed them to challenge their detentions in United States courts

from firedoglake http://www.firedoglake.blogspot.com/

To follow up on sparrow's post, here's this from kos poster Gillon:

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Does Afghanistan qualify as a rebellion? Does the War on Terror qualify as an invasion of America? I think not. Apparently, the Senate thinks otherwise. Actually 49 senators think otherwise. Because today, 49 senators joined together to vote for one of the most sickening pieces of legislation I have ever heard of.

And what's more - 5 DEMOCRATS voted for the bill.

The following Democrats voted for this amendment:

Conrad (D-ND)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Nelson (D-NE)
Wyden (D-OR)

The following Republicans should be commended for voting against this amendment:

Chafee (R-RI)
Smith (R-OR)
Specter (R-PA)
Sununu (R-NH)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/11/31547/468

Go here to see the voting record for individual senators:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00319

Chuck, yes it was used as leverage, but even the MSM pointed out at the time that Congress was abdicating it's right to be the branch of government that declared war and turning that authority over to the President that day.
I knew what they were doing, and I'm not a constitutional lawyer. And congress knew what they were doing too- at least, they did if they watched CNN. They were entrusting a Texas oil man with the power to take over a middle eastern oil empire that day, and they damned well knew it.
I'm not saying all our Senators and Reps were doing it for that reason (for oil)- I do think some of them were duped by the fake intelligence. But they had no right to overthrow one of the chief tenets of the US Constitution that day, and they did it. They turned the balance of powers on it's head by giving up their authority because they put their faith in a man who had NEVER given them any cause to believe in them before. They did it because they thought it was the popular thing to do- because of politics. Because they didn't want to be called soft on Iraq, or traitors who didn't support their president in a time of war.
They were cowards.
And I sat here that very day, screaming at my TV- "don't trust him." I still remember the moment the vote was taken, and it made me sick to be a Democrat.
It was a mistake- they need to say so.
If they don't, I won't stand and hold my sign at the polls again. I won't go door to door and hand out brochures, or work in the Democratic party booth at the fairgrounds.
They have to admit their mistakes. They can't be like Bush and not be able to remember any mistake they ever made.
They have to show the Democrats are different.
Sorry, but that's how I feel.
And hooray for John Edwards.

And there's this follow up article which should loudly ring alarm bells from TalkLeft:

No Habeas for Them, No Habeas for Us

Tinkering with habeas corpus is a dangerous thing. Today, Sen. Lindsay Graham and his fellow Senators told you they are only restricting habeas rights of enemy combatants, i.e., foreigners. But on November 16, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a second hearing on S. 1088 (pdf), a bill that would gut habeas corpus rights for Americans.

"The legislation, known as the Streamlined Procedures Act, would effectively kill the writ of habeas corpus by stripping federal courts of jurisdiction to consider cases in which a prisoner's constitutional rights may have been violated. The legislation would apply to all criminal cases, including capital cases. The legislation is sponsored by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) in the Senate and Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) in the House."

I warned about the bill in July, quoting an LA Times article:

"Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott, the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee considering the bill, conceded there was little chance of blocking it in the House. 'The House has been very supportive of anything that would strip the innocent of a fair hearing. This bill will ensure that more innocent people will be put to death," he said in a telephone interview.'"

In August, state court chief justices from around the country went on record opposing the bill at their annual conference.
~snip~

read the rest of the article and check the embedded links here...
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013079.html

A little more motivation for paying close attention to the 2006 Congressional election outcomes.

Veritas..

When you can please look me up darlin.

Im in IRC now or email me at simpson1962@bellsouth.net

TY

Posted by: dwahzon at November 11, 2005 11:30 AM

Amazing what they pass as soon as you think you've won one matter (the budget/Anwar) they sneak through this horrible thing.

Shame on the Dems who crossed over. I'm not one that says they should vote party line on everything, but their vote on this specific bill is truly disgusting. I'm actually frightened to think that their vote represents the people they represent. (Surely not Leibermans?!)

I just left a message on Lieberman's Washington office message line (they're closed for Veterans Day) expressing my horror and outrage. I am so angry that he would support that.

Posted by: dwahzon at November 11, 2005 11:43 AM

Good for you dw (that you called him and voiced your anger at his disgusting vote!)!

And by the way, CNN is reporting that Bush will use the IWR against the Democrats AGAIN today in his Veterans Day speech. He'll say the the very people who are now criticizing the Iraqi war voted for it.
And he's right.
Until the moment we say we were WRONG.
Saying we were wrong is what gives us the right to criticize the decision to go into that war.
You can't say you voted for it, and that was right.
And now you're against it, and that's right too.
You can't criticize the president's decision until you say one of your decisions was a mistake.
And it was a vote to allow Georgy to declare war.
Make no mistake about it.
That's one of the few things about this situation that the American people DO understand.
The Democrats in the Senate put the gun in George W Bush's hand that day.

John Edwards had the courage and integrity to say that was the wrong thing to do.
Now the rest of our party needs to show some courage and integrity too.
All of them. Hillary, John Kerry, all of them.

Or they have no right to ask the American people to support them in the next presidential election.

Chuck in Doha for Linda:

Understood, but I'd just like to throw a few things out. I agree on the Declaration of War in principle. However, I think the only times we declared war in the last hundred or so years was WWI and WWII. So that is a very deep, long-term, structural issue.

Also, on IWR, consider this. The original IWR POTUS submitted, if memory serves, did NOT stipulate Iraq but something generic like the "Middle East." With a GOP majority in the Senate, that probably could have been pushed through. Perhaps the resultant IWR, which was nuanced, whether people want to accept that or not, and limited to Iraq and UN resolutions, was the result of some important compromises. Remember, prior to that POTUS was threatening to by-pass the UN and a War Powers Resolution altogether. An entire half-year intervened between IWR and the invasion.

Chuck in Doha

Linda:

Also, as I recall on the old Kerry blog, I think Mark in Iowa it was, put it very succintly. Giving a policeman the authority to use lethal force under certain circumstances does not give that policeman the right to just go shoot people. I do not agree that a vote for IWR was unreasonable in October, 2002. POTUS using that limited authority to go to war when the inspections were working was a gross abuse of office.

Chuck in Doha

And finally, Linda, I want to stress what I believe is the crucial point again: a vote for IWR was NOT a vote for war; as you pointed out is was NOT a Declaration of War. Bush is lying when he says a vote for the IWR was a vote for the war. In fact, as I recall, to reiterate from a prior post, at the time Bush was saying that this expression of American unity was the best possible means of making sure that Iraq complied with the disarmament provisions of the 1991 (1990?) cease fire WITHOUT going to war. I think when we conflate these things we are doing George Bush a huge favor.

Chuck in Doha

And again, on Veterans' Day, I think it is very appropriate to renew our commitment to an America that honors its people in the military by making a commitment to dedicate ourselves to the proposition that America must only go to war as a last resort and after having exhausted all other reasonable alternatives and after having honestly and openly discussed just how and why such a war is required in order to protect the security of the United States of America.

Chuck in Doha

PS: Linda, I love your idea about Declarations of War! THAT is an interesting way to tackle, or frame this issue. Maybe this Iraq fiasco is just the pretext for getting Americans to focus on that Constitutional issue. Maybe people running for the Senate in 2006 and 2008 etc. ought to start having to express a decided view on that and maybe us voters ought to prompt them to.

Chuck- the vote was not a vote for war, it WAS a vote giving Bush the authority to go to war without any other approval from Congress. I will have to disagree with you on this one forever, I'm afraid. It was putting our trust in a president who has NEVER earned our trust. It was a bad decision, and history has proven that.
Iraq was already complying with the UN resolutions. They were not seeking to build nuclear weapons. The only WMD's in Iraq were in Bush's imagination. And, when the UN inspectors returned to Iraq, after the resolution, and reported those facts, Bush told them to get out. Why? Because he finally had the absolute authority of Congress to go to war under the IWR.
Our Senators had given it to him. They knew about the writings of Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, about the papers that had been published by members of this administration even before the first Bush selection to office. They knew these people wanted war, and they voted to let them go.
It was a serious mistake in judgment by our Democratic senators, and each and every one of them needs to admit it.
And as long as they don't admit it, every single time Bush says "the Democrats went along with it," he's right.
And he has the right to ask how we'd clean up the situation, because we had a part in making the mess.
Until we say we're sorry, we were wrong, he has the absolute right to make those assertions.
The Senators let him con them, and now he's mocking them for it.
And he has the right to do so until they admit they were wrong. Until they say they were stupid to buy his snake oil.
I just detest that smirk.
BTW= I'm very glad his speech isn't on the networks.

Posted by: Karen at November 11, 2005 11:15 AM

If anyone believes that the White House had the same intelligence and information as senators and congressman did, then I have a bridge to sell you in Fallujah.

I'm guessing Cheney had secret meetings that we are not allowed to see the records on, and they decided what info would be filtered out. Is that farfetched? Not with what we know now about WHIG and how this WH controls information.

The "well they said it too!" whining argument that the White House is using is a loser.

How many more have to die for a lie... and how much further can this country sink in the eyes of the world?

Our veterans deserve better... they fought too hard to have it pissed away by an ideology counter to everything this country supposedly stands for.

Support the Troops, Demand Accountability

Chuck- and by the way, you're right about wars since WWII not having been declared properly by Congress.
Have you noticed though, that virtually every one of them has been either a tie (Korea), a waste of time (Gulf War I , which settled nothing permanently), or a loss (Vietnam.) Maybe we should make that a HUGE issue in the 2006 elections. You're right about that.

Posted by: chuck at November 11, 2005 11:57 AM

You are right about how it was portrayed at that time, Chuck. I recall discussing it with my husband in the early mornings when we both were listening to Morning Edition on NPR.

There was a discussion on kos about this a couple weeks ago and the summary made there is pertinent:

Today on MTP, there was a general consensus that Democrats could not use the argument that going to war with Iraq was a mistake. Pundits including republicans and liberal hawks said that since Democrats themselves voted to go to war in Iraq, they could not very well criticize the administration for the war.

But Democrats did not "vote for war with Iraq." The resolution that passed Congress in October of 2002 gave President Bush discretion to go to war, but only

- if Saddam would not allow weapons inspections,
- if wmds were found in Iraq and not given up,
- if the UN approved,
- if Bush certified that the war in Iraq would not detract from efforts against al Qaeda and
- ONLY AFTER all attempts to peacefully resolve the crisis had been exhausted.

Bush also got the vote he wanted because he insisted that if Americans "spoke with one voice," he was more likely to get the UN to promote a peaceful resolution to the problem.

http://redtoxin.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/23/205412/80

Linda, please don't take me wrong...I'm no cold-blooded killer and I certainly don't consider myself a hawk. I would like to believe that the human race is getting better but I'm too much a student of history to see that it has, from any macro perspective.
I think calling soldiers "peacekeepers" obscures what they are as much as using the words "target" or "objective" about their actions. Soldiers kill. That is what they are trained to do. All the recruitment talk about learning a trade and getting a career boost is veneer. Sometimes it is necessary to be the aggressor and make the first move. Sometimes that is dangerous. You won't hear a politician say that though. It's not PC.
Most wars have positive results, if not immediate then long-term. All wars have negative results. America has tried isolationism before. She is nicely surrounded by oceans like moats around a castle. Isolationism didn't work though.
I ask again...what is a "just war"? What is a war of the "right length" and how do you determine what is the "right number of soldiers" to die in a war?
We are naive if we think we can live in a world without war. That doesn't mean we shouldn't work like hell for peace though. But we still have to understand what war is and what it means to be a soldier and what the military trains for day in and day out.

Chuck- oh well- we're just not gonna agree on this one. That's unusual, isn't it?
Gotta go help my son paint the back of his house.
What a way to spend veterans day.
Hope you all have a good one, and remember that our guys and gals over there went into this thing believing they were protecting their country.
Whether we think this war is about that or not.
And that's why I honor them on this day.

Veritas- before I go- I don't think you are bloodthirsty at all- I suspect you're just a realist. And I know our soldiers are about learning to kill. But killing can be done in self defense too- and that's the only real meaning of "defending our country."
I'm not an isolationist- I think the war in the Balkans was an absolute necessity because what happens in Europe has affected us too closely too many times. Getting rid of Milosovich was important- he was beginning to look like a little Hitler, and the Balkans is a very dangerous place for wars to start.
But Vietnam, and Iraq, and wars which are in the name of "spreading democracy" are just attempts at power grabs for the most part, and they are immoral. They nearly all turn out badly, and American kids die for nothing. Democracy comes when a country has a revolution because that's what they want. It can't be forced on people. When we leave Iraq, they're be a revolution and whichever faction there is the most dedicated and violent will take over the country.
And there won't be a democracy.
We have, IMHO, no right to enforce our ideals on other countries.
Wait, maybe I'm wrong, maybe I am a semi-isolationist.
Whatever.
I do believe in our military, and I do honor them. And I know we wouldn't be here without them. It's the king that needs changing in the chess game. You're right about that one.

Posted by: monkey at November 11, 2005 12:12 PM
Posted by: Veritas at November 11, 2005 10:22 AM

What bothers me is that I'm already seeing more and more beggers and homeless on the streets. Here in MI the Republican governor took away many of the psychiatric institutions (a long time ago).

Needless to say, many of those are people who suffer from some sort of mental disorder and those vets on the streets often suffer from PSTD and/or paranoia too.

And add to those people, the people who are now jobless and homeless because of the exporting of labor to utilize slave labor in another country and you've got a big horrible mess for these vets to come home to....no jobs, extreme reductions in medical benefits for vets, and no means of overcoming the problems the Republican/ NeoCon party has set up in this country.

It's a sad state!

Hey Dwazhon:

I think we're both qualified for staff positions at the White House! We can remember things from a few years back and we're not indicted!

Linda:

OK, I'll agree to disagree with a provisio: there are three positions here. 1) POTUS exceeded the IWR authority when we invaded Iraq, and that is a criminally negligent abuse of power (WE AGREE, I think). 2) The Senate has been derelict in its Consitutional duty to be the only body that can declare war, and has been AWOL on this on every war we have been in in over 100 years except WWI and WWII (WE AGREE, I think). 3) The Senate was wrong to pass the IWR because they should have assumed that the CINC was misleading them on the evidence of a dire threat, that Iraq would fully comply with the inspection regime, and that the CINC would exceed the authority of the IWR in a grossly negligent manner (WE DISAGREE, I think -- I maintain that even a Senator sceptical of Bush's motives could reasonably agree to vote for the IWR at the time and therefore need not apologize for so voting, except on the Declaration of War thing). Another thing to take into account is the fact that, by a large majority, we, the people, supported Bush in his actions as CINC at the time (one of the main reasons the mid-terms went the way they did), so I blame us more than the Senators (OK, I know, collective guilt is not a proper thing, and that public perception was conditioned by lies emanating from the White House). Anyway, so we agree more than we disagree, I think!

Chuck in Doha

Hey Linda:

I also agree with you on the Balkans! And what you said is precisely what I understood to be our vital interests there at the time, and is precisely what I undestood our CINC to have said at the time.

Chuck in Doha

President Bush today responded to accusations that his administration manipulated intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to justify the war. Speaking at a Veterans Day event in Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania, Bush said, "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." Earlier this week, senior White House officials told CNN they were working on a "campaign-style" strategy to respond to stepped-up Democratic criticism.

Also, I have no problem with a Senator that says voting for IWR was a mistake, knowing, as we do now, that POTUS would abuse that authority. Also, when we say Bush never earned our trust, well, I'd respectfully submitted that he earned the trust of +/- around 50% of American voters twice, which fact galls me no end, and which was enough to win two presidential elections. We've got a lot of work to do folks!

Chuck in Doha

(CNN) -- President Bush said Friday that the U.S. must continue to fight in Iraq to prevent it from becoming a failed state from which terrorists would launch attacks on other nations to implement their radical ideology.

Bush, speaking at a Veterans Day event in Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania, referred to a letter he said was written by Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's No. 2 leader. The letter, according to Bush, said the group's goal is to force the U.S. to leave Iraq, just as it had departed from Vietnam, Beirut and other engagements, after suffering heavy casualties.

"They believe they can make America run again, only this time at a larger scale with greater consequences," Bush said.

"The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity," the president said. "We must recognize the Iraq war as our central front against the terrorist."

"We will not tire or rest until the war on terror is won."

(Ummmm, Mr. president.... there was no central front in Iraq for terrorists until you put them there)

Chuck in Doha for Monkey:

Thanks for pointing that out too about the lie that Congress had the same information as the President with respect to Iraqi capabilities and intentions in 2001-2003. I hate it when I hear that lie. The President is CINC. Departments of State and Defense and the CIA report to POTUS. POTUS can access any intelligence information, and it is near the top of the job description.

The same folks that purvey that line like to point out that other countries drew the same conclusions about WMD. That is also a lie. Out side of the UK and Italy, I don't think any national intelligence service believed that the "45-minute" threat existed, or that Iraq was anywhere near to achieving nuclear capabilities, or that they had any intention of sharing any WMD's they might have had with anyone.

That lie is even more stupid when you consider what other countries, or even the US prior to 9/11, considered what the appropriate response was to the possibility that Iraq might still retain or plan to develop WMD capabilities.

"Too much monkey business, for me to get involved with...."

Chuck in Doha.

Monkey:

In Russia they often say someone "creates problems and then heroically solves them." That's, I guess, Bush's rational for Iraq now. We created a failed state in place of a brutal dictatorship, and the failed state is potentially far more threatening to our security than the brutal dictatorship.

Plus, I don't khow where Bush was hiding back then, but as I recall we didn't "run" from Vietnam we left at the time of our chosing because we decided it was a big mistake for us to be there and that continuing to go down the wrong road was ultimately against our own interests. Maybe if he had ever been there he would think more along those lines.

Chuck in Doha

And actually, come to think on it, it turns out that in SE Asia, one place where we have no problems with the sort of terrorist activities that threatens countries like the US and Australia is Vietnam, unlike, say, the Phillipines or Indonesia. Plus, the Vietnamese were the ones who took out Pol Pot. Just a thought.

Chuck in Doha

Also, for anyone interested in Democratic Party organizational events, I got this link in the mail:

http://www.democrats.org/page/event/search_simple

I'd go if I was home.

Chuck in Doha

Chuck,

We did run from Vietnm and almost too late. In fact, it WAS too late for many of the people who supported us and helped us over there.

We didn't plan for it properly, even when we knew it was over for us.

I just rewatched "The Killing Fields" last week (which is about Pol Pot in Cambodia, but still of the time and of the attitude) and felt that sick stomach-turning; not only because it was such a mess back then, but because we are doing such similar damage now.

By that, I mean, continuing to believe we are winning, we are all going to get out alive with few repercussions for our actions, and that we can save all the "good Iraqis" who have supported us. We are losing, our people are being killed, those who support us are not all "good" (Mr. Chalabi comes to mind) and those who are "good people" (Riverbend comes to mind) are losing all hope.

I have a picture in my head, from the 18th of April in '75, while we stood at "rude Concord Bridge" in Concord Massachusetts, listening to Danny Schector, the News Dissector and Pete Seeger report on what was happening half a world away, of people hanging from helicopters and US soldiers having to push them off back onto the roofs of the burning embassy.

It is not a picture I want to see outside of my head ever again.

We can do better.

Chuck... and just today, we have the POTUS on record as saying "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." in response to stepped-up Democratic criticism.

Does anyone wanna take a poke at the irony in that statement? Step right up, there's irony-o-plenty.

My God Ate My Homework

Posted by: monkey at November 11, 2005 12:49 PM

Bush hasn't finished the first book yet to know there was no re-writing going on.

He's too busy chewing his gum and trying to walk around the W.H. at the same time.

And Laura isn't there to help him and Condi isn't there to give him permission to go to the bathroom.

Posted by: sparrow at November 11, 2005 01:33 PM

Are you saying W is a Party Pooper? Rumor has it, many republicans think so too.

Posted by: monkey at November 11, 2005 01:29 PM

Researchers discovered Bush's famous liar's tick (the panic attack tick) was counted at 1000 ticks per minute...a truly amazing feat never been done before by anything human.

Tick..tick..tick..tick..tick..tick..tick..

Posted by: monkey at November 11, 2005 01:34 PM

Rumor has it he pooped all over the Virginia Governor's race and the mayor's race in Minneapolis as well.

Posted by: monkey at November 11, 2005 01:34 PM

Gives more creadance to the saying, "The s*** hitting the fan." huh?

Chuck in Doha for Karen:

Karen, I will defer to your experience on that, as to whether we ran away from Vietnam or not. I was in my early teens when that happened. I'll have to check with my mom and my older brothers and sisters and see what they think. All the same, from what I know, I would say we didn't run away. I don't recall my dad, who was a 21-year veteran, feeling that we ran away (and he thought Vietnam was a mistake from the start). I believe as far back as '68 there was already a strong movement in the public at large and in governmental circles that somehow we needed to extricate ourselves from Vietnam, so the process was long, and we didn't run out in a panic or anything. We withdrew in orderly fashion according to political decisions made under democratic processes. We were not forced to withdraw for military reasons, but rather chose to withdraw for reasons of state. We caused a lot of needless suffering by getting involved in the first place, in my opinion, and I suppose it was inevitable that in the aftermath of our withdrawal more needless suffering would take place. My guess is that the longer we put the withdrawal off, the greater the suffering that would have been occassioned. I guess I'm just in an argumentative mood tonight! Either that, or I have been going over too much contract language so my English is getting horribly pedantic. Anyway, it's just a semantic frame -- the "run" thing -- but my gut tells me that the parallel that Bush is trying to draw is disingenuous at best. At least our troops in the field didn't run in Vietnam and I'm certain they won't run in Iraq. Now, how we as a nation intend to withdraw from Iraq is another question, unless we plan on being there forever.

Chuck in Doha

Well, I've got to turn in. I suppose it all goes to show:

"Support the Troops: Avoid Wars of Choice"

Chuck in Doha

PS: And make VA hospitals the envy of the world. We're America and we CAN do it.

Chuck,
We are both correct--there was a plan for orderly withdrawal and some of that happened, but there was also a huge amount of chaos at the very end. Remember that VP Agnew had been fired (whatever else they called it at the time) and replaced with Gerald Ford (they did not believe Congress would go after Nixon if Ford was going to be the one taking over--he had a reputation as a bungler) and Nixon was threatened with impeachment and had resigned. In 1975, Ford was President, the first unelected President we had. No time for him to figure out how to be CIC or to answer questions about how he might lead us out of Vietnam.

BTW, he showed up at rude Concord on the 18th of April, stood and gave a speech exactly where the British troops had been in 1775 (we were on the side of the patriots, of course!). He spoke about the long history of military strength of the US government. He spoke about bringing democracy to the world.

This, as people were being kicked out of helicopters in an illegal and unjust war.

Feels like deja vu all over again to me.

Nov 11, 2005 6:22 am US/Pacific

O'Reilly Sounds Off At San Francisco Voters

by Juliette Goodrich

(CBS 5) San Francisco has long been an easy target for ultra conservatives, but one of the most controversial talk show hosts is taking his anger to a new level.

Bill O’Reilly is America’s most watched cable news guy. He is upset that San Franciscans voted to discourage public schools in the city from allowing military recruiters on campus, and he made his views very clear on his radio talk show.

"If you want to ban military recruiting, fine. But I’m not going to give you another nickel of federal money,” O'Reilly said. “If I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium and I say, ‘Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds.’”

That statement probably didn’t surprise those familiar with O’Reilly. But his rant didn’t end there.

“If Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it,” he continued. “We're going to say, ‘look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."

Those remarks haven’t gone unnoticed.

"Consider the source," said San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. “There are a lot of people that love their country, and embrace the military, but that doesn't mean…that people of San Francisco can't stand up and say ‘hey, there may be some issues, and we want to send a policy statement that raises awareness.’”

O’Reilly has attacked Newsom in the past, but this time the Mayor says he has taken things too far.

http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_315014627.html

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., quickly returned Bush’s criticism. “Its deeply regrettable that the president is using Veterans Day as a campaign-like attempt to rebuild his own credibility by tearing down those who seek the truth about the clear manipulation of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war,” Kennedy said in a statement.

“Instead of providing open and honest answers about how we will achieve success in Iraq and allow our troops to begin to come home,” Kennedy said, “the president reverted to the same manipulation of facts to justify a war we never should have fought.”

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said on Thursday Democrats were insisting that Americans “get the truth about why the White House cherry-picked and leaked intelligence to sell the war in Iraq.”

“The president may think this matter can be swept under the rug or pardoned away, but Democrats know America can do better,” Reid added.

The Bush administration’s main justification for the Iraq war was that it posed a threat because it had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, but none have been found.

Bush also cites inquiry, U.N.
Defending the march to war, he said that foreign intelligence services and Democrats and Republicans alike were convinced at the time that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

“Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war,” Bush said.

He said those critics have made those allegations although they know that a Senate investigation “found no evidence” of political pressure to change the intelligence community’s assessments related to Saddam’s weapons program.

He said they also know that the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing Saddam’s development and possession of weapons of mass destruction.

“More than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power,” Bush said.

Bush did not single out any critics by name but said many of them had supported Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., his rival for the White House in last year’s presidential elections.

The president said the criticism has taken a toll on U.S. forces.

“These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America’s will,” Bush said.

more from our crybaby-in-chief... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10004606/

HeHe

Marc is a genuis.. check it out

http://cirverspineproject.blogspot.com/

TO BILL O'REILLY, THE PROUD PEOPLE OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO SAY: "HUH?'

Talk host's towering rant: S.F. not worth saving

Joe Garofoli, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, November 11, 2005

Conservative talk-show host Bill O'Reilly is ready to scratch San Francisco off the map of the United States. Gone. Coit Tower? Terrorists can blow it up, and the rest of the country shouldn't care.

The Fox News talk-show host and one-man conservative media juggernaut has concluded that the United States and San Francisco just don't go together anymore. Voting to oppose military recruitment in public schools and to ban handgun ownership, as San Franciscans did Tuesday, means the city should be cut off from federal dollars. And then some.

"You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium and I say, 'Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds,' " O'Reilly said Tuesday on his radio show as San Franciscans were approving the two measures. Perhaps, he didn't realize that he'd be speaking mostly to foreign tourists and suburbanites if he were standing in Union Square.

"Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead," O'Reilly went on. "And if al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."

San Franciscans might be offended by this invitation, or perhaps even threatened, if more of them visited Coit Tower.

On a cool gray Thursday afternoon, the San Francisco landmark was filled, as usual, with tourists from Ohio, Texas and other states where TV's "The O'Reilly Factor" and its syndicated radio companion, "The Radio Factor," pull better ratings than in San Francisco.

When visitors were told of O'Reilly's remarks, several had the same question: "Why would he say that?"

The few locals found at the tower had another: "Who's Bill O'Reilly again?"

Those familiar with O'Reilly tried to put the comment in context.

"The man is a sensationalist fool," said Paul Hickey, a 76-year-old visiting from Texas.

"He's irritating," said his wife, Judy Hickey, 67.

Others interpreted the remark as O'Reilly's trademark brand of hyperbole. His mastery of this form of entertainment has made him a best-selling author and top-rated talk-show host.

"I just think he's blowing wind," said Jim Adelman, 64, visiting from Ohio.

Reaction came swiftly from City Hall, which has taken other arrows in the aftermath of Tuesday's election. Thursday on KNEW-AM -- O'Reilly's Bay Area radio home -- conservative talk-show host Jeff Katz ripped handgun-measure supporters on San Francisco's "Board of Stupidadvisors."

Board of, uh, Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, whose district includes Coit Tower, suggested that O'Reilly should get his head examined.

"It sounds like he's on the same medication Rush Limbaugh is addicted to, and he should go see a therapist,'' Peskin said.

Mayor Gavin Newsom said, "I've never been impressed with what he's had to say, and I'm not impressed now. Consider the source. Remember, this is the guy who wanted me arrested after (San Francisco sanctioned same-sex marriages last year). He never let his opinion get in the way of the facts."

Imagine if O'Reilly had read the plaque on the front of Coit Tower, which describes its benefactor and namesake, Lillie Hitchcock Coit, as a woman "who smoked cigars and often dressed as a man to gamble in North Beach saloons."

Then again, Coit Tower fans should not feel special about being singled out. This isn't the first time O'Reilly has discussed the destruction of a famous building on the air with an aural twinkle in his eye.

In September, a couple of weeks after Hurricane Katrina damaged the Gulf Coast, O'Reilly used the natural disaster to poke fun at one of his favorite targets, the United Nations.

"Bush addressed the U.N., says he wants to be steadfast in battling terrorism," O'Reilly said on his radio show. "I'm sure all the U.N. people fell asleep. They don't really care about anything over there at all. I just wish Katrina had only hit the United Nations building, nothing else. Just flooded them out. And I wouldn't have rescued them."

After United Nations Foundation President Timothy Wirth asked O'Reilly to apologize, the talk-show host replied with an on-the-air primer on the radio biz:

"Well, apparently Tim Wirth has never listened to talk radio," O'Reilly said. "So I will speak very slowly to him. It was a jest, sir. We exaggerate on the radio.

"Wise up."

Efforts to reach O'Reilly through Fox News on Thursday were unsuccessful.

At least one liberal media watchdog group was offended by O'Reilly's Coit Tower remark. Media Matters for America President David Brock said, "He's encouraging terrorist attacks. It's over the top."

But isn't O'Reilly allowed the same type of latitude that liberals have said other entertainers should be afforded?

Shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, comedian Bill Maher was criticized by White House officials for saying, "We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly." Maher apologized, and his public hushing by the White House made him a favorite of Bush-bashers.

"Yes, there are people saying things like that, like Bill Maher and 'The Daily Show,' but if you look at O'Reilly, his show is presented as a 'no spin zone,' " Brock said. "People take it seriously."

Those people include Brock's group, which records every minute of O'Reilly's programs. Is that one of those entry-level jobs where you pay your dues?

"No," Brock said, "but maybe it should be."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/11/MNGFMFMNV41.DTL

Bush said the United States and its allies are determined to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of extremists and prevent them from gaining control of any country.

Bush singled out Syria for particular criticism, saying its government had taken “two disturbing steps” in recent days. He cited the arrest of Syria pro-democracy activist Kamal Labwani and a “strident speech” by President Bashar Assad. In that speech, Assad said his government would cooperate with a U.N. investigation that implicated Syrian officials in the killing of a Lebanese leader, but warned he would no longer “play their game” if Syria “is going to be harmed.”

Bush said Syria “must stop exporting violence and start importing democracy.”

Bush’s political adviser Karl Rove, who is still under the cloud of the CIA leak investigation, hopped Air Force One to attend Bush’s speech.

The president’s appearance came as Vice President Dick Cheney spoke at Arlington National Cemetery, where the president traditionally goes on Veterans Day.

Cheney laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns and told a crowd of 6,000 at the cemetery’s memorial amphitheater that U.S. forces have toppled two dictatorships and liberated 50 million people.

“Difficult missions are still to come and we cannot know every turn that lies ahead,” he said. “Yet we can be certain that by the resolve of our country, by the rightness of our cause...we will prevail.”

"No country in history has had a national military to simply defend itself." posted by Veritas.

Not true. Not true at all. Lots of countries have militaries and don't invade other countries. In Switzerland, everyone trains, and I know some Swiss. They're trained for a full year, full time. They know what they're doing.
Sweden has an exceptionally well trained military. It's for defence. There are others.

Today, the US stands with only a small group of developed countries that develop their military forces to invade others. These countries see themselves as the "policemen" of the world. In truth, they plunder the resources of others. But for the rest of the developed world, colonialism is passe.

We must learn to look outside our huge selves and notice what small, sensible groups of people are accomplishing throughout the world. I have no problem whatsoever with having a strong defensive military. It is possible, and it should be done.

Canada has a very well trained military; they are very high tech with regard to surveillance, etc, but very low on elite weaponry and other equipment. Many ordinary Canadians are getting concerned about that, and want to start building up the weaponry and the numbers. Why? They fear US invasion over water issues. The US is notorious for just taking what it wants. Even our closest allies are starting to fear us. Having polluted and squandered much of our own fresh water, we now want Canada's.

Defend, yes. Invade, no.

Until the Prince of Peace came in the New Testament, quite frankly, God himself wasn't a very likable person. posted by Linda

How right you are. Or, maybe God was likable, but humans didn't know it... and so Jesus came.

How quickly we forget that Jesus was The Prince of Peace.

Veritas...

http://cirverspineproject.blogspot.com/

Devil needs an advocate often umm hmm

Lunchtime notes:

Vertias, or any of you vets, perhaps you can correct me on this, but I see a great deal of disrespect in the fact that the President chose to make a political speech and sent the Vice President to Arlington. Maybe it's just because when it comes to holidays I'm the worst conservitive in America, I haven't changed my Thanksgiving menu in 20 years, but the laying of the wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown solider is this day's greatest tradition. To send the Vice President when the President is both healthy and in the country seems to me a slap in the face much greater than then asking for a full and complete accounting of the facts leading to the curent conflict.

Has Bush decided that he wants to have a rematch with John Kerry? His speech today sure seems like he is back in campaign mode.

Flag burning amendment. Yea that's very high on the public's mid right now.

Has Bush decided that he wants to have a rematch with John Kerry? His speech today sure seems like he is back in campaign mode.

Flag burning amendment. Yea right, that's very high on the public's mind right now. Keep it up W, you will soon be challenging Richard Nixon's poularity numbers.

What total resopect for the troops.

What total disrespect for the troops.

From the speech at Tobyhanna Army Depot in PA today, with no editorial comment or spin:

And our debate at home must also be fair-minded. One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war. When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support. I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq. And that is their right, and I respect it. As President and Commander-in-Chief, I accept the responsibilities, and the criticisms, and the consequences that come with such a solemn decision.

While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory.

Kerry's speach in response to Bush is awesome!

John Kerry Responds to George Bush’s Veterans Day Political Attacks
November 11th, 2005

Today, George Bush delivered a Veteran’s Day speech that should have been used to honor our Veteran’s and active duty troops, and been used as a tool for critcism of the growing dissent against the Iraq War. Without naming names, Bush filled his speech with more lies, more misleading statements and his usual fear and smear tactics. He reiterated the same old, “stay the course” message, repackaged into, “We will never back down. We will never give in.”

In response to Bush’s speech today, John Kerry issued the following statement from Boston, where earlier today he participated in a Veterans Day tribute to America’s veterans and active duty armed forces:

“I wish President Bush knew better than to dishonor America’s veterans by playing the politics of fear and smear on Veterans Day. Instead of trying to salvage his slumping political fortunes, the Commander in Chief should honor our men and women in uniform with a clear strategy for success in Iraq. But this Administration abandoned that path long ago, and our troops have paid the price for it.

“This administration misled a nation into war by cherry-picking intelligence and stretching the truth beyond recognition. That’s why Scooter Libby has been indicted. That’s why a statement in the State of the Union Address was retracted. It’s a dangerous day for our national security when an Administration’s word is no good. Today they continue the same games hoping Americans forget the mess they made in Iraq that’s cost over 2,000 Americans their lives and their failure to find Osama bin Laden. Americans will not forget, and neither will those of us who defend our country by asking tough questions and demanding a new course in Iraq.“

The calls for change in Iraq grow daily. Bush would do better to listen to the criticism and heed the advice of those who speak the Truth to Power. With America’s distrust in Bush growing daily, today he only succeeded in further dividing our nation.

Target Tells Its Pharmacists They Can Refuse To Fill Morning After Pill Prescriptions...
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=111071

so I just called and after pressing buttons about a return I got a real person and talked to them about serving a community and how abhorent I find this policy-they ouldn't let a clerk not sell a book because they disagrred with it or a cd but I'm suppose to shop at a store that allows someone, who knows nothing about my circumstances, to pass judgement on what I am allowed to do?????

800-440-0680

call now and get in the first wave of responses....

Chuck I know you're in bed now, but you do need to talk to your mom and dad about how we extricated ourselves from 'Nam. I guess we're both in an argumentative mood today, but you have to trust me and Karen on this- we ran away from Vietnam. We declared victory and left, leaving thousands of Vietnamese crying at the doors of our embassy trying to get us to take them with them. It was a Very shameful exit, but it was the only thing we could do. And this is coming, by the way, from the pen of someone who supported Richard Nixon wholeheartedly back during his day. Nixon could do nothing else in Vietnam- the only other action we could have taken would have been nuclear and caused WWIII. We had no choice. And it was time to go.
It may very well be the only way we will be able to exit Iraq as well. Once we get involved in these nation building projects, we soon discover that we have neither the will nor the power to complete them, especially in the face of serious resistance.
Our leaders, some of them, have forgotten that we are not all powerful. They've forgotten the day when we lost a war. Of course, Bush and Cheney never went to that war, and weren't particularly interested in it when it was going on. Cheney, of course, had other priorities at the time, and Bush was too stoned to notice that we lost.
Those of my generation will always remember it though. It's just a damned shame we haven't been able to make today's younger voters realize we're not invincible. I think they're finally beginning to figure it out in the last few months, but too many kids have died in Iraq already.
Maybe every generation has to learn for itself. Damn, I wish they'd just listen to their history teachers.

Linda -
John Kerry gave a speech at Georgetown on October 26 where he said he accepted responsibility for his IWR vote. He even recommends beginning withdrawal of 20,000 troops over the holidays. See: http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=952

Here's an excerpt from his speech:

"There is, as Robert Kennedy once said, ‘enough blame to go around,’ and I accept my share of the responsibility. But the mistakes of the past, no matter who made them, are no justification for marching ahead into a future of miscalculations and misjudgments and the loss of American lives with no end in sight."
___
Since this speech, I believe there have been one or two others who have called their votes a mistake Edwards and (maybe Feinstein?).

BTW Linda....
What are your thoughts on Florida's governor's race?

amy- thanks for agreeing with me on that statement. I thought for awhile that I was the only one on the blog today who was gonna burn in hell for saying it :-)
You and I agree on a lot. Maybe you're right, maybe He was likable all along, but I tend to think that Jesus came, not just to redeem us, but to find out what the human experience was really like. All I know is that the God-son of the New Testament is very different from the Yahweh -God of the Old Testament. And I tend to think that it's because he experienced the same temptations we do, and figured out how hard it really is to live a moral and righeous life on this cruel and dangerous little planet of ours.
That's a strange theory, I know that, but it's one I've believed in for some years now.
Thank goodness that, because of Him, we don't have to be perfect.
And I know this is about religion, but it's also about politics, because the two cannot be separated. I do believe in the separation of church and state, but within each person, religion and politics are incredibly intertwined.
I just don't know how you can separate them.
He did say "blessed are the peacemakers," didn't he?

floridadem- thanks for that - I didn't know Kerry had said his vote was a mistake. I'm glad to hear it. Bush sure made hay out of the Democratic IWR voters in his speech today - I'd heard that he was going to, that's what brought up my discussion this morning.
I seriously doubt if it's going to influence any of his polling numbers though. People don't trust him anymore, and trust is a very difficult thing to gain back.
I had wanted to support Scott Maddox for governor, but he's evidently decided not to run. So, I guess it's Davis. That's who Bob Graham is putting his name behind, and I love Graham. I would like to know more about Davis though. We don't need another candidate like McBride. He was a good man too, but he just didn't have an ounce of charisma.
I really haven't gotten too "in" to the governor's race yet. I do think we'll win the state house back though, but then, I thought McBride would win despite his blah personality.
So much for my predictions.

I am not a Jesus Christian but I will add my two cents anyway.

I do believe Jesus was a real man, do not get me wrong. I do believe something extraordinary took place around him. And I do believe he was special.

Was he the son of God?. I suppose that is a matter of faith.

I do not believe Jesus was the pascifist people make him out to be. Maybe in a time when everone was flaying or running through people with swords, perhaps he seemed more pascifist than most.

I believe that he was a real man with all the impatience, frustration, horror, and pain that goes along with the human condition.

I don't think Jesus would bomb anyone but I hear he was hell with a whip on money changers.

I think Jesus may have been special in His own time simply because he refused to shut up about mercy in the face of the unmerciful.

Sometimes believing it can change, in itself, can change the world.

Posted by: mkh at November 11, 2005 04:55 PM

I'm on the phone with Target right now. This is their response:

Title 7 is what they are using to excuse this pharmacy behavior.

"Because they are an equal opportunity employer they are using Title 7 of the (Civil Rights Act) CRA 1964 which they say must accommodate their team members religious beliefs. If the pharmacy member is going to exersize their rights to plan b medications (plan b only), then they will accommodate the person by either getting another pharmacist to do it or to help them get the medicine at another pharmacy. Also, they are following the same guidelines that other pharmacys are now doing."

Then those same pharmasists may NOT also be allowed to distribute Viagra or ANY STD treatment.

IF the claim religious probs then we should eliminate thier ability to handle ANY controversial meds.

No distribution of AIDS drugs.

Now why would Target want tohire someone like that that can not make money for them and why would a pharmacy supply a religiously frozen pharmacy?

No methadone.

No ADD meds cause its amphetamines and thats just evil.

This has been an interesting thread today--

And just as a reminder--the DCP is a learning community--there are no PC opinions here. It's like a classroom--if we do the homework and have read the chapter, we get to weigh in.

The only reason people ever get asked to leave this space is for name-calling or disrupting the flow of discussion.

We are not Dems or Repubs or Greens--we are citizens and activists.

If senate dems dont impeach someone soon I am going to break off and start my own party.

The Long Live Pharoh Christy Party.

Or

I love Fishes Party.

THE PODS PARTY!!!!

"Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited."

According to the President's own words, voting for the Resolution was not voting for war. The President voted for war in March 2003. He made the big decision. He made the wrong decision, after being told by the weapons inspectors that Saddam was beginning to comply, and no weapons were being discovered.

Thanks for tracking that down Matt. Do you have a link for it still handy?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/print/20021007-8.html

Christy, according to the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2, The House of Representatives shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. Unless sanity returns to the moderate Republicans, the only hope we have is to vote in enough Democrats in 2006 to have a majority.

Posted by: Chersey at November 11, 2005 07:21 PM]

Ok.. Unless the dem reps in the house impeach someone soon...

Its Pods and fishes for everyone.

Linda -
John Kerry gave a speech at Georgetown on October 26 where he said he accepted responsibility for his IWR vote. He even recommends beginning withdrawal of 20,000 troops over the holidays. See: http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=952

I must reiterate my criticism of the leading Democrats in the Senate: the Democrats are in no agreement whatsoever about what to do in Iraq. The DLC crowd - Hillary, Biden, Lieberman - want to stay in Iraq forever or until the job is finished (basically repeating Bush's position). When I first read Kerry's petition I was angry that it - withdrawing of 20,000 troops for the holiday - is only a half measure and not really a policy (actually I think it unwise and somewhat jarring to bring people home just to send them back to Iraq in a few weeks). Then I read, buried at the bottom of the petition, Kerry's call for the withdrawal of U.S. troops by 2006. That is the start of a policy, it seems to me. But, of course, Schumer, Biden, Hillary, Lieberman won't go for it. Biden has talked about sending more troops!?!??!?!?!

Here is one way of declaring victory in Iraq - Saddam is gone: objective #1 - his sons are dead and there are no WMD: objective #2 VICTORY!!! NOW IT IS UP TO THE IRAQIS WHAT HAPPENS....

ralpheh- (That's a hard name to type, by the way :-) I'm something of a moderate myself, and I'm definitely not anti-DLC, as many on the blog are. One of the reasons I'm thinking of who I'll support in 2008, even though I believe my old hero, Wes Clark, will run again, is that I truly don't want to support a candidate who says we should stay in Iraq any longer than we have to. And I'd say that that is immediately afte