A new "regular" on the blog, Michael Gass, sent me an "open letter" he wrote to Lindsey Graham in response to his op-ed today. As I explained in reply, we don’t run open letters to third parties in the paper. In weeding the vast number of letters down to a publishable number, that’s one of the first things we ditch, along with "original poetry."
But there’s no such rule (or guideline, really) on the blog. I would have just urged him to post it as a comment, but there was no post on the subject yet. So here ya go, Michael:
Dear Senator,On April 19, 2007, your letter, `Progress and losses in Iraq,’ has reinforced what many of us already knew; that Iraq is a failure.
You stated that "For the first time, our delegation drove from the airport to the Green Zone." Senator Graham it has been 4 years; there are over 150,000 of our troops in Iraq; we have spent over $400 billion dollars; we have surged more troops specifically into Baghdad; and you are telling us that our "progress" is that we were able to secure 6 miles of road for the first time?
You acknowledge that for the past 3 years, violence in Iraq was "out-of-control", yet, President Bush, who you wrote to me in a letter describing as an "honorable man", has repeatedly claimed that America was making progress in Iraq. Vice President Cheney claimed, not once, but on two separate occassions (in 2005 and again in 2006) that the insurgency was in its "last throes". You are now telling us, Senator, that in fact, there was no progress in Iraq for 3 years; that in fact, the insurgency was growing. So, you are telling us, Senator, that the President of the United States and the Vice President of the United States has been lying to us for 3 years.Senator Graham, I’ve been to Iraq. I returned in November, 2006, and unlike you, I didn’t have 100 soldiers and helicopter gunships. I traveled from Al-Faw to Tikrit. I talked to local Iraqi’s who weren’t screened for their views prior to talking to me. I can tell you that many had high hopes after Saddam Hussein was ousted from power. I can tell you that many now view our occupation, our destruction of their country, our imprisoning of the "irreconcilables" as you call them, as an autrocity on the magnitude of Saddam Hussein. I can tell you, Senator, that Iraqi’s are starving and they are taking any job they can get to feed their families – even joining the police force.You are right about one thing – the majority of Iraqi’s do want to live in peace. But, you portray it as if they will only have peace if we stay and kill, or imprison, more Iraqi’s. That isn’t true and you know it. In 1979, Senator, muslim men flocked to Afghanistan to fight the Russians. We called them "freedom fighters" and al-qaeda was born out of that fight. In 2003, Senator, muslim men flocked to Iraq to fight Americans. We called these fighters terrorists. Today, Senator, the vast majority of the insurgency is comprised of Iraqi citizens, not foreign fighters, who simply want to live their lives in peace without American occupation of their country; without their fathers and sons being imprisoned in places like Abu Ghraib by American forces.You again make the bold claim, just as every other Republican who has nothing left to argue, no other talking point to push, that if we leave Iraq the Islamic extremist’s will destroy our way of life. Fear, Senator, is the only tool you have left. It is not the Islamic extremist’s who wrote the Military Commission’s Act, denying anyone deemed an unlawful enemy combatant, which includes American citizens, the right to habeas corpus. It is not the Islamic extremist’s who wrote the Patriot Act that the FBI has been abusing to spy on little old Quaker ladies who oppose the war in Iraq. It is not the Islamic extremist’s who has worked to undermine the liberties we used to have in America – it is our own politicians, Senator; politicians like yourself who spout the "rule of law" as you legislate away our freedoms.You say that we cannot let the Iraqi’s dictate our foreign policy – because that is who the "terrorists" and "suicide bombers" are, Senator; Iraqi’s. They are a people who had their country invaded, destroyed, and their loved ones killed or imprisoned by our troops. They are a people who live without power and scrape for food, yet see their only natural resource, oil, being legislated away by a government we helped into power. That is the "benchmark" that means the most to President Bush; the Iraqi Hydrocarbon Law. But why don’t you tell Americans what it truly is; a giveaway of Iraqi oil to companies like Exxon-Mobile and British Petroleum. And here you are, telling the Iraqi’s that they have no right to "dictate" to us what we do to them. They have every right, Senator, just as Americans have the right to determine the fate of our country, of our resources.Our military is broken, Senator. Gen. McCaffrey has told us that it is broken. He, and others, have warned us that continuing down this road you and other Republicans have set is, and has been, a disaster. You tout progress in Iraq, Senator Graham, and, by your own statements, I give you 6 miles of road, $400 billion dollars, countless Iraqi’s dead, secure compounds that American soldiers cannot leave without dying, and the blood of near 3,300 of our own soldiers to show for it – all after 4 years.Sincerely,Michael Gass
Oh, and as I said to Michael earlier when he asserted that the military was "broken:" Yeah, that’s why we need a draft.
As to Sen. Graham’s piece in the paper, which I just got to read this morning after being out of the office the last couple of days — it made complete sense to me. It did not, to say the least, "reinforce" the idea that "Iraq is a failure." People who have long opposed the war — and particularly those for whom this is caught up in their own partisan tendencies — find reinforcement for their idea that all effort is useless in anything and everything. It is their constant filter for filtering information bearing on Iraq.
It will be interesting to see whether, in the comments this engenders, anyone says anything that is different from what they’ve always said, whatever their original position. If so, those will be the comments I read with interest.
Related Posts
Mr. Warthen,
I would like to thank you for posting my response here. I, too, am very interested in the responses.
Regards,
Well done, Michael. You captured the essence of this “war” beautifully. Wonder if Senator Graham would make that six mile drive alone?
Brad takes his typical condescending view of anyone who doesn’t support the war and ironically states that he has little interest in reading anything unless it represents a change in position. Coming from one of the few remaining supporters of this failed exercise, it’s quite funny.
Michael,
I wish I had half the knowledge and writing skills that you do. Your reply to Senator Graham was terrific. My only minor quible is with your opening sentence (which Brad shamelessly exploited). Graham’s letter didn’t so much “reinforce what we already knew about the situation in Iraq” but rather it reinforced what we already knew about the war supporters, such as Graham, Lieberman and McCain. Simply put, these people will say or do anything to try and convince people that we should stay, even when the evidence, as you articulated, runs completely counter to what they believe. In the face of more than 400 Iraqis killed in 4 days Graham still attempts to persuade us that we are making progress.
As for Brad’s comment about partisanship: Shame, shame, shame. Brad and the others who refuse to support a timetable for withdrawl are the partisans. They are the ones who are increasingly isolated in their flawed belief in staying the course. They are the ones who dogmatically cling to preconceived ideas. Nothing is more partisan in the current state of American politics that suppport for staying the course. NOTHING. The mainstream in this country want a timetable for withdrawl. It’s the PARTISANS who reject this rational, common sense plan. Just check the polls. Even many Republicans are coming around to this view.
OTOH, people like you, who have supported the invasion (and now the occupation) unreservedly seem to find no need to answer practical questions.
You personally have repeatedly refused to tell us when we can declare victory. (The President merely mouths vacuous platitudes.)
Is no cost too high? Is our “commitment” “open-ended?”
Your answer to the last two seems to be “yes” and “yes.” Of course, the financial cost is being charged to our grandchildren so you’re not personally shouldering that. You personally incur are in no danger of serving, even if a draft is instituted.
Looks like your blind dedication to continuing the Iraq meat grinder is remarkably free of consequences– for you.
Many Iraqis seem to be worried about the “open-ended” aspect, also. They look at American bases located in foreign countries worldwide– many since WWII. They worry that the bases which we’re building in Iraq look just as permanent.
This may shock you but Iraqis understandably don’t want a foreign power– especially, a culturally and religiously alien foreign power– occupying their soil indefinitely.
Our time has come and gone in Iraq. The shelf-life of a “liberator” is short. Now we’re the infidel occupier. At some point we need to let go and let Iraqis determine their own fate. That’s called sovereignty.
You acknowledge but soft-pedal the Bush Administration’s disastrous incompetence. The bell is rung and the past can’t be re-written.
Yet, you continue to support the effort with little regard for any consequences to Americans or the United States.
So, when you accuse people of “filtering” information about Iraq to suit their pre-conceived positions, perhaps you ought to look in the mirror first.
Brad,
My position on Iraq has changed dramatically since we invaded. I bought into the idea that Saddam was a threat and possessed WMD. Even so I did oppose the war. My brother started with the same basic beliefs but supported the invasion. I strongly believed the Iraqi people would be better off if we invaded but did not believe the best way to improve their situation was by invading. I did not think the loss of perhaps 1,000 American lives and $80 billion dollars were worth what I saw as a minor improvement in the lives of the Iraqi people. My brother believed it was the only way to improve thier situation. We both greatly underestimated the cost.
Over the course of time it has become crystal clear that I was both wrong and right. Invading Iraq was wrong, but it was much, much more wrong than I could have possibly imagined. Not only have we determined that Saddam was of no particular threat to anyone in the region, let alone the U.S., but we have made the lives of the Iraqi people far, far worse.
But when I discuss this with my brother I don’t gloat about being correct, because I don’t feel like I was. I feel fooled by an Administration that sold us on an inexpensive, quick war. My brother readily acknowledges how grossly wrong he was. He is even more adament than I am that we absolutely must set a timetable for withdrawl and stick to it.
In the final analysis a majority of Americans fall into either the category of my brother or me. We may have been opposed to the war or supported it, but either way most have come around to acknowledging this war is wrong and should end. It’s only a partisan handful that continue to hang on.
Brad was a big cheerleader when Robert Gates replaced Rumsfeld. Here’s what Gates had to say today:
Gates said the political tumult in Washington over financing the military presence in Iraq shows that both the American public and the Bush administration are running out of patience with the war.
“I’m sympathetic with some of the challenges that they face,” Gates said of the Iraqis during his surprise visit. But, he said, “the clock is ticking.”
Gates added, “Frankly I would like to see faster progress.”
He said that the Iraqis need to push through legislation on political reconciliation and sharing oil revenues. “It’s not that these laws are going to change the situation immediately, but I think … the ability to get them done communicates a willingness to work together.”
Doug,
That is why the Iraqi Hydrocarbon Law has to be exposed for what it is; a giveaway to foreign oil companies.
The oil fields in Iraq are mostly undrilled. The Hydrocarbon Law opens these undrilled fields to companies like Exxon-Mobile. Not only will the oil companies get to drill these untapped fields, but, pocket a sizeable amount of profit from the sale of the oil.
The Iraqi oil fields were already being divided up BEFORE 9/11. That is now a fact. That is what part of Cheney’s “Secret Energy Task Force” was working on; how to get into, and divide, Iraq’s untapped fields.
There is something called “truth”, and Americans used to have that presented to them by our media.
The “surge” was all about providing cover for the Iraqi Parliament to “work”, but, what is President Bush pushing them to work *on*? The Hydrocarbon Law. Who benefits? Oil companies. Contractors. GOP cronies.
Even Senator Graham has referenced the “oil sharing” in Iraq before. Bush now pushes it openly. Gates has referenced it now.
Can we guess what their priority is?
Michael,
You have written an article that should be read by EVERY American and EVERY Iraqi citizen!
I am from Texas and I knew how Bush was going to run the country–just like he did here when he was governor–everything and anything for his OIL and RICH buddies, and the rest of us can get the shaft. As far as I’m concerned, he became president under questionable circumstances; both in 2000 and 2004. When he started to approve laws that would destroy more of our environment, so that loggers and OIL drilling could begin; I knew we were in BIG trouble. But when he started this insanity about WMDs and Saddam Hussein being a threat, I couldn’t believe what I was witnessing! I told other people if Saddam was such a threat why didn’t his neighbors in the region (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, ISRAEL) complain to the United Nations or ask other countries for help in getting Saddam deposed? Of course, they could not answer that question.
Now we are witnessing the pressure that Bush is using; trying to get the Iraqi government to agree to this UNFAIR law that will give 20% of OIL revenues for Iraqis to share and the other 80% will be practically GIVEN AWAY to foreign OIL corporations (including Exxon-Mobil, BP, Shell, etc…) If people are still willing to believe that Bush invaded Iraq to bring democracy to the Middle East, or that he invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein threatened us, then they are Deliberately denying the TRUTH!
Ms. Benz: Why not use your full name?
Sorry. Couldn’t resist.
Here’s another angle to the Iraq war that has been ignored for a long time, the contribution to the effort by other countries. The so-called “coalition of the willing” appears to be less willing all the time. Since January 2006 there have been 67 soldiers killed from nations other than the U.S., 46 of those were British soldiers. With Britain gradually leaving it appears the U.S. will stand alone in trying to accomplish something militarily.
In contrast the much smaller Afghan operation has seen the deaths 115 non-American servicemen during the same time period, with many nations sharing the burden.
Apparently other nations will sacrifice for a cause they consider worthwhile but increasingly the nations of the world are recognizing what the American public also recognizes: the war in Iraq is a tragedy that needs to be avoided.
My name, Mercedes, is Spanish for “mercies”, like mercies from the Lord NOT a name for a car. My name is Mercedes A-R. Vargas L. That’s all you’ll get from me.
That’s more than he deserved, Mercedes.
It is kind for you to attempt to educate a 30-year “veteran journalist” and editorial page editor of the largest newspaper in SC.
Thank you, Ready. If I had a dime for every time I was asked why my late parents named me after a car, I would be richer than Bill Gates! LOL
I’m glad we still have our right of speech so that I can post on this website, being far away in Texas, and that I can teach someone (Brad) a little bit about something that he probably doesn’t want or care to know about (a word’s meaning in Spanish). Sorry, Brad, but you really should expand your horizons and get your head out of the sand when it comes to believing everything that Mr. Bush says is the Truth. Remember, you can tell a lot about a person by the way he/she treats the sick, the hungry, the widow, the orphan, the young, the old, the military, the prisoners. In my humble opinion, your president has shown his true colors–he cares only about rich people, OIL and making more money,Money,MONEY.
P.S. Brad,
Yes, I give to charities that help the sick, the hungry, the poor, the young, the old, etc…I’ve known how it feels to be without the basics so I share what I can. I also carry around with me cat food and dog food so if I come across a lost or stray animal that’s hungry I can give food to them; and hope that they will allow me to check if they have an ID tag or a microchip so I can try to get them back to their homes. And NO, I do NOT take rewards–I call the nearest no-kill humane society; they get in touch with the owner and any reward goes to the society.
I am not a “holier than thou” type of person. I am a person who is “street smart” and who has gone through the “school of hard knocks”. I check, re-check and check again about anything that will affect me, my family, my country or this world. That is why I have confidence in saying that Mr. Bush has lied to us about many things and has lied to the people of Iraq about why he invaded their country. With this White House, I wouldn’t doubt either, that Mr. Bush would even try to cancel the 2008 presidential election, claiming that we are at war and that he has to be the “decider” and stay at his post until we “win”…
Mercedes,
You better be careful. Brad get upset when anyone suggests the Decider may have actually lied about our adventure in Iraq. Just ask Mary.
Okay, Mary, what happened?
bud,
That depends on what your definition of “lying” is…
Watch the documentary “Why We Fight” (available for rent at most video rental stores). What you’ll find is that the neo-con’s like Pearle, Feith, Wolfowitz, were the ones providing the “intelligence” and the Pentagon was forced to put out the talking points as fact. Lt. Col. (ret) Kwatkowski, who was in the Pentagon at that time, walks us through exactly what they did and how they did it.
It is eye-opening.
Well, I guess Mary is no longer here? Anyway, I’m not afraid of Brad–he doesn’t know where I live or if my e-mail address belongs to me, etc…
Michael, I remember in February, 2003, when Colin Powell went before the UN and told them that they needed to help us get rid of Saddam, I remember thinking to myself that not even Powell himself believed what was coming out of his mouth. This “slam dunk” nonsense and giving Tenet the Medal of Freedom is just more smokescreen. I believe Tenet has been writing a book and it will not be very flattering to the White House gang.
A friend of a friend of mine was a higher-up Republican here in Texas in the late 1990s and this person overheard something he/she wasn’t supposed to–Gov. Bush was talking privately to some men and he mentioned how he could “taste” the sweet OIL that was in Iraq, but he hadn’t figured out how to go after it. He wanted to show his dad that he knew how to fight–this was about 2 years before the 2000 presidential election–and he was already making plans for invading Iraq! And he wasn’t even sure he would be elected president! I think if he hadn’t been given the election by the Supremes, that he would have made some kind of deal with the Saudi friends of the family; who now are trying to distance themselves as far from W. Bush as they can.
Just wanted to get my 2 cents worth of posting before Brad cuts my e-mail address…
Sadly, Mary exists only in my mind. Big Brother has eradicated her memory from all others.
Winston Smith
bud,
Did I miss something here? Are you saying that you are Mary? I miss Mary’s insights. Could it be?
No, I’m not Mary. But he/she might be reincarnated as Carol Hathaway. Check out the partial birth abortion post. We can only hope.
What could possibly be your point, Mr. Warthen?
“We-ah jus’ tryin’ tuh’ hep’ these po’ ign’rant folk. Our problum is we jus’ cay-uh too much.”
On behalf of the rest of the world, I want to thank you and Sen. Graham for spreading the invasion love. Keep on bombing!
Wow, some people can’t take a joke, can they?
I thought the Spanish for “mercy” was “misericordia.” That’s the way Randy and I read it at Mass — right, hermano?
“Mercedes” must be an archaic Castilian word, or maybe Catalan or something.
… or sometimes we say “piedad.”
Oh, and seriously, I don’t know what Mercedes has to be all defiant about. She’s in no way like the unperson.
Why was she seeming to be all defensive with the stuff about being a good, charitable person? Who said she wasn’t? I didn’t, and wouldn’t. What would I have had to base it on, anyway.
Take it easy.
One last thing:
bud, Carol Hathaway is not the unperson. If I’m wrong about that, my hat is off to her. Carol is much more relevant, and writes with a cooler tone.
Also, she seems to care about — or at least to KNOW about — issues in South Carolina. Mary never even pretended to that.
W,
I think Mr. Warthen has missed a very key point to the Iraq war; the justifications were false from the start. Let me rebuild a timeline here and I’ll show you:
– Sept 11, 2001; this, we all remember.
– Oct 7, 2001; America attacks Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda training camp. Bin Laden escapes.
– June 2002; CIA identifies al-qaeda cell located just south of northern “no-fly zone”.
– Sept 12, 2002; Bush addresses the United Nations for resolution to attack Iraq.
– Fall 2002; CIA penetrates Saddam’s inner circle, learns there are NO WMD programs in Iraq.
– Jan 12, 2003; CIA expresses doubt about Niger documents in since released memo.
– Jan 28, 2003; Bush claims Iraq tried to buy yellowcake from Niger (had already been discredited prior to giving speech) in State of the Union speech.
– Feb 5, 2003; Colin Powell addresses the United Nations with “evidence” (had already been discredited by CIA prior to speech) of Iraq’s WMD programs.
– May 1, 2006; Rolling Stone magazine publishes piece that CIA head of Bin Laden unit Mike Scheuer confirmed that the CIA had al-qaeda terrorist Zarqawi in their sights since June 2002, but were told NOT to attack the al-qaeda camp. The CIA had already discredited the notion that Saddam was working with al-qaeda or was harboring Zarqawi – the al-qaeda camp was located just south of the 36th parallel, the border to the “northern no-fly zone” where Saddam’s forces couldn’t venture without being attacked by OUR forces. That al-qaeda camp was basically protected since June 2002 by OUR OWN FORCES.
– April 23, 2006; Ex-CIA Tyler Drumheller speaks to CBS’s Ed Bradley saying he saw firsthand how the White House ignored intelligence that didn’t fit with the war rationale. In addition, in the fall of 2002, the CIA had finally penetrated Saddam’s inner circle and found out that there were no active WMD programs in Iraq.
This isn’t about “oops, we made a mistake”. There is concrete evidence that the Bush administration INTENTIONALLY lied to the public to promote war with Iraq.
Let me reiterate that; CONCRETE EVIDENCE. As I cannot “link”, google works just as well… just use the key words from my statements.
Sources: MSNBC, CBS, etc…
But, Brad, you’ve got to admit that the following doesn’t leave any room for discussion. Carol is saying that anyone who disagrees with partial birth abortion, or full freedom for abortion for any reason, using any method, at any point, is someone who hates women. Because to admit any restriction whatsoever is infringing upon human values. I just don’t understand this, not at all. But I am closed out of any dialog about it as well, since my position does not agree with hers, and is by definition, then, evil.
I looked at Mr. Warthen’s column on the draft, and it was bizarre. Mr. Warthen evidently supports the Iraq war, which has broken our military by imposing an excessive burden on it, and he responds to the observation that the military is broken by reiterating his apparently previously expressed support for a mechanism to expand the military, presumably so that it will be able to withstand continuation of the burden now being placed on it.
What Mr. Warthen fails to understand is that the Americn public does not wish to continue the Iraq war. The solution favored by the American public involves lessening the burden on the military, not on shanghaiing unwilling citizens.
Mr. Warthen misunderstands, I believe, his proper role as a citizen. It is not for him to prescribe a venture for his fellow citizens, one that he favors and they do not, and demand that they implement a method, desired by himself, but not by them, to achieve a goal, desired by himself and not by them.
It is not the business of the American public to indulge Mr. Warthen’s desires simply because he enunciates them. Members of the public are free agents, however, not obliged to assent to, or even consider, Mr. Warthen’s desires. It is for Mr. Warthen to persuade the public that his ideas are worth considering, his goals worth achieving, and his desired methods the correct way to achieve his goals.
Mr. Warthen seeks the prize of assent without the work of persuasion. He desires, it appears, to eat his dessert without finishing his vegetables.
Michael,
I share your incredulity; this invasion wasn’t based on a misunderstanding of the facts or a benign motive. Still, invading a country requires justification beyond any that the White House has made up.
Now that we are in this mess, Mr. Warthen suggests that those who don’t support our ongoing military involvement are partisan do-nothings. Perhaps he doesn’t realize the hammer isn’t the only tool in the shed.
W,
I hesitate to “characterize” Mr. Warthen’s stance on the situation “now”.
I can say this, however; there comes a point when a situation is unwinnable.
If General Custer had of changed his strategy near the end of Little Big Horn, could he have won?
If Napoleon, near the end of Waterloo had just changed his strategy, could he have won?
That is the point we are at now in Iraq. After 4 years of incompetence, lies, spin and propaganda, Iraq is “unwinnable”. We are not talking about chess pieces or marbles; we are talking about our soldiers very lives and the lives of innocent Iraqi citizens.
After 4 years of war, the best Sen. Graham could come up with was that America could secure 6 miles of a road outside of Baghdad and that we have “secure” compounds. This is AFTER 4 years. This is AFTER $400 billion dollars. This is AFTER 3,300 dead American soldiers.
General Shinseki told President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld that we would need about 400,000 troops. We went into Iraq with less then half of that number.
Iraqi’s knew about the horrors at Abu Ghraib long before we did, and a recent whistleblower says that the pictures we saw were the least of the horrors committed there.
The insurgency went from a few thousand in 2003, mostly foreign fighters, to tens of thousands, mostly Iraqi citizens in 2006 and 2007.
We are “surging” how many troops into BAGHDAD? 21,000? 30,000? And by President Bush’s OWN ADMISSION, it is SOLELY to give the Iraqi Parliament “breathing space” to “work”. As I point out above, what is President Bush pushing the Iraqi Parliament to “work on”? The Iraqi Hydrocarbon Law.
Anbar province isn’t secure. Basra isn’t secure. Tikrit isn’t secure. BAGHDAD isn’t even secure!
In 4 YEARS, we can secure 6 miles of road.
I believe that is proof positive that Iraq is lost to us and this war is a failure.
Michael you are probably right that Iraq is lost. The neo-cons constantly harp on this winning vs losing dichotomy. Graciously accepting defeat is often more likely to lead to a reasonable outcome for all concerned than to stubbornly pursue victory. The British recognized that at Yorktown. The American congress understood that in 1975 when they refused to authorize additional funding for Vietnam. Hirohito understood that in August, 1945. Same for Joe Johnston in 1865. All could have continued the fight. But they recognized this would neither lead to victory or the best outcome for all concerned. Yet history does not scorn the decisions of these people. They are viewed today as pragmatists. The best outcome is most likely to occur if we simply withdraw all our forces and let the people of Iraq work this out for themselves.
Brad, you suggested in your original post that you would be most interested in anything new to the Iraqi discussion. I believe there is much new here:
1. Although on another post, RTH has provided evidence that the U.S. mission has changed from one of training to one of security.
2. Michael has made a strong, and I think original, argument about American corporate involvement in the development of the Hydrocarbon Law that would lead to huge oil company profits.
3. Mercedes has provided some excellent insight into the Deciders mindset in the late 90s, that apparently confirms suspicions that he invaded Iraq for the purpose of securing oil.
4. As for me. I just wanted to point out that my position on the Iraq war has changed dramatically since March 2003. At that time I believed much good would come of the invasion. Boy was I wrong.
Brad, why does all of the available evidence fail to resonate with you that the president’s policies are simply not tenable any longer. Or the evidence that his motives for invading were suspect. And that there is ample evidence to suggest our continued stay has more to do with oil company profits than the welfare of the Iraqi people. Furthermore, there are many people who assimilate the avaiable evidence and chang their mind about the viability of staying the course. Can’t you at least acknowledge the huge amount of evidence that supports the view that our Iraq invasion was a mistake? Evidence that would lead to only one viable course of action: set a timetable for withdrawl.
bud,
Let me put it another way…
We have around 150,000 troops in Iraq. We are surging about 30,000 more. That’s a 20% increase.
Now, let us say that Bush was President during the Alamo. There were just over 200 fighters. Now, we are going to “surge” 20% additional troops – or 40 more fighters. Think that would have done it or would that have meant just 40 more dead fighters?
And then people wonder why those of us who were in the military are saying this won’t work?
Iraq is a huge country. We would, as General Shinseki stated, need to at least double our forces to have any impact. But we don’t have that many, and a draft isn’t going to happen.
Mr. Brasher, you do me an injustice. First, as a side issue, the passage you quote is from Amanda Marcotte, not from me. I emphasize this not because I disagree with the sentiments expressed, but because the piece is so well written that I must direct credit for it toward Ms. Marcotte, no matter how much I would like to claim it for myself.
Second, I do not seek to shut down dialog. In fact, I did as you asked – in the thread below, as you will note, you asked (in what seemed to me to be rather a pompous and imperious tone) for a list of cases, and I provided you with a list of cases. You have not responded.to the imporant points raised in Ms. Voss’s article, as illuminated by her experience. So please don’t accuse me of shutting down dialog, or trying to exclude your viewpoint, because I’m not doing that. What I am doing is attempting to forestall you from claiming vindication for your position without actually making arguments and raising facts that do vindicate your position.
I deny you the right to wave your arms around and claim that it is “obvious” that your point of view is correct, because it isn’t obvious. Not to me, not to Ms. Marcotte, and not to Ms. Voss. And even if the rightness of your position is obvious, why not indulge me by pointing out the elements of its obviousness? A good way to do this would be by reading Ms. Voss’s article, and addressing the concerns she raised.
I understand that you are made uncomfortable by a particular procedure sometimes used for late term abortion. I understand that your discomfort has at least some importance, but I do not believe, and I’m sure you don’t either, that the law should intrude deeply into the lives of people who are strangers to you, merely in order to spare you from the discomfort of worrying about their behavior. So could you please explain why the women in the situations described by Ms. Voss should be prohibited from choosing a method of termination of pregnancy recommended to them by their doctors as the best medical option available?
Michael, of course a draft isn’t going to happen. And Brad knows it. Just imagine how politically damning a draft proposal would be if suggested by someone who supports this surge nonsense. The draft is just a red-herring that Brad frequently throws out whenever he cannot justify his stay-the-course thinking within the context of the all-volunteer military.
The pro-war folks understand the army is stretched to the breaking point. We’re extending tours, enlisting sub-standard recruits, moving airforce personnel to army type duties all just to continue with the surge. Suggesting a return to the draft is just an act of desparation by the pro-war crowd.
But perhaps if it were to be seriously proposed a funding cutoff would suddenly become much more viable.
bud,
As I responded to Mr. Warthen in his draft blog:
1) A draft is not happening. The minute there is a draft, the Iraq war is OVER and Repubican’s have been deriding the very thought.
2) We cannot allow gays/lesbians to openly serve. Why? Military and political leaders who are conservative won’t stand for it, especially after demonizing gays and lesbians the past 6 years.
3) We aren’t going to allow foreigners to serve for citizenship. After the big immigration “gotta build a wall” rhetoric from the Republican’s? Not happening.
4) Opening combat slots to women won’t make a difference. It’s a matter of numbers, not where they are serving.
5) We could use mercenaries such as Blackwater. Except, we already are, and as a Marine Corp Times article points out, the military leadership is already COUNTING them.
And that leaves:
6) End the debacle and come home… but, conservatives have been screaming how wrong this is, as well…
And that leaves our military exactly where it is; screwed. Republicans have painted themselves into an “all or nothing” stance and their attitude is now “F the military”.
I guess I’m still permitted to write e-mail messages.
First, the name you recall at Mass, I believe, is in Latin, not Spanish. My late parents were kind of in their early 40s when they had me. They tried for years to have a child and when I finally showed up, my mother told me that she had been praying to God to show her mercy because she could not get pregnant, so she named me Mercedes as a way to thank God for his mercies to her. I don’t know where the word originates from, but I’ve always loved my name.
About me making a point about giving to charities–I tell everyone and anyone to remember how lucky we are to live here in the US of A and how most of the world has no fresh water, electricity, food, how people are treated like dirt, how plants and animals are destroyed every day for greed–so that maybe someone will “pass it forward” and make a difference in someone’s life by contributing what they can to the charity of their choice. We must remember that even though we think we don’t have much, we are rich compared with the rest of the world.
There is also something I forgot to mention. I have read and heard, through various websites and word-of-mouth that during 2001 the official plans to invade Iraq were made during the Energy Task Force Meetings at the White House. This is why Cheney went to court to make sure no one would be able to read the transcripts of the meetings or hear the tapes of the conversations that were held by the White House and the big OIL companies. Why do you think that NO environmentalists were invited to share their views about how to develop the US Energy policies using conservative methods? These meetings were the beginning of the invasion of Iraq! Iraq was chosen because it is one of the smallest countries in the Middle East, and Bush’s daddy had past “conflicts” with Saddam Hussein. W wanted to prove to his daddy that he could whup Saddam’s ass and also get the Iraqi OIL at the same time.
You don’t have to believe anything I say, but just think about what I have written. There are so many things that have happened these past 6 years–our loss of our troops, the hatred the world has for our country, the torturing that has been approved; the spying and eavesdropping on ordinary citizens, the loss of Habeus Corpus, the split down the middle between Republicans and Democrats, etc… BUT the question you have to ask yourself is this: Has this man in the White House done all of these things for the good of the country–We the People– or has he done these things for the good of the “haves” and the “have mores”? You decide…
Mercedes,
Ma’am, you don’t need “word of mouth” for the energy task force and Iraq oil…
By Paul Sperry
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON – The controversial White House energy task force two years ago reviewed Iraqi oil-field maps and “foreign suitors for Iraqi oil-field contracts,” reveal documents turned over under court order to a government watchdog group by a member of the task force.
Or this one…
(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, said today that documents turned over by the Commerce Department, under court order as a result of Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” The documents, which are dated March 2001, are available on the Internet at: http://www.JudicialWatch.org.
(the above picked up by AP)
So, no Ma’am, it isn’t “word of mouth”… it is documented FACT that during Cheney’s Energy Task Force meetings, they were ALREADY dividing up Iraqi oil fields as the words “FOREIGN SUITOR’S FOR IRAQI CONTRACTS” tells us… because simply… under Saddam Hussein, they couldn’t get those contracts. But under the NEW Hydrocarbon Law, they CAN.
Do the math. The Hydrocarbon Law idea was ALREADY being bandied around as early as 2001.
Mercedes, it’s possible that the Decider is some sort of maniacal genius who is using the Federal government to feather the nests of his rich friends. But it’s also possible he’s just an idiot who is really attempting to serve the common welfare of all Americans but is simply incompetent in carrying that out. But perhaps there is a third possibiliy: He’s both maniacal and stupid. He’s attempted to enrich a handful of his cronies but has botched the attempt so badly trying to steal from the poor to give to the rich but has only half succeeded. In effect everyone loses.
Michael,
I never heard about those FOIA documents; in fact, I have not been looking up the Energy Task Force info on the Internet for quite awhile, mainly reading up on the Hydrocarbon Law, and I should have done more research myself before I goofed up here. Where did you read this–in the newspaper or did you see it on TV? I thank you for letting me and everyone here know that these documents are now unclassified and that they do, in fact, show the “behind the scenes” actions of this White House.
I wonder why the Main Stream Media (NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc…) isn’t reporting about the Hydrocarbon Law. Do you think they’ve been paid off by the OIL companies, or that they have made agreements with Bush and the White House not to air these facts until after the 2008 presidential elections? I just can not figure out why this Law is being used as a “benchmark” or why the Iraqi government would even consider approving this law; because they know what horrors will occur when the radical groups find out about the 80% deal for foreign OIL companies!
What kind of power or blackmail is Bush using to get Iraq to approve this law? Why aren’t the neighboring Middle East countries YELLING at Iraq, pleading with them to NOT allow them to give up their precious resource for peanuts? Unbelievable!!!
Mercedes,
Why the MSM isn’t, and haven’t been, reporting on the Hydrocarbon Law, much like they have been loathe to report on anything that paints Bush in a bad light (unless it is soooo “in your face” even they can’t ignore it) is simply;
– Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post; married to a GOP campaign consultant.
– Chris Matthews of MSNBC’s Hardball; his brother is in the GOP.
– Campbell Brown of NBC; her husband was a “bushie” in the Coalition Provisional Authority and her sister-in-law is with AIPAC.
– Tucker Carlson of MSNBC? His father is Vice Chairman of the neo-con Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
– Bob Schieffer of CBS? His brother worked with the Texas Rangers baseball team when Bush made millions off the team.
– Andrea Mitchell of NBC? Her husband is Alan Greenspan.
Go to the Wayne Madsen Report, he has a great run-down on who is married/related to whom under “politics/journalism incest”, and how those media pundits` relatives are part of, or attached to, the GOP.
Do we need to ask WHY the MSM isn’t reporting? We know why; it isn’t in the “interest of the Party” to report to the public.
The greatest myth out there is that the media is “liberal”. It isn’t. But, whenever an “uppity” journalist actually reports, it is these same journalists/pundits who scream “media has a liberal bias”.
That is why the blogosphere has taken over from the traditional media; at least there we get facts and truth.
Don’t even go into FAUX News. Here is an excerpt from a report:
In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.
Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.
According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox’s actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12 1997)
Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury’s words) “a false, distorted or slanted story” about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida’s whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement. Inexplicably, however, the court decided that Steve Wilson, her partner in the case, was ruled not wronged by the same actions taken by FOX.
FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation.” In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a “law, rule, or regulation,” it was simply a “policy.” Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.
During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.
(credit projectcensored.org)
And we wonder why people who watch FAUX News are “uninformed of the facts”?
This really does explain a lot. Cheney’s insistance that the insurgency is in it’s last throes. The surge policy even in the face of a rapidly deteriorating military. The complete lack of any kind of diplomatic overtures. It all fits. The war must succeed on some level to allow the oil companies to secure the spoils of war. American security or Iraqi welfare is simply not part of the equation. Is there some chance that this isn’t true? Call me naive but it’s hard to believe the Decider is that diabolical. Truly Unbelievable!
Mercedes,
As for why Iraqi’s in Parliament are actually working to pass this law? We need only look at Afghanistan to figure it out. But first, understand what Afghanistan has (from eia.doe.gov):
“Soviet estimates from the late 1970s placed Afghanistan’s proven and probable oil and condensate reserves at 95 million barrels. Most Soviet assistance efforts after the mid-1970s were aimed at increasing gas production. Sporadic gas exploration continued through the mid-1980s. The last Soviet technical advisors left Afghanistan in 1988. After a brief hiatus, oil production at the Angot field was restarted in the early 1990s by local militias. Output levels, however, are though to have been less than 300 b/d. Near Sar-i-Pol, the Soviets partially constructed a 10,000-b/d topping plant, which although undamaged by war, is thought by Western experts to be unsalvageable.”
When we overthrew the Taliban, we basically instilled Mr. Karzai as President. Who is he? A former Unocal oil consultant.
And in December, 2002, right before we invaded Iraq, guess what Afghanistan signed?
“Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan on Friday signed here a framework agreement for a US $ 3.2 billion gas pipeline project passing through the three countries.”
(credit to truthout.org)
The exact same pipeline agreement that energy companies like ENRON and Unocal (remember those Cheney Energy Task Force meetings) had been trying to get built for decades.
bud,
Do you want my opinion, after the extensive research I’ve done for the past 3 years?
No chance at all.
This was all pre-planned, and if it wasn’t 9/11, the neo-cons would have found another “excuse” to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. How do we know? They told us… Victor Gold, Bush’s ex-speechwriter, gave this interview:
A GOP insider, former Bush 41 speechwriter and close friend of the Bush family writes in his new book that before 9/11, the Neo-Cons in control of the Bush administration were eager to seize upon a manufactured provocation to go to war – just as LBJ had done with the Gulf Of Tonkin in 1965, and questions the official 9/11 story.
In his new book, Invasion of the Party Snatchers: How the Neo-Cons and Holy Rollers Destroyed the GOP , Gold slams the current administration and exposes their zeal for creating a pretext for a war that was planned many years in advance.
Gold confirms that war in Iraq was decided upon from day one, and that a fake pretext was readied and anticipated before 9/11 happened. Though Gold still pins the blame on Al-Qaeda, in acknowledging the fact that the Bush administration would have staged a false flag attack anyway had it not been for 9/11, he is one small step away from intimating that the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon were an inside job.
“There would be regime change in Iraq,” writes Gold, “All that the Neo-Con war hawks, in the Bush administration and out, needed to bring it about was an excuse to invade. Looking back a half-decade and knowing what we now know, who could doubt that if al Qaeda hadn’t obliged the Neo-Cons with 9/11, the Kristolites would have torn a page out of history and, with Rupert Murdoch playing the role of William Randolph Hearst, given us a reprise of the sinking of the Maine?”
Wow, Michael,
All I can say is THANK YOU for the information! I had NO idea about all the neo-cons on board the Main Stream Media.
Never fear, I wouldn’t waste a second of my time watching FAUX NOISE.
By the by, what do you think about Keith Olbermann of MSNBC? I watch him every weeknight because at least he has the guts to comment on what Bush has been doing WRONG, and I’ve read that he’s received a bunch of death threats ever since last September 11th, 2006, when he made an excellent comment about how Bush could let the Twin Towers still look like an open wound on our country. He’s the only one I’ve seen from the MSM (except for local op-ed columnists) that tells the TRUTH about how Bush has done so much damage to us and the world.
Sometimes I wish I never heard the word OIL. Such evil people trying to run the planet; killing and destroying just for that liquid. And even WORSE–those who know the TRUTH but are making sure that most of the world never finds out how Bush and Co. started this disaster–they are more to blame because they know the TRUTH and are supposed to report the TRUTH and instead they allow death and destruction of Innocents just to keep their position and status in our “civilized” Western world…
Mercedes,
Olbermann (and Cafferty on CNN) are the only two I “trust”, but even they are “constrained” by their “masters”.
Even in the blogosphere there is false information (you need only look how Republican talking points start: Republican blog makes false claim, it’s picked up by MSM Republican shills, repeated by Republican Congressmen… rinse… repeat).
Why do I have the feeling that no one is going to pay for the Injustice and Murder they’ve caused–at least not here on Earth…
Mercedes,
Because they won’t.
I am not a “liberal”, a Democrat, nor am I a Republican now. I am merely a person who served my country in the military and the people of our state; and I want the truth. I want my Constitution back. I want our military to not be used to secure oil fields. I want the press to be what our founding fathers envisioned them to be; a guardian of the people, not of a political Party.
I don’t care if it is a Democrat or a Republican who is destroying my country; the people need to know.
I thank you for serving us, Michael. My late father was in World War II and he lost 2 brothers and a cherished brother-in-law. But that war was needed because of the threat of global domination by Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo, and we had Allies and we all worked together to stop them.
BUT there was no need for this war in Iraq or the rights we have lost from our Constitution.
I will say that anyone who voted for Bush either in 2000 or 2004 should be ashamed of themselves and think about what they have allowed to happen to us and to the world…
Mercedes,
I am ashamed. I voted for Bush in 2000.
My apology:
I should have said that anyone who voted for Bush either in 2000 or 2004 and STILL BELIEVE he is doing a “heck of a job” THEY are the ones who should be ashamed of themselves.
I know many people, including my right-wing boss who kept trumpeting how good and noble Bush and his “war against terror” was, and now he never says a word about anything political. Others are so angry that they were conned by Bush that they are out for blood. I don’t think that way, so I stay clear of people like that.
The sad part is that about 30% of people refuse to accept that Bush is a liar, a coward, and a criminal. Until their dying day they will still love Bush…
Ma’am… there is certainly no need to apologize to me. It is I who apologize to America.
Unfortunately, I didn’t start “digging” until it was too late. I “relied” on the media thinking they would keep me informed. How wrong I was.
Once I started digging, it opened more questions then answers. I kept digging. Again I got more questions then answers. Then, like a jigsaw puzzle, I started putting it all together. By then, it was almost election time 2004. I voted Kerry.
Unfortunately, the DNC *is* stupid. They don’t know how to fight out of a wet paperbag. The “political consultants” for the DNC are idiots.
The truth is out there, has been out there, is easily located, is indisputable; yet, the DNC won’t argue the case?
It wasn’t until the mid-terms I had to vote straight Dem ticket, just to try and staunch the bleeding that is America today under the neo-con Republicans.
Then we get Senator Graham HELPING to write the Military Commissions Act of 2006. O..M..G.
It applies to ANYONE who is deemed an “unlawful enemy combatant”. That means you; me; anyone. And Senator Graham has the chutzpah to spout about “rules of law”?
The last time I read the Constitution, it stated that the CONSTITUTION was the highest law of the land, and NO OTHER LAW could supercede it without an AMENDMENT.
Yet, we’ve lost the 4th Amendment, the 1st Amendment, the 5th Amendment, all since 9/11?????
Our founding fathers are spinning in their graves that they fought, died, bled, to birth America just to have people like Senator Graham spit on their graves.
Michael,
I seem to recall when Bush was questioned about renewing the Patriot Act and getting rid of some “questionable” new laws that he got very angry and said not to bother him with the Constitution because it was only a “god damn piece of paper”. That about sums up Bush’s love of the US of A and his love for the Constitution.
Don’t feel bad; at least you examined and checked the facts and found the TRUTH. There are millions out there who don’t want to listen to anything political; who only care if they can’t get cheap gas for their car, and who care about watching and voting for “American Idol”. They can’t be bothered about our country and our future. They are the real losers in this game of Life.
Mercedes,
Bush wasn’t in a foxhole in Iraq. I was. Bush didn’t walk live minefields in Iraq. I did. Bush got a cushy flying job on the back of his daddy and never had to be “bothered” to put his butt on the line for his country.
Yes, I finally “woke up”. I finally started getting the facts, instead of accepting spin and propaganda.
The biggest “voice” in support of this war are from people who’ve never had to fight in one, much less in Iraq. VoteVets is chalk full of Iraq veterans who are speaking out against the war in Iraq.
I do not disparage a veteran who supports the war. At least he/she has BEEN in a war. I *do* try to steer them to the facts of the war.
But somebody who is an armchair General who hasn’t been there questioning MY patriotism? Who tells me *I* don’t support our troops? Who tells me *I* am giving “aid” to our enemy when they can’t even tell me WHO our enemy truly is? No Ma’am!
Iraq isn’t a video game. War isn’t fun. And John Jay writes in the Federalist Papers what a JUST war is… and warns us about UNJUST wars.
I am not our founding fathers… but I am at least trying to bring sanity back.
No, actually, “misericordia” IS Spanish. So, apparently, is Mercedes — that’s what made me think it’s an archaic form, or maybe a contraction.
Randy and I are lectors, and regularly read the Gospel in Spanish. I often read in English as well. I’m filling in for him on May 6, our Primer Domingo. He has a conflict.
You don’t hear much Latin in Mass anymore, except at some times of the year we recite the Agnus Dei (the Latin form of “mercy,” which occurs in that prayer, is “miserere”). And sometimes, especially around Christmas, we sing “Gloria in excelsis Deo.” Occasionally a little Greek — the Kyrie. But we usually do both that and the Agnus Dei in the vernacular.
Spanish is used far more regularly that the classical languages.
I wish I could post some more, but I have to get some sleep. Goodnight Everyone…