Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Vietnam All Over Again

By Bobby Muller, AlterNet. Posted January 11, 2007.


A well-known leader of Vietnam vets, paralyzed in combat, describes the frighteningly familiar path that is leading us into a widening conflict: With such a small percentage of the population bearing the burden of the war in Iraq, the sense of shared sacrifice has been lost.
011107story
011107story

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Bobby Muller

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

As a soldier who fought in the Vietnam War -- the United States' only lost war -- President Bush's imminent decision to increase the U.S. force in Iraq by thousands of troops brings to mind events more than thirty years old.

In 1968, shortly after Clark Clifford succeeded Robert McNamara as Secretary of Defense, Secretary Clifford met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to discuss the war in Vietnam. He quickly learned that America's top military leaders did not know how many troops were needed nor did they know what constituted victory.

During March 1968, despite this discovery, President Johnson agreed to send 24,500 more troops to Vietnam on an emergency basis. President Johnson and Secretary Clifford thought that this increase in U.S. troops would lead to U.S. victory there. And in an address to the nation on March 31 President Johnson stated: "We have no intention of widening this war."

At that time, approximately 24,000 U.S. service members had died in Vietnam. By the end of that war, more than 58,000 U.S. troops had been killed. More U.S. soldiers died winding down the war than had in starting it. In addition, by the end of the war, the United States had greatly expanded the war into Cambodia and Laos.

But, little more than a year later, after he left office, Clifford wrote: "Nothing we might do could be so beneficial ... as to begin to withdraw our combat troops. Moreover ... we cannot realistically expect to achieve anything more through our military force, and the time has come to begin to disengage."

By recommending to President Bush that U.S. troops in Iraq should be increased, with no clear plan for achieving victory there, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates risks following in the footsteps of Clark Clifford. As with Secretary Clifford, Secretary Gates has succeeded the architect of a U.S. military failure. Like Clifford, Gates has proven incapable of calling for a dramatic change in course.

Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. In addition, some in the U.S. government blame neighbors such as Iran and Syria for exacerbating sectarian tensions in Iraq. Increasing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq increases the likelihood that the United States will be pulled further into an intra-Iraqi struggle and deploying a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf -- apparently in an effort to warn Syria and Iran and to increase the flexibility for commanders in the region -- reminds me of the decision by U.S. military and civilian leadership to expand the war in Vietnam beyond the borders of that country.

Today, the U.S. military is, in the words of the Pentagon, stretched "to the breaking point." Almost 30 percent of the 1.5 million U.S. service members who have been deployed since September 11, 2001 have been deployed more than once. Thousands of members of Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) have been called up in what many term a "backdoor draft." Military recruiters are struggling to meet their goals; the Pentagon is considering greatly increasing the number of noncitizens in the U.S. military; more than 16,000 single mothers who are in the U.S. military have been deployed. And, most importantly, more than 3,000 service members have been killed in Iraq and tens of thousands wounded. Finally, more than $350 billion has been spent on the Iraq war.

It is time for the U.S. Congress to ensure that the voice of the American people -- including the voices of those who have served in Iraq and before -- are heard. Clearly, President Bush missed the central lesson of the November elections and the Iraq Study Group: that Americans want a dramatic change in course in Iraq, one that does not include deepening the U.S. involvement there.

Fortunately, not only Democrats have come out opposing the surge. Most prominently, Republican Senators Chuck Hagel, Gordon Smith, Susan Collins, and Norm Coleman have made clear their opposition to the president's plan.

Hard questions must be asked regarding the possibility of increasing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq; the effect that such a choice will have on those who have volunteered to serve their country in the military must be carefully considered.

With such a small percentage of the U.S. population bearing the vast majority of the burden of the war in Iraq, the sense of shared sacrifice has been lost. The social contract between service members and their government and society must be repaired. It is time for members of Congress -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- to come together to make it clear to President Bush the folly of the surge.

Otherwise, the United States risks repeating the failures of Vietnam.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq war, vietnam war

Bobby Muller is President of Veterans for America (formerly the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation), and a co-recipient of the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
study
Posted by: rsaxto on Jan 11, 2007 1:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Presidents who do not study history or morality or decency become war criminals who study mass murder and tyranny.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Imeachment Issues.... Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Imeachment Issues.... Posted by: brotherjonah
From the Independent (UK paper)
Posted by: Arvy on Jan 11, 2007 2:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Robert Fisk quotes Pat Buchanan saying that his words "deserve to be written in marble".

Buchanan said:

"We will soon launch an imperial war on Iraq with all the 'On to Berlin' bravado with which French poilus and British tommies marched in August 1914. But this invasion will not be the cakewalk neoconservatives predict ... For a militant Islam that holds in thrall scores of millions of true believers will never accept George Bush dictating the destiny of the Islamic world ...

"The one endeavour at which Islamic peoples excel is expelling imperial powers by terror and guerrilla war. They drove the Brits out of Palestine and Aden, the French out of Algeria, the Russians out of Afghanistan, the Americans out of Somalia and Beirut, the Israelis out of Lebanon... We have started up the road to empire and over the next hill we will meet those who went before."

But George Bush dare not see these armies of the past, their ghosts as palpable as the phantoms of the 3,000 Americans let us forget the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis already done to death in this obscene war, and those future spirits of the dead still living amid the 20,000 men and women whom Bush is now sending to Iraq. In Baghdad, they will move into both Sunni and Shia "insurgent strongholds" as opposed to just the Sunni variety which they vainly invested in the autumn because this time, and again I quote General Odierno, it is crucial the security plan be " evenhanded". This time, he said, "we have to have a believable approach, of going after Sunni and Shia extremists".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: History starts NOW Posted by: Edward George
» RE: From the Independent (UK paper) Posted by: albrechtkrausse
"Special interests" controlling U.S. actions
Posted by: Moonray on Jan 11, 2007 3:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The neocons and their minions in the White House who are cheerleading this war are operating on behalf of powerful special interests that include Saudi Arabia, Israel, American right-wingers, the U.S. weapons industry and others.

Saudi officials have even said openly that they might intervene on behalf of Sunnis in Iraq if the U.S. withdraws its troops. Israel has its own obvious concerns, and the American right-wingers are their usual dim-witted selves. It's a perfect storm of self-interest, manipulation and stupidity.

Worse, the Bushies might now have Iran in their cross-hairs, figuring that they might as well "go for broke," since they have little left to lose politically. Iran is capable of serious retaliation.

All this is crazy, but it's the predictable result of allowing the U.S. military-industrial complex -- now operating under the rubric of "national security" -- to gain such enormous influence over our government. World War III might well be the eventual result and, ironically, the real terrorists around the world stand to gain the most from our foolishness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Deny war funding to stop the surge
Posted by: robchapman on Jan 11, 2007 3:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am not so sure that Congress can prevent the surge that the President proposed last night, but I strongly and vehemently believe that we are honor bound to oppose it with all measures at your disposal.

I believe that it is political feasible for the 110th Congress to oppose funding for the continuation of the war.
It is morally imperative that Congress do so.

In my considered judgment it is not dishonorable to withhold funding from our operations as the President has unilaterally and without consultation, changed the terms of the agreement by which the troops were committed.

I strongly believe that we need to show the same courage and persistence in the dual causes of humanity and peace that Bush is showing in pursuit of hegemony and militarism.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush dodging responsibility
Posted by: robchapman on Jan 11, 2007 4:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
US President George Bush's statement that he takes responsibility for US policy errors in Iraq stands truthfulness and common sense on their head.

If he took responsibility in any meaningful way, he would be on an action plan to improve his job performance.

Bush would have announced last night that the new policy for Iraq will proceed from the recomendations of Commission he has authorized to study US policy in Iraq.

Bush's entire statement last night was an artful avoidance of responsibility and an exercise in shifting blame for any adverse outcomes of Iraq policy to opponents of the war.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No one is talking about the right issue
Posted by: mat38 on Jan 11, 2007 5:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While it's important for people to remember history what good does it do to look back while disaster looms ahead? Not enough people want to take on the real issues behind the reasons our nation is about to plunge the workd into further chaos.
(1) A president who is mentally dreanged and a memebr of the Crazy Christian doomsday cult. More importantly (2), The unprecedented and undue influence that the Israel Lobby and its Neocons and foreigners, from Israel, have over our governments foreing policy, national elections, and corporate media. Afterall, why does our nation give $10+ billion every year to Israel whis it refuses to act like a dmeocratic nation, kkeps untold numbers of hidden WMDs, continuouslly attacks and threatens its neighbours and subjects aprtheid over half of its citizens. (3) The Pentagon and the military industrial monster that is eating up like a malignant cancer more than half of our GDP every year.
Otherwise, in thrity years some guy will be writing about the folly of going into Iraq the same as the author is writing about Vietnam.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stop with the damn "SURGE" already...... what is with Alternet anyway?
Posted by: Prophit on Jan 11, 2007 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why are you perpetually supporting the reframing of the real issues here. WE WANT OUT OF VIETNAM, OOPS, OUT OF IRAQ AND WE DON'T WANT TO INVADE IRAN, NOR DO WE WANT TO BOMB CIVILIANS IN SOMALIA WITH DU TIPPED WEAPONS THAT WILL CONTAMINATE THE WATER AND SOIL FOR GROWING FOOD THAT WAS DONE IN BOSNIA.

HELLO.... IS ANYBODY HOME HERE????????? Quite playing along with the NEOCONS REFRAMING AGENDA!!! Lets get back on the discussion that was paramount and that is a time frame for withdrawal from Iraq. NO MORE DEBT TO FUND ILLEGAL WARS. Thanks

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Holy War and Unholy Terror
Posted by: gazooks on Jan 11, 2007 6:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is the subtitle to a succinct book by Bernard Lewis entitled "The Crisis of Islam". This is a very short look at a very long history, but it should be required reading for anyone with any question of historical context to the current conflict, it's broad dimensions, it's unexpected and inconvenient duration and our place in it.

The complications and costs of our involvement in Iraq are largely unknown to we Americans due in large part to the profound ignorance of history that we suffer. Please take note; we are as Rome. We think of ourselves as one thing as a nation, a cultivated view rife with contradictions, when we really are quite something else.

But we exempt ourselves because we believe we're in Mayberry. (Barney would never put his bullet in his gun and make a prisoner stand naked in detention. Andy wouldn't allow it). The really naïve part of it is that we're always shocked by little things like stolen elections, rampant official corruption, cultural arrogance and the moral decadence born of a stale mythology. Rome too had it's Robertson's, it's Cheney's, and Nero's, ... I mean Bush's. Our very tenaciously determined, well provisioned masters are clear on the macro dynamics of economic dominance and are very set on prevailing, idiotic puppet princes notwithstanding. The costs of expanding the war are hideous, but hose of withdrawal unimaginable.

There is no short term solution, perhaps no end to this war in our lifetimes. The underlying conflict too old, the cultural gulf too wide, the stakes too high, and thanks to a neo-con ambition driven agenda, it's too late. It's is just the beginning of a very long haul, and the thing that we will eventually be forced to face is the undeniable truth of who we really are and what we are all party to, whether we like it or not. What's most uncertain is the full accounting of just what price we will pay. (where in the US are those detention centers that Haliburton was given over a half billion dollars by Congress to build last year?)

We as a nation were not willing to voluntarily suffer the practical concessions required to apply a more enlightened method to possibly preclude the circumstances that imperial war otherwise dictates. But we now will suffer the resultant toxic effects of overt political authority and accelerated environmental and economic degradation. (it's a small price to pay to enable the pleasant continuity of a drive to the mall, albeit for ever more expensive imports). Which, of course, will make room in your wallet in 2008 for your National Identity Card. (consider long and hard the consequences of refusing one). Then, to be followed by the very necessary implanted chip to insure safety and inviolability. Everyone will need one. Everyone.

Unfortunately untrue for increasing numbers of troops, but then we're just getting started burying our dead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» communication Posted by: Iconoclast421
The bottom line why this war started and goes on
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jan 11, 2007 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems to me that most Americans treat the war as something remote to their daily lives. Sort of like watching a movie. I am wondering how much this has to do with the fact that: most of the members of our armed forces--particularly those engaged in actual combat in Iraq---are members of the lower class in American society.

If we were to bring back the draft---with NO exemptions--I am wondering how quickly that would end this war, and prevent future U.S. "adventures". I mean, if the sons and daughters of the upper middle class; the kids of the CEOs and company VPs and Wall Street stockbrokers and their associated soccer-mom wives--if their kids' asses were on the line to get shot at then the whole perspective would change.

Also, extend the draft to some of these guys in their 40's who support the war. That would bring a much-needed dose of reality to the country.

Allthough I know that the chances of this actually happening are virtually nil, even debating it would expose the economic and class-based roots of this war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No Draft - No way Posted by: MonkeyBoy
» right on Posted by: Iconoclast421
The quest for a client state in a strategic location
Posted by: Bic Pentameter on Jan 11, 2007 6:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We'll never know what might have happened if our administration had really had in mind the well being of the Iraqi people, nor is it likely that we will take up such an interest as our prime motive.

Look how we run our own country. Congresspersons do what it takes to get financing and re-election. They sometimes seem like a bunch of self absorbed, self congratulating juveniles who think they really deserve the keys to the candy store. The country is theirs to mete out to those who support them handsomely.

It's not likely that GW will ever actually reach out to the Iraqi people, and questionable whether he effectively could. Underlying any effort at diplomacy would always be the same goal: a client state in a strategic spot.

Spread freedom and democracy? Advance human rights? The gift of a better world with no strings attached simply because we have faith that a contented, peaceful society will be better for all in the long run? They don't even bother to suggest such nonsense.

Do you suppose we are seen as the benevolent big brother helping to build their house?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Marcos
Posted by: marcos on Jan 11, 2007 7:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The USA has long been an Imperial power. No more lies about our Republican status, this is a slow but precise march to kick ass, country liberating Super Power status.

The military interventions in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Panama, Phillipines, Haiti, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Panama are all but forgotten. And then you have the coups in support of the some of the worst shits any country can give birth to, including Saddam Hussein. And those interventions not wars, of course, have created political stars, like the heroic pilot John McCain. He only dropped bombs, he's a patriot.

There is nothing new here but hey who's counting.

We even have good wars like WWI and WWII and Korea. When the draft existed rich and poor american soldiers went and killed poor people. Hooray for Democratic society!!!!

People don't bitch about the first war in Iraq because the US won. Nobody has to complain about the following years of air restrictions on Iraq.

And what about the war on drugs??? Remember that one. What about the several hundred US soldiers in Colombia? And 40 billion a year for the World War on Drugs.

There will be more money in the next decade for another War. Democrats will vote for it. I've always said the Democrats should tell Republicans to shut up!!

A Democrat ordered us into Vietnam, a Democrat decided to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a Democrat led the efforts of the good war in 1942.

This a society in love with all guns blazing, the flag in the wind and support for the troops. Screw Iraqui children. Let their governement step up to the plate and fix this GOD AWFUL MESS that US Imperial superpower started.

How convenient!!! Adoration of God, Country and Patriots!!!

Just answer this: how much money has the US put into helping eliminate oridnance reaminaing from the bombings over Vietnam during a decade of carnage?

Nope, money goes into War, profiteering for Corporations and Country. Bush isn't crazy (58 million votes remember), neither was LBJ, Nixon, Truman, or Ford who in 1975 asked for more money for the war in Vietnam.

And of course there's the dominoe effect of Communism, Terrorism, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...we are always in denager someone is out to get us, let's getum first!!!! Long Live John Wayne!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Marcos Posted by: feduphoosier
» RE: Marcos Posted by: aonghus36
» Chinja doesn't own us Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: Chinja doesn't own us Posted by: aonghus36
Who is planning our next war?
Posted by: rwa on Jan 11, 2007 8:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"As Americans await Bush's address announcing a "surge" of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops to Iraq, we may be missing the larger picture. The War Party is turning its attention from Iraq – to Iran. "

full article

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

History Lesson
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jan 11, 2007 8:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
President Truman signed a bill called the National Security Act of 1947, which merged the Navy & War Departments, created the CIA from the Army's OSS, created the US Air Force from the Army Air Corps, added a huge layer of civilian bureaucracy to the Defense establishment and we have not won a war since.

We lost Korea, otherwise we wouldn't be concerned about the nut-case with nukes and rockets in North Korea.

We lost Vietnam, no dispute from anybody.

We are now losing the Bush Energy Wars (Blood for Oil).

The only winners are the camp followers (think tanks & contractors), politicians and career bureaucrats.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Does "The Little Big Horn" ring any bells, Bushie?!
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jan 11, 2007 9:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the article:
"In addition, by the end of the war, the United States had greatly expanded the war into Cambodia and Laos."

In regard to the expansion of the Vietnam war vs. the expansion of the Iraq occupation, there is an important difference: neither Cambodia nor Laos had a 600,000+ standing army or a nuclear program, as does Iran. Also, neither S.E Asian country had an ethnic enemy within striking distance with vast military resources of its own, as Saudi Arabia has today. And finally, the conflict in S.E. Asia had no potential to disrupt the flow of critical petroleum supplies to the U.S.

Attacking Iran would be akin to the U.S. expanding the war in Vietnam directly into China; I can only imagine in my nightmares what China would have done had Presidents Johnson or Nixon been as stupid as President Bush.

Should Bush succumb to his latest delusion and attack Iran, there very well may be a parallel to Vietnam: a draft. With our military stretched to the breaking point, there is no way short of using nuclear weapons that we could counter an attack on our troops in Iraq by the Iranian army. We could conceivaby end up with our 140,000 troops there effectively becoming hostages of the Iranians – or reenacting "Custer's Last Stand." And if we use nuclear weapons in Iran, what will be the reaction of it's northern neighbor, Russia, which still possesses hundreds of nuclear-tipped (and easily retargetable) ICBM's? Or the reaction of the rest of the Middle East to little Israel (with nukes of its own), our staunchest ally there, surrounded and backed up against the Mediterranian Sea? The potential for the Iraq mess to spin out of control and into a death spiral for the western world is great – and a three-year-old is at the controls.

No, the occupation of Iraq is not like the Vietnam war – it is far, far, worse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I still say Commit, not Impeach
Posted by: brotherjonah on Jan 11, 2007 9:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No constitutional crisis, no separation of powers crisis. Plenty of historic precedent for it, just not to a sitting President. Yet. There was one President who had to be rescued from a white house bathtub too small for his ...ahem,, robust frame. A Republican too, if I remember it right... Taft? Harding? sometime in that time frame. I should google it just to settle it in my own mind.
But until then no Sitting President was visited by District Police and Fire Departments while actually sitting... in ... the... tub.

But there are provisions for handing over powers if the president is medically incompetent. A 72 hour commitment might not last for long, but for 3 days there could be some rapid fire congressional house cleaning (bad yet unintended pun) to strip his Emergency Powers he appropriated more than 5 years ago "for the duration" of a war with no definition of what exactly constitutes victory.

Plenty of Nam vets and GulfWarz1 vets have been done that way. For some of the it was necessary. For others it was more government bull poopoo foisted on them. But if it's good enough for Our Boys it should be good enough for Our Chimp.
We just have to make sure Cheney is committed at the same time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

9/11 9/11 9/11
Posted by: edgar_michel on Jan 11, 2007 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Congress can't bring those to justice that orchestrated 9/11, or Congress can't even hear testimony from those who have labored to expose the physical realities of 9/11, then Congress nor anyone else in the United States will not be able to change the course in Iraq short of a confrontation of the U.S. military by the U.S. people. If George W. Bush allowed 9/11 to proceed as a catalyst for support for a war in Iraq, then he will be compelled by delusional emotion to continue to advance the war to prove that the sacrifice of the original 2963 Americans that died in the twin towers was after all a noble sacrifice. Until the crime is exposed and you have the real perpetrators in custody, the war will continue to escalate until it results in a conflict of aggression against the people of this country itself. If you will recall, the world, though not perfectly peaceful was at least moving in a direction to address global inequities before 9/11. 9/11 changed everything; remember? No major event in history has ever happened by chance. Tell your Senator and Congressperson that you want the 9/11 investigation re-opened and all the testimony that was disallowed by the official commission to be now considered.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 9/11 9/11 9/11 Posted by: pomes
» RE: 9/11 9/11 9/11 Posted by: Conservasaurus
No Means NO!
Posted by: mrsmagoo on Jan 11, 2007 10:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
President Bush: What part about the voter's NO did you not understand????? No means NO!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: SERIOUS questions about the integrity of Don Hazen, Alternet’s Executive Director
Posted by: rwa on Jan 11, 2007 10:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have noticed a plethora of Islamophobic hate writing inserted in psuedo-liberal pieces by Evan Derkacz. The commenters seem to be better writers than those employed by alternet. I notice that their stable now includes former AIPACer David Sirota. What kind of "progressive" organization would hire someoe with that kind of resume?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» An example to back the charge ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
The "Decider" decides
Posted by: willymack on Jan 11, 2007 11:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah, right. the White House wacko couldn't decide which sock goes on which foot without help.His cognitive dysfunctions are well known by now, yet nobody in the MSM has seen fit to report this all-important truth. Since the first time I heard him make a "speech" as governor of Texas, I observed:"now, there's a tinhorn if I ever saw one". I've been studying him ever since. I can't claim to have the knowlege of an M.D. psychiatrist or a P.H.D. psychologist, but I DO possess good observational skills and a retentive mind. In my opinion, bush is burdened with several psychoses-each a case history in itself. On top of that, he is abysmally ignorant of even the basic knowlege needed to effectively function as ANY kind of supervisor, let alone head of state. To think that anyone with a functioning mind would consider bush fit for his job is way beyond belief. Let's face it folks; we've got a batty bumpkin in the White House. As a long-ago Molly once said: "Tain't funny, Magee".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» says ALOT Posted by: NowYogi
» Amen to that brother....... Posted by: Prophit
NOW IS THE TIME FOR PROTEST IN THE STREET!
Posted by: art_chippendale on Jan 11, 2007 12:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Congress may not be able to do anything about it, but we, the people can.
Congress is stymied by this minor ramping-up of troops. They are afraid of falling into the cleverly set political trap of refusing to come to the aid the Iraqi government and costing us the war. Failure would be blamed on democrats and used to hoist the republican flag past half mast, where its been since November. What will congress do when Bush asks for 20,000 more in another six months?
STREET PROTEST IS THE PUBLIC'S LOUDEST AVENUE
Vote. Contact your Congressperson and Senator. Then protest! All these avenues are historically legitimate methods of affecting government policy. But protest is now the most effective way to be heard until 2008. So get off your duff! Email congress and then contact your local activist organization about where and when the next protest will be.
See you in the streets!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: SERIOUS questions about the integrity of Don Hazen, Alternet’s Executive Director
Posted by: babs on Jan 11, 2007 12:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder what the other side has to say?

While Giordano's essay was an eye opener, I still take it with a grain of salt (no, I don't work for Alternet). That he would ask the public - those that read and post on Alternet - to care about fees or percentages for freelance writers, is like asking audiences to boycott James Cameron's movies because he is known for underpaying and abusing the actors, crews and techs that work for him.

I have worked in publishing and entertainment and I know a bit about intellectual property and theft. If indeed Alternet is "stealing" stories or misappropriating funds, shame on them. But do the everyday Alternet users really care about that stuff or are they just happy to have another alternative to Big Media? and BTW, a million dollar budget is pretty small, in US terms.

Giordano seems to be pretty steamed and I found the essay to be a bit shrill. I'll second the idea that Alternet and Hazen respond to the charges and let the readers decide for themselves.

for now, I'll continue to read.

(I wonder if the heinous little troll, BC08, who is mercifully absent today, is a shill for an Alternet enemy. Just wondering...)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First of all, I'd want to know who you are and why this interests you
Posted by: Beck on Jan 11, 2007 12:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is your background? How did you become interested in this? Are you a long-time reader of Alternet? Without any knowledge of you or your interest, your post reminds me of the kinds of calls made before elections, to the best of my knowledge often by conservatives about liberals: "Would you still vote for (x) if you knew they (blank)?" Lastly, if your charges are true, why exactly do you care? I know that sounds cynical, but I would assume that if one looked, one could find plenty of stuff on the internet to take issue with. Why this issue and this man?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You're full of it ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
ianwaterston
Posted by: ianwaterston on Jan 11, 2007 1:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whenever you wonder how 'they' can be so stupid and/or duplicitious about getting into Iraq, and now not getting out of it, just keep repeating "It's the OIL, stupid, It's the OIL"
That and the fact this is like a wet dream for what Eisenhower warned against, the so called Military Industrial Complex.
Vietnam was about fear of Communism (oh, and the MIC too..). But Iraq is about OIL, POWER and GREED. War is fantastically profitable for some. Oil is fantastically profitable for others. It's a win win for them. It's loss loss for the countless thousands mourning the death or near destruction of loved ones in the USA and Iraq, but I don't think you have to be a cynic to believe those making these seemingly crazy decisions are too worried about those kind of losses.
This war will have a very 'long tail' for America, and it won't be wagging happily, either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Search Google' War Is A Racket'
Posted by: mite on Jan 11, 2007 1:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you talk "Golf of Tomkin" (Viet Nam) or 911 (War on Terror)
it starts with a "LIE", period. The Money made from these actions and the disabilities and deaths created by the tyrants and traitors is unexcuseable.

The Congress and Media-Press are just as responsible as these tyrants and possible treasonous also. We talk about impeaching Bush-Cheney, well let all of us look in the mirror also. It is easy to blame those in power as we contribute to feed them in their power grabs.

We keep ourselves sheltered through our selfish needs, and comforts, but as we watch, and read the propaganda do we ever risk questioning these corprate controlled sources. Have we ever gone outside the 'BOX'?

It is up to us America, we deserve what we get.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well....
Posted by: CatDad on Jan 11, 2007 2:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I found the said article at: http://www.narconews.com/hazenstory1.html

Website not very impressive and of course any sort of allegation can be thrown around on the internet. Could be right-wing attempt to discredit Alternet....They've done this repeatedly for AntiWar.com as the content there drives the neocons crazy.

I love Alternet in spite of a few annoying posters (I'm talking about you CryoFan/EmmanuelGoldstein). I am concerned though about some of the banner ads from credit card companies...sort of a conflict of interest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Four years too late ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
What can I say about this article?
Posted by: Gregor on Jan 11, 2007 8:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
URAH!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BlueMike
Posted by: BlueMike on Jan 11, 2007 9:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Subject: The real reason for the surge -- The manhood problems of Bush and Cheney

In the sixties, I served in a very different capacity than Mr. Muller, as a special agent in counterintelligence. I was a commissioned officer but didn't wear a uniform. We were the military version of the FBI. My duties and security clearance exposed me to some of the lies that were being told back then about the reasons for and prosecution of that war. The b.s. about the Gulf of Tonkin, for instance, and the cooked body counts.

So the comparison between Iraq and Vietnam is appropriate in that way, too. They both were based on, and sustained by, lies.

What it's all come down to now, with apologies to my female friends, is testicles. Penis size. All that stuff they always suspected about perpetually immature American males. We cannot surrender. We're real men, by God. Real men don't surrender. Did Duke Wayne ever surrender?

Of course in 1968 Bush's display of bravado was in the Officers Club bar at Ellington Air Force Base, home of the Texas Air Guard's "champagne squadron" which never would see combat. After "Mission Accomplished," the little toad's display of bravado was strutting around an aircraft carrier, wiggling his codpiece. Last night his display of bravado was in the safety of the White House library, where he feigned humility while announcing a plan to kill and castrate other men's sons for the sake of his own ego!

Bush is a textbook case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. One of the main symptoms -- along with bullying and sadism -- is the complete inability ever to admit you were wrong about anything, ever. It's a guy thing, tied closely to the "mine-is-bigger-than-yours" syndrome.

NPD "sufferers" -- they really cause others to suffer -- cannot stand humiliation! It drives them batshit nuts. That's where Bush is now, and that's why he is doing this. He must be right! And, goddamn it, who cares how many American kids are going to lose their genitals while this asshole proves his manhood vicariously?

Where's your codpiece now, Mr. Decider?

The folkloric definition of insanity among 12-steppers -- and please, please don't pass on the canard that George W. Bush is sober! -- is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. This "surge" of fresh meat into Iraq -- and that's all these kids are to Tiny Penis Georgie -- proves that the President of the United States of America is a psycho.

The two other Big Bad Dogs in this looney tunes saga are Cheney and McCain. Girly-Man Cheney was out blasting pen-raised ducks with a shotgun again the other day, probably as drunk as the day he plugged his pal down in Texas. How many deferments did this dipsomaniac get while Bobby Muller was getting paralyzed in Vietnam? And he's still pushing for victory in Iraq. He's not going to cut and run, by God!

Meantime, John McCain apparently has gone off his PTSD meds. The guy is delusional and flashing back, transferring his rage at the gooks running the Hanoi Hilton onto the rags shooting at our guys now. He just can't bear the idea that we're losing the second war of his lifetime. I mean, wasn't his daddy an admiral or something?

You're right, ladies: It all gets down to manhood questions with these three. Bush -- who, as a child, blew up frogs with firecrackers -- now is terrified that history will judge him a failed male. Cheney is pure evil -- but, like most evil men, does not know it. He actually believes that shooting live skeet makes him a hero. And McCain is living in another time and place.

In short, all three are batshit crazy. And our nuclear warships are headed toward Iran right now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Test for PCP
Posted by: brotherjonah on Jan 11, 2007 9:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I started this as a comment further up the page, commented on another person's comment and decided in mid typing that it rightfully belongs where it is easier to read.

A civil commitment means