Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
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.

War on Iraq

Military Escalation: Bush Can't Kick the Habit

By Robert Scheer, Truthdig. Posted December 21, 2006.


The Bush Administration is hooked on the drug of military might, with Gates calling for sending more troops to a war we can't win.
122106story
Advertisement

Here we go again: A new secretary of defense and yet another call for ending the war in Iraq by escalating it. What are they smoking in the Bush White House?

Even as government statistics now show marijuana is America's No. 1 cash crop, it is important to remember that militarism is the most dangerous drug threatening our sanity. Yet even formerly sober folks -- first Colin Powell and now new Secretary of Defense Robert Gates -- get a contact high from cozying up to the walking hallucinogen that is our president.

Succumbing to the Bush fantasy that freedom is fertilized by firepower, a vision that has mucked up Iraq beyond recognition, Gates told CBS that "as the president has made clear, we simply cannot afford to fail in the Middle East. Failure in Iraq at this juncture would be a calamity that would haunt our nation, impair our credibility, and endanger Americans for generations to come."

This from a man who recently made sense, during his confirmation hearings, when he told members of Congress that we are not winning this war, despite having committed, proportionally, as many troops as we did in Vietnam. But now, as a rising chorus of obsessed hawks calls for a "surge" in U.S. troop deployment in Iraq -- a call echoed even by some prominent Democrats -- Gates endorses the staying-the-course strategy for compounding the Iraq failure rejected by the voters. A member of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group (ISG) who had apparently supported its unanimous findings that the military strategy was bankrupt is suddenly blinded by Bush's Iraq victory myopia.

In a sign of just how out there Bush is on Iraq, The Washington Post reported Tuesday that the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff are in "unanimous disagreement" with "White House officials aggressively promoting the concept ... . [T]he Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission [in Iraq]."

All this despite the fact that the ISG report correctly underscored that the real failures in the Mideast have clearly been political, not military. The accurate subtext of the report is that the continued U.S. military presence in Iraq is the key source of chaos in the region -- inflaming religious fanaticism from Beirut to Baghdad and leaving the United States dependent on the tyrants in Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia to now bail us out.

So with Bush rejecting the sage advice of a commission headed by his father's secretary of state to cut our losses is there any hope the Democrats who now control Congress will stop playing the role of enabler to these war junkies? After all, it was the Democratic congressional leadership that provided Bush with bipartisan cover for his irrational "anti-terrorism" invasion of a country that had nothing to do with the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Some, like John Kerry, now recognize that folly, and even Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, in her appearance on NBC's "Today" show Monday, finally expressed her regrets for supporting the war and opposed a "surge" in U.S. troops for Iraq.

But other Democrats continue to play the dangerous game of supporting Bush's escalation. Particularly alarming were the remarks on Sunday of incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid endorsing a buildup as long as it aims at getting the troops home by 2008: "If the commanders on the ground said this is just for a short period of time, we'll go along with that."

Reid's strategy is as obvious as it is opportunistic: This is a Republican war, goes the thinking, and the Dems will give the Republicans all the rope they need to hang themselves in '08. This seems a deeply cynical position, when you consider that the Pentagon just announced that attacks on American and Iraqi targets are at their highest levels, with a 22 percent leap from just this summer. The difference between taking a position and positioning oneself is what determines leadership; if the Dems fail to provide real leadership on ending this war, they will deservedly lose the next election.

The convenient lie behind all of this is that U.S. military occupation is the indispensable agent of Mideast enlightenment. No, we have become the enablers of Iraqi madness, be it in the form of torture or the ascendancy of religious tyranny in Iraq, where daily life has been reduced to an unmitigated horror.

Yet, like a junkie who needs one more hit to get his life in order, Bush is hooked on the drug of military might. If the Democrats continue to feed his dangerous habit they will only help Bush visit greater mayhem upon Iraq while undermining the core values of our own country.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: war in iraq, bush, withdrawl

Robert Scheer is the co-author of The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq. See more of Robert Scheer at TruthDig.

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


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:
embrace
Posted by: rsaxto on Dec 21, 2006 12:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We Democrats should impeach all high Democrat officials who embrace the lunatic idea of escalating the war in Iraq. Democrats who embrace stupid and immoral Republican ideas like this one are even more stupid and immoral than the Bushies for they should know better.

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

» RE: embrace...sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
» Military in Iraq Posted by: derfb1
» Why don't you go then? Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» In addition: Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: In addition: Posted by: MrAllen
» RE: Military in Iraq Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Military in Iraq Posted by: CatDad
» I second that Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» Loser speaks Posted by: ossie
» RE: Military in Iraq Posted by: MrAllen
» embrace third parties Posted by: rwa
» RE: embrace Posted by: insideman
» RE: embrace... HA! Posted by: Pirate1
Bush is a disease
Posted by: veive on Dec 21, 2006 12:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hopefully someone will find the cure. One person who won't is Harry Reid. I thought he had a reputation for being a fighter. Last Sunday I saw an exceptional waffler. He's no leader and without a leader the Senate will continue its rubber stamp approach to government. Methinks America is heading down the dumper in a very unceremonious fashion.

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

» RE: Bush is a disease Posted by: Glennk1949
» RE: Bush is a disease...sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
» RE: Bush is a disease Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Bush is a disease Posted by: bob t
Tin Ear
Posted by: NoPCZone on Dec 21, 2006 12:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dubya never intended to make any changes regardless of what happened on election day. The Baker Group was nothing more than political cover and the appointment of Gates, a CIA man and Bush family crony, to be the Secretary of Defense should have signaled nothing other than more of the same.

Like I have posted previously on other stories: Why put a spy in charge of the Defense Department? When the US overhauled our national security structure after WWII, the Congress and President decided to separate the Intel activities from the new Defense Department. Much of what became the CIA came directly from the OSS that previously had been part of the US Army. The wisdom of that decision has been disregarded by both the White House and the Congress with the installation of Gates at DoD.

This whole Iraq debacle is nothing less than a complete and total failure of our political system. Uniformed experts like General Eric Shinseki, then Army Chief of Staff, were disregarded and not taken under serious advisement prior to the war. Numerous experts from DIA, NSA, CIA, The State Department and other agencies that sounded concerns or alarms were marginalized, disregarded, forced out or were reassigned.

With all of this going on, our Congress gave BushCo a pass and then failed to perform the proper oversight and never pulled the reins on this cabal of NeoCons determined to see their ill advised misadventure through. As conditions deteriorated on the ground in Iraq and politically through Bremer's administration, the Congressional leadership remained wrapped in the flag for political cover. Cowardice and careerism has ruled the day in the halls of power in Washington and the brave individuals who have sounded alarm after alarm have been ignored and left hung out to dry as they were punished on the job for doing their job.

Now, after an election where, despite the heavy gerrymandering done across the country, the voters have voted no confidence in this administration and it's policies; Bush is continuing to push ahead. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are making decisions and deals with Bush not based on what is right and the political will of the American people, but for the advancement of their chances for future elective office. This has to change.

The war is lost. By any standard, the Iraq War has produced nothing more than a failed state in the heart of a highly flammable and unstable Middle East. The only thing continued engagement in a military manner will accomplish is the wasting of human lives, civil infrastructure, money and any near prospects for peace in the region. Just like in Vietnam, our troops have done everything they have been asked to do, but have been wasted by hard headed and politically ambitious people in Washington.

The War is lost and it's time to get out before more tragedy births even more tragedy. Only Iraq will be able to solve Iraq;s problems. Only when the Iraqi people as a nation decide that they have had enough will things begin to improve. Keeping troops in Iraq is just adding fuel to the fire by providing the insurgents target practice and prime recruitment material.

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

» RE: Tin Ear Posted by: edith
» RE: Tin Ear Posted by: VannaLaRoche
» RE: Tin Ear Posted by: MyLeftFoot
» RE:CIA & Germans Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: Tin Ear Posted by: Glennk1949
» RE: Tin Ear..sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
» RE: Tin Ear Posted by: VannaLaRoche
» RE: Tin Ear.. Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
» RE: Tin Ear Posted by: healinghawk
Likening
Posted by: famouspipeliner on Dec 21, 2006 1:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I liked Robert Scheers likening of the President to an addict who needs another hit. Know any crack addicts? Not to be trusted fer sure.

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

say what
Posted by: Captainmagic on Dec 21, 2006 3:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What do you mean by bush can't kick the habit....Try america can't kick the habit. Will you at least try and not take the rest of us waring thugs of IMC nations with military bases in all over the world, down the plug hole with you.

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

» There's even a comic book! Posted by: SteveB
Now for the bad news... it's all a big fakeout
Posted by: xbj on Dec 21, 2006 3:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's the bad news folks... the buildup has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH ESCALATION IN IRAQ.

What it is, is a not-so-convenient cover for the coming inevitable desperate suicidal NUKING OF IRAN. That's why the sudden buildup of troops in Iraq and more aircraft carriers to the Gulf. Even CBS News is worried.

Yes, the suicidal desparate bastards are finally going to nuclearly suicide the US against China and Russia over Iranian oil and the Iranian attempt to destroy the US petrodollar by selling oil for Euros. Exactly what Saddam was attempting to do before he got "regime changed".

So remember lowly Chicken Little here when Chinese nukes are dropping like rain from heaven, and don't dare ask "Why does everyone in the world hate us so?"

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

» Sort of Agree.... Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Sort of Agree.... Posted by: xbj
Pork Politics
Posted by: shangrilalad on Dec 21, 2006 3:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
EDITORIAL Los Angelos Times
Uncle Sam needs more
Bush's call for a larger military is the right thing to do, even if the president's reasons miss the mark.

"The U.S. remains the world's sole superpower, but the nation no longer has enough men and women under arms to shoulder its responsibilities. By that we don't mean ill-conceived adventures like the war in Iraq, but the preparedness to react to unforeseen crises. One reason the armed forces are too small is that the *Pentagon's military-industrial complex favors spending money on costly gadgetry, some of it unnecessary, over such prosaic things as a foot soldier's pay. But the scary truth is that with roughly 150,000 troops tied down in Iraq, the U.S. is hardly in a position to react effectively to a major crisis elsewhere."

*Make that the Military-Industrial-Congressional (Pork) complex favors spending money on costly gadgetry, some of it unnecessary, over such prosaic things as a foot soldier's pay.

Forget trickle-down economics. Our troops are the first to sacrifice, and the first sacrificed.

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

» The army is NOT too small Posted by: SteveB
» RE: Pork Politics/JINGOISM Posted by: shangrilalad
THIS COMBAT VETERAN SAYS IT'S TIME................
Posted by: kc10ken on Dec 21, 2006 5:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's time America.

It's time to remove both the vice president and the President from office.

ANYONE that gives serious credance to an increase in troop levels in Iraq is far removed from reality and needs to be forcibly removed from power.

Not only do ALL the military commanders in Iraq say it is a bad idea but most civilian leaders as well. Last July we increased our troop levels by almost 20,000 in Iraq and repositioned even more into Baghdad.

Result?

A massive INCREASE in violence, death and destruction.

We tried this "surge" thing many times in the past 4 years....EVERY time it led to a SURGE in violence. 80% of America has figured it out.....we lost.....it happens sometimes.....admit it and move on. WE are the reason for the violence in Iraq and increasing our presence is sheer lunacy.

How in God's name did we allow this situation to spiral out of control? The President is doing the same thing LBJ did in the 1960's in Vietnam.

FORCE our newly elected Democratic Congress to remove both the President and the Veep from power before it is too late.

I'm really sick and tired of seeing 19 year old kids coming back in body bags for no reason.

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

Power to the People
Posted by: shangrilalad on Dec 21, 2006 5:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our government suffers from a dearth of leaders and a surplus of followers in both parties. They spend most of their time talking to each other, which results in an inside the beltway groupthink private club that excludes the electorate. They eat together, party together, sleep together, and connive together to con the electorate.

Maybe we ought to separate and outsource them back to their home states. That way we would have local access and could better keep an eye on them. There isn’t anything that they do, or don’t do in D.C. that couldn’t be accomplished on the Internet, and we could watch and listen.

An added bonus would be our ability to make them liable for their actions to all Americans, not just their home-state constituents. All corruption begins at the local level and flows up to the federal government. They are after all U.S. Congressmen and U.S. Senators who are supposed to represent all of us.

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

» RE: Power to the People Posted by: jags105
» RE: Power to the People Posted by: LizzieB
What the troops in the field think
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Dec 21, 2006 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BAGHDAD, Iraq - New U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates asked soldiers on the ground in Baghdad on Thursday for advice on fixing the war effort, and he received the same answer time and again -- bring in more American troops.

“Sir, I think we need to just keep doing what we’re doing,” Spc. Jason Glenn of Mount Grove, Missouri, told Gates over breakfast at Camp Victory.

“I really think we need more troops here. With more presence on the ground, more troops might hold them (the insurgents) off long enough to where we can get the Iraqi army trained up,” Glenn said."

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

» Hahahaha, Good one, Brunowe! Posted by: Prophit
» Truth from the mouth of babes Posted by: shangrilalad
» RE: What the troops in the field think Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: What the troops in the field think Posted by: Conservasaurus
» .... Posted by: CatDad
» RE: .... Posted by: Conservasaurus
» So, when you signin' up? Posted by: sausage
» RE: So, when you signin' up? Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: So, when you signin' up? Posted by: drmflorida
HOW MUCH LONGER WILL 'W' BE IN RECOVERY?
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Dec 21, 2006 6:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Am I to believe that the country has been deteriorating since this guy took office because he has 'addiction' issues? No matter what he does or refuses to do there is some compelling reason for his behavior. These are lame excuses and it's been too long. He is not and was never up for the job. The reasons don't matter. There's too much on the line. The destruction and loss of life continue because no one will stand up to him. Addictions, BS. Thanks, ANNA

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

Empire is as empire does.
Posted by: amacd on Dec 21, 2006 6:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, we have to acknowledge that the US has morphed into a global corporate elite empire. Folks, it's no longer a democracy, and it's no longer ours.

Yes, the insane figurehead president/emperor is hooked on military might --- but that's no surprise ---- every empire is hooked on military might (and domestic lying, and oppression of the people, and elite deceit, and economic looting, and a hundred other characteristics of all empires through the ages ---- all of which can be clearly seen in the US today).

Anyone who has not already done so needs to read, understand and then memorize Hannah Arendt's warning:

"Empire abroad entails tyranny at home"

The we need to confront and overcome this empire the only way that empires have ever been overcome by people ---- by simply, non-violently walking away from it. By refusing to go along with it. By refusing to accept it as having any validity, control, or power over our lives.

The multitude of human people can shun and disable empire by simply and collectively making a great turning away from empire and back toward life.

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

» Walk Away Posted by: rwa
» RE: Walk Away Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Walk Away Posted by: rwa
Funding needs to be cut off
Posted by: Democritus on Dec 21, 2006 6:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The path was set when the Senate confirmed Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. He is an old retainer and protector of the Bush family reputation. Of course, he will do everything he can to insulate Bush from reality in hopes that we will forget how many people are dying in Iraq. As with Viet Nam, the only action that will end this war is for the House to cut off its funding. But, with a few exceptions, the House is as gutless as the Senate. It will take massive public protests to convince our Congress that continuing to support Bush's insanity will do nothing but save them a spot in the same asylum.

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

sickofsleaze...There is no way...
Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com on Dec 21, 2006 7:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this Humpty Dumty can ever be put back together again. As long as Iraq has what the Iraqis perceive as a Bush puppet government in place, the insurgents will continue their deadly work. Training the Iraqi police or Army will be fruitless, the insurgents will attack them with the same fury as they do our soldiers. No matter if they are on the "good" side, when you face death every minute of the day you are going to be looking for employment elsewhere.

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

Which side are the Saudis on?
Posted by: jags105 on Dec 21, 2006 7:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THis article mentions that we are looking to Iran and Saudi to bail us out. Hey, maybe I'm a little confused but another article from this web site states that the Saudis have snubbed Bush and read the riot act to Cheney about the US not pulling out and that if we do they will fund the minority Sunnis. (which are against the USA) What the heck is going on. How does one make sense of this?

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

BUSH: A WAR TIME PRESIDENT IN PERPETUITY
Posted by: onin on Dec 21, 2006 7:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Take it from an old Republican, and poet, who has seen over time how inevitably if kept in power too long. the Left ends a communist dictatorship and the Right a tyranical one. Bush hungers to escalate the so-called war on terror (ie Iraq) to be perceived as a true War Time President and stay on without elections, a la Roosevelt, no matter how much young American blood is spilled.

The man personifies evil, period. He and his minions, particularly Rove, comprise either the anti-christ or neo nazi. They have dupped the religious right, mesmerized the neocons, scared the timid with Mehlman's skewed surveys, faked a good born-again show while debauching with drink and who knows what else!

Cheney? He personifies capitalism gone amuck.

Meanwhile, wannabe McCain has revealed himself as an obsiquious hypocrite. Harry is spineless; Hillary unthinkingly power hungry; Nancy always ends up too cutsie; John seems to be maturing from his wife's plight, but still remains too rah, rah handsome, and Barack is almost as vain as Jesse.

So what to do?

First we must impeach Bush as an example for history, then get out of Iraq post haste and let the factions work it out as happened with our now trading partner Vietnam. We must build up our troops but only for true exigencies, and finally, we must urge Bush Sr. to wrap sonny W up side the head to make up for spoiling the wannabe cowboy brat. If he won't then Congress must, pronto!

I see hope in NM's Governor Bill Richardson whose actions reveal him as a fiscally conservative, socially liberal Democrat imbued with cross cultured wisdom. More importantly he is a world class negotiator who understands and can wield the power of diplomacy while carrying a big stick to be used, but only if indeed necessary.

If any of you know or can reach him (doors aren't readily open to poets), you should urge him to announce then immediately blast the hell out of Bush for all his injury to America. I know our cross party Baffled Majofrity would apllaud and support him for expressing on our hidden feelings and it would garner him dramatic national and international attention while serivng notice to other candidates that true Leadership has arrived.
God Bless America!
--Onin Age Iron, Poet

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

Right Wing Voters In America Or Israel May Never Grow Up
Posted by: bob t on Dec 21, 2006 7:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, first of all there is no way the Dems can stop Bush as he continues on his stay the course approach to ending this war, he is the president and has all the power. We must remember that the Dems have only bare majorities and that is not enough to stop him. Secondly if the Dems attempt to block him in any way the Karl Rove spin machine will blame any form of a loss in Iraq on the Dems as will all the war mongers among the electorate, especially the southerner confederate states who always seem to support the spilling of blood even if it is their own. These people are self destructive, probably a leftover from the civil war and the loss of their way of life, slavery, and the southerners mentality of white supremacy and KKK. Southerners are not christians in the true and real sense of the word. And finally, the south has been trememdously emboldened by their successes in gov't since the Reagan administration. Also southerners are very susceptable to Rove-spin. Southerners are further emboldened by their power in the Republican party just as catholics are. Southern mentality is a very authoritarian male dominated machoism that enhances their puerile self image. Finally, southerners are insulated(as is usually the case with rural people and they are self insulating and self propagating and self supporting in their insular approach to everything outside of their world, ie. they are mentally incestuous. Finally southerners have and are further emboldened by the amount of financial wealth that has left the north since the 1960's-1970's and are emboldened by their possession of so much wealth which results in much political power. ASo if the Dems stop Bush in anyway they will not see anymore political power for the next twenty years or as long as the Repubs can keep the GWOT going on. So what approach can they take because they will be blamed for whatever they even attempt to do. This is a Bush, Bush family, Republican, Neocon, right wing religious war which they will use to their advantage in any way they can no matter how many of our troops or Iraqis die along the way. To the extent that Bush and the Repubs can blame the Dems will dtermine whether they will win in 2008. The Repubs have no christian values at all, only a spin machine that works extremely well. As the war continues to deteriorate, and it most assuredly will continue that way, the Repub party and the Neocons and Theocons will continue to lose voters and in the long run that is the only thing that will defeat them, which is when the american voters drop this repub teenage cowboy macho way of doing everything around the world and GROW UP. America is not one country any more and may never be that again. This damage may never be undone. War is addictive and is a simplistic(black/white, good/bad, us/them) way of looking at the world. Most Jews in America and in Israel want a fair, just and lasting peace in the Middle East but the small number of Jewish warhawks just want more Palestinian land and continous war for the Holocaust of WWII. This most horrible tragedy is burne into their psyches. But the two entities that did this are the Nazis and the Catholic Church that supported them(Pius XI and Pius XII) so they should go aftere the catholic church to expunge their unending paranoia and anger, which clouds their judgement. They should not allow Bush and the Republicans and the Neocons and the religious right wing radicals(Theocons/Theocrats) in America(Catholic Church and white southern Baptists) to in any way influence them. And the Israeli gov't must listen to their own citizens not the endless war mongers in Israel or here in America. The war mongers in America actually have different goals than those in Israel as those in America are after oil first, last and foremost. This fixation in America and in Israel of teenage boys testosterone driven wars must cease but will not until these two countries free themselves from the domination of their teenage leaders.

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

Leadership? We don' got to show you no stinkin' leadership!
Posted by: monkeywrench on Dec 21, 2006 7:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the article:
"The difference between taking a position and positioning oneself is what determines leadership..."

Leadership? The only "leadership" that exists in the halls of government today is coming from mega-corporations through their lobbyists and executive members of the government-business cocktail circuit. And war is good for business. Everything else we see is posturing, "smoke and mirrors," flim-flam, a "Wizard of Oz" stage show. There IS NO leadership in Washington – and with our inability to get rid of the crooks there with the only tool we have, the vote (when it is not compromised by fraud), there is no leadership coming from "We, the People" either.

We're screwed, folks; the situation is not going to change until it gets much, much, worse, because there simply is not the will or the power in either the few brave souls in government or in the public arena to force change. It is clear from the near-complete rejection of the Iraq Commission findings and the will of the people (70%+ against the occupation of Iraq) that our "leadership" cares not one bit about what we think, or even what is rational. All they see is the profit of war.

And the longer this neocon nightmare persists, the worse will be the chaos when change finally comes. I, for one, do not like the idea of "rolling the dice" on America's future; but that seems to suit our "leadership" just fine, as long as they will be able to skip away with their treasure.

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

» RE: PRofit from war,? No such thing! Posted by: common intelligence
Clinton Sort Of Opposed
Posted by: pehoges on Dec 21, 2006 8:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you listen to Senator Clinton's full statement, she said she opposed the surge in troops unless it was accompanied by a timetable for withdrawal. Not exactly opposition in my book.

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

» RE: Clinton Sort Of Opposed Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Clinton Sort Of Opposed Posted by: sausage
» RE: Clinton Sort Of Opposed Posted by: Conservasaurus
CNN reports that troops agree to increase of more troops
Posted by: insideman on Dec 21, 2006 8:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I find interesting is that here in America, we(at least 80% of america) are fighting to get troops back home safe. But the troops that are in Iraq seem like they dont want our help and want to remain there. Truly mindboggling.

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

» Got a poll that shows that? Posted by: SteveB
» Crimes against humanity. Posted by: Melvin
» RE: Crimes against humanity. Posted by: Conservasaurus
» If they have to be there... Posted by: DataDoc
Bush "Developing Illegal Bioterror Weapons" for Offensive Use by Sherwood Ross
Posted by: rwa on Dec 21, 2006 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
t r u t h o u t

In violation of the US Code and international law, the Bush administration is spending more money (inflation adjusted)to develop illegal, offensive germ warfare than the $2 billion spent in World War II on the Manhattan Project to make the atomic bomb.

So says Francis Boyle, the professor of international law who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 enacted by Congress. He states the Pentagon "is now gearing up to fight and 'win' biological warfare" pursuant to two Bush national strategy directives adopted "without public knowledge and review" in 2002.

The Pentagon's Chemical and Biological Defense Program was revised in 2003 to implement those directives, endorsing "first-use" strike of chemical and biological weapons (CBW) in war, says Boyle, who teaches at the University of Illinois.

Terming the action "the proverbial smoking gun," Boyle said the mission of the controversial CBW program "has been altered to permit development of offensive capability in chemical and biological weapons!"

The same directives, Boyle charges in his book Biowarfare and Terrorism "unconstitutionally usurp and nullify the right and the power of the United States Congress to declare war, in gross and blatant violation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution."

For fiscal years 2001-2004, the federal government funded $14.5 billion "for ostensibly 'civilian' biowarfare-related work alone," a "truly staggering" sum, Boyle wrote.

Another $5.6 billion was voted for "the deceptively-named 'Project BioShield,'" under which Homeland Security is stockpiling vaccines and drugs to fight anthrax, smallpox and other bioterror agents, wrote Boyle. Protection of the civilian population is, he said, "one of the fundamental requirements for effectively waging biowarfare."

The Washington Post reported December 12 that both houses of Congress this month passed legislation "considered by many to be an effort to salvage the two-year-old Project BioShield, which has been marked by delays and operational problems." When President Bush signs it into law, it will allocate $1 billion more over three years for additional research "to pump more money into the private sector sooner."

"The enormous amounts of money" purportedly dedicated to "civilian defense" that are now "dramatically and increasingly" being spent," Boyle writes, "betray this administration's effort to be able to embark on offensive campaigns using biowarfare."

By pouring huge sums into university and private-sector laboratories, Boyle charged, federal spending has diverted the US biotech industry to biowarfare.

According to Rutgers University molecular biologist Richard Ebright, over 300 scientific institutions and 12,000 individuals have access to pathogens suitable for biowarfare and terrorism. Ebright found that the number of National Institute of Health grants to research infectious diseases with biowarfare potential has shot up from 33 in 1995-2000 to 497.

Academic biowarfare participation involving the abuse of DNA genetic engineering since the late 1980s has become "patently obvious," Boyle said. "American universities have a long history of willingly permitting their research agendas, researchers, institutes, and laboratories to be co-opted, corrupted, and perverted by the Pentagon and the CIA."

"These despicable death-scientists were arming the Pentagon with the component units necessary to produce a massive array of ... genetically-engineered biological weapons," Boyle said.

In a forward to Boyle's book, Jonathan King, a professor of molecular biology at MIT, wrote that "the growing bioterror programs represent a significant emerging danger to our own population" and "threaten international relations."

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

ROFLMAO!!
Posted by: paschn on Dec 21, 2006 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Think about this, as you contemplate whether you or your son/daughter/wife/husband will be part of the NEW military they'll need to further their wealth.
The "Republicrats" you thought were gonna show swine like Bush et al, didn't say a WORD about an ass-kissing liar like Gates being confirmed. Even though the country KNOWS about his skill at manufacturing intel to suit those seeking your families for cannon fodder.
And digest THIS, drones, Your FIRST female speaker has said REPEATEDLY that a wrist-slapping impeachment is "off the table".
Now you poor saps need to make a decision. You gonna show some balls and stand up to them when they come to induct you? Or you gonna grumble under your breath and go kill and maybe die for a coward and his cronies?

Sux to be under 42 at the moment.

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

Bush "Developing Illegal Bioterror Weapons" for Offensive Use #2
Posted by: rwa on Dec 21, 2006 8:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While such programs "are always called defensive," King said, "with biological weapons, defensive and offensive programs overlap almost completely."

Boyle contends the US is "in breach" of both the Biological Weapons and Chemical Weapons conventions and US domestic criminal law. In February 2003, for example, the US granted itself a patent on an illegal long-range biological-weapons grenade.

Boyle said other countries grasp the military implications of US germ-warfare actions and will respond in kind. "The world will soon witness a de facto biological arms race among the major biotech states under the guise of 'defense,' and despite the requirements of the Biological Warfare Convention."

"The massive proliferation of biowarfare technology and facilities, as well as trained scientists and technicians all over the United States, courtesy of the Neo-Con Bush Jr. administration will render a catastrophic biowarfare or bioterrorist incident or accident a statistical certainty," Boyle warned.

As far back as September 2001, according to a report in the New York Times titled "US Pushes Germ Warfare Limits," critics were concerned that "the research comes close to violating a global 1972 treaty that bans such weapons." But US officials responded at the time that they were more worried about understanding the threat of germ warfare and devising possible defenses.

The 1972 treaty, which the US signed, forbids developing weapons that spread disease, such as anthrax, regarded as "ideal" for germ warfare.

According to an article in the Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel of last September 28, Milton Leitenberg, a veteran arms-control advocate at the University of Maryland, said the government was spending billions on germ warfare with almost no analysis of threat. He said claims terrorists will use the weapons have been "deliberately exaggerated."

In March of the previous year, 750 US biologists signed a letter protesting what they saw as the excessive study of bioterror threats.

The Pentagon has not responded to the charges made by Boyle in this article.

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

Senator John STILL LOST IN CAMBODIA Kerry responds...
Posted by: cheneybush2008 on Dec 21, 2006 8:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My fellow Armenians, I am troubled, seriously and effeminately troubled, by the ongoing yet circumspect CBS memo fashion in which we appear to seem to perhaps to allege for about 4 months give or take plus medivac comp time that beyond a quickie Cambodian abortion mud hut shadow of a doubt, heretofore and forthwith, with appropriate President Peanut resolution and re-consideration of any overriding legal authority not stuffed in associated tube socks, in as much as I must impress upon France and all the other three nations that I call home, with vichy and just ski wax for all, but not in any way to demean or demand or demolay the point, for without a confident air of SUV transmission for the sake of private Idaho puppies and many other local animals, to have and to hold, for richer or even richer, and with sparkling North Korean fan fare if not more so the systematic and uncomfortable omen of Clintoid cop secrecy and fine wine, we must, truly must abridge any notion and eventual support for the complete global test and full hearing of matters before us as beloved Boston Blue Caps fanatics, and that no man should look asunder under Allah with lib sheep and butt wipes for all...

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

» annoying posters Posted by: CatDad
Congressional fear.
Posted by: jjs on Dec 21, 2006 9:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When all the bluster is seen through, Congress, in whose ever hands it rests, is still intimidated by Bush.

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

» RE: Congressional fear. Posted by: Conservasaurus
NUKE AMERICA?
Posted by: Just Curious on Dec 21, 2006 9:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rhetorical question for ya, folks....

Are any of you guys prepared to nuke your own country?

...rather than just use non-violent, peaceful protest and empty talk while your country - and the west, and China and Japan - go about securing access to the oil, natural gas and sundry other resources upon which the political stability of each and every one of these nations depends and without which no freedoms - including that of 'freedom of speech' - would probably exist?
Because, if not, then whatever you say is a load of hot air; your freedom of speech is wasted because not only is it not backed up by the ability to bring about meaningful change, but more importantly, it's not backed up by any desire to bring about such change: given the choice between say, Iraq, going down the tubes and your country you'll always choose your own.
You love your country and more to the point, you are deeply wedded to the concept of parliamentary/liberal/western democracy and the Enlightenment values embodied therein and will fight Hitler/Saddam/Stalin tooth and nail for those values no matter what, even when your own political and economic systems are just as bad or worse.
Every successful nation-state in the world today (and presumably throughout history) is built upon the exploitation of those less successful and given the choice between someone else getting into a position where they can cut off your access to oil, gas and other natural resources (thereby causing mass unemployment and civil unrest) you will use war up to and including nuclear war. And hiding behind the fig lea