Politics, Everyday, All day... morning, noon and night....
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
I am Joel
At least for this tasty post;
S intelligence fears Iran duped hawks into Iraq war
· Inquiry into Tehran's role in starting conflict
· Top Pentagon ally Chalabi accused
Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday May 25, 2004
The Guardian
An urgent investigation has been launched in Washington into whether Iran played a role in manipulating the US into the Iraq war by passing on bogus intelligence through Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, it emerged yesterday.
Some intelligence officials now believe that Iran used the hawks in the Pentagon and the White House to get rid of a hostile neighbour, and pave the way for a Shia-ruled Iraq.
According to a US intelligence official, the CIA has hard evidence that Mr Chalabi and his intelligence chief, Aras Karim Habib, passed US secrets to Tehran, and that Mr Habib has been a paid Iranian agent for several years, involved in passing intelligence in both directions.
The CIA has asked the FBI to investigate Mr Chalabi's contacts in the Pentagon to discover how the INC acquired sensitive information that ended up in Iranian hands.
The implications are far-reaching. Mr Chalabi and Mr Habib were the channels for much of the intelligence on Iraqi weapons on which Washington built its case for war.
"It's pretty clear that Iranians had us for breakfast, lunch and dinner," said an intelligence source in Washington yesterday. "Iranian intelligence has been manipulating the US for several years through Chalabi."
Larry Johnson, a former senior counter-terrorist official at the state department, said: "When the story ultimately comes out we'll see that Iran has run one of the most masterful intelligence operations in history. They persuaded the US and Britain to dispose of its greatest enemy."
Mr Chalabi has vehemently rejected the allegations as "a lie, a fib and silly". He accused the CIA director, George Tenet, of a smear campaign against himself and Mr Habib.
However, it is clear that the CIA - at loggerheads with Mr Chalabi for more than eight years - believes it has caught him red-handed, and is sticking to its allegations.
"The suggestion that Chalabi is a victim of a smear campaign is outrageous," a US intelligence official said. "It's utter nonsense. He passed very sensitive and classified information to the Iranians. We have rock solid information that he did that."
"As for Aras Karim [Habib] being a paid agent for Iranian intelligence, we have very good reason to believe that is the case," added the intelligence official, who did not want to be named. He said it was unclear how long this INC-Iranian collaboration had been going on, but pointed out that Mr Chalabi had had overt links with Tehran "for a long period of time".
An intelligence source in Washington said the CIA confirmed its long-held suspicions when it discovered that a piece of information from an electronic communications intercept by the National Security Agency had ended up in Iranian hands. The information was so sensitive that its circulation had been restricted to a handful of officials.
"This was 'sensitive compartmented information' - SCI - and it was tracked right back to the Iranians through Aras Habib," the intelligence source said.
Mr Habib, a Shia Kurd who is being sought by Iraqi police since a raid on INC headquarters last week, has been Mr Chalabi's righthand man for more than a decade. He ran a Pentagon-funded intelligence collection programme in the run-up to the invasion and put US officials in touch with Iraqi defectors who made claims about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
Those claims helped make the case for war but have since proved groundless, and US intelligence agencies are now scrambling to determine whether false information was passed to the US with Iranian connivance.
INC representatives in Washington did not return calls seeking comment.
But Laurie Mylroie, a US Iraq analyst and one of the INC's most vocal backers in Washington, dismissed the allegations as the product of a grudge among CIA and state department officials driven by a pro-Sunni, anti-Shia bias.
She said that after the CIA raised questions about Mr Habib's Iranian links, the Pentagon's Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) conducted a lie-detector test on him in 2002, which he passed with "flying colours".
The DIA is also reported to have launched its own inquiry into the INC-Iran link.
An intelligence source in Washington said the FBI investigation into the affair would begin with Mr Chalabi's "handlers" in the Pentagon, who include William Luti, the former head of the office of special plans, and his immediate superior, Douglas Feith, the under secretary of defence for policy.
There is no evidence that they were the source of the leaks. Other INC supporters at the Pentagon may have given away classified information in an attempt to give Mr Chalabi an advantage in the struggle for power surrounding the transfer of sovereignty to an Iraqi government on June 30.
The CIA allegations bring to a head a dispute between the CIA and the Pentagon officials instrumental in promoting Mr Chalabi and his intelligence in the run-up to the war. By calling for an FBI counter-intelligence investigation, the CIA is, in effect, threatening to disgrace senior neo-conservatives in the Pentagon.
"This is people who opposed the war with long knives drawn for people who supported the war," Ms Mylroie said.
S intelligence fears Iran duped hawks into Iraq war
· Inquiry into Tehran's role in starting conflict
· Top Pentagon ally Chalabi accused
Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday May 25, 2004
The Guardian
An urgent investigation has been launched in Washington into whether Iran played a role in manipulating the US into the Iraq war by passing on bogus intelligence through Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, it emerged yesterday.
Some intelligence officials now believe that Iran used the hawks in the Pentagon and the White House to get rid of a hostile neighbour, and pave the way for a Shia-ruled Iraq.
According to a US intelligence official, the CIA has hard evidence that Mr Chalabi and his intelligence chief, Aras Karim Habib, passed US secrets to Tehran, and that Mr Habib has been a paid Iranian agent for several years, involved in passing intelligence in both directions.
The CIA has asked the FBI to investigate Mr Chalabi's contacts in the Pentagon to discover how the INC acquired sensitive information that ended up in Iranian hands.
The implications are far-reaching. Mr Chalabi and Mr Habib were the channels for much of the intelligence on Iraqi weapons on which Washington built its case for war.
"It's pretty clear that Iranians had us for breakfast, lunch and dinner," said an intelligence source in Washington yesterday. "Iranian intelligence has been manipulating the US for several years through Chalabi."
Larry Johnson, a former senior counter-terrorist official at the state department, said: "When the story ultimately comes out we'll see that Iran has run one of the most masterful intelligence operations in history. They persuaded the US and Britain to dispose of its greatest enemy."
Mr Chalabi has vehemently rejected the allegations as "a lie, a fib and silly". He accused the CIA director, George Tenet, of a smear campaign against himself and Mr Habib.
However, it is clear that the CIA - at loggerheads with Mr Chalabi for more than eight years - believes it has caught him red-handed, and is sticking to its allegations.
"The suggestion that Chalabi is a victim of a smear campaign is outrageous," a US intelligence official said. "It's utter nonsense. He passed very sensitive and classified information to the Iranians. We have rock solid information that he did that."
"As for Aras Karim [Habib] being a paid agent for Iranian intelligence, we have very good reason to believe that is the case," added the intelligence official, who did not want to be named. He said it was unclear how long this INC-Iranian collaboration had been going on, but pointed out that Mr Chalabi had had overt links with Tehran "for a long period of time".
An intelligence source in Washington said the CIA confirmed its long-held suspicions when it discovered that a piece of information from an electronic communications intercept by the National Security Agency had ended up in Iranian hands. The information was so sensitive that its circulation had been restricted to a handful of officials.
"This was 'sensitive compartmented information' - SCI - and it was tracked right back to the Iranians through Aras Habib," the intelligence source said.
Mr Habib, a Shia Kurd who is being sought by Iraqi police since a raid on INC headquarters last week, has been Mr Chalabi's righthand man for more than a decade. He ran a Pentagon-funded intelligence collection programme in the run-up to the invasion and put US officials in touch with Iraqi defectors who made claims about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
Those claims helped make the case for war but have since proved groundless, and US intelligence agencies are now scrambling to determine whether false information was passed to the US with Iranian connivance.
INC representatives in Washington did not return calls seeking comment.
But Laurie Mylroie, a US Iraq analyst and one of the INC's most vocal backers in Washington, dismissed the allegations as the product of a grudge among CIA and state department officials driven by a pro-Sunni, anti-Shia bias.
She said that after the CIA raised questions about Mr Habib's Iranian links, the Pentagon's Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) conducted a lie-detector test on him in 2002, which he passed with "flying colours".
The DIA is also reported to have launched its own inquiry into the INC-Iran link.
An intelligence source in Washington said the FBI investigation into the affair would begin with Mr Chalabi's "handlers" in the Pentagon, who include William Luti, the former head of the office of special plans, and his immediate superior, Douglas Feith, the under secretary of defence for policy.
There is no evidence that they were the source of the leaks. Other INC supporters at the Pentagon may have given away classified information in an attempt to give Mr Chalabi an advantage in the struggle for power surrounding the transfer of sovereignty to an Iraqi government on June 30.
The CIA allegations bring to a head a dispute between the CIA and the Pentagon officials instrumental in promoting Mr Chalabi and his intelligence in the run-up to the war. By calling for an FBI counter-intelligence investigation, the CIA is, in effect, threatening to disgrace senior neo-conservatives in the Pentagon.
"This is people who opposed the war with long knives drawn for people who supported the war," Ms Mylroie said.
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
Are democracy and freedom universal values?
May 25, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Bush's Epic Gamble
By DAVID BROOKS
Last night, George Bush made it clear that American military victories alone will not secure Iraq. We keep winning victories, but somehow the violence just keeps on coming.
Furthermore, American nation-building will not secure Iraq. We've tried to pour money into Iraq, to build a decent nation and then hand it back gift-wrapped to the Iraqi people. But that turns out not to work either. The longer we keep control, the bigger the mess grows.
The only real way to secure Iraq, Bush argued, is through self-governing democracy. Only representative self-government denies the terrorists the pretext they need to kill. It is only through the mundane acts of democratic citizenship that Iraqis will be able to build a civil society. It is only through self-government that Iraq can become secure.
The political transition Bush described implies an infinitude of concrete acts. The 400 parties that now exist in Iraq will have to meld into just a few. Conferences will convene, and people will debate. Politicians will vie for power; petitions will be signed; protests will be lodged. That, Bush implied, is the only practical path to normalcy.
It's a huge gamble to think that the solution to chaos is liberty. But it's fitting that during the gravest crisis of his presidency, President Bush reverted to his most fundamental political belief. He began this war in Iraq repeating the sentiment embodied in the Declaration of Independence, that our creator has endowed all human beings with the right to liberty, and the ability to function as democratic citizens. He said last night with absolute confidence that the Iraqis are democrats at heart.
Bush is betting his presidency, and the near-term future of this nation, on that central American creed.
It's an epic gamble. Because, let's face it, we don't know whether all people really do want to live in freedom. We don't know whether Iraqis have any notion of what democratic citizenship really means. We don't know whether they hear words like freedom, liberty and pluralism as deadly insults to the way of life they hold dear. We don't know who our enemies are. Are they the small minority of Baathists and jihadists, or is there a little bit of Moktada al-Sadr in every Iraqi's breast?
Bush is putting this tenet of our national creed to a fearsome test in the worst possible circumstances. For the past year Americans have committed horrible blunders. And if this gamble fails, it won't be only the competence of our officials that will be called into question — it will be the American creed itself. Since before the nation's founding, Americans have thought of themselves as the great democratic champions of the globe.
If this gamble fails to come off, then that mission will seem, to many, false. Perhaps democracy and freedom are not really universal values, some will say. Perhaps they are just the outgrowths of a specific culture. People on the left and right will race to withdraw from the world. It will become difficult to take on the tyrants who will menace the world.
On the other hand, if we muddle through in Iraq and some semidemocratic nation slowly emerges, it won't be because of American skill. It will be because the democratic creed is so strong it can withstand the highest incompetence. Then there really will be hope for a democratic Middle East. The war on terror will really look winnable.
If it all works out, then Iraqis will feel they control their lives. They will stop playing both sides of the fence. They will take responsibility for their future. They will try to expel the foreign jihadists. They will regard Americans as necessary guests, and Americans will behave like guests.
Right now that happy outcome feels a long way away. But at least Bush has now squarely faced the consequences of his creed. There was always something antidemocratic about nation-building — the idea that a country could go into a foreign place, then hand it back to the locals.
Bush is betting his presidency on the Iraqis and their ability to govern themselves better than we governed them. At least he is now behaving consistently with the elemental conviction of this nation. If we have faith in anything, it should be in this democratic dream, which has so far, in our history, vindicated our hopes.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Bush's Epic Gamble
By DAVID BROOKS
Last night, George Bush made it clear that American military victories alone will not secure Iraq. We keep winning victories, but somehow the violence just keeps on coming.
Furthermore, American nation-building will not secure Iraq. We've tried to pour money into Iraq, to build a decent nation and then hand it back gift-wrapped to the Iraqi people. But that turns out not to work either. The longer we keep control, the bigger the mess grows.
The only real way to secure Iraq, Bush argued, is through self-governing democracy. Only representative self-government denies the terrorists the pretext they need to kill. It is only through the mundane acts of democratic citizenship that Iraqis will be able to build a civil society. It is only through self-government that Iraq can become secure.
The political transition Bush described implies an infinitude of concrete acts. The 400 parties that now exist in Iraq will have to meld into just a few. Conferences will convene, and people will debate. Politicians will vie for power; petitions will be signed; protests will be lodged. That, Bush implied, is the only practical path to normalcy.
It's a huge gamble to think that the solution to chaos is liberty. But it's fitting that during the gravest crisis of his presidency, President Bush reverted to his most fundamental political belief. He began this war in Iraq repeating the sentiment embodied in the Declaration of Independence, that our creator has endowed all human beings with the right to liberty, and the ability to function as democratic citizens. He said last night with absolute confidence that the Iraqis are democrats at heart.
Bush is betting his presidency, and the near-term future of this nation, on that central American creed.
It's an epic gamble. Because, let's face it, we don't know whether all people really do want to live in freedom. We don't know whether Iraqis have any notion of what democratic citizenship really means. We don't know whether they hear words like freedom, liberty and pluralism as deadly insults to the way of life they hold dear. We don't know who our enemies are. Are they the small minority of Baathists and jihadists, or is there a little bit of Moktada al-Sadr in every Iraqi's breast?
Bush is putting this tenet of our national creed to a fearsome test in the worst possible circumstances. For the past year Americans have committed horrible blunders. And if this gamble fails, it won't be only the competence of our officials that will be called into question — it will be the American creed itself. Since before the nation's founding, Americans have thought of themselves as the great democratic champions of the globe.
If this gamble fails to come off, then that mission will seem, to many, false. Perhaps democracy and freedom are not really universal values, some will say. Perhaps they are just the outgrowths of a specific culture. People on the left and right will race to withdraw from the world. It will become difficult to take on the tyrants who will menace the world.
On the other hand, if we muddle through in Iraq and some semidemocratic nation slowly emerges, it won't be because of American skill. It will be because the democratic creed is so strong it can withstand the highest incompetence. Then there really will be hope for a democratic Middle East. The war on terror will really look winnable.
If it all works out, then Iraqis will feel they control their lives. They will stop playing both sides of the fence. They will take responsibility for their future. They will try to expel the foreign jihadists. They will regard Americans as necessary guests, and Americans will behave like guests.
Right now that happy outcome feels a long way away. But at least Bush has now squarely faced the consequences of his creed. There was always something antidemocratic about nation-building — the idea that a country could go into a foreign place, then hand it back to the locals.
Bush is betting his presidency on the Iraqis and their ability to govern themselves better than we governed them. At least he is now behaving consistently with the elemental conviction of this nation. If we have faith in anything, it should be in this democratic dream, which has so far, in our history, vindicated our hopes.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
Violation of Trust
I'd listen to those who've been there and think about what it is we are asking them to do........(paraphrased) "By deceiving the US about the reasons we sent the troops to Iraq, Bush has violated the the most important thing about military service ....the "trust" of those he sent".....a thought from George Lakoff
A Vietnam Vet on "Supporting the Troops"
By STEPHEN T. BANKO, III
I came home from my war in 1970 with a body still riddled with shrapnel and mind still muddled with a toxic cocktail of rage and guilt and fear. I tried with every fiber of my being to become myself again but always knowing that I would never be that person again. I would never again think the world would spin off its axis if Timon lost to Canisius. Nor would I ever again believe that a beer in the South Shore Beach Club in Angola would cure everything that ailed me. As much as I wanted to be me, the face staring back at me from the mirror was someone far different from what I saw before Vietnam. Lying in a hospital bed surrounded by boys whose bodies had been broken and battered will do that. So will lying in ambush and killing unsuspecting Vietnamese. So will the constant pain and the fatigue and the filth and the loneliness of war. Once you've been exposed, you're a carrier of that virus forever. Innocence gets stripped away from your soul with all the pain of skin being peeled off your body. Any inherent goodness you might have possessed leaks out of your spirit.
I tried to pray my way out of my confusion and my anger and my pain. But those prayers were more a nostalgic genuflection to simpler prayers that asked God for a new catcher's mitt or a new pair of Converse All-Stars. I didn't really believe God would answer a killer's prayers. I stopped when I became terrified that deafening silence that greeted my prayers might, indeed, be the voice of God.
One day a few weeks after I returned to be a civilian, a husband and a father in one fell swoop, the mail carrier showed up at my door with a package. In it was a Silver Star. The Silver Star is the nation's third highest award for heroism and it was awarded to me by a mail carrier. When I told my father, he was livid. If you got that in my war, he said, you'd have a parade down Main Street. But that was the kind of war we fought: individual battles where mean survival was victory. As much as I was counseled to forget about the war and get on with my life, and as much as I really want to do so, each of us who fought in Vietnam was spiritually captured by it, and most remain to this day prisoners of their own war. In my eyes, the war was over. In my mind it was over too: over and over and over again in a continuous loop.
In all that confusion, I felt a need justify what I'd done. You can't just walk away from something like that without some sense of ratification. We looked to our peers but found none. We looked to our country and found even less. So we were left to explain our sacrifice to ourselves. In that muddle, I latched on to the immutable notion that what I did was right and just because the cause was right and just. I wrote angry essays defending American involvement in Vietnam. I castigated those who tried to cast aspersions on returning veterans. I engaged politicians who refused to vote for more jobs and more benefits for Vietnam veterans. I incurred the wrath of UB students and professors with my vigorous defense of the war. I made my support for the war literally who I was. So when public affairs television producers like Marilyn Stahlka were looking for hawks to take on the vocal left wing of the Vietnam veterans' movement, they found me lurking at every turn--only me.
I was trotted out with maddening frequency to engage two or three anti-war veterans at least once a month. Ms. Stahlka seemed more like my agent than a producer. I would take on Gail Graham on one program and go against an old St. Bonaventure classmate, Bob Godlove on another. I would rip into them questioning everything from their fidelity to fellow veterans to their loyalty to their country to their worth as human beings. I saved my most venomous vitriol for Robert Beyer, whose son Bruce had fled to Canada to avoid the draft. Bob Beyer was one of the kindest and gentlest human beings I would ever encounter before or after Vietnam and my attacks on him remain a humiliation to me to this day. I don't know whether I was more defeated by the simple soundness of Mr. Beyer1s arguments or his gentle demeanor in the face of my terrible personal attacks on him.
Many years later, when I admitted my alcoholism to myself and sought treatment, a psychiatrist asked me if I drank because of Vietnam or if I thought about Vietnam when I drank. Today, I ask myself a similar question: did I drink because of the guilt of surviving my war or did I drink because of the lies I was telling myself in defending the war?
Whatever the answer, sobriety and self-awareness helped me let go of my role as apologist for the Vietnam War. To accept my role in the war, I recalled those wonderful kids turned into men by war and turned into heroes in death. I recalled all the things we didn't fight for and accepted how bravely we fought for each other. I recognized that I could hate the war and still love the warrior, even though many in my generation lacked the intellectual sophistication to do so.
I still wonder if I could have done things differently in Vietnam. I wonder if I could have been better at protecting my men. But what I also wonder is how many kids died while I was promoting their need to be in Vietnam? Three long years passed while I was locked into the sad notion that we best supported the troops by being champions of their mission and cheerleaders for their cause. How many more boys were killed from 1970 to 1973? Did I have complicity in their deaths? These questions weigh as heavily today as did memories of the war yesterday.
The rhetoric I hear today sounds like an echo from my painful past. We are being told that we have to 'stay the course.' It's necessary for some Americans to die for Iraqi democracy. The biggest lie of all is that it is unpatriotic to oppose further suffering, further maiming and further death in Iraq.
We now live in a bumper sticker world where the only truths we accept are those simplistic enough to fit on an 18-inch adhesive placard. More and more I seem to be seeing 'Support Our Troops' stickers. That is advice well taken by me and by everyone. Support our troops indeed--bring them home now.
Stephen T. Banko III was awarded two Silver Stars, four Bronze Stars, the Air Medal and four Purple Hearts. He has long been active in veterans' affairs. He can be reached at: [email protected]
from http://www.counterpunch.org
A Vietnam Vet on "Supporting the Troops"
By STEPHEN T. BANKO, III
I came home from my war in 1970 with a body still riddled with shrapnel and mind still muddled with a toxic cocktail of rage and guilt and fear. I tried with every fiber of my being to become myself again but always knowing that I would never be that person again. I would never again think the world would spin off its axis if Timon lost to Canisius. Nor would I ever again believe that a beer in the South Shore Beach Club in Angola would cure everything that ailed me. As much as I wanted to be me, the face staring back at me from the mirror was someone far different from what I saw before Vietnam. Lying in a hospital bed surrounded by boys whose bodies had been broken and battered will do that. So will lying in ambush and killing unsuspecting Vietnamese. So will the constant pain and the fatigue and the filth and the loneliness of war. Once you've been exposed, you're a carrier of that virus forever. Innocence gets stripped away from your soul with all the pain of skin being peeled off your body. Any inherent goodness you might have possessed leaks out of your spirit.
I tried to pray my way out of my confusion and my anger and my pain. But those prayers were more a nostalgic genuflection to simpler prayers that asked God for a new catcher's mitt or a new pair of Converse All-Stars. I didn't really believe God would answer a killer's prayers. I stopped when I became terrified that deafening silence that greeted my prayers might, indeed, be the voice of God.
One day a few weeks after I returned to be a civilian, a husband and a father in one fell swoop, the mail carrier showed up at my door with a package. In it was a Silver Star. The Silver Star is the nation's third highest award for heroism and it was awarded to me by a mail carrier. When I told my father, he was livid. If you got that in my war, he said, you'd have a parade down Main Street. But that was the kind of war we fought: individual battles where mean survival was victory. As much as I was counseled to forget about the war and get on with my life, and as much as I really want to do so, each of us who fought in Vietnam was spiritually captured by it, and most remain to this day prisoners of their own war. In my eyes, the war was over. In my mind it was over too: over and over and over again in a continuous loop.
In all that confusion, I felt a need justify what I'd done. You can't just walk away from something like that without some sense of ratification. We looked to our peers but found none. We looked to our country and found even less. So we were left to explain our sacrifice to ourselves. In that muddle, I latched on to the immutable notion that what I did was right and just because the cause was right and just. I wrote angry essays defending American involvement in Vietnam. I castigated those who tried to cast aspersions on returning veterans. I engaged politicians who refused to vote for more jobs and more benefits for Vietnam veterans. I incurred the wrath of UB students and professors with my vigorous defense of the war. I made my support for the war literally who I was. So when public affairs television producers like Marilyn Stahlka were looking for hawks to take on the vocal left wing of the Vietnam veterans' movement, they found me lurking at every turn--only me.
I was trotted out with maddening frequency to engage two or three anti-war veterans at least once a month. Ms. Stahlka seemed more like my agent than a producer. I would take on Gail Graham on one program and go against an old St. Bonaventure classmate, Bob Godlove on another. I would rip into them questioning everything from their fidelity to fellow veterans to their loyalty to their country to their worth as human beings. I saved my most venomous vitriol for Robert Beyer, whose son Bruce had fled to Canada to avoid the draft. Bob Beyer was one of the kindest and gentlest human beings I would ever encounter before or after Vietnam and my attacks on him remain a humiliation to me to this day. I don't know whether I was more defeated by the simple soundness of Mr. Beyer1s arguments or his gentle demeanor in the face of my terrible personal attacks on him.
Many years later, when I admitted my alcoholism to myself and sought treatment, a psychiatrist asked me if I drank because of Vietnam or if I thought about Vietnam when I drank. Today, I ask myself a similar question: did I drink because of the guilt of surviving my war or did I drink because of the lies I was telling myself in defending the war?
Whatever the answer, sobriety and self-awareness helped me let go of my role as apologist for the Vietnam War. To accept my role in the war, I recalled those wonderful kids turned into men by war and turned into heroes in death. I recalled all the things we didn't fight for and accepted how bravely we fought for each other. I recognized that I could hate the war and still love the warrior, even though many in my generation lacked the intellectual sophistication to do so.
I still wonder if I could have done things differently in Vietnam. I wonder if I could have been better at protecting my men. But what I also wonder is how many kids died while I was promoting their need to be in Vietnam? Three long years passed while I was locked into the sad notion that we best supported the troops by being champions of their mission and cheerleaders for their cause. How many more boys were killed from 1970 to 1973? Did I have complicity in their deaths? These questions weigh as heavily today as did memories of the war yesterday.
The rhetoric I hear today sounds like an echo from my painful past. We are being told that we have to 'stay the course.' It's necessary for some Americans to die for Iraqi democracy. The biggest lie of all is that it is unpatriotic to oppose further suffering, further maiming and further death in Iraq.
We now live in a bumper sticker world where the only truths we accept are those simplistic enough to fit on an 18-inch adhesive placard. More and more I seem to be seeing 'Support Our Troops' stickers. That is advice well taken by me and by everyone. Support our troops indeed--bring them home now.
Stephen T. Banko III was awarded two Silver Stars, four Bronze Stars, the Air Medal and four Purple Hearts. He has long been active in veterans' affairs. He can be reached at: [email protected]
from http://www.counterpunch.org
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981
-
samtzu
- Posts: 3403
- Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 5:56 pm
- Location: Portland,OR;Columbia,CA;Emigrant Wilderness
- Contact:
Angel:
As a Viet vet, thanks.
(I wrote about two pages more, but it was steeped in so much anger and vitriol against the administration in particular and war in general that I couldn't post it.)
Sam
As a Viet vet, thanks.
(I wrote about two pages more, but it was steeped in so much anger and vitriol against the administration in particular and war in general that I couldn't post it.)
Sam
The revolutionary does not grow up because he cannot grow, while the creative individual cannot grow up because he keeps growing ~~ Eric Hoffer
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
eplayans ...one more before I konk out: this is a good one ...spread it around like butter:
http://www.mediafordemocracy.us/campaign/rush
michael savage's real name is weiner, and he lives in Marin
http://www.mediafordemocracy.us/campaign/rush
michael savage's real name is weiner, and he lives in Marin
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
This is a guess...DVD Burner wrote:ever notice whenever Terry Nichols is shown on the news being transferred to and from jail, he's never in handcuffs or shackles?
What up wit dat?
I would say Terry Nichols is a prime target for neo-NAZI hit teams.... and in shackles it would make easy work for most... so, his ability to move agility while in custody to/from the courthouse makes him a less easy target.
I would also imagine he has some type of electronic device around his ankle in order to track him if he were escape....
and.... more than likely, he realizes his life isn't worth much more than the cost of the minerals found in the human body... due to death threats...
total conjecture on my part, but reasonable guesses IMHO.
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
Associated Press (USA), Feb. 28, 2004
http://newsobserver.com
By Tim Talley
McALESTER, Okla. (AP) - Attorneys for Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols will try to keep him out of the state's death chamber by claiming he was the fall guy for a shadowy group of conspirators.
To make the point, they plan to call a rogue's gallery of witnesses - including an inmate who spent time on death row with Timothy McVeigh and a member of a gang of white supremacist bank robbers.
Already serving time in federal prison, Nichols goes on trial Monday on state murder charges for the bombing that killed 168 people at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building on April 19, 1995.
Prosecutors allege that Nichols, 48, conspired with McVeigh to build the 4,000-pound bomb of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil in a twisted plot to avenge the FBI siege against the Branch Davidian sect at Waco, Texas, two years earlier.
At pretrial hearings, defense attorneys led by Brian Hermanson have focused on other potential suspects.
"Witnesses will be called to show that, while Mr. Nichols was at home in Kansas taking care of his family and building his business, Mr. McVeigh was actively recruiting and building a network of people who shared his violent hatred toward the federal government," according to a pretrial motion.
How much conspiracy evidence Nichols' jurors will see depends on District Judge Steven Taylor. Conspiracy testimony will be allowed only if defense attorneys prove that other suspects committed specific, overt acts to plan and execute the bombing.
Stephen Jones, an attorney who represented McVeigh, said Nichols' defense strategy will be difficult to implement.
"I think it is an uphill climb for Nichols to convince a jury," Jones said
However, the fact that Nichols was at home in Herington, Kan., when the bomb went off could make it harder for prosecutors to get the death penalty, said Andy Coates, a former prosecutor and dean of University of Oklahoma Law School.
"Certainly he wasn't the trigger man. He was one step removed, at least geographically, from what was going on," Coates said.
Nichols was convicted on charges of conspiracy and involuntary manslaughter for the deaths of eight federal agents in the bombing. He now faces 161 state murder charges for the other victims, plus an unborn child whose mother died in the explosion.
Defense witnesses will include David Paul Hammer, who is scheduled to be executed in June at a federal prison in Terre Haute, Ind., for the murder of a prison cellmate.
Hammer spent time with McVeigh on federal death row and claims McVeigh gave him the identity of co-conspirators including John Doe 2, a mystery man some claim to have seen with McVeigh on the day of the bombing.
A member of a bank robbery gang connected with the Aryan Republican Army, a white supremacist group with anti-government views, also may testify. Peter Langan, serving life for a string of bank robberies in the 1990s, said in a phone interview with The Associated Press that at least three fellow gang members were in Oklahoma around the time of the bombing and one told him that they had become involved.
The Associated Press reported last week that FBI agents investigating those bank robberies collected witness statements and evidence that raised questions of whether the Aryan Republican Army might have assisted McVeigh's plot. But they did not share all the information with their colleagues in Oklahoma City.
The FBI responded Friday by asking its inspection division to review some of that evidence and determine if more needs to be done.
The defense also will try to discredit physical evidence in the case by pointing out problems in the FBI crime lab where the evidence was tested.
The trial could be complicated by publicity surrounding the case and Nichols' federal conviction, legal analysts said. The trial was moved from Oklahoma City to McAlester, about 130 miles away, because of pretrial publicity.
"The notion that an impartial jury can be found in the state of Oklahoma is almost an absurdity," said E. E. "Bo" Edwards III of Nashville, Tenn., president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Prosecutors will rely on volumes of circumstantial evidence linking Nichols to the bomb plot, Nichols' anti-government writings before the bombing and testimony from survivors and members of victims' families.
They will also allege that Nichols robbed an Arkansas gun dealer in November 1994 to help finance the plot - a robbery defense attorneys believe was committed by the Aryan bank robbery gang.
The prosecution's star witness at Nichols' federal trial, Michael Fortier, will take the stand again to describe how McVeigh and Nichols detonated explosives in Arizona and experimented with ingredients that were later used in the bombing.
Fortier, serving a 12-year sentence for knowing about the bomb plot and not telling authorities, also will testify that Nichols was deeply involved in planning the bombing.
http://newsobserver.com
By Tim Talley
McALESTER, Okla. (AP) - Attorneys for Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols will try to keep him out of the state's death chamber by claiming he was the fall guy for a shadowy group of conspirators.
To make the point, they plan to call a rogue's gallery of witnesses - including an inmate who spent time on death row with Timothy McVeigh and a member of a gang of white supremacist bank robbers.
Already serving time in federal prison, Nichols goes on trial Monday on state murder charges for the bombing that killed 168 people at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building on April 19, 1995.
Prosecutors allege that Nichols, 48, conspired with McVeigh to build the 4,000-pound bomb of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil in a twisted plot to avenge the FBI siege against the Branch Davidian sect at Waco, Texas, two years earlier.
At pretrial hearings, defense attorneys led by Brian Hermanson have focused on other potential suspects.
"Witnesses will be called to show that, while Mr. Nichols was at home in Kansas taking care of his family and building his business, Mr. McVeigh was actively recruiting and building a network of people who shared his violent hatred toward the federal government," according to a pretrial motion.
How much conspiracy evidence Nichols' jurors will see depends on District Judge Steven Taylor. Conspiracy testimony will be allowed only if defense attorneys prove that other suspects committed specific, overt acts to plan and execute the bombing.
Stephen Jones, an attorney who represented McVeigh, said Nichols' defense strategy will be difficult to implement.
"I think it is an uphill climb for Nichols to convince a jury," Jones said
However, the fact that Nichols was at home in Herington, Kan., when the bomb went off could make it harder for prosecutors to get the death penalty, said Andy Coates, a former prosecutor and dean of University of Oklahoma Law School.
"Certainly he wasn't the trigger man. He was one step removed, at least geographically, from what was going on," Coates said.
Nichols was convicted on charges of conspiracy and involuntary manslaughter for the deaths of eight federal agents in the bombing. He now faces 161 state murder charges for the other victims, plus an unborn child whose mother died in the explosion.
Defense witnesses will include David Paul Hammer, who is scheduled to be executed in June at a federal prison in Terre Haute, Ind., for the murder of a prison cellmate.
Hammer spent time with McVeigh on federal death row and claims McVeigh gave him the identity of co-conspirators including John Doe 2, a mystery man some claim to have seen with McVeigh on the day of the bombing.
A member of a bank robbery gang connected with the Aryan Republican Army, a white supremacist group with anti-government views, also may testify. Peter Langan, serving life for a string of bank robberies in the 1990s, said in a phone interview with The Associated Press that at least three fellow gang members were in Oklahoma around the time of the bombing and one told him that they had become involved.
The Associated Press reported last week that FBI agents investigating those bank robberies collected witness statements and evidence that raised questions of whether the Aryan Republican Army might have assisted McVeigh's plot. But they did not share all the information with their colleagues in Oklahoma City.
The FBI responded Friday by asking its inspection division to review some of that evidence and determine if more needs to be done.
The defense also will try to discredit physical evidence in the case by pointing out problems in the FBI crime lab where the evidence was tested.
The trial could be complicated by publicity surrounding the case and Nichols' federal conviction, legal analysts said. The trial was moved from Oklahoma City to McAlester, about 130 miles away, because of pretrial publicity.
"The notion that an impartial jury can be found in the state of Oklahoma is almost an absurdity," said E. E. "Bo" Edwards III of Nashville, Tenn., president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Prosecutors will rely on volumes of circumstantial evidence linking Nichols to the bomb plot, Nichols' anti-government writings before the bombing and testimony from survivors and members of victims' families.
They will also allege that Nichols robbed an Arkansas gun dealer in November 1994 to help finance the plot - a robbery defense attorneys believe was committed by the Aryan bank robbery gang.
The prosecution's star witness at Nichols' federal trial, Michael Fortier, will take the stand again to describe how McVeigh and Nichols detonated explosives in Arizona and experimented with ingredients that were later used in the bombing.
Fortier, serving a 12-year sentence for knowing about the bomb plot and not telling authorities, also will testify that Nichols was deeply involved in planning the bombing.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
-
spectabillis
- Posts: 3527
- Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:07 pm
- Burning Since: 2022
- Location: black rock city
Yeah right, big fuckin chance of that. We are talking about Oklahoma after all, meth capital of the U.S., full of gung-ho trailer trash who would show up with coolers full of Bush in the back of thier trucks to watch.DVD Burner wrote: However, the fact that Nichols was at home in Herington, Kan., when the bomb went off could make it harder for prosecutors to get the death penalty...
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
It is very simple.... he is a witness, a co-conspirator, intitutional knowldege bank on the inner workings of above said groups...DVD Burner wrote:Huh?
why would he be a prime target for neo-NAZI hit teams? In court it was brought up that he was affiliated with nazi-kkk bank robbers. Let alone government and military militias.
if dead, he is no longer a threat.
Machevellian logic...
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
a couple of clarificcations, if you please????spectabillis wrote:Yeah right, big fuckin chance of that. We are talking about Oklahoma after all, meth capital of the U.S., full of gung-ho trailer trash who would show up with coolers full of Bush in the back of thier trucks to watch.DVD Burner wrote: However, the fact that Nichols was at home in Herington, Kan., when the bomb went off could make it harder for prosecutors to get the death penalty...
Busch beer, right?
trailer trash who would show up with coolers.... to watch. watch what?
Nichol's sentencing?
Nichol's execution?
meth capital of the U.S. cites, if you please?
'cause we got the same thing (meth non-sense) going on here in east central IL.
meth is a way sh*tty intoxicant...
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
Re: Are democracy and freedom universal values?
YES.Simply Joel wrote:May 25, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Bush's Epic Gamble
By DAVID BROOKS
Last night, George Bush made it clear that American military victories alone will not secure Iraq. We keep winning victories, but somehow the violence just keeps on coming.
Furthermore, American nation-building will not secure Iraq. We've tried to pour money into Iraq, to build a decent nation and then hand it back gift-wrapped to the Iraqi people. But that turns out not to work either. The longer we keep control, the bigger the mess grows.
The only real way to secure Iraq, Bush argued, is through self-governing democracy. Only representative self-government denies the terrorists the pretext they need to kill. It is only through the mundane acts of democratic citizenship that Iraqis will be able to build a civil society. It is only through self-government that Iraq can become secure.
The political transition Bush described implies an infinitude of concrete acts. The 400 parties that now exist in Iraq will have to meld into just a few. Conferences will convene, and people will debate. Politicians will vie for power; petitions will be signed; protests will be lodged. That, Bush implied, is the only practical path to normalcy.
See, this is why I feel that George W. Bush should be President for another four more years. We dont want to send the world the wrong message.
Grand Whopping Bastard.
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
-
spectabillis
- Posts: 3527
- Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:07 pm
- Burning Since: 2022
- Location: black rock city
And that's the jury.spectabillis wrote:...full of gung-ho trailer trash who would show up with coolers full of Bush in the back of thier trucks to watch.
> Busch beer, right?
Right, unless they put thier women in coolers.
> trailer trash who would show up with coolers.... to watch. watch what?
>Nichol's sentencing?
> Nichol's execution?
Probably both.
> meth capital of the U.S. cites, if you please?
Dont have any, but when I was back there I heard that from a TV news report and Radio spot. I was born an Okie and still have family back there.
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
Can bin Laden Save Bush?
By Marc Ash
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Friday 28 May 2004
If you ever doubted the potential for violent actions to affect political change, the events in Madrid on the morning of March 11th 2004 erased all doubt. Early on that Thursday morning, sympathizers of Osama bin Laden seized a wide-open opportunity to alter the course of a modern western democracy through carnage.
Four packed commuter trains were torn apart by powerful explosives designed to kill in large numbers -- they did. In all, 191 people on their way to work died and some 1500 were wounded. The timing, just four days prior to Spain's national elections, was clearly an effort to affect those elections. The ruling People's Party, led by Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, was unexpectedly swept from power by the opposition Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, led by Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. But the life and death question is, why?
Why Spain turned on Aznar
You may attempt to make the argument that Spain rewarded Osama bin Laden by rejecting Aznar, but I do not recommend you attempt to make it on the streets of Madrid. If you did, you would quickly be confronted by the truth. Aznar sealed his own fate by lying to the Spanish people.
Aznar lied on two major counts. First; In committing the Spanish to a war they did not want, taking the position that it was needed to fight terrorism. That is a lie. The minions of bin Laden will never be defeated by armies marching. They can only be defeated meticulous police work and by social and economic conditions that do not drive supporters to them. Second; In the aftermath of the bombings, Aznar attempted gain political advantage by blaming the Basque separatist group ETA. That was an insult to Spain.
The resulting verdict rendered at the polls was not an acceptance of bin Laden's madness, but rather a condemnation of Aznar's betrayal of Spain.
The other side of the Atlantic
On the 10th day of September 2001, George W. Bush's poll numbers were better than they are today, but not much. The Rehnquist-ordained presidency was having difficulty impressing anyone but the Republican faithful. That was about to change; as the towers fell, George W. Bush's fortunes rose. Overnight his approval ratings doubled, and that was just the start. Over the past two and a half years since the attacks, Bush has used the fear generated by September 11th to effect a broad social and economic agenda that had little or nothing to do with national security.
Attacks this summer
Wednesday's press briefing by John Ashcroft was a puzzlement. The presentation appeared more geared towards public relations than public safety. One had to wonder if Ashcroft was trying to stop terror, or cause it. Where was the information here? What purpose did this serve? For the record Mr. Ashcroft, if you have any real information about attacks on Americans, we would love to hear about them -- you know John, like the information that caused you stop flying commercial aircraft in the weeks prior to the attacks of September 11th? How do we qualify for those kind of warnings?
Ashcroft did take the opportunity to suggest that Madrid might set the stage for similar attacks in the U.S. prior to our November elections, saying, "Al-Qaida may perceive that a large-scale attack in the United States this summer or fall would lead to similar consequences." Al-Qaida may perceive that, but only if they can't read. The last Al-Qaida operation on U.S. soil did little to empower the opposition. On the contrary, it put the opposition on the endangered species list.
The Baghdad trap
If you believe that bin Laden would like to sweep Bush from power, then you would have to wonder if an act of violence on U.S. soil would produce that. However if you are concerned that Baghdad is bin Laden's trap for Bush, then you might wonder if another attack on U.S. soil might better serve bin Laden's interest. It would, in greater likelihood, keep Bush in power and the U.S. Army in Baghdad. If that, in fact, is what bin Laden wants, then this could be a very dangerous summer indeed.
Can bin Laden save Bush?
Bush is in trouble for sure. It would take something big to wash away the memory of the twisted freak-show at Abu Grahib, and the Chalabi betrayal has yet to really see the light of day. So the question hangs a bit. The answer may lie in another question: Will the Americans accept the same lies that the Spanish would not?
You can send comments to t r u t h o u t Executive Director Marc Ash at: [email protected]
By Marc Ash
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Friday 28 May 2004
If you ever doubted the potential for violent actions to affect political change, the events in Madrid on the morning of March 11th 2004 erased all doubt. Early on that Thursday morning, sympathizers of Osama bin Laden seized a wide-open opportunity to alter the course of a modern western democracy through carnage.
Four packed commuter trains were torn apart by powerful explosives designed to kill in large numbers -- they did. In all, 191 people on their way to work died and some 1500 were wounded. The timing, just four days prior to Spain's national elections, was clearly an effort to affect those elections. The ruling People's Party, led by Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, was unexpectedly swept from power by the opposition Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, led by Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. But the life and death question is, why?
Why Spain turned on Aznar
You may attempt to make the argument that Spain rewarded Osama bin Laden by rejecting Aznar, but I do not recommend you attempt to make it on the streets of Madrid. If you did, you would quickly be confronted by the truth. Aznar sealed his own fate by lying to the Spanish people.
Aznar lied on two major counts. First; In committing the Spanish to a war they did not want, taking the position that it was needed to fight terrorism. That is a lie. The minions of bin Laden will never be defeated by armies marching. They can only be defeated meticulous police work and by social and economic conditions that do not drive supporters to them. Second; In the aftermath of the bombings, Aznar attempted gain political advantage by blaming the Basque separatist group ETA. That was an insult to Spain.
The resulting verdict rendered at the polls was not an acceptance of bin Laden's madness, but rather a condemnation of Aznar's betrayal of Spain.
The other side of the Atlantic
On the 10th day of September 2001, George W. Bush's poll numbers were better than they are today, but not much. The Rehnquist-ordained presidency was having difficulty impressing anyone but the Republican faithful. That was about to change; as the towers fell, George W. Bush's fortunes rose. Overnight his approval ratings doubled, and that was just the start. Over the past two and a half years since the attacks, Bush has used the fear generated by September 11th to effect a broad social and economic agenda that had little or nothing to do with national security.
Attacks this summer
Wednesday's press briefing by John Ashcroft was a puzzlement. The presentation appeared more geared towards public relations than public safety. One had to wonder if Ashcroft was trying to stop terror, or cause it. Where was the information here? What purpose did this serve? For the record Mr. Ashcroft, if you have any real information about attacks on Americans, we would love to hear about them -- you know John, like the information that caused you stop flying commercial aircraft in the weeks prior to the attacks of September 11th? How do we qualify for those kind of warnings?
Ashcroft did take the opportunity to suggest that Madrid might set the stage for similar attacks in the U.S. prior to our November elections, saying, "Al-Qaida may perceive that a large-scale attack in the United States this summer or fall would lead to similar consequences." Al-Qaida may perceive that, but only if they can't read. The last Al-Qaida operation on U.S. soil did little to empower the opposition. On the contrary, it put the opposition on the endangered species list.
The Baghdad trap
If you believe that bin Laden would like to sweep Bush from power, then you would have to wonder if an act of violence on U.S. soil would produce that. However if you are concerned that Baghdad is bin Laden's trap for Bush, then you might wonder if another attack on U.S. soil might better serve bin Laden's interest. It would, in greater likelihood, keep Bush in power and the U.S. Army in Baghdad. If that, in fact, is what bin Laden wants, then this could be a very dangerous summer indeed.
Can bin Laden save Bush?
Bush is in trouble for sure. It would take something big to wash away the memory of the twisted freak-show at Abu Grahib, and the Chalabi betrayal has yet to really see the light of day. So the question hangs a bit. The answer may lie in another question: Will the Americans accept the same lies that the Spanish would not?
You can send comments to t r u t h o u t Executive Director Marc Ash at: [email protected]
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
just one more from Katha Pollit of The Nation magazine ...esp for those of you of draft age
Do You Feel a Draft?
Print this article
E-mail this article
Write to the editors
Take Action Now!
Should the government bring back the draft? Republican Senator Chuck Hagel has been talking it up, and it has captured the imagination of many liberals and leftists as well. Last year antiwar Representative Charles Rangel of New York and Senator Fritz Hollings of South Carolina introduced proposals to restore the draft as a way to build opposition to the war: The draft, Rangel argued, would spread the burden of war throughout society and force war supporters in the upper classes to put their children where their mouths are.
On paper, it's a tempting argument. Universal conscription would certainly be a poke in the eye for Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle and other prowar "chickenhawks" who used their social privilege to avoid Vietnam ("I had other priorities," said the Vice President, who enjoyed no fewer than five deferments). In theory, the draft would give us an army of "citizen soldiers," young men--and probably women--drawn from all parts of society, instead of the current Army, which draws heavily on military families, poor people and--to judge by Charles Graner, accepted into the Army in his early 30s despite a long history of violence and instability--wife-beating losers. For many, the draft summons up ideals of valor, adulthood, public service and self-sacrifice--shared self-sacrifice. Those are all good things, but the draft is still a bad idea.
Given our ever more stratified and atomized society, why expect the draft to be equal or fair? In the l960s, the draft was famously open to evasion and manipulation, as that large flock of chickenhawks proves. The new draft would be too. The Army doesn't need every high school graduate--there are 612,836 men 18 to 26 in the Selective Service registry for the state of Ohio alone, more than four times the number of US soldiers in Iraq--so it will be able, as in the past, to pick and choose. When one loophole closes, another will open: If Rangel succeeds in banning student deferments, we'll see 4Fs for college-bound kids with "attention deficit disorder" or "learning disabilities." Privileged kids will be funneled into safe stateside units, just the way George W. Bush was.
What about the argument that the draft will produce opposition to war? ("Parents and children would suddenly care," as historian of the 1960s Jon Wiener told me.) It's true that the draft will make it harder for kids and their families to live in a golden bubble--in the l960s, the draft concentrated the minds of college students wonderfully well. But mostly what the Vietnam-era draft produced was the abolition of the draft: That was the immediate form that opposition to the war took for those who most risked having to fight it. Abolishing the draft was a tremendous victory for the antiwar movement. If draftees were used in an unpopular war tomorrow, wouldn't opponents demand that kids not be forced to kill and be killed in an unjust and pointless cause? Nor is it entirely clear that a draft would raise antiwar sentiment overall. Conscription might make it harder, not easier, for many people to see a war's wrongness: It's hard to admit your children died in vain.
Supporters of the draft are using it to promote indirectly politics we should champion openly and up front. It's terrible that working-class teenagers join the Army to get college funds, or job training, or work--what kind of nation is this where Jessica Lynch had to invade Iraq in order to fulfill her modest dream of becoming an elementary school teacher and Shoshanna Johnson had to be a cook on the battlefield to qualify for a culinary job back home? But the solution isn't to force more people into the Army, it's affordable education and good jobs for all. Nobody should have to choose between risking her life--or as we see in Abu Ghraib, her soul--and stocking shelves at Wal-Mart. By the same token, threatening our young with injury, madness and death is a rather roundabout way to increase resistance to military adventures. I'd rather just loudly insist that people who favor war go fight in it themselves or be damned as showboaters and shirkers. I'm sure the Army can find something for Christopher Hitchens to do.
The main effect of bringing back the draft would be to further militarize the nation. The military has already thrust its tentacles deep into civilian life: We have ROTC on campus, Junior ROTC in the high schools, Hummers in our garages and camouflage couture in our closets. Whole counties, entire professions, live or die by defense contracts--which is perhaps one reason we spend more on our military budget than the next twenty-five countries combined. (Did you know that the money raised by the breast cancer postage stamp goes to the Defense Department?) Conscription will make the country more authoritarian and probably more violent, too, if that's possible--especially for women soldiers, who are raped and assaulted in great numbers in today's armed forces, usually with more or less impunity.
If we want a society that is equal, cohesive, fair and war-resistant, let's fight for that, not punish our children for what we have allowed America to become.
Do You Feel a Draft?
Print this article
E-mail this article
Write to the editors
Take Action Now!
Should the government bring back the draft? Republican Senator Chuck Hagel has been talking it up, and it has captured the imagination of many liberals and leftists as well. Last year antiwar Representative Charles Rangel of New York and Senator Fritz Hollings of South Carolina introduced proposals to restore the draft as a way to build opposition to the war: The draft, Rangel argued, would spread the burden of war throughout society and force war supporters in the upper classes to put their children where their mouths are.
On paper, it's a tempting argument. Universal conscription would certainly be a poke in the eye for Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle and other prowar "chickenhawks" who used their social privilege to avoid Vietnam ("I had other priorities," said the Vice President, who enjoyed no fewer than five deferments). In theory, the draft would give us an army of "citizen soldiers," young men--and probably women--drawn from all parts of society, instead of the current Army, which draws heavily on military families, poor people and--to judge by Charles Graner, accepted into the Army in his early 30s despite a long history of violence and instability--wife-beating losers. For many, the draft summons up ideals of valor, adulthood, public service and self-sacrifice--shared self-sacrifice. Those are all good things, but the draft is still a bad idea.
Given our ever more stratified and atomized society, why expect the draft to be equal or fair? In the l960s, the draft was famously open to evasion and manipulation, as that large flock of chickenhawks proves. The new draft would be too. The Army doesn't need every high school graduate--there are 612,836 men 18 to 26 in the Selective Service registry for the state of Ohio alone, more than four times the number of US soldiers in Iraq--so it will be able, as in the past, to pick and choose. When one loophole closes, another will open: If Rangel succeeds in banning student deferments, we'll see 4Fs for college-bound kids with "attention deficit disorder" or "learning disabilities." Privileged kids will be funneled into safe stateside units, just the way George W. Bush was.
What about the argument that the draft will produce opposition to war? ("Parents and children would suddenly care," as historian of the 1960s Jon Wiener told me.) It's true that the draft will make it harder for kids and their families to live in a golden bubble--in the l960s, the draft concentrated the minds of college students wonderfully well. But mostly what the Vietnam-era draft produced was the abolition of the draft: That was the immediate form that opposition to the war took for those who most risked having to fight it. Abolishing the draft was a tremendous victory for the antiwar movement. If draftees were used in an unpopular war tomorrow, wouldn't opponents demand that kids not be forced to kill and be killed in an unjust and pointless cause? Nor is it entirely clear that a draft would raise antiwar sentiment overall. Conscription might make it harder, not easier, for many people to see a war's wrongness: It's hard to admit your children died in vain.
Supporters of the draft are using it to promote indirectly politics we should champion openly and up front. It's terrible that working-class teenagers join the Army to get college funds, or job training, or work--what kind of nation is this where Jessica Lynch had to invade Iraq in order to fulfill her modest dream of becoming an elementary school teacher and Shoshanna Johnson had to be a cook on the battlefield to qualify for a culinary job back home? But the solution isn't to force more people into the Army, it's affordable education and good jobs for all. Nobody should have to choose between risking her life--or as we see in Abu Ghraib, her soul--and stocking shelves at Wal-Mart. By the same token, threatening our young with injury, madness and death is a rather roundabout way to increase resistance to military adventures. I'd rather just loudly insist that people who favor war go fight in it themselves or be damned as showboaters and shirkers. I'm sure the Army can find something for Christopher Hitchens to do.
The main effect of bringing back the draft would be to further militarize the nation. The military has already thrust its tentacles deep into civilian life: We have ROTC on campus, Junior ROTC in the high schools, Hummers in our garages and camouflage couture in our closets. Whole counties, entire professions, live or die by defense contracts--which is perhaps one reason we spend more on our military budget than the next twenty-five countries combined. (Did you know that the money raised by the breast cancer postage stamp goes to the Defense Department?) Conscription will make the country more authoritarian and probably more violent, too, if that's possible--especially for women soldiers, who are raped and assaulted in great numbers in today's armed forces, usually with more or less impunity.
If we want a society that is equal, cohesive, fair and war-resistant, let's fight for that, not punish our children for what we have allowed America to become.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
And people actually wonder why I am republican...
A CAMPAIGN SLOGAN FOR KERRY
By William F. Buckley Jr.
John Kerry has been in search of a line or two of American poetry to suggest the challenge ahead, most especially his role in it. There has been much effort on the matter by his staff, and they finally came up with what they were looking for. According to Kathleen Hall Jamieson, "an expert on political messages" quoted by The New York Times, the line the Kerry campaign was searching for had to have resonance with Americans who believe the country is being taken in the wrong direction. As Ms. Jamieson analyzes the line, "It suggests someone's hijacked the country, without being a frontal attack."
The line was first tried out by Kerry in Topeka, Kan., on the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, and it seemed to glimmer on the candidate's lips, auguring a robust future. So Mr. Kerry used it again a few days later, and now it is being given very serious attention. The line is, "Let America be America again."
That phrase has something going for it. It was written by an American Negro poet, Langston Hughes (1902-1967). It is thought, in Kerryland, to be at once celebratory, poignant and galvanizing. "America" is cited, implicitly the paradise to which one should aspire, a great land that lies there waiting for us deep in coils of a lapsed American idealism, waiting to be revived by an inspired new champion.
But research on the phrase is not enjoined for the community that will sing it forth. The reason for that is that Langston Hughes wrote the poem "Let America Be America Again" in 1938, and it is not easy to summon to mind which America he was calling on his countrymen to restore, to be America again. There was little about America for the American Negro to celebrate in 1938 -- unless you are willing to accept the proposition of George Washington Carver. Mr. Carver, scientist and philosopher, the son of a slave, said that American blacks had this to celebrate: that they had been plucked from African forests, brought to America, and baptized into the liberating faith of Christianity, which was the springboard for their emancipation. But Mr. Carver is not widely hailed by black Democratic progressives, the judgment on him being that he was too submissive to a culture that still practiced Jim Crow.
Langston Hughes, if he is in fact to emerge as the poet of the Democratic Party, will have to be bowdlerized. "Let America be America again" is a line from one poem Mr. Hughes wrote, and its vagueness is useful. But Hughes was not vague. And as for George Washington Carver's celebration of Christianity, Langston Hughes was, well, skeptical, as in the poem "Goodbye Christ" (1932):
"Listen, Christ,
"You did alright in your day, I reckon --
"But that day's gone now.
"They ghosted you up a swell story, too,
"Called it Bible --
"But it's dead now."
That exegesis of Langston Hughes would puzzle Democratic delegates in Boston in July, vibrant with life and mission. And it wasn't just that Langston Hughes had had a one-night stand with skepticism, along the way to capturing the need to let America be America again. No, Mr. Hughes had a very specific view about history, and his view was clear on the question of which historical road America should travel:
"Goodbye,
"Christ Jesus Lord God Jehovah,
"Beat it on away from here now.
"Make way for a new guy with no religion at all --
"A real guy named
"Marx Communist Lenin Peasant Stalin Worker ME.
Langston Hughes was asking America to "be America again," meaning, not an America that history had known and chronicled, but an America realizable in a new and different vision. The land of Marx and Lenin and Stalin. Mr. Kerry's campaign team is going to have serious homework to do before introducing Langston Hughes as the poet laureate of the Democratic Party in 2004.
By William F. Buckley Jr.
John Kerry has been in search of a line or two of American poetry to suggest the challenge ahead, most especially his role in it. There has been much effort on the matter by his staff, and they finally came up with what they were looking for. According to Kathleen Hall Jamieson, "an expert on political messages" quoted by The New York Times, the line the Kerry campaign was searching for had to have resonance with Americans who believe the country is being taken in the wrong direction. As Ms. Jamieson analyzes the line, "It suggests someone's hijacked the country, without being a frontal attack."
The line was first tried out by Kerry in Topeka, Kan., on the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, and it seemed to glimmer on the candidate's lips, auguring a robust future. So Mr. Kerry used it again a few days later, and now it is being given very serious attention. The line is, "Let America be America again."
That phrase has something going for it. It was written by an American Negro poet, Langston Hughes (1902-1967). It is thought, in Kerryland, to be at once celebratory, poignant and galvanizing. "America" is cited, implicitly the paradise to which one should aspire, a great land that lies there waiting for us deep in coils of a lapsed American idealism, waiting to be revived by an inspired new champion.
But research on the phrase is not enjoined for the community that will sing it forth. The reason for that is that Langston Hughes wrote the poem "Let America Be America Again" in 1938, and it is not easy to summon to mind which America he was calling on his countrymen to restore, to be America again. There was little about America for the American Negro to celebrate in 1938 -- unless you are willing to accept the proposition of George Washington Carver. Mr. Carver, scientist and philosopher, the son of a slave, said that American blacks had this to celebrate: that they had been plucked from African forests, brought to America, and baptized into the liberating faith of Christianity, which was the springboard for their emancipation. But Mr. Carver is not widely hailed by black Democratic progressives, the judgment on him being that he was too submissive to a culture that still practiced Jim Crow.
Langston Hughes, if he is in fact to emerge as the poet of the Democratic Party, will have to be bowdlerized. "Let America be America again" is a line from one poem Mr. Hughes wrote, and its vagueness is useful. But Hughes was not vague. And as for George Washington Carver's celebration of Christianity, Langston Hughes was, well, skeptical, as in the poem "Goodbye Christ" (1932):
"Listen, Christ,
"You did alright in your day, I reckon --
"But that day's gone now.
"They ghosted you up a swell story, too,
"Called it Bible --
"But it's dead now."
That exegesis of Langston Hughes would puzzle Democratic delegates in Boston in July, vibrant with life and mission. And it wasn't just that Langston Hughes had had a one-night stand with skepticism, along the way to capturing the need to let America be America again. No, Mr. Hughes had a very specific view about history, and his view was clear on the question of which historical road America should travel:
"Goodbye,
"Christ Jesus Lord God Jehovah,
"Beat it on away from here now.
"Make way for a new guy with no religion at all --
"A real guy named
"Marx Communist Lenin Peasant Stalin Worker ME.
Langston Hughes was asking America to "be America again," meaning, not an America that history had known and chronicled, but an America realizable in a new and different vision. The land of Marx and Lenin and Stalin. Mr. Kerry's campaign team is going to have serious homework to do before introducing Langston Hughes as the poet laureate of the Democratic Party in 2004.
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
If this is the best the mighty bastion of the conservative cause can up with, then despite the association with Langston Hughes, the Dems are looking pretty good...actually, I rather like Langston Hughes and I'm not even a commie.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
-
technopatra
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 3:04 pm
- Location: SF, CA
- Contact:
oh yes, good stuff..I especially like th part where, in the middle of the California blackout season, the exec blithely orders his minino to shut down production at a major plant, fully aware that ten of thousands of people will be without power, including elderly folks who traditionally die in extreme heat without air conditioning.
Murder for money. Plain, simple, undeniable. I hope they get life in prison.
But my favorite political tidbit of the day came from Charlie Rose's interview with Charlie Unger, the author of "House of Saud, House of Bush". In it he claims that on September 13, 2001, dozens of Saudi royals and members of the bin Laden family fled the U.S. in a secret airlift authorized by the Bush White House. Contrary to police procedure, where the family of a crime suspect is interviewed by police, they were instead moved out of the reach of any investigation. The FBI signed off on this, and even nw that the story is out made no official attempts to contact the Bin Laden family.
The White House, to this day, denies that the flight itself - I mean the fact that that airplane was in the air at all - existed. Unger has the passenger list, interviews with other people on the planes, then airline staff, etc etc etc.
A day without lies from the White House is like a day without sunshine.
Murder for money. Plain, simple, undeniable. I hope they get life in prison.
But my favorite political tidbit of the day came from Charlie Rose's interview with Charlie Unger, the author of "House of Saud, House of Bush". In it he claims that on September 13, 2001, dozens of Saudi royals and members of the bin Laden family fled the U.S. in a secret airlift authorized by the Bush White House. Contrary to police procedure, where the family of a crime suspect is interviewed by police, they were instead moved out of the reach of any investigation. The FBI signed off on this, and even nw that the story is out made no official attempts to contact the Bin Laden family.
The White House, to this day, denies that the flight itself - I mean the fact that that airplane was in the air at all - existed. Unger has the passenger list, interviews with other people on the planes, then airline staff, etc etc etc.
A day without lies from the White House is like a day without sunshine.
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm