It's Memorial Day and the unnecessary deaths from friendly fire, bad political decisions, poor equipment ... have nothing to do with the soldiers who died. Those conditions have been inherent in war since war began. And especially so in the wars that started with lies. Just in my lifetime: 'Gulf Of Tonkin Incident'; 'Grenada Was Taken Over By Communists'; 'Iraq Has WMDs and We Know Where They Are' were all lies.
But the people who died because of these lies did not die for these lies. They died for their fellows, they died for their country, they died for us.
This is why we should remember them every day, not just between brats (edible and sired) on this day, but because regardless of the lies, the coverups, the sheer incompetence that put them in harm's way to begin with, they were doing it for us.
(I added the text to the photo, inspired by Shipment of Fail website.)
Here are my submissions: That's the hard way to join the Mile High Club! If you can't Fly United, land united! Honey, I swear, that tail-dragger meant nothing to me! We wuz OK till we hit that yeller tape!
"My sense is I will be able to make a recommendation at that time for further reductions"
Now where have I heard that before? Oh, I remember, it was exactly what Petraeus said last year:
Monday, September 10, 2007 - General David Petraeus made his long-awaited appearance on Capitol Hill today. The general said he believes the United States can reduce its presence in Iraq to pre-surge levels by next summer
Well summer's here and now he says he'll let us know next fall, oddly enough, it's yet another 'Friedman unit', what a surprise! And just in time for the elections!
In the last 4 years there were 18 months that American soldiers had fewer deaths. In the last 2 years there were 5 months that Iraqi military & civilian deaths were lower. (That's just confirmed, actual civilian deaths are probably much higher, but our military refuses to do 'body counts.')
General, I just got one thing to say: You better go now, go now, go now.
Steve Clemons writing at TPM Cafe makes 2 points. The first is spot on, that Dwight Eisenhower would be shocked by his formerly conservative Republican Party today:
How far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I despise people who go to the gutter on either the right or the left and hurl rocks at those in the center.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
If men can develop weapons that are so terrifying as to make the thought of global war include almost a sentence for suicide, you would think that man's intelligence and his comprehension. . . would include also his ability to find a peaceful solution.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking. . . is freedom.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
In most communities it is illegal to cry "fire" in a crowded assembly. Should it not be considered serious international misconduct to manufacture a general war scare in an effort to achieve local political aims?
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Indeed. But Steve's second point, that the Republican closest to "Ike" today is Chuck Hagel is slightly off, I think:
If I was in Barack Obama's shoes and Hillary Clinton had turned down my offer to run as Vice President, I'd go with Eisenhower in a unity ticket -- and because Eisenhower is not available, I'd go for Chuck Hagel. John McCain couldn't put a ticket together to beat that combo.
Sure, Hagel has been critical of the GWBush government on several issues, like Iran:
However, now is the time for the United States to actively pursue an offer of direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with Iran. We cannot afford to refuse to consider this strategic choice any longer. We should make clear that everything is on the table – our issues and Iran’s….similar to the opportunity that we squandered in 2003 for comprehensive talks with Iran. This should include offering Iran a credible way back in from the fringes of the international community, security guarantees if it is willing to give up nuclear weapons ambitions, as well as other incentives. This will require the day-to-day efforts and presence of a very senior administration official, higher ranking than the American Ambassador to Iraq.
Of course, I'm waiting for him to be called an appeaser by some idiot like Hannity.
If the war continues to lose support from the American people, the limited options we have today will vanish. The president will be left with a bitter few allies in our party, and we will be forced to withdraw from Iraq in a way that greatly damages U.S. interests in the Middle East and leaves the world far more dangerous than it is today. Forging a bipartisan consensus now that places responsible conditions on U.S. war funding could forestall a time when we have no options. The Baker-Hamilton report could have been the base for that bipartisan consensus.
Although he was pressured by some to run for Governor of Virginia, where he had lived for 20 years, in 1992 Hagel moved back to Nebraska to become president of the McCarthy Group, an investment banking firm. He also served as a Chairman and was CEO of American Information Systems Inc. (AIS), a voting machine manufacturer, until its name-change to Election Systems & Software (ES&S) in 1997. He had ownership interest in ES&S through its parent company The McCarthy Group as of January 29, 2003, when The Hill reported that, due to his ownership interest, “Hagel’s ethics filings pose disclosure issue”.[4]
Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 11% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
Rated 87% by the US COC, indicating a pro-business voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress. (Sep 2007)
Voted YES on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections. (Jul 2007)
Voted YES on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress. (Mar 2006)
Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity. (Mar 2006)
Voted NO on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
Voted YES on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)
Voted NO on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (Apr 2001)
Voted NO on funding for National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug 1999)
Voted NO on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (Oct 1997)
So Hagel is reliably Republican, except perhaps on the war. He may be in line with Eisenhower's Republican Party, although the corporatist voting record probably wouldn't endear him to Ike.
But with a voting record like that, he's hardly a viable candidate for VP in a Democratic administration. The enemy of my enemy isn't always my friend. And probably the only common ground I can find between Hagel and a Presidential ticket I would vote for is his position on Iraq. And that ain't enough. It's time to take our country back from the far-right, and not use their tools anymore. And except for his stand on Iraq, Hagel is a tool.
Nor, despite the size of his congregation, is Hagee the real issue. McCain's character is. A fool who would actively seek out this loon's endorsement. A moral coward - yes, coward - who would equivocate about denouncing such ideas and the bigots who hold them.
Such a person is not a serious candidate for president.
I would think so too, except for one thing: I know better. For 5 years my two main clients were evangelical mega-churches that also had recording studios. I ate lunch with these people, listened to their rants, and have a really clear picture of their beliefs.
Here's the point Tristero misses, which is the idiot-savant genius of McCain's campaign: No one on the right, NO ONE, cares about Hagee, with the possible exception of a few moderate genuine conservatives, that is. All 3 of them.
But the far-right Evangelical end-times Christians, for whom Hagee is a dog whistle the size of a Marshall stack, will still support McCain, even more now than before. Not only is he a "true believer" by courting and wedding Hagee, but now he's been bloodied by the secular humanists that threaten the Christian way of life. His rejection of Hagee's support isn't a betrayal of Hagee's prophecy, but a tactical retreat in the face of the abortionists, school desegregationists. and gay-marriage supporters whose defeat his administration will hopefully bring about. And thus is a stronger hero born.
The only problem might be Hagee's perceived anti-Semitism, which is only a problem for Jews. Because the evangelical Far-right and its ministers like Hagee don't give one golden crap about actual Jews. To them, Jews are indeed God's chosen people, who will still likely not get into Heaven unless they become, you know, Christians. But because they're Chosen, fundies pay lip service to them. You don't want to piss off the Big Guy. It's like going to a party at the creepy rich kid's house because he has a swimming pool.
And to them, Israel isn't an actual country with actual people. Instead, it's the Armageddon battleground, sacred for what it promises them in salvation. Anyone else left after the final battle is dust, not worthy of consideration. Including the Jews.
For movement conservatives, the Hagee deal is just noise. They have issues with McCain, but the hyper-religious don't matter to them except as pawns who vote. It's a macrocosm of the evangelicals and the Jews; the larger group views the smaller one as somewhat useful, but in the end, merely a means to that end.
So McCain won a demographic, scorns one of their icons, yet still walks away with their support. Imagine if Obama asked for the support of Noam Chomsky, then rejected it. Many on the left would be righteously indignant. But it's OK if you're a Republican. Karl Rove would be proud.
Appeasement: to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.
So what do you call this?
PESHAWAR, PAKISTAN -- Pakistani authorities announced Wednesday that they had struck a truce with a militant faction that moved last year to impose Taliban-style rule in a once-popular tourist area.
The deal between government officials and Islamic militants in the scenic Swat valley could presage broader accords with militants in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.
The 15-point pact was signed despite explicit expressions of concern from the United States about such truces -- the latest warning delivered only a day earlier by Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte in Washington.
Pakistan's new coalition government, which took office seven weeks ago after winning parliamentary elections in February, has said it is willing to talk with extremists who are prepared to renounce violence. But the Bush administration and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization say they believe that Islamic militants will use respites to strengthen and rearm themselves and resume attacks when it suits them. They also say cross-border strikes aimed at Western troops in Afghanistan have edged up since negotiations began.
[snip]
Under the pact, the government appeared to have made significant concessions. It agreed to begin pulling back troops, provided that attacks against the military cease. The government suggested that Fazlullah, previously one of the country's most wanted men, would not be actively pursued. It also agreed that the Swat valley would come under a system of Sharia, or Islamic law, with Islamic clerics and scholars advising civil judges.
In return, the militants softened some of the harsher measures they had taken to enforce their stringent form of Islam. They agreed to stop their campaign against polio vaccinations, which they have denounced as a Western plot, and girls' schooling. They also promised to stop terrorizing barbers who shaved men's beards and blowing up music and video stores.
As part of the agreement, Fazlullah's followers pledged not to display weapons in public, though they did not agree to disarm. The group's former heavily fortified headquarters is to be turned into a university, both sides said.
Pakistan's last consession allowed the Taliban to reorganize and gain strength. What is this going to do?
And, clutch those pearls, Mabel, Israel is an appeaser, too!:
JERUSALEM -- In February 2007, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, met privately for more than two hours in Turkey.
The two leaders concluded that the time was ripe for Turkey to mediate indirect peace negotiations between longtime enemies Israel and Syria.
The existence and extent of those negotiations were acknowledged by all sides Wednesday, prompting speculation as to the timing, goals and prospects for success.
Syrian President Bashar Assad disclosed the negotiations last month, saying Turkish mediators had informed him that Israel was willing to return the disputed Golan Heights to Syria.
Israel declined to confirm the talks at the time, but an Israeli official said Wednesday's coordinated statements out of Jerusalem, Damascus and Ankara were a sign that "the discussions had advanced" to a more serious level.
The Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the U.S. government had been "fully briefed" from the start on the initiative.
Georgie, you knew about these dangerous diplomatic appeasement-related program activities for a year? And didn't tell us?
Last year, former deputy attorney general James Comey revealed that in 2004, he refused to “certify” the legality of certain aspects of the National Security Agency (NSA) spy program. Comey witnessed Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card try to force a bed-ridden John Ashcroft to approve the program. Comey, however, did not publicly give specifics as to what program he opposed.
CAP’s Peter Swire wrote on ThinkProgress at the time that Comey’s testimony implied that “other programs exist for domestic spying” outside of the NSA program. Radar’s Christopher Ketcham suggests that another spy program does exist: “Main Core,” a program that authorizes “computer searches through massive [unspecified] electronic databases” in order to discover “potential threats” in the event of a “national emergency”:
According to a senior government official…”There exists a database of Americans, who, often for the slightest and most trivial reason, are considered unfriendly, and who, in a time of panic, might be incarcerated. The database can identify and locate perceived ‘enemies of the state’ almost instantaneously.” … One knowledgeable source claims that 8 million Americans are now listed in Main Core as potentially suspect. In the event of a national emergency, these people could be subject to everything from heightened surveillance and tracking to direct questioning and possibly even detention.
These loyal Bushies must have been promised really neat uniforms and high glossy black boots so they could shock and awe their craven neighbors. Is that why they gutted the treasury? To create a depression that would make Americans desperate to support a fascist regime? It might have worked when Georgie's grandfather Prescott Bush tried to start a coup against FDR.
Found at Michelle Malkin's post(no link, you don't want to go there) about Sen. Kennedy's brain cancer:
I will pray for Senator Kennedy. Dying from a brain tumor must be awful. I can’t think of anything worse except perhaps suffocating at the bottom of a tidal pool in a ‘68 Oldsmobile. Alone and scared. At 25 years old.
and:
Prayers for the woman he left to die, Mary Jo Kopechne. Ted Kennedy has already received all the breaks in the world. He got away with vehicular homicide and afterwards has spent his life showing no mercy to and villifying Republcans. I cry for the millions of aborted babies and the rest of the victims of Liberal insanity like his.
While much posted there was more like this one:
Senator Kennedy and his family have my and my families prayers. Cancer is not political. May God Bless, he and his family.
The majority seemed more like this:
While I vehemently disagree with Senator Kennedy on his politics, I have much sympathy for him and his family. I hope he’s able to get through this. I wouldn’t wish death upon anyone serving this country, even if I disagree with his methods.
Many comments brought up Chappaquiddick and Mary Jo Kopechne. That was a really sad, ugly incident in Kennedy's life, and ruined any chance he may have had of running for President. And many commentors at MM's site also mentioned the "millions of aborted babies and the rest of the victims of Liberal insanity like his".
Apparently lots of Right-wingers feel compassion for Ms. Kopechne. Too bad they don't feel that way about Michael Douglas:
Michael Dutton Douglas, 17, had driven only half a mile before America’s Black Widow of the Night deliberately ran the stop sign at high speed, striking the small car with such ferocity that her boyfriend was ejected from the car and into the dirt.
Nothing else to add except the observation that when a Democrat is responsible for someone's death, they should die in pain and burn in Hell. But when a Republican is responsible, they will likely get a Presidential Freedom Award.
Update: From my dear friend MJS in comments:
He is such a horrible human being that the will of the people of Massachusetts has been to elect him to the Senate every six years since 1962.
She did however release a statement in 2000 when George Bush was ruining [sic] for office: "I know this as an adult, and even more as a parent, it was crushing ... for the family involved and for me as well."
Hey lady! It was literally crushing for your boyfriend, it was a tragedy for his family. Laura's statement depicts yet another quality that her husband and co-conspirators have in common, the complete lack of empathy evinced by psychopaths.
I don't doubt that laura thinks she was as affected by her boyfriend's death as much as his parents were. Just like she said about American deaths in Iraq: "no one suffers more than their President and I do."
