tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post2717509453242683329..comments2024-03-27T23:12:08.917-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: The GOP vs. the U.S. Military: Part Eight - The Generals SpeakDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-76356265628279746362007-10-30T17:05:00.000-07:002007-10-30T17:05:00.000-07:00Hmmm, whatever opinions you might have wrt 'Manchu...Hmmm, whatever opinions you might have wrt 'Manchurian' puppet masters, I think this might be worth a look.:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7069877.stm" REL="nofollow">John Simpson's Interview with (Saudi) King Abdullah</A><BR/><BR/>I haven't actually watched the interview itself, but some of the comments in the accompanying article are intriguing. In doing last minute negotiations on what the King was and was not prepared to discuss, Simpson writes:<BR/><BR/><I>"...Something else had become clear to me by now. The king was not refusing to talk about Iran and Iraq because he was not interested in them.<BR/><BR/>On the contrary, I now realised he felt so strongly about what the US had done in Iraq, and the thought that they might soon bomb Iran, that he felt he might upset his relations with Washington if he spoke openly to me. "</I><BR/><BR/>A genuine opinion? A distancing from potential fallout? Part of the setup of the US as a world pariah? I have no idea.Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-88602477637062122042007-10-30T07:32:00.000-07:002007-10-30T07:32:00.000-07:00Dvorsky replies to Dr. Brin's on SETI.http://senti...Dvorsky replies to Dr. Brin's on SETI.<BR/><BR/>http://sentientdevelopments.blogspot.com/2007/10/brins-position-on-meti-issue-clarified.html<BR/><BR/>As a non american, I want to encourage threads that are (mostly) a-politic! :)<BR/><BR/>DECAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-15316917952667589122007-10-29T20:22:00.000-07:002007-10-29T20:22:00.000-07:00Nate & Tony, excellent posts! That piece by Malco...Nate & Tony, excellent posts! That piece by Malcolm Fraser is devastating. Of all Bushite crimes, the driving away of our allies is clearly among the worst... and most suggestive of "manchurian" motives. Since even insane incompetents would not do such a thing.<BR/><BR/>Nate, thanks for the link to Newt's latest wildy gyrating veer. I expect much Bjorn Lombergism... yet with glimmers of olive-branching plus "who me?" attempts to claim he was on the right side all along. Sure... but WHICH Newt Gingrich.<BR/><BR/>Will someone finally admit there are a dozen of him?David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-49494650645777933232007-10-29T19:31:00.000-07:002007-10-29T19:31:00.000-07:00I think the Daily Show got Sanchez the best, since...I think the Daily Show got Sanchez the best, since the entire time he was in charge of operations in Iraq, he was saying how great things were going. Is the Daily Show really the only news show with video archives so they can look back and see what people said months ago?<BR/><BR/>Sanchez is trying to shift the blame on to anybody else now, now that it's impossible to pretend Iraq's not a clusterf****.<BR/><BR/>And in OT News of the Weird, Newt Gingrich has a new book out. <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Contract-Earth-Newt-Gingrich/dp/customer-reviews/0801887801/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful/102-8524532-9412920" REL="nofollow">A Contract With Earth</A>. I haven't read it yet, I'm not expecting much. But even so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-56045134749389453482007-10-29T18:49:00.000-07:002007-10-29T18:49:00.000-07:00WE NEED THE BEST OF THESE PEOPLE TO BE ON OUR SIDE...<I>WE NEED THE BEST OF THESE PEOPLE TO BE ON OUR SIDE.</I><BR/><BR/>Here's why: would your ostrich be more prepared to listen to some lefty rant, or the opinions of a former Prime Minister of a conservative government? <BR/><BR/>(It might not be considered appropriate to mention but, in his day, Mal was variously caricatured as an emu and 'Blind Freddie'. Oh, and this is where usage of the term 'liberal' gets interesting. All I can say is that it doesn't seem to have gotten in the way of George W's relationship with John Howard!)<BR/><BR/>Anyway, <A HREF="http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/malcolm-fraser/2007/10/25/1192941242971.html?page=fullpage" REL="nofollow">here is what he said recently</A>:<BR/><BR/><I>FOLLOWING the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, George Bush's presidency halted and even in some aspects reversed much of the progress of previous decades. There are many who think that 9/11 changed the world and American attitudes forever. To the neo-conservatives around the President, it presented an opportunity that they seized avidly.<BR/><BR/>...While there are those, like Bush, who act as though we cannot fight terrorism and at the same time live by our own standards, there are many examples that suggest otherwise.<BR/><BR/>Britain never went to such extremes in seeking to overcome the IRA. Germany and Italy were able to maintain the rule of law and overcome serious terrorism from the Red Army and Red Brigades. These problems and others have been overcome by an exercise of restraint, by diplomacy and within the law, even as human rights expanded and gained traction through the world.<BR/><BR/>The war against Iraq, Bush's major contribution to the war on terror, is an unmitigated disaster. It represents the worst fears of smaller nations in the developing world about the unrestrained use of American power.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>And there's <A HREF="http://www.unimelb.edu.au/malcolmfraser/speeches/articles/" REL="nofollow">plenty more</A> where that came fromTony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-89124134555811698662007-10-29T16:53:00.000-07:002007-10-29T16:53:00.000-07:00Zorgon, I am perfectly right to worry deeply about...Zorgon, I am perfectly right to worry deeply about subornation and repression of the most important and by far most-powerful center of raw power in our civilization. So long as the Officer Corps is more loyal to People and Constitution than it is to the President, then these guys have got a real obstacle in their path.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, almost any step that we take to protect the military officer caste will also protect the other professionals who are the core victims of the neocon "revolution." WE PAY THESE PEOPLE TO PROTECT US FROM THE VERY SAME TYPE OF SLIDE TOWARD TYRANNY THAT YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT.<BR/><BR/>Yes, some of these professionals have already sold out. Some were monsters to start with. A great many are ostriches, conservative by temperament and inclination, and deeply reluctant to wake up to the fact that their "side" has been hijacked by enemies of the republic. <BR/><BR/>And - yes - petty micro-tyrants will swell their chests and bully normal folks, any chance they get. The personality type is attracted to jobs where they can force regualr people to sweat.<BR/><BR/>So? What would you have us do? Attack the whole Protector Caste for creeping Orwellianism? This will NOT help, for many reasons.<BR/><BR/>First - ostriches will hear you complain and reflexively apply Fox dismissals of typical whining liberalism. "F@$%$ing commies have more sympathy for Gitmo prisoners than for the victims of 9/11." Yes, that makes them assholes. But I want them to WAKE UP from being assholes. Hence I want to SAY THINGS THAT THEY MIGHT ACTUALLY HEAR.<BR/><BR/>Complaining about neocon abuse of the military spears right past their Fox defenses. It shakes them up.<BR/><BR/>Second, and more important WE NEED THE BEST OF THESE PEOPLE TO BE ON OUR SIDE.<BR/><BR/>That will only happen if we reach out to them.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-78273607068925355022007-10-29T14:47:00.000-07:002007-10-29T14:47:00.000-07:00Hawker Hurrican unintentionally made my point for ...Hawker Hurrican unintentionally made my point for me when he uniwttingly rebutted:<BR/><I>How about having a military that (because it's a bunch of cronies and sycophants) backs up the police, breaking up peaceful protests with automatic weapons fire and tanks?</I><BR/><BR/>That's precisely the problem, you see. Today the police have been militarized <I><B>so you no longer need a military breaking peaceful protests with automatic weapons fire and tanks.</I></B><BR/><BR/>The police now have tanks and automatic weapons so they can employ this kind of previously totalitarian violence against the population.<BR/><BR/>The problem with militarizing the police is that the military is for use against the enemies of the state, while the police are there to deal with ordinary citizens. When the police become the military, the ordinary citizens tend to become the enemies of the state.<BR/><BR/><B>"This morning in Denver I talked for almost an hour to a brave, much-decorated high-level military man who is not only on the watch list for his criticism of the administration — his family is now on the list. His elderly mother is on the list. His teenage son is on the list. He has flown many dangerous combat missions over the course of his military career, but his voice cracks when he talks about the possibility that he is exposing his children to harassment."</B><BR/>http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/12/4502/?<BR/><BR/>TSA breaks man's laptop, then threatens him with arrest for protesting:<BR/>http://consumerist.com/consumer/jerks-with-authority/tsa-breaks-your-laptop-threatens-you-with-arrest-315478.php<BR/><BR/>Man's 81-year-old father arrested and frog-marched out of airport for<BR/>no reason.<BR/>dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/26/1437/1023<BR/><BR/>Man tasered to death at Vancouver airport after police speak to him for 24 seconds:<BR/>ksoze.newsvine.com/_news/2007/10/27/1053753-taser-death-at-vancouver-airport<BR/><BR/>Man tasered 5 times while handcuffed by deputies in jail; he dies, jury refuses even to view the video of the incident before acquitting the deputies:<BR/>http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=62415<BR/><BR/>House passes "Homegrown Terrorist" Bill -- this comment could be considered "homegrown terrorism" and I could be tasered, hauled off in a black hood and tortured to death at Gitmo for criticizing this legislation, according to this bill:<BR/>http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h1955rfs.txt.pdf<BR/><BR/>An historical plaque commemorates George Orwell's house...while 32 closed-circuit TV cameras scan every move<BR/>on the streets around it:<BR/>http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23391081-details/George%20Orwell,%20Big%20Brother%20is%20watching%20your%20house/article.dotUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10994509912655287453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81003050805201456422007-10-29T05:46:00.000-07:002007-10-29T05:46:00.000-07:00“Outrageous meddling in military matters by cluele...“Outrageous meddling in military matters by clueless, draft-dodging, self-serving politicians.”<BR/>You can't make this claim about the political leadership during Vietnam; JFK and LBJ were both in the navy and saw combat; Nixon was Army.<BR/><BR/>"Ask yourself -- which is more worrisome? Being arrested for no reason and tasered or beaten without charges, then dragged away to be tortured to death without possibility of trial? Or having a weak military?"<BR/>How about having a military that (because it's a bunch of cronies and sycophants) backs up the police, breaking up peaceful protests with automatic weapons fire and tanks?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-90199221782102019912007-10-29T00:58:00.000-07:002007-10-29T00:58:00.000-07:00As long as there are no further acts of terror on ...As long as there are no further acts of terror on American soil, the ostriches will go along with the government in supporting the sequal to Vietnam (with some of the same people calling the shots). <BR/><BR/>As for the GOP's "War on the Military", it's just a by-product of the government's desire to feed the Military Industrial Complex that Ike warned about some fifty years ago. Hot or cold, we have been in a near constant state of war for more than half a century. Wars cost gobs of capital, said capital is distributed by the powers that be to companies whose in turn provide the people doling out the tax money cushy jobs as lobbyists, consultants or public speakers when they're done with the<BR/>political rat race. <BR/><BR/>The only thing new is that this administration doesn't give a shit how transparent their motives appear to be, and even less for the minions that it has charged with carrying out their orders. They cut their pensions, screw them out of GI Bill benefits, and even haul them into court marshalls for carrying out orders to torture prisoners. The military is chock full of ordinary people who are beneath the contempt of the people that this government at large represents: the oligarchy of <BR/>lobbyists, beuraucrats and those with the means to buy political favor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-33581233127010091172007-10-29T00:06:00.000-07:002007-10-29T00:06:00.000-07:00Peter remarked:I mean, the guy is a *Colonel* and ...Peter remarked:<BR/><I>I mean, the guy is a *Colonel* and a *spokesman*. This behavior just seems bizarre.</I><BR/><BR/>The behavior is predictable when you stop to think what's going on. All totalitarian strongmen purge the military in order to extinguish opposition and install their own toadies. Stalin left the Soviet Army essentially worthless and full of incompetents with his 1920s-1930s purges prior to WW II, and Mao gutted the Red Army with both his Great Leap Forward and again in his 1960s Cultural Revolution. The totalitarians in the White House are doing the same thing. Thus, it stands to reason that the ass-kissing cronies in the U.S. army would crawl and cringe like obsequious serfs, since they were chosen for thsoe qualities. <BR/><BR/>I'm baffled that Dr. Brin seems to be so concerned about the military. Much more serious problems confront us today. The destruction of the constitution and the eliminiation of most of our basic rights, along with the rapid rise of a police state in which the law of law has in effect been suspended, pose a much greater danger than incompetnt fundamentalist Christians in the officer corps. Ask yourself -- which is more worrisome? Being arrested for no reason and tasered or beaten without charges, then dragged away to be tortured to death without possibility of trial? Or having a weak military?<BR/><BR/>Even more devastating than the collapse of the rule of law in the United States, however, has been the collapse of science. Without decent science, we're destined to become another Mexico or Thailand. If things don't change, America will become nothing more than a destination for sex tourism, cheap recreation drugs, and raunchy underage porn:<BR/>discovermagazine.com/2007/oct/u.s.-science-hits-inflection-point-the-wrong-wayUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10994509912655287453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-31171965200959882092007-10-28T23:32:00.000-07:002007-10-28T23:32:00.000-07:00This post by Glenn Greenwald seems apropos : http:...This post by Glenn Greenwald seems apropos : http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/28/boylan/index.html<BR/><BR/>Mostly because it seems like evidence of the second side of all these scandals. Namely, if the people who are refusing to be partisan are being forced out, what is the condition of those who are staying? In this case, it looks like the Colonel who is Gen. Petraeus' spokesman wrote a bizarre, ranty, very partisan email to Glenn Greenwald and is now trying to deny that he wrote it. The electronic evidence is against him though. I wonder if any hay will be made of this, or if this stuff is now just standard operating procedure.<BR/><BR/>I mean, the guy is a *Colonel* and a *spokesman*. This behavior just seems bizarre.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17965824121030784289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-67824102987295421442007-10-28T17:54:00.000-07:002007-10-28T17:54:00.000-07:00http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1989So...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1989<BR/><BR/>Sort of on topic, and interesting general synopsis worth thinking about.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-53296001431018243682007-10-28T16:13:00.000-07:002007-10-28T16:13:00.000-07:00The cc *might* be a mistake. Adding vice_president...The cc *might* be a mistake. <BR/>Adding vice_president, though....<BR/><BR/>Message to whistleblowers: Gotcha!<BR/><BR/>(Which is also the message Greenwald is sending to Col. Boylan.)<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, I note that the <A HREF="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/29/2072622.htm" REL="nofollow">Iranian bluff</A> is being called by the UN atomic agency:<BR/><BR/><I>UN atomic watchdog chief Mohamed El Baradei said he had no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons and accused US leaders of adding "fuel to the fire" with recent bellicose rhetoric.</I><BR/><BR/>(and, before anyone asks 'with a name like that...?', he's Egyptian, not Iranian)<BR/><BR/>GOP = God's Own People.Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-56384048605856639042007-10-28T15:33:00.000-07:002007-10-28T15:33:00.000-07:00More evidance that the GOP is intent on squelching...More evidance that the GOP is intent on squelching any enlightenment criticism and accountability from the man that invented the term “Politically Correct”<BR/><BR/>“D’Souza contends that the cultural left is responsible for 9/11 in two ways: by fostering a decadent and depraved American culture that angers and repulses other societies—especially traditional and religious ones— and by promoting, at home and abroad, an anti-American attitude that blames America for all the problems of the world.” <BR/><BR/>“In order to defeat the Islamic radicals abroad,” D’Souza writes, “we must defeat the enemy at home.”<BR/><BR/>http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780385510127<BR/><BR/>I have not read the book but its summery makes me think that the true abbreviation of the GOP is Genocide Optional Party. D’Souza seems to be advocating a genocidal purge of the Left. Would the Democrats as flawed as they are accept and shower speaking arrangements on Ann Coulter who has publicly advocated genocide of Islam? They hate the millitary because it is too open minded after 200 years of enlightenment values.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1782208208631302542007-10-28T14:57:00.000-07:002007-10-28T14:57:00.000-07:00Two juicy bits of news:The House Judiciary Committ...Two juicy bits of news:<BR/><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://rawstory.com/news/2007/House_Judiciary_Committee_compromises_whistleblower_Email_1027.html" REL="nofollow">The House Judiciary Committee `accidentally' sends emails of 130 whistleblowers to Cheney.</A> They sent a mass email by CC instead of BCC, and also decided to add vice_president@whitehouse.gov for some reason...<BR/><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/28/boylan/index.html?source=rss&aim=/opinion/greenwald" REL="nofollow">Glenn Greenwald gets a nasty email from Col. Stephen A Boylan, the Public Affairs Officer and personal spokesman for General David Petraeus.</A> He later gets a follow-up in which Col. Boylan tries to deny he sent it without saying it outright.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15030764857062052822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-59047227025885095312007-10-28T14:56:00.000-07:002007-10-28T14:56:00.000-07:00Dr. Brin,Something about this post reminded me of ...Dr. Brin,<BR/><BR/>Something about this post reminded me of one of my pet peeves about politicization of the military: the conversion of operational code names to propaganda.<BR/><BR/>We have <I>Operation Iraqi Freedom</I> and <I>Operation Enduring Freedom</I> today. Clinton had <I>Operation Restore Hope</I> in Somalia. Bush the Elder had <I>Operation Just Cause</I> in Panama.<BR/><BR/>Compare these to World War II: <I>Operation Market Garden</I>, <I>Operation Gomorrah</I>, <I>Operation Husky</I>, <I>Operation Overlord</I>, etc.<BR/><BR/>The transition may have occurred during the Reagan administration (that's as far back as my political memory goes, and I don't have time to do a lot of Vietnam/Korea googling just now) where Grenada was <I>Operation Urgent Fury</I> but Libya was simply <I>Operation El Dorado Canyon</I>.<BR/><BR/>Regardless, the propagandistic formulation of operation names makes the military not simply the apolitical tool of administration policy--as it is supposed to be--but a party to pushing the rightness and goodness of that policy. I can think of few things more clearly deserving the label "spin" than these propagandistic names for military operations.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps not incidentally, this appears to be a largely American phenomenon. The UK participation in the Iraqi invasion was <I>Operation Telic</I> and Australia's was <I>Operation Catalyst</I>.<BR/><BR/>(I should note that some smaller scale American operations are often given non-propaganda names, such as <I>Operation Anaconda</I> in Afghanistan, while others are not: the first battle of Fallujah was <I>Operation Vigiliant Resolve</I>, for example.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-45009080734221795942007-10-28T12:00:00.000-07:002007-10-28T12:00:00.000-07:00There's no point in using hyperbole with an ostric...There's no point in using hyperbole with an ostrich. "Bush is more dangerous than Osama" merely gives him something to ridicule.<BR/><BR/>Instead, super reasonably, ask him : "would you go back to the same doctor, over and over again, who mis diagnosed your disease and gave the wrong treatements repeatedly... JUST because he's likeable and "on your side"?<BR/><BR/>SHould the Bushes be listened-to at all, when they coddled Saddam and Osama, nurtured them, sent them weapons and training, called off the CIA and protected them and their families... then ignored warnings they were about to bite... then went after them with unbelievable incompetence?<BR/><BR/>Why should folks like that be "deciders"?David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-44887265207649616512007-10-28T08:53:00.000-07:002007-10-28T08:53:00.000-07:00Never mind the source question; found one with a l...Never mind the source question; found one with a little google-fu:<BR/><BR/><B>2006-07-04</B> <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin" REL="nofollow">C.I.A. Closes Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden</A><BR/><BR/>On July 4, no less.<BR/><BR/>Obvious ostrich rebuttals:<BR/>* "Well <I>Bush</I> didn't call off the search..." ...so you think maybe he's actually unhappy about this, and is somehow unable to persuade the CIA to change their minds?<BR/>* "Well obviously Osama is no longer the top priority; Al Qaeda isn't as hierarchical as we thought..." All the rebuttals I can think of have ostrich-head-sized holes them, so I guess we're back to square one.<BR/><BR/>Now, maybe if I could find solid documentation of the claim that the CIA created Al Qaeda in the first place, through the Pakistani ISI... (Just being eternally optimistic here.)Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-11113764375909509062007-10-27T19:39:00.000-07:002007-10-27T19:39:00.000-07:00Do you have a source for "...Bush recently dissolv...Do you have a source for "...Bush recently dissolved the very CIA unit assigned to tracking the master terrorist down!"?<BR/><BR/>My ostrich consistently ridicules anyone who says "Bush is more dangerous than Osama". If it could be irrefutably pointed out that Bush seems to have inexplicably <I>abandoned</I> the Super-Urgent Hunt for our Number One Bad Guy...<BR/><BR/>I'm sure he'll come up with some rationalization, but hopefully it will be another crack in the sand.Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-90013622513828764632007-10-27T16:57:00.000-07:002007-10-27T16:57:00.000-07:00Another (briefer) followup. A participant in the ...Another (briefer) followup. A participant in the blog, who shall nevertheless be left namelss for now, wrote in with this a while back:<BR/><BR/><I>Hello David, I felt compelled to e-mail this given the current vein on your blog. As an employee (manager) at the US Military Academy at West Point, I can give you my impression of what I have seen over the last 15 years. Yes, I have seen more fundamentalist cadets and officers actively pushing their beliefs. <BR/><BR/>More frightening though is the inculcating of the view that there is one set of rules for the average soldiers and another one entirely for cadets and graduates (ROTC and OCS officers are looked down upon).<BR/><BR/> I have seen many instances where cadets are taught that it is okay to break state laws and regulations. Their mentors often enable this. Even more disturbing is the arising of the Roman Empire mentality. College athletics and glory is more important than honing their military education. Michie Stadium is becomming a Coliseum. And, alumni are donating large sums of money in the interest of athletics. <BR/><BR/>Had to share some of this. Yes, retaliation will occur whenever someone attempts to shed light on the seedy, sordid side of West Point. If a good investigative reporter wanted to dig into what is occurring, the shock might be even more troubling. J</I>David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-31978870042151195492007-10-27T16:31:00.000-07:002007-10-27T16:31:00.000-07:00In scratching an itch and cleaning out heaps to po...In scratching an itch and cleaning out heaps to postables I'd put aside, let me dump a few more here. Some are a little dated. Sorry. But still cogent.<BR/><BR/>And this from Russ Daggett: <I>Forgetting entirely the lessons that he claimed to have learned from a war in which he did not serve, Bush invaded Iraq in March 2003 hastily, without just cause, without enough troops, and lacking a clear goal. For years, he maintained Iraq and Vietnam had no similarities. In an interview, he said:<BR/><BR/>QUESTION: How do you answer the Vietnam comparison? BUSH: I think the analogy is false. I also happen to think that analogy sends the wrong message to our troops, and sends the wrong message to the enemy. Above all else, to maintain political support for his war, Bush has to insist on the prospect of "victory. So Vietnam analogies were bad. But now the narrative has changed. Last November, speaking in Vietnam of all places (insert cringe here), Bush said the "lesson of Vietnam" was, "" Is this military strategy or The Little Engine That Could?</I><BR/><BR/>Alas, are there ANY democrats or commentators who know the knack of hurling manic reversals into the faces of these hypocrites? The Vietnam analogy has one rich one that could be mined and turned into bullets. Just sift through that 30 years that followed our Vietnam humiliation and find a major conservative who did NOT blame that defeat on:<BR/><BR/>“Outrageous meddling in military matters by clueless, draft-dodging, self-serving politicians.”<BR/><BR/>One could fill an entire web site with such quotations... and yet that mantra is never spoken today. I wonder why.<BR/><BR/>Likewise, those who raged at Clinton and the UN over purported graft in the old “Oil for Food” program seem unwilling to mention it anymore, now that the American-supervised Iraqi Oil Ministry is losing more in any given WEEK - in both petroleum and cash - than the Oil for Food program did in its entire span.<BR/><BR/>Another potential bullet-word is “nation-building”. Sift through the past and you’ll find most republicans castigating the “failed and discredited notion of US intervention to pursue the naive and utopian goal of so-called nation-building” I mean... dang... with WMDs and terrorism refuted, nation-building is THE justification for hurling our abused armed forces into a meat grinder. <I>All some democrat has to do is use that term, and a million republicans will wince. A few may even wake up..</I><BR/><BR/>We're weeks into the Bush administration's "the-surge-is-working" PR blitz, which culminates this week with the Congressional testimony of St. Petraeus. Timely reminder: <I>It was Bush, not Congressional Democrats, who came up with the "benchmarks." These would be standards by which Bush's escalation would be judged.</I><BR/><BR/>As Russ Daggett puts it: “So now the real bamboozlements starts. Despite the "benchmarks," the metrics for judging "success" have, yet again, been changed. Now, we are supposed to believe, success should be judged by reductions in "sectarian" violence (more on that later) and arming the militia of Sunni tribal warlords in Anbar province who were until recently killing American troops. Sunni tribal sheiks in Anbar rejected "al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" before the "surge" even started and did so for their own reasons -- because they got sick of the Sunni on Sunni violence and didn't want to see their own power usurped. And of course they are going to ease up on attacks on US troops -- for the time being -- if we are supplying their militia with arms with which to solidify their power. But those arms will eventually be trained on the Shiite "government" and on us (if we are still around). <BR/><BR/>They have made that absolutely clear: They hate al Qaeda, the "Persians" (i.e., Shiites) and us, in that order.“ “Minor short-term tactical gains (buying off Sunni sheiks by arming their militia) at the expense of the long-term strategy (creating a centralized "unity" Iraqi government). Typical Bush game plan.“<BR/><BR/>Whoosh, That's Russ...<BR/><BR/><B> Oh! Has anyone seen that new movie “The Kingdom?” One gets an impression than will trillions flowing in at unprecedented rates, this was financed to paint Saudi elites in positive light.<BR/>As "victims" of Al Qaeda. <BR/><BR/>Is that right?<BR/><BR/>Soon $100/barrell for oil. Is that the best "Ostrich ammo" of all?</B>David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.com