Iraq Redux II

On April 15 I posted my latest commentary on Iraq.

The comments which I received convincingly argued that a phased withdrawal is a sin qua non for any progress in stabilization. That is clearly not the Administration’s view, but the remarkable thing is that not a single Republican candidate for President is supporting a phased withdrawal, and it appears that despite the President’s incredibly low approval ratings, Republican candidates appear to be vying for who can be the closest clone to the incumbent in the White House.

For example, the Republican front runner for the nomination, Rudy Giuliani, charged that if a Democrat were elected, they would “wave the white flag” in Iraq, cut back on surveillance of terrorists, restrict the ability of law enforcement officials to gather intelligence and limit interrogation techniques, curtailing their effectiveness. He neglected to say how he would deal with what he called, “the defining conflict of our time.” We can, however, get a good idea of how Giuliani would deal with the situation. He would do exactly the same as what Bush is doing and I guess the theory is that in the Republican primaries the American people will not be voting. A small hard core of Bush supporters will be voting and the aim is to get the nomination. After that there will be time enough to flip and flop and say he didn’t really mean all the things he said in trying to get the nomination. But the American people must not have short memories. They must reject the liars. We have had enough of those during the past six years.

But let us analyze the meaning of his attacks. “Wave the white flag.” What does Giuliani mean by not waving the white flag. Does he mean we should keep the troops in Iraq until hell freezes over? How long Mr. Giuliani? For four more years? For eight? For ten? Six years ago the man whose clone Giuliani now aspires to be, declared victory, flying on to an aircraft carrier to dramatize that “victory.” See BBC News dated May 2, 2003.

Now four years later after having told us every few month that victory is just around the corner; that things are getting better, we now have the “surge,” and things are getting worse. More Iraqi’s killed! More Americans killed, but they tell us that just proves things are getting better. Give it a chance. How long Mr. Giuliani? And tell us where the troops will come from. Even now troop deployments are being extended more and more because your clone has broken our once proud military. Will you call for a draft? How will you sustain this deployment?

“Cut back on surveillance of terrorists.” Would Mr. Giuliani tell us who wants to cut back on surveillance of terrorists? This is a favored tactic. Set up a straw man and knock him down. If Mr. Giuliani means that Democrats object to giving the President authority to snoop on American’s without court warrants, and he favors it, he should say so. That is certainly a useful way of spying on political opponents as Nixon did, but it has nothing to do with terrorists. 

“Limit interrogation techniques.” Is Mr. Giuliani advocating the use of torture? If so let him say so. It is a matter that should be debated openly, not by indirection.

Who is this hero who runs on his record of 9/11. The media, which is always looking for heroes, whether it is Private Lynch or Pat Tillman, turned Rudy into one after 9/11. What did he do? He stood on the ruins of 9/11 with a bullhorn and gave speeches and posed for photos. Ah yes, these people are good at photo ops. But did Rudy do anything to prevent this catastrophe from happening? If he did it is a well-kept secret. It isn’t as though an attack on the Trade Center could not be anticipated. They had tried once before and failed. But neither Bush nor Giuliani learned a thing from that. 

When the attack came the radio frequencies of the police and fire departments prevented effective communications causing untold confusion and casualties. Where was Giuliani’s leadership then?

Following the disaster the air was dangerously polluted, but Mr. Giuliani let the responders work without masks causing untold additional casualties.

Before the disaster happened Giuliani had the foresight to create an extremely expensive and ultra-sophisticated Emergency Operations Center, which he perched high up above many large tanks of combustible fuel in the Trade Center. And when the planes struck he didn’t do the things that need to be done except in his fictitious telling of events in the book he published. But then he was always good at one thing, and that is in promoting himself. But read the real story entitled, “Rudy's Grand Illusion What Giuliani likes to remember about 9-11—and what he actually did (or didn't do)” which you can find here.

But even before the myth of 9/11 Giuliani was working on his image. Before 9/11 he bragged about how he had brought crime down in the City of NY. Indeed crime had come down. Of course it had come down throughout the U.S., thanks to Bill Clinton’s national drive against crime, under which the Federal government provided money to increase police departments. So just how much credit Rudy deserves is problematic. But he did effectively attack crimes that reduced the quality of life for New Yorkers and that was not a National trend. He did it by appointing William J. Bratton as his police chief, and Bratton was good. He devised police methods that stopped a lot of petty crimes and that carried over to more serious crimes. But then he started to get too much credit. With Giuliani only one person gets credit for anything and we know who that is, so he fired Bratton. Who did he hire? Bernard Kerik! Who is Bernard Kerik? He was Rudy’s Correction’s Commissioner, where he did an undistinguished job, but he was a Giuliani loyalist and so he became police commissioner, and when Rudy left his job as mayor and started a consulting firm he made Kerik a partner and they both became rich. But what is Kerik’s background. According to Wikipedia, Kerik was chief of investigations for the security office at King Faisal’s Specialist Hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia from 1982 to 1984. In 1984 he was fired and deported after an investigation by the Saudi secret police. In May 2003, during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Kerik was appointed by the George W. Bush Administration as the Interim Minister of Interior of Iraq and Senior Policy Advisor to the U.S. Presidential Envoy to Iraq, L. Paul Bremer. On December 3, 2004, Kerik was nominated by President Bush to succeed Tom Ridge as United States Secretary of Homeland Security. But on December 10, after a week of press scrutiny, Kerik withdrew acceptance of the nomination. It turned out that there were questions about his past which included Kerik's sale of stock in Taser International shortly before the release of an Amnesty International report critical of the company's stun-gun product; a sexual harassment lawsuit; an affair with Judith Regan the aborted publisher of O.J. Simpson’s “Why I did it”; allegations of misuse of police personnel and property for personal benefit; connections with a construction company suspected of having ties to organized crime; and failure to comply with ethics rules on gifts.

By his friends though shalt know him!

What does this tell us about the Republican Party?

Iraq Redux

While Iraq is not the only issue facing our nation it is at the top of our political discourse and accordingly I feel I must address it once again before moving onto other subjects of importance.

I last addressed this issue on January 11, 2007 under the title of “Bush’s new-old Iraq strategy” in which I derided the so-called “surge strategy” as being “to little-to late” and accused the Administration of continuing to be in a State of Denial. I concluded my analysis with:

“UNFORTUNATELY OUR FIGHTING MEN ARE THE VICTIMS OF THESE MISGUIDED AND BIZARRE POLICIES, WHICH ARE NEITHER FISH, NOR FOWL BUT HAVE ONLY ONE PURPOSE IN MIND AND THAT IS TO PASS THE HARD DECISIONS ON TO THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION. TO SACRIFICE UNTOLD LIVES TO THIS ENDEAVOR IS THE HEIGHT OF IGNOMINY.”

Now, however, I am becoming concerned that the opponents of the Administration and Congressional Democrats are in a STATE OF DENIAL as well. I say this because I fear that the subscript to the drive to disengage is that if we just pull our troops out, all will work out for the best, or at least what is likely to happen will not have any effect on us. I believe that is as much of a pipe dream as the Administration’s insistence that this war can be won.

There is little doubt in my mind that when we pull out, the blood bath that is now under way in Iraq will explode, with what we are seeing now being mild by comparison. Some will say that this is the Iraqis’ problem, but it is hard to see how people who consider themselves liberals or humanitarians can place so little value on the lives of people simply because they are not Americans or are Muslims. Yes, it is Iraqis who are causing the bloodbath in their sectarian hatreds, but it is a minority of Iraqis, with the vast majority simply wanting to live in peace. Furthermore, even though it is this Administration that caused this disaster with it’s ill advised invasion and it’s poorly conceived and executed occupation, it is nevertheless our country that must, as a whole, accept responsibility for the acts of its duly elected government.

Furthermore, the total implosion of Iraq is not likely to remain within its borders. The chaos that will be engendered is likely to draw in its neighbors. Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iran, and even Saudi Arabia, possibly Israel. Warfare on this scale is likely to shut down the Strait of Hormuz interrupting oil shipments from the Middle East, which would trigger a worldwide recession with the worst sufferers being the poorest. 

Does this mean that I now oppose the withdrawal of American troops? The answer is no!

The sad fact is that our troops staying in Iraq can only delay this catastrophe. There is no chance that our troops in their present strength can alter the situation. Their continuing presence can delay but cannot prevent the catastrophe I envision. At some point, whether that is in 2008 or 2009 or 2020, they will have to be withdrawn and when they are catastrophe will follow.

So what is the solution? Ideally, the Vice-President in an act of patriotism ought to resign; somebody like Colin Powell ought to take his place followed by the resignation of the President and the ascendancy of Powell to the Presidency. Then a truly new direction could be undertaken with real diplomacy taking place with and among all the states of the region followed by a pullout. This could not only save the US and indeed the world from the consequences of the follies of the past but could actually save the Republican Party. But that is not going to happen.

So the next best thing is that the Democratic Congress keeps passing bills with a timetable without teeth. Bush will then be faced with the choice of vetoing funding for the war or accepting something which does not actually tie his hands. This is a no-brainer. Bush would have to blink. He could not afford to be in the position of vetoing funding for the troops because he doesn’t like the language. 

It will be up to the next President to extricate us through diplomacy. It can be done. The Middle Eastern states have too much at stake to allow total chaos in their backyard.

But in fighting Bush and the Administration a frank assessment of the dangers must be put forth. We cannot afford for all factions in the United States to share in a State of Denial. Reality must be the watchword. 

If Democrats do not warn of the eventual potential consequences, they will reap the whirlwind of the chaos that will ensue whenever we pull out. Reality must recognize the futility of the military option, but must equally recognize the enormous dangers and potential consequences. Only a frank appraisal and an honest assessment of what we are facing can avoid catastrophe.

The Media III - Falsehoods about Kerry

In my last posting entitled, "The Media II - Falsehood about Gore" I concluded with the promise, “NEXT TIME THE KERRY CAMPAIGN!”

I will deal with this here, but before I get into this subject I feel I must make another overall observation. In preparing these commentaries I extensively use Google to research the facts. However, here too I have found the deck to be stacked. For instance when I was researching the vicious and sustained attacks on Clinton during his Administration which I summarized in Media I, I first went to Google and entered “Lies about Bill Clinton”. Of the first 10 hits one was one about books for sale and would have to be considered neutral, but the other nine identified websites attacking Clinton for lying. Not one dealt with the subject I had identified.

Similarly, when I started researching “Lies about Gore” I put that subject into Google and guess what? It brought up seven sites alleging lies by Gore and only three on the subject requested. Next “Lies about Kerry” brought a similar result. Of the first ten hits 6 were claims of Kerry lies, 3 on target, and one not relevant. So even here the deck is stacked.

What are the facts? While serving in Vietnam, Kerry was awarded three Purple Hearts, one Bronze Star, and one Silver Star. That was in 1968.

The details of how he earned those medals are too long to be related in the body of this essay, but for those who interested the details are available here. For those who are not familiar with Snopes, it is a website which picks up allegations circulating in cyberspace and checks them. It then summarizes the allegation and designates them as, "false" "partially true" or "true". It then goes into details as to the allegations and then goes into detail as to he true facts. It is non-partisan and non-ideological.

During the next 35 years no one questioned the basis for these medals but in 2004 Kerry was running for President and the vicious lies commenced. First a book was published under the name “Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry. The publisher was Regnery a publisher who specializes in books of the Right. The authors were John E. O’Neil, whose history with the Republican party go back to the Nixon Administration, and Jerome E. Corsi who has made such hate comments about Catholics and Muslims and Jews as well as calling Hillary Clinton a “lesbo” that he became such an embarrassment to the publishers of the book that it was claimed that he wasn’t actually a co-author. The book claimed to be based on the testimony of men who had served with Kerry in Vietnam. It turned out that while all had served in Vietnam all but one had never served with Kerry or been present at the scene where the events, which led to Kerry’s medals, took place. Only one, Stephen Gardner, served on John Kerry's boat, and he was not present for the events that led to any of Kerry's medals or any of Kerry's three Purple Hearts. In other words, even a cursory examination of the book revealed that it had no basis in fact and was a totally contrived pack of lies. Yet the book was treated as a serious piece of journalism by the media and reviewed in that manner.

This was followed by a series of TV ads sponsored by a group that identified itself as “Swift Vets and POWs for Truth” and featured people who had no personal knowledge of the relevant events including women whose husbands had purportedly been prisoners of the Vietcong.

John McCain described these television ads as "dishonest and dishonorable." and called on President Bush to condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush ads. JIM RASSMANN, a Republican, who was there, wrote in the Wall Street Journal, (Yes, The Wall Street Journal) on March 13, 1969, “John Kerry's courage and leadership saved my life.”

Despite this the media as usual acted as a megaphone referring to the book and the ads over and over again thus multiplying the effectiveness of the ads by a large multiple. Howard Kurz writing in the Washington Post said: “Without that echo chamber, this dinky little ad would have sunk without a trace. The irony was that the Post was one of the worst offenders. During one twelve-day span in late August, the Washington Post mentioned the Swifties in page one stories on August 19, 20, 21 (two separate articles), 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. More than 100 NY Times articles and columns made mention of the Swifties. CNN mentioned them in nearly 300 separate news segments. The easily attainable facts got lost in the media’s zest for he said/he said, with U.S.A. for example reporting, “ A clear picture of what John Kerry did or did not do in Vietnam 35 years ago may never emerge…” with the Times describing it as “murky”. It was not murky. The fact that the allegations had no basis in fact was easy to document, as were the endless contradictions. (See pp. 178-186 of Lapdogs by Eric Boehlert)

But contrast this with the way the media treated the allegations against Bush, his using his connections to get into the National Guard and his then going AWOL. These allegations were, according to the media, not noteworthy because they were old. Despite the fact that it was supported by many facts and Guard records, the press was anxious to avoid discussion and when CBS publicized a memo that turned out to be a forgery, the media was so anxious to make the story about the carelessness of 60 Minutes, that they quickly decided that this proved beyond any doubt that the allegations were untrue.

No one ever investigated who might have forged the memo. I have always suspected that it was forged by the Bush Re-election Committee, who having taken a leaf out the Nixon playbook planted the forgery in order to discredit it and thus discredit the facts of Bush’s malfeasance. They must have celebrated at how easily the media took the bait.

Until we get a courageous, independent investigative media worthy of Edward R. Murrow, our Democracy will be at the mercy of the liars, the dissemblers, and the prevaricators.

The Media II - Falsehoods about Gore

While many may no longer remember it, a major reason for Gore’s defeat in the election of 2000, among others, was the oft repeated charge, carried widely by the media, that Gore had difficulty with the truth; that at best he exaggerated a lot, and at worst that he was a congenital liar. What was that based on?

There were two major charges: 

1.) That Gore claimed he invented the Internet, and
2.) That he had discovered the environmental disaster at Love Canal and was instrumental in the 
passing of the Superfund law,  
3.) and that neither was true.

The fact is that Gore made neither claim and that what he claimed was in fact entirely true. With respect to the Internet, Gore said, “I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” 

Here are the facts:

In 1989, Gore introduced the National High-Performance Computer Technology Act, a five-year, $1.7 billion program to expand the capacity of the information highway to connect government, industry, and academic institutions. Signed by President Bush in 1991, the bill supported research and development for an improved national computer system, and assisted colleges and libraries in connecting to the new network. In 1989, when few public officials grasped the profound changes that new information technology would bring, Gore saw them plainly. "I genuinely believe that the creation of this nationwide network will create an environment where work stations are common in homes and even small businesses," he told a House committee in the spring of 1989.

On this basis Gore said in an interview with Wolf Blitzer of CNN, “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” As can be seen, this was entirely true. HE DID NOT SAY HE “INVENTED” THE INTERNET. 

But of course, the RNC lie machine quickly changed the quote and the media ran with it misquoting Gore over and over again and spreading the malicious lie that Gore was a congenital liar.

Similarly on Love Canal and the Superfund law Gore in speaking to a group of high school students in Concord, N.H. exhorted them to reject cynicism and to recognize that individual citizens can effect important changes. As an example, he cited a high school girl from Toone, Tenn., a town that had experienced problems with toxic waste. She brought the issue to the attention of Gore's congressional office in the late 1970s. "I called for a congressional investigation and a hearing," Gore told the students. "I looked around the country for other sites like that. I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal. Had the first hearing on that issue, and Toone, Tennessee---that was the one that you didn't hear of. But that was the one that started it all." Gore was referring to Toone, Tenn. As having started it all.

After learning about the Toone situation, Gore looked for other examples and "found" a similar case at Love Canal. He was not claiming to have been the first one to discover Love Canal, which already had been evacuated. He simply needed other case studies for the hearings.

The next day, The Washington Post stripped Gore's comments of their context and gave them a negative twist “I was the one that started it all,' he said." [WP, Dec. 1, 1999] The New York Times ran a slightly less contentious story with the same false quote: "I was the one that started it all."

Instead of taking the offensive against these misquotes, Gore tried to head off the controversy by clarifying his meaning and apologizing if anyone got the wrong impression. Maybe he should have taken the offensive but it is difficult if not impossible to take on the Washington Post and the NY Times and the rest of the media.

The national pundit shows quickly picked up the story of Gore's new exaggeration.

“It seems to me... he's now the guy who created the Love Canal [case]. I mean, isn't this getting ridiculous?... Isn't it getting to be delusionary?"Matthews of CNBC's "Hardball" turned to his baffled guest, Lois Gibbs, the Love Canal resident who is widely credited with bringing the issue to public attention. She sounded confused about why Gore would claim credit for discovering Love Canal, but defended Gore's hard work on the issue. "I actually think he's done a great job," Gibbs said. "I mean, he really did work, when nobody else was working, on trying to define what the hazards were in this country and how to clean it up and helping with the Superfund and other legislation." [CNBC's "Hardball," Dec. 1, 1999]

That night, CNBC's "Hardball" returned to the Love Canal story. "It reminds me of Snoopy thinking he's the Red Baron," laughed Chris Matthews. "I mean how did he get this idea? Now you've seen Al Gore in action. That he invented the Internet. He now is the guy who discovered Love Canal." 

Yet, while the national media was excoriating Gore, the Concord students who were present for the original quote, pressed for a correction from The Washington Post and The New York Times. 

Finally, on Dec. 7, a week after Gore's comment, the Washington Post published a partial correction, tucked away as the last item in a corrections box. 

Three days later, The New York Times followed suit with a correction of its own, but again without fully explaining Gore's position. While the students voiced disillusionment, the two reporters involved showed no remorse for their mistake. "I really do think that the whole thing has been blown out of proportion," said Katharine Seelye of the Times. "It was one word."

IT IS A SAD STORY AND IT DOES NOT REFLECT WELL ON OUR MEDIA.

The Media! (Watergate/Clinton)

In my essay entitled “Support Our Troops” I said, “Thank God for the Washington Post” for exposing the scandal at Walter Reed Hospital. But maybe the real story is how rarely the media exposed government scandals until Bush’s popularity began to fall. Even now the Washington Post exposé leaves questions unanswered. Members of Congress had been complaining to the Army's surgeon general, for more than three years. Why did it take the Post three years to pick up the story and where was the rest of the media? Finally when the story broke it was confined to Walter Reeld. Now it turns out such conditions are endemic throughout all the veterans’ hospitals. A few generals are made scapegoats and the media praises the Defense Secretary for swift action, but very little is said about the fact that the conditions were brought about by the Administration and it’s cohort in the Republican Congress cutting the budget for veterans care, firing many of it’s experienced staff and outsourcing the work to a subsidiary of Bechtel. Maybe Kudos to the Washington Post and certainly to the rest of the media has been overblown.

Let us take the NY Times! That paper broke the story of warrantless wiretapping. They have been subjected to all kinds of invective by the White House and Right wing publications and pundits. So is this a case of journalistic courage. But it turns out the paper sat on the story for more than a year before releasing it and refuses to say why it delayed letting the public know of this major violation of the U.S. Constitution. Better late than never, but is this the kind of journalism that informs as soon as it knows?

If these papers, the best of the best in the media field fail us, what is the story with regard to the rest of the media?

Let us go back to the Watergate scandal. The burglary of Democratic Headquarters occurred on June 17, 1972 reported by the Washington Post on that day. By June 19 Woodward and Bernstein were on the case and reported that a GOP security aide was among the Watergate burglars and that former attorney general John Mitchell, head of the Nixon reelection campaign, denies any link to the operation. From then on the two reporters filed one story after another reporting ever-clearer evidence that the Nixon reelection campaign was behind the burglary and that the F.B.I. had found a massive campaign of political spying and sabotage. Yet during this whole period leading up to the election no other paper reported on the story, causing the Post reporters to wonder why their spectacular story had no resonance with the rest of the media. Had the broad media picked up the story it may be that Nixon would not have been reelected. Within three month after the election former Nixon aides G. Gordon Liddy and James W. McCord Jr. were convicted. From then on events moved to the impeachment and resignation of the President. But where was the media when the Post was reporting spectacular events prior to the election. There was a conspiracy of silence.

Contrast this to the media’s behavior during the campaign leading up to the election of Bill Clinton and throughout the Clinton Presidency. There was a crescendo of media allegations about sexual peccadilloes. Gennifer Flowers alleged a twelve year affair with Clinton, which received wide press coverage. Her revelation lead to her getting a nude centerfold in Penthouse magazine and the ownership of a cabaret in New Orleans. On the other hand an allegation, corroborated by many sources, that George Bush had an affair with one Jennifer Fitzgerald at least since 1974 and until at least the 1992 election received scant notice from the press.

Even more press coverage was given to the saga of Paula Jones who probably would never have come forward but for an article in the Right wing Spectator magazine written by David Brock. (Brock also wrote the slanderous book, “The Real Anita Hill” and later an article for the Spectator in which he called Anita Hill "a bit nutty and a bit slutty." Subsequently Brock apologized and said that everything he had written was a lie for which he had been well paid.) Brock had written, “On this particular evening after her encounter with Clinton, which lasted no more than an hour as the troopers stood by in the hall, the troopers said Paula told him she was available to be Clinton’s girlfriend if he so desired.” Paula who until then had never spoken of an encounter with Governor Clinton was outraged, and wanted a correction and an apology” But from this sprang Troopergate and the belated suit against Clinton which Paula wanted to settle, but by then had became a tool of the Right who paid her expenses, sponsored her appearance with the troopers (who also indicated they wanted payoffs) at the “Political Action Conference” and kept pushing on all fronts with the SUPPORT AND PUBLICITY OF THE MEDIA until pay dirt in the Monica Lewinsky affair.

But this wasn’t all! The Right took a minor investment of the Clinton’s with one Jim McDougal, in which the Clinton’s lost money, into the notorious Whitewater affair pursued by the partisan ideologue, Kenneth Starr, who in the end found no wrongdoing. If not for the baying of the media there would have been no independent counsel and no endless investigation.

When Vince Foster, suffering depression from the tensions in the White House took his own life, after he was attacked by the Wall Street Journal, the press questioned the suicide and suggested murder. A sensational story but with no basis in fact.

When the Clinton White House fired fourteen employees engaged in making travel arrangements for White House staff, a matter that could hardly be considered of National significance, it became TRAVELGATE and the media ran with it.

When Clinton stopped to get a haircut at an airport the cost of the haircut and the possibility of planes being delayed became grist for the media’s frenzy.

The favorite of the “neutral press” was their adaptation of the pejorative reference to the President as “Slick Willie.”

I can’t possibly do justice to the hatchet job done with the willing, enthusiastic collaboration of the press, which treated Hillary Clinton’s correct charge of a “Vast Right Wing conspiracy” with disdain. However, the facts bear her out. The Arkansas Project is known to have undertaken a four-year effort organized through the American Spectator magazine to discredit the president. Scaife foundation money, as Salon has reported, has also allegedly been used to pay key Whitewater witness David Hale and to help bankroll Paula Jones' sexual harassment case against Clinton.

(As an aside it should be noted that between 1985 and 2001, the Sarah Mellon Scaife Foundation donated $15,860,000 to the Heritage Foundation; $7,333,000 to the Institute for Policy Analysis; $6,995,500 to the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace; $6,693,000 to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS); $4,411,000 to the American Enterprise Institute; $2,575,000 to the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research; $1,855,000 to the George C. Marshall Institute; $1,808,000 to the Hudson Institute; and $1,697,000 to the Cato Institute.)

Next time, the media’s hatchet job on Al Gore and John Kerry, and its cheer leading the President’s march to war.

"Support Our Troops."

There are so many issues I could address that I find myself in something close to paralysis in deciding which one to address.

One, however, has been bothering me for a long time and that is the slogan and the bumper stickers proclaiming, “SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.”

I have often wondered what that means. I know that is used as a euphemism for support of the war and it has been used not only in this war but in past wars as well. But is supporting a war, supporting our troops? How does getting our men and women killed and maimed supporting them?

I don’t for one moment want to suggest that supporting a war is not often a necessary endeavor. Few would question the necessity of our being in the Second World War against Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan. Support for that war was a matter of national survival. But even then I cannot see how support for the war was “SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS.” Being of an advanced age I remember how we supported our troops. It wasn’t with slogans like “SUPPORT OUR TROOPS” or even by wearing flag pins in our lapels. We didn’t tell them, ““you fight with the Army you have, not the one you want” as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, told our troops. When we went to war we supported our troops by converting our auto industry to making tanks. Nothing was spared into turning our industry into making the armaments our soldiers needed. We didn’t send them into battle under equipped and undermanned as we have in Iraq.

I remember I was a youth in middle school at the time. Both boys and girls learned to knit so as to make woolen squares that could be sown together to make blankets for our soldiers. Nothing was too good for them. That was supporting our troops!

And we even made sure that our allies had all the armaments they needed. We became the “Arsenal of Democracy.” Now our troops are ill equipped and we keep hearing that the Iraqi troops that are supposed to pick up the baton, so our troops can leave, are under trained and ill equipped. Why aren’t we equipping them? Billions are spent and they disappear in corruption and war profiteering and our troops and their allies are ill equipped.

“SUPPORT OUR TROOPS” at the least is equipping them and taking care of their needs, but this administration and their lackeys in this Congress don’t give a damn about supporting our troops. To them our troops simply serve their political agenda. When we have a bunch of cowards at the highest levels of government who lie and cheat what can you expect?

Where was our Vice-President during the Vietnam War when others were dying for their country? He, as he himself stated, “ He had other priorities.” Oh what patriotism!

And our President got himself into the National Guard where he knew he would not have to fight because in that war we used regular Army troops and didn’t decimate our Guard and Reserves and break our Army in the process. And even then he went AWOL because he had more important things to do.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS by sending them into an endless war with no clear objectives and no end in sight?

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS by overextending their deployment and by sending them back again and again far beyond their original enlistment.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS by denying them the armor they need?

And now we discover that when they come home they are housed in slum housing outside our Walter Reed Army Medical Center in a dingy former hotel on Georgia Avenue where the wounded were housed among mice, mold, rot and cockroaches. Where was the Republican Congress oversight over the past three years that this couldn’t be discovered? But did anybody really care? I guess they had other priorities.

It took investigative reporting, of which we have had far too little to expose this outrage. Thank God for the Washington Post. Was it a surprise? Top officials at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, including the Army's surgeon general, have heard complaints about outpatient neglect from family members, veterans groups, and members of Congress for more than three years. What did they do? Nothing! Men and women who served their country in Iraq and came home maimed, with shrapnel in their heads and in their brains, without legs or arms or other horrendous injuries. What do they get? Neglect!

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!

It is time that we supported them by bringing them home so they can put their lives back together and try to resume normal lives.

But in the meantime give them the medical care they need; give them the armor they need. Equip the Iraqi troops with the weapons they need. It is time that the people entrusted with the safety of our troops stopped having other priorities.

It is time for them to support our troops by truly caring about them. This government obviously does not and never has.

The truly sad thing is that it will be almost another two years before we can send them packing along with their cohorts in the Congress.

Hate (A Rebuttal)

On February 15 I circulated what I considered to be a hate screed and denounced haters. I said among other things “They always want to get the group that the criminals came from which in this case would be Muslims. I also promised that “next time I will reproduce this screed again in full and rebut it with specific comments on each of its points.” In doing so I particularly want address the comments made by Dr. Joel Etra of Norwich, Conn. who said, “I did not see statements about Muslims in general rather about the deadly excesses of the criminal element.” So here goes! I will reproduce the screed with my comments on it in bold letters so they can easily be distinguished.

"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people - it was done by people of the islamic faith-this phraseology is clearly intended to tar the whole religion with the acts of the perpetrators - who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001?

“Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania? Yes, they were mostly Americans but there were a great many from other nationalities and religions among them including approximately 100 Muslims.

“Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they? - Indeed they did.

“And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? - The desecration of a religious object is always an insult to all the members of that religion. I think that Christians would be very insulted if a Christian bible were spit on, stamped on or otherwise treated with disrespect. The Nazis when they started their persecution of the Jews first and foremost desecrated the Jewish holy book, the Torah, because they knew how painful it would be to members of that faith.

“Well, I don't. I don't care at all.

“I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11. - Here again the linkage is that since Osama Bin Laden is evil that until he repents we are justified in treating his religion with contempt.

“I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabia is an intolerant society – do we really want to copy them; and even if we wanted to retaliate against the Saudis do we really want to also insult the religion of 52 countries having a population of which a majority is Muslim. India, which has a majority of Hindus, has a minority of Muslims totaling174 million. Some of our most important allies, e.g. Pakistan are Muslim states and our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are shedding their blood to try to make those Muslim countries into viable states. Muslims have been victims of Al Qaeda attacks, notably Pakistan, Indonesia, Jordan and many others. Turkey a Muslim country is a member of NATO. There are between 700,000 and 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. Between 1 and 6 million Muslims reside in the U.S. most live quiet law abiding lives and no American Muslim has been identified as being part of Al Qaeda but insults hurled at their religion helps to radicalize and helps recruitment everywhere.

“I'll care when Abu Muse al-Sarawak tells the world he is sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.

“I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.

“I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.

“I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights. - What this has to do with insulting and desecrating a religious text is beyond me. But it is not the media that pays attention to International law. It is our government and the US Supreme Court. International law is binding on us all, often by treaty approved by the US Senate. But First Amendment liberties have never been and are not derived from international law. It should be noted, however, that in the declaration of independence there is a reference to “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind."

“In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.

“When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured that I don't care. - It was hardly a college hazing incident. It was intended to humiliate and degrade.

“When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank that I don't care.

“When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts that I don't care. - First the issue is not the prisoners complaint, but the insult to all members of that faith. Second none of these prisoners have ever been convicted of any crimes. In fact, they have never even been accused of any.

“And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and ---- you guessed it - - I don't care ! ! ! ! ! - Another way to insult the Muslim faith.

“If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your a-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior!

“If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button.

“Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country. - Whoa, if I don’t agree then I am responsible for any possible future acts of terror! This is hate directed not only against Muslims but against all those who don’t agree with her vision of a world, where we disrespect the faith of huge numbers of people; the second largest faith in the world.

First rule for a sane world! Do not disrespect other religions or their Holy Books or Holy Symbols.

Hate

I recently received a hate screed being circulated by e-mail. Rather than simply delete it I believe it is important that we are all aware of the type of poison being circulated. The polemic originated from a woman in Atlanta, Georgia. I will reproduce it below, followed by my general comments on it. Next time I will circulate it again with my specific comments on each point made. The polemic is reproduced below:

"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001?

“Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania?

“Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?

“And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet?

“Well, I don't. I don't care at all.

“I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.

“I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia.

“I'll care when Abu Muse al-Sarawak tells the world he is sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.

“I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.

“I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.

“I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.

“In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.

“When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured that I don't care.

“When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank that I don't care.

“When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts that I don't care.

“And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and ---- you guessed it - - I don't care! ! ! ! !

“If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your e-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior!

“If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button.

“Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country.”

I am always fascinated by people who hate. What is there in them that makes them hate so? In this case the polemic was directed against Muslims but what I find fascinating is that people like this will always hate some group. These are the kind who blindly hated Japanese-Americans and provoked the panic that caused the internment of 120,000 American citizens during the Second World War to our everlasting shame. Yes, Japan had attacked us, but these American citizens had nothing to do with it, except that they shared a common ancestry.

It is the haters who are killing each other in Iraq. To them if some Sunnis blew up their Shiite mosque they will not seek out the perpetrators, but will hate and kill all Sunnis randomly. And then the haters among the Sunnis will not look for the killers of Sunnis, but they will kill Shiites randomly and innocent people on both sides of the religious divide suffer and die.

It is the haters who manage to always find reason to lump a whole ethnic group together for hate. Sometimes it is Jews and sometimes it is African-Americans. At one time we hated Chinese and barred them from immigrating. At one point the haters hated Catholics; they called them Papists and Jews were Christ killers.

When a crime is committed they can never focus on the individuals and their coconspirators who committed the crime and hunt them down and bring them to justice and dismantle their network. They always want to get the group that the criminals came from. These are the haters who supported the lynching of large numbers of African-Americans every time they thought that one of them had committed a crime.

Haters have never been a force for good, or justice, or for success in war, or in any other endeavor. God spare us from their poison.

Next time I will reproduce this screed again in full and rebut it with specific comments on each of its points. I find the fact that it was well written more disturbing because it suggests that the writer is not an ignorant person and yet the contents smack not only of hate but of ignorance.

Bush - Is He Smart?

This article is prompted by an e-mail that I received from Jo-Anna Cooke an American citizen who writes from Dresden, Germany,

"I have appreciated your emails regarding politics. I am learning about the issues and enjoy the debate that can be seen.

"I have a question for you, which I feel a little strange about, but thought you might have some ideas. I am listening through the internet to the NPR interview with President Bush. I am struck (often) by how "simpleton" his answers are to the questions. There are jokes about him being a "tool" and not being very smart. Other people say that he is very smart and knows exactly what is going on. What do you think? I am struck by how often Clinton is referred to as "brilliant", this is very different from what Bush is portrayed as. Just curious! I am realize that I should perhaps ask a spectrum of people, but you were the first person I thought of."

To which I responded:

"It is nice to hear from you and even nicer to receive an interesting and difficult question from you.

"I say difficult because we use so many terms that have multiple meanings. What is the meaning of smart? Is it one's IQ? Is it based on how well educated they are? When Bush went to Yale college he was a C student. By that measure he is not smart. Kerry had similar grades. By that measure he is no smarter. I don't know what kind of grades Clinton got but as I recall he was a brilliant student. They say he was a brilliant politician but he didn't get his health plan through a Democratic Congress and after two years into his Presidency he lost Congress.

"But I come back to what is smart? A long time ago I knew a young women who was a refugee from Ecuador. She was not well educated though she was fun to be with. She set out to become very rich by marriage. In a series of moves, the details of which I will not bore you with, she married a very rich man and became an international socialite. Diplomats and Senators are delighted to be entertained by her. She had three daughters one of whom married a prince in London attended by all the royalty from around the world, another married a Getty and the third married a von Furstenberg. Was she smart?

"Was Reagan smart. He lived in a world of make-believe in which the movies he had had seen were his reality. (See the Reagan Biography by Lou Cannon) and yet he changed the whole political landscape in the US.

"Bush has difficulty speaking the English language. But he won the Governorship of Texas and the Presidency of the U.S. Well, he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. But so did FDRs and Eleanor Roosevelt's sons and they went nowhere.

"He has been quite successful in effectuating his policies, pushing enormous tax cuts through the Congress and destroying many environmental protections. He has extended the Reagan policies successfully far beyond anything Reagan would have dreamt of or possibly even approved of. Can a dumb man be that successful? I don't know. I don't even know that his poor speech is not an affectation which it was judged would appeal to those who speak no better than he does. His success may be due to having smart people about him, but it takes a kind if smartness to pick people who will effectuate what you want.

"Is he a tool. No, the President is never a tool. Cheney and Karl Rove may be doing the thinking for him but they can only function within the broad parameters of the policies he advocates, which was also true of Reagan or any President.

"I think his policies are outrageous but that goes to belief not smarts.

"All that is a long non-answer to a short question. The greatest difficulty is that our language is so imprecise."

War on the Middle Class

During most of the Republican Party’s history they have objected to programs for the poor, depicting them as the undeserving, whose shiftlessness and laziness has resulted in their sorry state. This attitude was best exemplified in Reagan’s fictitious “Welfare Queen” which he rolled out in 1976 with this description, “"She has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names."

Now, however, Republicans attack Democrats for being for the middle class and not focusing enough attention on the poor. Thus Republican columnist, David Brooks, wrote in last Sunday’s NY Times, “Raising the minimum wage won’t be of much benefit to the working poor. Only 0.6 percent of all wage workers make the minimum (and) a mere 12.7 percent of the benefits of a federal minimum wage hike would go to poor families, while 63 percent would go to families earning more than twice the poverty line.” Even if this is correct, (Brooks gives no study to support this conclusion) his objection speaks worlds to the new Republican attitude. In 2005 the poverty threshold in the U.S. for a family of four was $22,951. Thus twice that, or $46,000 would place a family of four into the lower middle class. Is there anything wrong with extending a helping hand to people in this income category?

Possibly more striking is the approach to Health Care proposed in the President’s State of the Union Speech. Having again and again reduced taxes on the very wealthy and having vowed no tax increases for anyone, the Administration now proposes to penalize people who have health insurance through their employer by taxing this insurance. This would most certainly strike at the middle class. In his weekly radio address Bush did not address the inefficiency of the present system which is the most expensive in the world, but rather decried, the system for “unwisely encourag(ing) workers to choose overly expensive, gold plated plans…”

While proposing increased taxes on the middle class, he and his party continue their attack on Social Security, warning that unless “something” is done the system will go bankrupt, though whether that is true is debatable. According to the Social Security trustees the payroll tax revenues currently exceed benefit payments so that there is now a growing surplus that would allow present benefits to be paid in full for the next 28 years. After 2034 a problem is projected in that surpluses now building up will be exhausted. At that point the fund will only have enough income to pay 70 percent of benefit payments. However, these projections are based on the economy expanding at a rate of 1.5 percent per year over the next 75 years. This rate is about half the average rate of growth over the past 75 years. Therefore an assumption of rate of growth of 2.5% is reasonable. If that assumption is made Social Security is solvent and running a surplus ad infinitum.

So what is all the hullabaloo about? It has only one purpose and that is to justify the privatization of this system with “private accounts’, which in fact would quickly bankrupt the system. In other words we fix something that isn’t broken by abolishing it.

Caution does dictate some adjustments, which Republicans oppose because they mean higher taxes. Yet as can be seen, The Administration has no objections to higher taxes provided they are on the middle class and serve no useful purpose. Reagan, who initially also wanted to privatize Social Security, in the end agreed to a bill that increased the number of people covered by the program including members of Congress, and government employees, increased Social Security tax rates from 6.6% to 7.0 percent in 1984, and 7.05 percent in 1985, 7.15 percent in 1986-87, 7.51 percent in 1988-89 and 7.65 percent in 1990 and thereafter. At the same time he raised the age for eligibility for unreduced retirement benefits in two stages to 67 by the year 2027. Workers born in 1938 will be the first group affected by the gradual increase.

Nevertheless, as a precaution against Social Security running into difficulty the date when the 67 eligibility standard kicks in could be moved up to 2015, provided the cap on income to be taxed for Social Security is also raised. Under current law, Americans pay a 12.4% Social Security tax on all wages up to $94,200 in 2006, and the cap rises each year with inflation. (There is also an uncapped 2.9% Medicare payroll tax on top of that.) This cap could be lifted by $10,000 a year until it reaches $150,000. The trust fund should also be taken out of the budget where it masks a deficit much larger than the one shown and should be treated like state pension funds, allowing the trustee manager to make conservative investments of part of the fund in the stock market. An S&P Index Fund would be such a conservative investment and would entail very little in management costs. Then if we find that the income for the fund exceeds needs, an increase in Social Security payments, or a reduction in payroll taxes for the lower incomes, could be contemplated This is important at a time when corporations seem to be cutting pension benefits, forcing wage earners to rely ever more on their Social Security benefits. If needed it could be used to shore up Medicare, which is more vulnerable than Social Security.

What is particularly interesting in this hullabaloo is that a new rationale is being offered for destroying this treasured benefit. In December 2002 the Vice-President declared, “Reagan proved deficits don't matter.” Now, Republicans argue, deficits matter, but we must not stop cutting taxes for the rich-it is entitlement that we can’t afford. As shown above, the most important entitlement pays for itself. Rather than a drag on the treasury, it masks the size of the deficit.

Bush’s New-Old Iraq Strategy.

As I listened to The President's speech I could only think: He is still in a State of Denial. What we have here is more of the same failed policy and a refusal to face up to reality.

What is evident is that to Bush there is only one reality that he is concerned with, and that is the disillusionment of the American people; that he is now facing a Democratic Congress ready to ask hard questions and wavering Republicans fearful of their fate in the next election. The country wants out of Iraq. The people understand what Bush does not. The mistakes of the past can no longer be undone. Iraq is a disaster and our pulling out will cause a larger disaster. But that will happen no matter when we pull out. Our staying may delay an all out civil war but it can no longer change the dynamics on the ground.

Bush realized even before the election that the American people had enough of the same. So a commission of wise men from past Administrations, of Democrats and Republicans was formed. It was known as the Baker/Hamilton commission and it was generally agreed that this was the source from which a new policy could spring. The commission spent a great deal of time studying the situation and they came up with a new plan. Not one that guaranteed success, but one that at least has a chance.

The President has totally ignored those recommendations just as he failed to implement most of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission.

In the meantime the media is failing to give us the whole story. In drawing up his “new plan” he was greatly influenced by recommendations made by Frederick W. Kagan, a military historian who has taught at West Point, and whose education consists of B.A., Soviet and East European studies; Ph.D., Russian and Soviet military history, Yale University and Jack Keane who is a retired Army general. Both are scholars at the right wing Enterprise Institute. In an article written for that think tank and published here they write, “It is difficult to imagine a responsible plan for getting the violence in and around Baghdad under control that could succeed with fewer than 30,000 combat troops beyond the forces already in Iraq.” So Bush true to his past does a halfhearted job of following the recommendations for stepping up our commitment instead of phasing it down. Thus it is evident that even Bush’s strongest supporters make it clear that Bush’s plan is doomed to failure.

They emphasize this when they say; “The United States faces a dire situation in Iraq because of a history of half-measures. We have always sent "just enough" force to succeed if everything went according to plan. So far nothing has, and there's no reason to believe that it will. Sound military planning doesn't work this way. The only "surge" option that makes sense is both long and large.

Furthermore it is interesting to note that Bush did not tell us exactly what neighborhoods in Baghdad are to be targeted. The article does. It says, “Reducing the violence in the SUNNI AND MIXED NEIGHBORHOODS (emphasis added) in Baghdad is the most critical military task the U.S. armed forces face anywhere in the world.” Please note the absence of any mention of Shiite neighborhoods or Sadr’s militia. What they are evidently advocating and what Bush is apparently planning is to take sides in the Civil war on the side of the Shiite against the Sunni’s.

This would certainly get the support of the Shiite Prime minister of Iraq, Maliki, a Shiite, the head of the Dawa Shiite party and an ally of Muqtada al-Sadr. We have ostensible tried to get him to be a peacemaker between the warring factions but it is increasingly evident that Maliki like most Shiites in Iraq, has an agenda which can be summarized as, the Sunnis, who are a minority in Iraq, ruled over us under Sadam Hussein-now it is our turn to rule over the Sunnis. We are the majority, we won the election, and it is our turn to rule.

To support this may sound tempting to the authors of this article and to the Administration but it ignores that except for Iran, who we have dubbed our enemy, the Middle East from Saudi Arabia, to Egypt to Jordan, etc are all Sunnis. They will not stand by idly and Iran will benefit hugely as will the Shiite terrorists, Hezbollah, in Lebanon. Is this what victory now means to the President.

Finally, it should be noted that in the Army’s first field manual devoted exclusively to counterinsurgency operations issued in twenty years, which was published in December of 2006 and which can be found here, the following is stated:

"1-67…. MOST DENSITY RECOMMENDATIONS FALL WITHIN A RANGE OF 20 TO 25 COUNTERINSURGENTS FOR EVERY 1000 RESIDENTS IN AN AO. TWENTY COUNTERINSURGENTS PER 1000 RESIDENTS IS OFTEN CONSIDERED THE MINIMUM TROOP DENSITY REQUIRED FOR EFFECTIVE COIN OPERATIONS; (emphasis added)

If we take the recommended density recommendations of the Army and we take into account the fact that there are 5 million residents in Baghdad it becomes obvious that the Army believes that nothing less than 100,000 troops are required for Baghdad alone.

This Administration has learned nothing. It ignores the recommendations of its greatest supporters in the political sphere; it ignores the Army manual; it ignores the recommendation of its generals and of-course it ignores the recommendations of the independent commission.

Even the Washington Times, that stalwart ally of Bush, believes the plan to be folly.

Unfortunately our fighting men are the victims of these misguided and bizarre policies, which are neither fish, nor fowl but have only one purpose in mind and that is to pass the hard decisions on to the next Administration. To sacrifice untold lives to this endeavor is the height of ignominy.