Update no.268

Update from the Heartland
No.268
22.1.07 – 28.1.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
Taylor and I saw Clint Eastwood's companion movie, "Letters from Iwo Jima" -- a powerful and dramatic big screen adaptation that humanizes the Japanese side of the famous battle -- a magnificent sample of movie making. Clint did an extraordinary job, using the same cinematic technology, to portray both sides of the human story that was the epic Battle of Iwo Jima. "Letters" should be seen with the opener, "Flags of Our Fathers." [193 & 254] Clint leads us to the true conclusion -- wars are not between people; they are between nations and the leaders that take them to war. Although the current war is not with a nation, we are at war with megalomaniacal men who have led ordinary men to kill. War is never good, but unfortunately, it is necessary to defend freedom and our homes.

For those who remain intrigued by and interested in the TWA 800 incident, I recommend the Discovery Channel program "Best Evidence -- TWA 800," broadcast on January 25th. The producers tried to present a balanced, informed presentation with respect to the continuing conflict between the government's public position and the most plausible scenario derived by connecting the dots. Among other key elements, they showed the details of an experiment to determine the amount of spark energy necessary to ignite a comparable fuel-air mixture existing in the Center Wing Tank (CWT) of the B747 as it took off that summer night in 1996. They started at 5 millijoules across an open spark plug and finally ignited the combustible mixture at 75 millijoules. While the experiment and result were interesting, the essential question remains, what ignited the fuel-air mixture in the CWT? The implication the government continues to espouse is high voltage on a low voltage wire causing the spark. The government's hypothesis still does not float. The program tip-toed around the political aspect and the missile scenario, and tried very hard to remain balanced and fair. The bottom line remains we still do not know the cause of the tragedy.

Our verbally challenged Commander-in-Chief gave his constitutionally mandated State of the Union report to Congress. He delivered perhaps his best speech to date – practice helps, I suppose. I was also impressed with Jim Webb’s rebuttal – his first national political speech. The freshman senator from Virginia chose his words well. Unfortunately, in wartime, we need a master of public rhetoric, but we have what we have. We need a Winston Churchill, but I would be happy with a Franklin Roosevelt or even a Harry Truman. We can hope for a better performer the next time around. I hold no illusions of transformation in the present edition. I can only say, “Let’s get ‘er done.”

Proffered State-of-the-Union comments from other contributors are provided below.

Sadly, as is so often the case with a wounded or diminished President at the end of this tenure, the vultures begin circling. The President had barely taken a breath after concluding his annual State of the Union speech, when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee took the opening shots of what will most likely be a particularly nasty political confrontation regarding the Battle for Iraq. Senator John Warner of Virginia introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution no.4 (S.Con.R.4) that largely says the same thing as S.Con.R.2 [267], and Senator John McCain of Arizona reportedly plans to add another sense-of-Congress resolution for yet one more perspective on how the Senate thinks the Battle of Iraq should be fought. As that famous contemporary philosopher, Yogi Berra, so succinctly stated, "This is like deja vu all over again" -- same tune, different verse. For at least the next two years, our precious troops are going to be expected to bleed, while our politicians play their fiddles as Rome burns. We cannot avoid this soon-to-be-tragic episode. Unfortunately, our children's generation is now going to learn what my generation experienced 35 years ago. So, I shall grieve for our children.

This weekend, we had anti-war protests – the most publicized being in Washington, DC – in an attempt to resurrect the anti-war protests of 40 years ago. They even rolled out that old warhorse of war protesters, the traitor ‘Hanoi Jane’ Fonda. They lost what scintilla of credibility they may have had. So, a mounting segment of our society has chosen to take an unrealistic, impractical, and self-destructive view of the War on Islamic Fascism. Forty years ago, we were dealing with an ideology that sought to oppress a people who wished to be free. Today, we fight an enemy who seeks to kill us until we submit to their brand of Islamic theocracy. Being a free society, we have choices. We can choose to dream the impossible dream, or we can choose to face life as it is. Lastly, I must say that I would prefer to never see an unpunished traitor ever again.

Some may be asking the question, what do you propose? My recommendation, or solution depending upon your perspective, is to take the political debate private or in secrecy behind closed doors. A public debate regarding the conduct of war can only help our enemies; I see so very little good for us beyond the First Amendment self-gratification. Once Congress passed the Authorizations (2001 [--] and 2002 [50]) and the President pulled the trigger, the time for public political debate passed. Congress, as the elected representatives of the People, must voice their concerns, objections, opinions and recommendations to the President, to influence him in private; and by his actions, he moves the nation in the necessary direction. The public rancor and discord playing out in the Senate is wrong in the worst possible way. Unfortunately, Biden, Hagel and the rest are of my generation; they had the worst possible example; and now, they are repeating the mistakes of my parent’s generation. I, for one, shall not forgive them their folly.

History tells us numerous positive and negative examples regarding the consequences of war and specifically the issue we face today. The Allies did not control the ground in Germany after the Great War, and chose not to intervene when events spiraled out of control in the 1930’s. In contrast, we did control the ground in Germany, Japan and Italy in 1945 and subsequent. Independent of war, we deployed the National Guard and placed elements of the 1st Marine Division on alert to control the ground and quell the anarchy of the 1965 Watts Riot in Los Angeles. I remember vividly the Washington, DC, riots after Martin Luther King’s assassination in 1968; the 82nd Airborne Division scrambled for that one. We did not control a goodly portion of the ground in Vietnam; we would “pacify” a village, and then leave, allowing the VC to return and punish the collaborators – a recipe for the disaster it became. We controlled the ground with overwhelming force in Kuwait during Operation DESERT STORM, thus allowing us to rapidly return sovereignty to Kuwait. As we have discussed numerous times, we can argue about the failures of President Bush and the current administration, or we can choose to do what needs to be done to win the peace. My opinion of the administration’s choices remains unchanged; we have insufficient ground combat troops to control the ground. I suspect the 20,000+ troops deployed mostly to Baghdad will demonstrate a positive effect in those areas they control. However, the bad guys are not stupid; they will simply re-deploy to less protected areas, assault and murder more innocent people – the classic bulging balloon scenario. The rule of law must take root in Iraq, not revenge at the barrel of a gun. An iron fist may be required until the sectarian passions are reined in and squelched.

I would like to end this edition with one particular thought. As I have reflected numerous times in this forum, war is an ugly, nasty, disgusting and revolting business, best left to the realm of last resort. However, I must add that war is not the worst condition of mankind; that infamy rests with oppression, subjugation and the void of freedom that comes to all peoples who lose their will to defend Liberty. I can only hope we are not repeating the tragedy – Il fini de Pax Romana.

Comments on the President's State of the Union speech:
"I am sure you watched this evening's address and the response from Jim Webb. George Bush's speech may have been the best I have witnessed from our verbally challenged CinC.
"Ultimately, he cannot fight the reality of Iraqi incompetence to defend ordinary Iraqis against the divisions among the population fomented by Hussein and the protection of innocent Iraqi citizens against escalating ethnic and religious hatred brought to fruition by the American invasion.
"You repeat over and over an observation that the will of the American people lies at the core of success in Iraq. You are mistaken. Only the will of the Iraqi people can turn the tide. As I have said before, democracy cannot be imposed through the barrel of a gun. Mao, rightly pronounced that revolution comes through the end of a gun. But democracy? Never.
"I wish George Bush well in this effort. More importantly, I hope that whatever casualties incurred by Americans and Iraqis alike will be worth the surge. I suspect it is too little, too late, and the American people and the inhabitants of the Middle East will be paying a price for our mistakes for a long time to come.
"Throughout the Middle East, there are rumblings from heads of state about developing nuclear weapons to counter the instability the United States has created. Is this a positive result of the war against terrorism? We may very well reap the whirlwind as a result of our liberation of Iraq. And the living shall envy the dead."
My reply:
You will find no disagreement with me. I have focused my remarks on the will of the American People, because that is who we are. I cannot speak for and do not presume to know the will of the Iraqi people.
As you so accurately note, democracy can only come from the desire of any people to live in peace, to respect one another based on equality, and to accept the rule of law. We like to think of ourselves as the beacon of democracy, and yet the force of arms is woven into the fabric of this Grand Republic – the War of Independence, just to gain our Unalienable Rights; Shay’s Rebellion, a serious challenge to the fledgling and evolving democracy; and of course, the granddaddy of them all, the War between the States. I have faith – perhaps blind faith – that the Iraqi people are just like all other people I have known in my world travels; they want to live in peace, to prosper, to have a safe environment for their children to mature. Our military force is not there for and cannot provide democracy, but they can provide security, just as we did in 1919 and 1946. I believe, perhaps erroneously, that the violence we see is the product of a willful minority, not of the much larger majority.
I have been and continue to be critical of the President regarding our efforts to win the peace. I fear the “too little, too late” hypothesis. My concern for the will of the American People rests on the energy to do what must be done to win the peace. I have tried to articulate from the beginning that we were entering a long war – a generational war, perhaps a war of many generations. The President’s task is, and remains, the mobilization and coalescence of the People to do what must be done to defeat the enemies who threaten us. [I chose those words intentionally. I do not worry about Hugo Chavez; I do worry about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jung Il.]
Nuclear weaponry in the hands of rabid radicals is not an acceptable or stable state. I know what must be done. I have no confidence the UN has the capacity to do what must be done.
. . . along with this follow-up:
“Indeed, this nation's history is inextricably linked to the use of "force of arms" to defend, protect and/or expand all of the liberal principles expounded from the Mayflower Compact on. But I don't see the connection in the examples you cite to the situation in Iraq. All of your examples are purely American conflicts and eventuated in the strengthening of our unique and perhaps unreplicable system.
“Michael Oakeshott, who was probably the preeminent philosopher of British conservatism in the 20th century, warned against imposing the political ideals and institutions of one country whose experience and culture brought civil society to those precepts onto another country whose experience and culture were entirely different. He rejected the hubris of "nation builders" as an exercise in futile and dangerous egomania. Those who attempt to do so often believe they are the only persons with the intellectual qualifications to dismantle public institutions and rebuild them in a more efficient form.
“Iraq's political maturation (under the criteria established by Weber and Huntington) has been stunted by centuries of colonization and brutality. The American presence in Iraq and the foolish policies pursued by this administration only exacerbate those conditions which militate against a secure and stable environment in which political growth can occur.
“The battle of Iraq, as you term it, does nothing to advance the war on terrorism. We have only added fuel to a smoldering conflagration, and in doing so, have exhausted resources on every level that are crucial to any semblance of success against Islamic fascism.
“At present, democracy as Americans understand the system is unworkable in the Islamic Middle East. Democracy, in any case, is only a means to an end, not a first principle in the parlance of Aristotle. What Iraq requires is a benevolent dictator, someone who takes into account fully the needs of all Iraqis and who can stand up to the United States and evict us from the country.”
. . . and my follow-up:
My use of historic examples points to one inviolate axiom – the political process depends directly upon control of the ground, i.e., security and safety. After 1.May.2003, the military offensive mission ended – Mission Accomplished. What should have happened after the Saddam regime was deposed? Sufficient military and police forces should have been deployed to every village, hamlet and city in Iraq, to swiftly and violently eradicate those individuals and groups intent upon disrupting the transition process. We should have closed and controlled the borders. Further, we should have taken a far more aggressive economic recovery path – the modern Marshall Plan, as we have discussed. And lastly, we should have taken a more deliberate and methodical process to help the Iraqis learn and stand up. What made the administration think the Iraqis were going to be significantly more efficient and successful than the Germans, Italians or Japanese?
I am not and never have been an advocate of “nation building.” I think you hit the nail squarely on the head. Imposing anything – democracy or otherwise – on anyone is a bad thing; in fact, I cannot think of one good example. The administration moved too fast through the return to sovereignty phase and opened themselves to valid criticism regarding accusations of imposing democracy.
I do not agree regarding the Battle of Iraq. I do not agree that democracy is unworkable in the Middle East. Nonetheless, a benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient form of government. Unfortunately, men are frail entities who oh so often succumb to the seduction of power, and once contaminated, their benevolence evaporates. If the Iraqis people freely and openly chose a benevolent dictatorship, then I would be fine with it, just as I would have accepted communism, if the South Vietnamese people freely chose to embrace communism. Likewise, I would accept a Shia theocracy if the Iraqi people freely chose that form of government; I would not like it, but I would accept it. I advocated for a slower process, to allow the Iraqis to learn about freedom, about democracy, about self-governance, but none of that could have happened without security on the ground.

Another opinion:
"I saw most of it. I bet GW hated to have to do this address this time because he knew he would not be accepted, and would then be trashed by the Dems. He was. And the American people were, I think, more with the Dems, than GW. Very sad, and very bad news for the 2008 elections. My opinion.
"Bush is in the toilet, and he got Himself there. Unfortunately, he takes a lot of people with him, including military folks who are having to fight his war. They will fight on, though maybe just for their buddies next to them -- something which has Always been in wars. But for Bush, his policies? Fight for him? No. The Active duty Generals and Admirals may hesitate to disagree with their President, but I bet ALL do.
"Not may flag rank officers nowadays are willing to put their own careers in the trash can by openly opposing the Administration. SUCH stuff is left almost always to the recently retired Generals and Admirals. They are safe---as far as pensions, etc are concerned. Many speak out in various forums."That's how it goes in Washington, D.C.
"Both Bushes -- Sr. & Jr. -- have screwed themselves politically because they did not really listen to the pulse of America when they needed to. It cost Bush Sr. a second term. That gave us Clinton. Bad enough. OK. Survivable though. Even though 8 years."It has perhaps cost Bush Jr. a whole 'nother 4 or 8 years of Democratic Party dominance. A much bigger blunder this time I think! That could Really do America in. Think of Hillary as Pres, or Obama. Or any Democrat running. Other than maybe Guliani who has no world experience. Same for most Republican hopefuls. Exception maybe McCain.
"Think of what the Dems have always stood for and now will be able to do. Or what the Republicans have always promised but rarely done.
"Politics is a nasty business, suited only for those who have a glib tongue and want power, $$$, position, etc. Not a place for Ordinary people. But in the beginning it was envisioned by our forefathers that ordinary folks might take some time out of their lives to serve the country. Then go back home. It didn't work out that way. As we too well know."It's sad, and it's scary -- to me at least."

Comments and contributions from Update no.267:
"We have had an interesting development here in SD that seems to be spreading to the rest of the country. Our local U.S. Atty, Ms. Lam has been forced out after a highly successful tour of duty. She basically "got" Rep. Randy Cunningham and the underlying rumors have the current administration going after her for opening that Pandora’s Box. I have read of other 'resignations' in the U.S. Attorney positions but I haven't seen anyone in the national press picking up on this possibly disturbing rumor.
"Any knowledge?"
My reply:
Short answer, no; I’ve not heard anything. I would be suspicious in that vindictive retribution is a rather risky proposition, e.g., Nixon’s infamous 1973 Saturday Night Massacre. That said, I would not put it passed this administration to attempt such a foolish endeavor. I’ll poke around to see what I can turn up.
My follow-up contribution:
Senator Diane Feinstein of California rose on the floor of the Senate this week to illuminate this curious occurrence within the Justice Department. It seems as many as ten U.S. attorneys, apparently in the West mostly, have been asked to leave or have left their posts in short order. Among those affected U.S. attorneys are:
Carol Lam of San Diego (extracted guilty plea from “Duke” Cunningham),
Kevin Ryan of San Francisco (investigating numerous stock-options backdating cases),
Daniel Bogden of Nevada,
David Iglesias of New Mexico,
Paul Charlton of Arizona,
John McKay of Seattle,
along with perhaps four additional U.S. attorneys, as yet unidentified, in similar circumstances. Whether they were fired, left by their choice, or just coincidence is unknown, as yet. Nonetheless, the occurrence is quite odd. I hope the Press and/or the Bloggers can illuminate the details and help us connect the dots. If this is W’s version of the Saturday Night Massacre, the bill will come due, as it usually does. While the President as well as any employer has the right to dismiss employees for whatever reason they wish, the consequences for those in public service, especially those elected by the People, are usually quite unforgiving. These departures may well be coincidental, but there are more than a few oddities. This administration has chosen to do the People’s business with a greater amount of secrecy and opacity than other administrations, and as a result, they have left themselves open to charges of arrogance, unilateral action, vindictiveness, and highly biased conduct. While I have not seen anything illegal as yet, the implications of impropriety are strong.

Another contribution:
Re: “Maybe Bush Has Found His Gen. Grant” by Sgt. Michael Hall, published Thursday, January 11, 2007.
“That is a well written piece. Not sure I totally agree with every nuance of it, but close. Several things hit me. We need Lt’s on the ground leading troops in combat, not more senior staff officers out to get some more ribbons. We need Iraqis with jobs too, as the man says.
“The writer puts a lot of faith in LtGen Peteraus, but from what I've seen in what little I do know about that General, he may actually be just the man for the job. At least he did not shy away from it, as many career minded Generals might have and perhaps/probably Did do. He has the knowledge, background, experience and on the ground combat experience to do it -- if anyone can. Very big IF!!
“The American Congress, and more and more the American people themselves may make it impossible for him. Shades of Vietnam all over again.
“Dejavue. God that is sad. I hate dejavues!
“It means to Me that we had the opportunity to learn from past experience and did not!
“I'm sure I could comment more but will not here. Except to repeat that now very old more or less quote from Somebody that said basically that ‘Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it.’
“Study History, my friends. And Geopolitics, Geography, Sociology, Languages, Logic, Math, and Psychology. Among many Other disciplines I do not name here.
“You can't learn them all of course. But you CAN get a bit of knowledge in most if not all of them.“They used to call THAT a classical education. And it's a good one! Prepares you in a basic way for almost Anything in life.”

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)

Update no.267

Update from the Heartland

No.267

15.1.07 – 21.1.07

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
Eight inches of snow on top of a sleet-packed ice sheet. I am getting too old for this.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales informed the Senate Judiciary Committee by letter that the administration was abandoning the controversial NSA surveillance program and agreeing to return to FISA Court monitoring. The sad part of this whole episode remains the gross lack of understanding or appreciation by the politicians, the Press, and the citizenry, for the rigors of modern warfare and especially cyber warfare. While the medium and techniques may be similar, the differences in objectives and consequences of clandestine surveillance for intelligence from those for prosecution are vast and distinct. In one case, the government must know what it is looking for and seek a judicial sanction to collect evidence by surreptitious means; and in the other case, the government must search for what it does not know. The processes of each activity are fundamentally different, and I respectfully submit, the implications to our First and Fourth Amendment Rights are significantly different as well. That aside, I must admit, like the President's failure to seek a full declaration of war, the administration's arrogance regarding the employment of the tools of modern warfare settles as yet another miscalculation. And now, yet one more time, we have further shackled our national defense apparatus during wartime.

Considering the importance of a resolution proposed by Senators Biden, Levin and Hagel regarding the Battle for Iraq, the precise words take on critical relevance:
Senate Concurrent Resolution no.2:
"Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), that it is the sense of Congress that --
"(1) it is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the United States military force presence in Iraq;
"(2) the primary objective of United States strategy in Iraq should be to have the Iraqi political leaders make the political compromises necessary to end the violence in Iraq;
"(3) greater concerted regional, and international support would assist the Iraqis in achieving a political solution and national reconciliation;
"(4) main elements of the mission of United States forces in Iraq should transition to helping ensure the territorial integrity of Iraq , conduct counterterrorism activities, reduce regional interference in the internal affairs of Iraq , and accelerate training of Iraqi troops;
"(5) the United States should transfer, under an appropriately expedited timeline, responsibility for internal security and halting sectarian violence in Iraq to the Government of Iraq and Iraqi security forces; and
"(6) the United States should engage nations in the Middle East to develop a regional, internationally-sponsored peace and reconciliation process for Iraq."
Despite all the good intentions of these senators, this resolution graphically displays the poor understanding of this battle in this war. A perspective of the primary objective is accurately stated; however, the supposition that any political solution is possible without security and control of the ground is quite ludicrous. We all share the frustration with the administration's late and paltry attempt to gain control of the ground, but the sober reality remains without security there is no hope for a political solution. We moved too quickly to Iraqi self-governance . . . on a wing and a prayer. Now, we face a far more complicated situation on the ground. Any worthy solution depends upon security and that IS a military task. Then, the political solution can take root.

Just a little reminder from history seems appropriate at times like these. The democracy of this Grand Republic took five years of brutal war against a vastly superior power, 13 years of political struggle by the most generous standards, and 90 years as well as an extraordinarily bloody civil war by more reasonable criteria to achieve a genuine working democracy. Given recent debates on civil and fundamental rights, we have yet to attain a true democracy based on the founding principles that all citizens are created equal and that they possess certain inviolate rights -- 230 years after the Declaration of Independence. For the American People to expect better performance from the Iraqi people is just flat wrong and unrealistic for a host of reasons. So, the question comes, can we ever find the courage to see the distant horizon?

The Senate passed a sweeping ethics bill -- the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 [S.1] -- by a vote of 96-2. The two 'nay' votes came from Hatch and Coburn. The two missing votes were Johnson and Brownback. Tim Johnson had a legitimate excuse. Sam Brownback did not. While falling short of eliminating earmarks, the senators at least intend to illuminate the details of earmarks -- a positive move. The other content appears to have mixed consequences. We must watch this evolving story.

A strange episode took a demonstrable turn this week. Former U.S. Border Patrol agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos began extensive prison terms for shooting a known Mexican drug smuggler. I reserved my opinion and still do for one reason. There is much more to this sordid affair than we have been told by either side. Perhaps one day we shall know the rest of the story.

The cast of thousands announcing their candidacy for the presidency in the 2008 election continues to mount -- Guiliani, Edwards, McCain, Biden, Gingrich, Clinton, Romney, Richardson, et al. The one who inspires the most reaction, the most emotion, in me is Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, who made his public announcement in Topeka this week. Subscribers, readers and contributors to this forum know how I feel about this particular candidate. He seems quite comfortable wrapping himself in the mantle as public protector of family values. Dear ol’ Sam has the farthest intellectual distance to go, back to the middle ground, and I do not have much confidence in his ability to build the necessary bridges. I have had enough of the extremes. Family values like moral values are a matter of concern for families and perhaps an issue for public debate, but they are beyond the domain of government and public law. Sam Brownback is the poster-child for the moral projectionists. I remain quite wary.

In an extraordinarily rare occurrence, the captain-pilot of Continental Flight 1838 (B757) died, apparently of natural causes, shortly after takeoff from Houston George Bush Intercontinental Airport. The scheduled flight was bound for Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, with 210 passengers when the pilot lost consciousness. The first officer - co-pilot diverted to make an emergency landing at McAllen, Texas. The flight continued later in the day with a new crew.

I have no interest in wasting words, other than to acknowledge the execution by hanging of two of Saddam’s henchmen – Awad Hamad al-Bandar, former chief judge of the Revolutionary Court, and Saddam’s half-brother, Barzan Ibrahim El-Hasan al-Tikriti, former chief of the Mukhabarat, Saddam’s feared and notorious secret police. These proceeding were apparently conducted in a proper manner compared to Saddam's debacle . . . well . . . excluding the miscalculation in Barzan’s case.

Comments and contributions from Update no.266:
"I think the fellow who worked for the Defense Procurement complex is confirming something James Carroll has said in his excellent book, House of War - a basic history of the Pentagon. Carroll is the son of a FBI agent/turned General in the Pentagon and knows first hand the workings of the Pentagon. He fell out with his father during Vietnam and became a Jesuit priest against the war, but now has become a secular excellent historian. His take that our nation has evolved into a war machine not out of any sinister motive but out of the shear size and complexities and entanglements of defense and private connections seems accurate. It is interesting to have someone who has worked in that establishment and knows that no single Ahab can ever tame the unthinking Moby Dick behemoth, the MIC. His prediction that we will have to hit a brick wall before we come to grips with it could be avoided if more military experienced people such as yourself would create a critical mass, a tipping point as they say, away from the mindless and irrational wasting of treasure toward no purpose but war. No one, not even the wild eyed leftist peaceniks are opposed to protecting national security-but it should be clear that we have gotten ourselves on a train of no return, financially and morally. Weapon systems and their budgeting processes- when coupled with the lingo of patriotism and national security are self-sustaining and ever increasing in their reach to every corner of economic life. The problem is they produce nothing. We gain science and convenience in some areas, but our efforts seem misguided- with the funds we waste on killing implements, there could be wonderful infrastructure improvements- roads bridges, trains, airports, practical and realistic alternatives to crude oil as a transportation fuel- but instead we are bankrupting ourselves building and researching, essentially death machines. I am not articulating myself as clearly as I would like- I sound like a pacifist wimp- I am not- I just hope for a realistic and rational look at the real harm the military industrial complex, that indefinable, unmanageable, incomprehensible thing may be doing to all of - even those who work for it and in it. "
My reply:
The Pentagon and the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) are easy targets – always have been, always will be -- $900 hammers, $1500 toilet seats and all. Spending billions on infrastructure or societal advancement instead of on defense is a laudable objective. I wish it was possible. Certainly, if everyone respected their neighbors as they wish to be respected, we would not need a powerful army, a defense establishment, or even local police. Unfortunately, jealousy, envy, revenge and megalomania produce individuals and groups of people with nefarious intentions, who seek to impose, oppress and murder. As long as there are bad men in this world, I would prefer we have and maintain the most powerful military and police forces on the planet. Are their improvements and efficiencies to be made in the Pentagon and the Military-Industrial Complex? Absolutely! That is one aspect of Donald Rumsfeld’s tenure that I admired – his willingness and energy to extract those improvements. Further, improvements have been made. Today, DoD buys quite a bit of stuff off the shelf or nearly so. In the aircraft business, we used to rely on defense specifications as a control and acquisition device, like a standard. So many of the old defense specs are being voided, we now have to find alternative definitions for design and procurement communications. We can view the MIC as an evil, and yet, I respectfully submit in this case, the MIC is a necessary evil. For the record, I choose to view the MIC as a flawed but vital entity that can always stand some improvement.

Another contribution:
"The 'surge' of 20,000 boots is ridiculous and represents a lack of will by the administration to win the war. The President should demonstrate the courage of his convictions stated on 9/11, particularly when he is not up for reelection. I told a leader in trouble once to 'Never trade your backbone for a public opinion poll.' He did and failed a vote of confidence because of falling out of favor with people who wanted courage instead. The 'surge' hits me the same way. We must win the war on terrorism regardless of the will of the Iraqi people. It is our survival and freedom that is at stake in the end. If the Iraqis do not have the will to get it done, that should not deter us from doing so, wherever the terrorists are found. If they threaten our survival as a free nation, they must be stopped.
"I continue to be baffled at the lack of insight within the government about stem cell research. It is going on now, it will continue to go on, and the government is being myopic by not being a major player in it. It is foolish for our government to fail to protect the integrity of this important research. Vetoing it won't stop it. Time to get on board."
My response:
My opinion, for what it’s worth, continues to solidify. If the President and his political minions are not serious about winning the Battle of Iraq, I will say, let’s call the Battle of Iraq what it is – a Fiasco, as Tom Rick’s has labeled it – and withdraw our precious troops. A mere fraction of the necessary combat troops will not alter the outcome. I have no interest, desire or stomach for watching the good men and women of my children’s generation bleed, as our generation did, for the sake of parochial, selfish, introspective, Homeland partisan politics. However, mixed in with that opinion remains the persistent nightmare question, where will the American People find the strength to flight the next battle in the War on Islamic Fascism? To think of the Battle of Iraq as some isolated, independent episode is the ultimate in delusional folly. The voices of success and victory are rapidly narrowing to Senators McCain and Lieberman, and I fear they may soon be drowned out. And, since the apparent majority of our senators and representatives has come to the position of troop withdrawal, I say fine . . . get ‘er done! But, I want the associated question answered . . . where will the next, acceptable, battleground be? The Islamofascists will surely press their attack on our society, our infrastructure, our values, and on our will to persevere and survive. As such, I had better clean my weapons again, stock up on ammunition, and prepare to defend my home and family when these rabid skunks make their way to Kansas.
I am glad to have another voice in the choir supporting the Federal government’s participation in stem cell research. I trust you include embryonic stem cell research in your opinion. Unfortunately, we need a different president and administration to realize a more reasonable position for the government; this bunch is intransigent. Rather than waste valuable energy on a fruitless effort, we should abandon this administration and seek candidates for the next presidency who are better informed and realistic regarding stem cell research in general and embryonic stem cell research specifically.

Comments and contributions from Update no.265:
"Actually, the GOI did not follow their own rules, as far as I can tell. An important part of the process was the obtaining of signatures to documents by two very senior Iraqi ministers--they were not obtained. (Nobody wanted to sign them.) Also, executing Saddam on Eid (at least the Sunni Eid) is against the Iraqi constitution. The Iraqi government did a "work-around" but it was not solid. It could- and likely should - have been argued that there was not a proper, legal request. Washington was contacted for instructions and the U.S. authorities in Iraq were told to comply. Had we wanted to, we could have held off due to legal issues. That might not have solved everything, but at least he would not have been executed on Eid. The fiasco of Shi'a militia in the execution chamber likely would have happened anyway, with the present government.
"A major rationale for the somber and proper ritual surrounding an execution by the state is to underscore the power and might of the state. The prisoner about to be executed is to made to appear puny and weak, and the state strong, powerful and omnipotent. Saddam's execution was anything but, and in the context of Iraq, made the Sunni-Shi'a issue greater. The Sunni look upon this as a revenge killing, not a state execution. Instead of reinforcing the power of the (fledgling) state, it is having the opposite effect. Worse, it made Saddam look good in the eyes of the Arab world, an unimaginable feat."
My reply:
Good points on the folly of Saddam's execution. In this episode, we find the odd combination relationship between the United States and Iraq; we want to do enough, but we don't want to do too much. We walk a bleary, crooked line between right and wrong, between success and failure, and between what should have been and what was. As we say, it's OBE now. The evidence available to date suggests the al-Maliki government is not focused on unity, healing and reconciliation. The President set the stage and at least a glimpse of the criteria to judge the performance of the Iraqi government. If the government fails to neutralize al-Sadr and his Mahdi Militia as well as uniformly neutralize the wonton violence, then we will be faced with very difficult choices. Perhaps, they will get the message that our patience is wearing thin. We shall see.

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)

Update no.266

Update from the Heartland

No.266

8.1.07 – 14.1.07

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
I have updated my website in various places, mostly notably “My Writing” page to display my latest published work – The Encyclopedia of Media & Politics.
The complete notation is:
Schaefer, Todd M., and Thomas A. Birkland (eds.). The Encyclopedia of Media & Politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2007.
CQ Press is a division of Congressional Quarterly, Inc.
I backed into this project upon the recommendation of a friend. The project went through several evolutionary changes and presented me with a significant departure from my previous writing – a worthy challenge. I wrote 200 relevant biographies of which 149 were published in the reference volume. The items ranged from:
Arunah Shepherdson Abell to Mortimer Benjamin Zuckerman [alphabetically], and
John Peter Zenger (1697 – 1746) to Sidney S. Blumenthal (1948 - ) [chronologically].
I am also polishing the final draft of my third screenplay -- The Disappearance -- based on Philip Wylie's 1951 novel of the same name. I wanted to write this one for quite some time, and I am glad it is nearly done. I wrote it on speculation -- because I wanted to -- and, since we have not yet acquired the screenplay rights, this work may never see the light of day. Now, I need to finish "The Living Gift of Life" -- the founding history of the National Marrow Donor Program and the Marrow Foundation -- as well as my novel of a family's survival in the wintertime Rockies, "Apocalypse Endeavor." So many stories, never enough time.

Wednesday night, the President gave his much-anticipated, primetime speech on the Battle for Iraq. I thought George did a good job with the speech and the message. We have to admire his commitment, conviction and determination. While I like the President's intention to redouble our efforts to take the fight to the enemy, my concern remains insufficient combat troops on the ground to properly execute the plan. We must control the ground to give the political solution any chance for success. The tactic can be labeled "clear, hold and build." Unfortunately, the President’s plan depends upon the fundamental objectives and commitment of Prime Minister Nouri Kamel al-Maliki and his government. If we seek to win the Battle of Iraq, the military must secure and control the ground – the streets, the neighborhoods, the bridges, the borders – but, the diplomats must find the keys to helping the Iraqis overcome their parochial sectarian animosity toward those not like them. The naysayers are correct in the sense that the ultimate keystone of any solution rests with the Iraqis. They must want peace and stability more than they want revenge and retribution. I remain skeptical of the Iraqi will for peace. The President indirectly acknowledged as much and set the stage for closure if the Iraqis fail to heal the wounds of their society. The essence of any solution rests with the Iraqis. If they are unwilling to seek peace, then we must leave them to their bloodbath. The bottom line remains that the essential political solution has little prayer of succeeding without security on the ground. One last sad note: the chorus of the naysayers is deafening, making it almost too hard to think.

In a recent thread regarding homosexual rights, a contributor stated, “It is the means, not the end, where we differ. Otherwise we remain on the same side of rights.” We have argued various court rulings, the constitutionality of the Equal Protection Clause, a sliver of the public good related to the various aspects of the homosexual rights issue. Other than last week’s thread, we have not discussed “the means” by which non-heterosexual citizens realize equality and the same rights and privileges taken for granted by heterosexual citizens. Those who are discriminated against can choose to remain quiet and out of sight, and hope society obtains some sort of benevolent introspection and epiphany of generosity. That approach did not work so well for women's suffrage or racial integration. If non-heterosexuals do not confront society as other disadvantaged citizens have done, what stress could be applied to force the majority to examine the basis and content of their discrimination? What is the correct means to examine our societal discrimination against citizen, based on sexual orientation?

The continuing debate on embryonic stem cell research brings a new discovery of stem cells farther up the differentiation tree. Researchers at Wake Forest University School of Medicine and Children's Hospital of Boston coaxed a variety of mature cells from young free cells found in amniotic fluid. The discovery offers numerous cellular developments without jeopardizing the embryo. The Press reports suggest proper peer review, however most of us are outside the community; perhaps one of the medical doctors subscribing to this forum can provide more insight from within the medical/biological research community. Nonetheless, if true, the finding portends further advancement of stem cell research. All that said, we must take this news with some reserve. While farther up the differentiation tree approaching single cell division, these cells are not from the single cell divisions that are the beginnings of life. Embryonic stem cell research remains a vital element of our knowledge of the molecular activity that causes a cell to divide, replicating itself, and continues dividing into cellular branches that eventually lead to the broad variety of mature cells that define a mature human being or any other living creature. Progress continues. Let us not divert ourselves from the vital need for Federal funding and participation in embryonic stem cell research.

Comments and contributions from Update no.265:
"Did not see the Cooper broadcast. Wish I had. Any way to get to it in some kind of archives?
"I too support McConnell and Hayden for the positions mentioned.
"I agree with your differentiation between wars and battles, (with your examples).
"I'm surprised at Shalakashvili's making any type of public statement about gays in the military, but it's about time we took a more reasoned look at it. So good for him.
"Pelosi and Reid and their folks in the Congress on their sides of the aisle are going to give this country major pain, cause a lot of harm, and do other things not good for this country---in my opinion. Plus harm various aspects of our foreign policy directions. The 2008 election year is shaping up to be a major battle in the USA political arena. 2006 was a sad enough year in my opinion, because the Republican leadership just did not see, or possibly believe what they did see, about the way the winds of America were beginning to blow with vigor and determination to somehow do things differently. Staying the course was not then, and is not now, a viable option.
"I try to stay out of the discussions on stem cell research, not because I am against it---I'm not. I'm for it---in a closely controlled manner. Much good can come from this.
"I also pretty much stay away from discussions on gays themselves, or the various issues before many courts and in the written and spoken opinions of various people. I believe totally in equal protection under the law. How that concept is interpreted, either broadly or narrowly, is and will be an on-going thing in America; unfortunately, in my opinion, taking away substantial time, money, the efforts of many prominent people, including Congress, etc from other badly needed undertakings. There are needed solutions for Many problems in this country. I say as much as possible we should focus on Them.
"I pretty much stay out of politics too, as I can. Sometimes though, one just has to stand up and be heard. I don't like politics, and I don't like many if not Most politicians. Very few people aspiring to some political position actually mean what they say when they speak those very idealistic words about why they want to be the people's representative for this or that. And if they DO mean it at first, that idealism quickly fades away when they get into the realities of politics. The possibility of making a lot of money---even if legally---also attracts many who so aspire. As does the lure of real Power. A chance to right wrongs, do good things about this or that, fix problems, etc, gets too often kinda lost in the shuffles.
"Having said all that I hereby declare that I will not run, and if elected will not serve in Any political position on any level of government---this year or in any year in the future for the remainder of my life. Do I need to clarify that in any way?"
My response:
CNN.com should have a re-broadcast schedule and perhaps even a video archive; check their website . . . well worth the effort. Very well done program.
I think we were all surprised by General Shalikashvili’s remarks regarding gays in the military, and I certainly agree that it is time for a reexamination of females and homosexuals in the combat arms.
The next two U.S. political years are going to be ugly. And, if my suspicion comes to fruition, I would withdraw the troops. None of us are interested in keeping our men and women in the meat grinder of combat while caught between the partisan political wrangling of the Executive and Legislative branches. I do not see the 2006 election as some overwhelming mandate, as Nancy & Harry have claimed, but the results are sufficient to wreak havoc on the engaged military. We should have reacted with overwhelming force after the Golden Dome Mosque bombing in February 2006 [220], thus, I agree . . . staying the course died nearly a year ago.
I cannot stay out of the embryonic stem cell research debate – it is too important. I want it very closely controlled and I want the results publicly available to everyone for the widest possible benefit. That is precisely why the Federal government MUST be deeply involved and that means money -- he who gots the gold makes the rules.
There certainly are numerous issues facing the Nation – social security, homeland security, out-of-control Federal financial management, Federal corruption, campaign finance laws, border control, anonymous earmarks, immigration reform, et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseum. I truly wish the People would see the light and eliminate minority discrimination from the list, however, we are not so lucky. Too many citizens devote too little thought to make this issue right . . . so we continue the debate, and I seek more voices in the choir.
I most assuredly share your opinion of today’s politics and politicians in America. Unfortunately, the mobilized extremes hope and pray the moderate majority remains apathetic and complacent, so they can continue to dictate their agenda on everyone as the pendulum swings.

Another contribution:
"'Battle' is the operative word not 'war' in Iraq. WWII was not the war in France, Belgium, Italy, or Germany, but the war in Europe and the Pacific. But, most of our US citizens have bought into Iraq being the end all stand against terror. What a foolish position. This war will not end until the Islamofacists are killed without reservation. They will kill us given any chance to do so. I'd rather it be them so freedom is preserved.
"Stem cell research must continue and will continue with or without the government. Science will bring astounding cures to ill people. That is enough to continue and the government must be a part of it and not watch from sidelines. We need them in it. The high road is to get on board and lead progress to a better world."
My reply:
The Internet and instant world-wide communications between individuals is both an incredible blessing as well as a dreadful curse. Citizens have access to raw information as well as disinformation and outright falsehood. Making matters worse, we have too few citizens who can appreciate the difference between battle and war. I think you hit the nail squarely on the head regarding the assumptions by so many citizens as well as powerful politicians that the Battle for Iraq was or is some portion of the endgame. Further, a number of us cautioned everyone who would listen that the Battle of Iraq as part of the War of Islamic Fascism was likely to be a long duration affair [68-71] – it took six long years to subdue Germany in combat and another 20 years to realize peace. Some might argue the aftermath of the war with Germany took 45 years to conclude. This quick fix mentality that American society has developed cannot serve us well in the current war. Embryonic stem cell research will continue in the private sector, hidden from public view, and in those states inclined to participate, like California and Massachusetts. Whether the participating states insist upon public disclosure and peer review is yet to be seen. The current administration’s ostrich-approach is naïve, ill-informed and ultimately injurious to the public good. Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?
. . . with this follow-up:
"Agreed. Too many of our citizens did not heed President Bush's warning about how long it was going to take in 2001. Moreover, I am leery of research claims without peer review. It is required for science to move in the right direction. Without it we would still have idiots in Utah claiming to have made cold fusion. The time is now for government to join stem cell research."

My first comment to the Blog:
"There are good points in your article. I would like to supplement them with some information:
"I am a 2 tour Vietnam Veteran who recently retired after 36 years of working in the Defense Industrial Complex on many of the weapons systems being used by our forces as we speak.
"If you are interested in a view of the inside of the Pentagon procurement process from Vietnam to Iraq please check the posting at my blog entitled, “Odyssey of Armaments”<http://rosecoveredglasses.blogspot.com/2006/11/odyssey-of-armaments.html>
"The Pentagon is a giant, incredibly complex establishment, budgeted in excess of $500B per year. The Rumsfelds, the Administrations and the Congressmen come and go but the real machinery of policy and procurement keeps grinding away, presenting the politicos who arrive with detail and alternatives slanted to perpetuate itself.
"How can any newcomer, be he a President, a Congressman or even the new Sec. Def. Mr. Gates, understand such complexity, particularly if heretofore he has not had the clearance to get the full details?
"Answer- he can’t. Therefore he accepts the alternatives provided by the career establishment that never goes away and he hopes he makes the right choices. Or he is influenced by a lobbyist or two representing companies in his district or special interest groups.
"From a practical standpoint, policy and war decisions are made far below the levels of the talking heads who take the heat or the credit for the results.
"This situation is unfortunate but it is absolute fact. Take it from one who has been to war and worked in the establishment.
"This giant policy making and war machine will eventually come apart and have to be put back together to operate smaller, leaner and on less fuel. But that won’t happen until it hits a brick wall at high speed.
"We will then have to run a Volkswagen instead of a Caddy and get along somehow. We better start practicing now and get off our high horse. Our golden aura in the world is beginning to dull from arrogance."
My reply:
My Update from the Heartland is an open political and current events forum. Anyone is welcome to contribute.
I imagine there are a few subscribers/contributors who will be interested in your book. Your observations regarding the military-industrial complex are certainly consistent with my experience.

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)

Update no.265

Update from the Heartland

No.265

1.1.07 – 7.1.07

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
Whether you support the Battle for Iraq or not, I urge you to watch a CNN special report titled “Ambush at the River of Secrets,” broadcast on Andersen Cooper 360°, 2.January.2007. The story presents a saga, neither for nor against our involvement in Iraq, about the young men who do their duty in service to the Nation and freedom-loving people everywhere. While the entire story has emotional impact, the final segment brings the deep poignancy to a razor sharp point. A mother who had lost her son choked back her tears as she hoped that someday just one Iraqi citizen shakes her hand and says, thank you. A very powerful story and a must-see for all human beings who truly love peace and freedom. We are blessed to have such patriots.

What would we do in the United States if a cleric like Reverend Pat Robertson or Reverend Jesse Jackson led an armed militia of killing squads that terrorized Baptist citizens in various city neighborhoods? That was a rhetorical question. The FBI would infiltrate, develop the requisite body of evidence, put them on trial, convict them, and we would ensure the proper punishment was meted out. Why is Mullah Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr still allowed to spew his vitriol with impunity? Al-Sadr and his followers caused significant problems early on during the aftermath. An arrest warrant was issued for Muqtada by the Coalition Provisional Authority that was not executed. [141-4] As far as I know that warrant is still open. His militia continues to assassinate, murder and terrorize Iraqi Sunnis and rival factions, and worse yet they taunted a condemned dictator at what should have been a somber event. Clerics of all brands and variations are just human beings; they deserve no better or worse treatment than all the rest of us. Al-Sadr and his Mahdi Militia are not helping the cause of peace.

Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte abruptly resigned, to be nominated for the open position of deputy secretary of state . . . I suspect at the pleasure of the President . . . and was reported to be assigned the Iraqi diplomatic mission. While turmoil within the intelligence business is rarely good, especially in wartime, the appointment of Vice Admiral John Michael McConnell, USN (Ret.), former director of the National Security Agency (1992-6), bodes well for the transition. Director of the Central Intelligence Agency General Mike Hayden, USAF, [230] and Mike McConnell share several common elements in their intelligence careers, and hopefully, they can seriously raise the bar of cooperation between the various segments of the American national intelligence system for the collective good.

The 110th Congress has begun. First order of business, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told the President that "it is time to bring the war to a close." I would have respected the two congressional leaders just a little more if they used the word "battle" instead of "war." Their statement is comparable to Parliament demanding Prime Minister Churchill end the war after the Battle of France, or Congress demanding the same of President Roosevelt after the Battle of Corrigedor. As if the Battle for Iraq and the War on Islamic Fascism are not ugly enough, the political foundation is going to get much uglier, and more warriors are going to die. Senators McCain and Lieberman have the proper message. We now enter a very sad period of our history.

I see more than coincidence in the mounting number of occasions when politicians, the Press and individual citizens in opinion columns make statements about the lack of any medical treatments coming from embryonic stem cell research as some kind of rationale for prohibiting the specialty research entirely. The notion seems to be quite popular with those opposed to this particular area of biological research. The argument is pressed forward by noting all the treatments derived from adult stem cell research. Like the Human Genome Project, embryonic stem cell research is about the science, not about economic or medical return. Further, as with any scientific endeavor, unimaginable returns will come in time . . . maybe ten years, maybe several generations. Does the lack of immediate economic return mean we should not pursue high potential but long duration scientific research?

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John M. Shalikashvili, USA (Ret.) [1994-7] wrote a New York Times Op-Ed article, "Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military," that offers a reasoned, rationale, and yet incomplete argument for a more realistic policy toward homosexuals in military service. The general worked his way through the Clinton administration's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy compromise. I wanted to see more of his reasoning especially regarding some of the practical aspects associated with lifting the ban on homosexuals in the military. Hopefully, we will see more in the near future.

In Wednesday's "Best of the Web Today," James Taranto drew attention to haggling in the Massachusetts Legislature over a series of votes to put a marriage protection amendment before the voters in 2008. Taranto concluded his paragraph with, "The resistance in Massachusetts to putting same-sex marriage to any sort of democratic test only reinforces the perception that its proponents have contempt for the consent of the governed." The truly sad part of Taranto's argument can be reflected in the context of woman's suffrage at the turn of the last century or the racial civil rights struggle of 50 years ago. If the majority wishes to discriminate against a segment of the citizenry for what is predominately a private behavior, then it must be acceptable. It never ceases to amaze me how easy it is for a willful majority to deny "equal protection under the laws." This debate continues the historic demonstration of how slow and painful societal change is . . . equally sad.

News flash: no one has claimed a constitutional right to marriage -- same gender or otherwise. The only claim non-heterosexual citizens have made was to "equal protection of the laws" for all citizens regardless of any of the social factors -- age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation, language, or disability -- as guaranteed by the Constitution. Let us confine this debate to the facts and keep emotion out of the public intercourse.

Comments and contributions from Update no.264:
“Let's here it for Iraqi justice. They didn't wait 15 to 20 years to put Saddam to death, like we do with our scumbag death row inmates in this country. The UN, EU and NY Times may be upset Saddam has joined his two psychotic sons in the great beyond, but who gives a rat's ass what they think. Where was their outrage when those three wantonly murdered hundreds of thousands of their own people?
“I never in my life thought I'd say this, but I must give mucho props out to, of all people, Danny Bonaduce. The former Partridge kid was confronted by some numbnuts from a blog that accuses the U.S. of masterminding 9/11. Unlike other celebrities who parrot such bullcrap, Danny Boy lit into the guy. For a guy who's practically lived in rehab for the past 25 years, he made some damn good sense.
“Brittany Spears . . . oh my God I am so sick of hearing about her and Tomcat and Branjolina and all that other crap. I honestly cannot believe so many people are that interested in their lives. And the paparazzi make me want to vomit. Even celebrities are entitled to some privacy.”
My response:
You are not alone in your view of Saddam’s execution.
I had not heard of Danny Bonaduce’s interview, but I think you are quite correct in his crass expression of resentment of such ridiculous accusations . . . conspiracists gone wild.
I am certainly not a fan, proponent or supporter of Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, or any of the other untalented celebrities. And yet, I am an advocate for their right to privacy and the right to their pursuit of Happiness. I do not condone their actions, but I choose to ignore them. And, I publicly condemn those paparazzi parasites who feed off the weaknesses and impropriety of celebrities. If Britney feels better without panties, that should be her choice; she does not deserve having a camera jammed up her skirt no matter how much of a bimbo she might be.
On a related note, I am glad Angelina Jolie has the resources to adopt children around the world and fly off wherever she wishes to have a baby with Brad Pitt, but I see her actions as a very public indictment of our grossly fragmented, parochial, and grotesque adoption laws in the United States. I find it quite sad that we make adoption of children in need in this country so bloody difficult. But, that is how we are; we protect unworthy parents and make it nearly impossible to find homes for all innocent children with “worthy parents.” Such is life.

This contribution from another person:
"Bush Silences a Dangerous Witness" by Robert Parry (December 30, 2006)
<http://consortiumnews.com/2006/123006.html>
"Like a blue-blood version of a Mob family with global reach, the Bushes have eliminated one more key witness to the important historical events that led the U.S. military into a bloody stalemate in Iraq and pushed the Middle East to the brink of calamity."
My response:
Parry’s article reminds me of Yellow Journalism from a century ago – just enough facts to make it plausible. As with most human affairs, there are positives and negatives to every person and every situation; and, we always have choices to see what we wish to see.
I would quibble with numerous points in the Parry article, but that would only be my opinion. Let it suffice to say, I do not agree with the tone or content of the article. And yet, part of my thinking on the Saddam execution recognized that Saddam met his fate for one of his lesser crimes, but still sufficient to warrant execution for crimes against humanity. He was a mass murderer plain and simple. The U.S. relationship with Saddam Hussein spans every administration since Nixon, so singling out the Bush family hardly seems appropriate or fair. Nonetheless, the secrecy of the Bush 43 administration, while justifiable as a wartime measure, breeds suspicion especially after the debacle of the Nixon insults . . . and I did mean plural. All that said, the weakest part of Parry’s argument rest in the notion that Saddam might have or could have been compelled to spill his guts on the table for all to see; our inherent compassion as a society prevents us from compelling a man like Saddam to talk. Bottom line for me: I am glad we are rid of him; he met a far more humane fate than did the majority of his victims.
. . . with this follow-up:
"I think Parry was referring to Saddam talking in a court of law, not being tortured as we are now doing to prisoners that we interrogate. Thanks for reading the article, and I respectfully disagree with your take. I think the Yellow Journalism comment is really off the mark. Are you in favor of Bush going with the Keane/Kagan approach to the Iraq war, 30,000 or so more troops? If so doesn't this just prolong it so he can dump it on the next admin and say they lost it, not him?"
. . . and my follow-up response:
I’m sure Parry meant that as well, however I would have had no confidence Saddam would have admitted his culpability in court any more so than he did in public. In his trial, he was given far too much leniency in making ‘speeches,’ far beyond anything a U.S. judge would have tolerated. Further, I have no interest in giving Saddam another political stage from which to spew his vitriol. Anyway, the deed is done.
I appreciate your rejection of my Yellow Journalism comparison; we shall respectfully disagree.
No, I am not in favor of the Keane/Kagan approach . . . like a bucket of water on a conflagration. I am advocating 10 to 20 times that number of ground combat troops with a mission to secure and CONTROL the ground including the borders, along with a rather ruthless marital law in appropriate areas and cities.
Regardless, I too have doubts about our will to truly win the Battle of Iraq. And, if we truly do not have the will to win, then I fully support withdrawing our troops and leaving the Iraqis to bleed until they sort out their situation. My generation endured the bloodletting when the American People and the political establishment lost the will to win a fight; I have no interest in repeating that lesson ever again, and yet, here we are.
. . . and another round:
"I think Parry meant in future trials that might have been possible outside the Shiite controlled Occupation overseen trials that did occur. The business associations Saddam had with prominent Americans and the encouraging of his war with Iran and invasion of Kuwait will remain un-reviewed due to his demise. It was as Parry says a pretty good way to avoid some serious questioning. I think an international court would have been the place to have this done. You seem stuck in the mind-fog that Vietnam was a good war, and that perhaps this war is, or could have been a good war. With all due respect to your military background- I have not served in the military- I got a teaching deferment in 1971-I think the political lies (Gulf of Tonkin, Powell's embarrassment before the UN) were as responsible for these wars as any real patriotism or national security interest. The military industrial complex is a whale that no leader has been able to tame. It is a non-thinking force critical, now, to our economy, but in the end a force that will bankrupt us if we don't change ourselves from war-making, weapon building, non-productive foreign financed shortsightedness. I know how you feel about Islamofascism, or whatever you call it, but it is just another -ism like communism to justify our war machine. I love this country for what it could be- and what it stands for- not the war machine it has grown into since the Pentagon took over. The Battle of Iraq was an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, and those who fooled us into it should be held accountable. That is the American way."
. . . along with my reply:
Here is an odd thought for your critical cogitation. In a different thread, the question of perception and perspective became essential factors in the debate. I have long held the view that in our many choices in life, we have the opportunity to see the positive and/or the negative in any person or situation. So it seems to be here. We choose to see that which we wish to see.
I make no excuse for and offer no defense of Dwight Eisenhower’s illuminated military-industrial complex. But, I do know more than a few generals/admirals and a few politicians. They are men of integrity and conviction, and not particularly prone to capricious or avarice conduct. Further, they are of my generation and lived the consequences of Vietnam. To suggest these men took us to war to feed the military-industrial complex is fundamentally wrong and does extraordinary disservice to these honorable leaders.
For the record, those of us who served the Nation during the Vietnam years know quite well the failure. The purpose was noble, if perhaps naïve. The men and women who fought that war were committed to the noble purpose . . . at least the citizens I knew . . . excluding the Hollywood exaggerated proliferation of druggies and miscreants. As I have written numerous times, the military fought valiantly despite the shackles, gags, and blinders imposed by politicians half a world away. The military was abused, and we did not like. I do not see the same or even remotely similar factors in today’s conflict.
That said, the oddity in this debate is the negative view of the American purpose in contrast to the sanctity of Saddam’s Iraq. I have been and remain critical of the administration’s hobbles placed on the military and the apparent narrow path for execution of the plan. I could construct excuses, but I am but a single citizen who is not in the corridors of power; so, perhaps my opinion is irrelevant. However, I must object to the accusation of illegality in the Battle for Iraq. To do so discounts or negates the body of evidence as to Saddam’s culpability, his crimes against humanity, and his very real threat to the United States of America. I am not suggesting that Saddam is the modern day version of Adolf Hitler or Hideki Tojo, but he was comparably evil and threatening; he just chose to do his evil deeds via alternative means. Forgive me, but I am still not seeing the illegality ascribed to the Battle for Iraq.
. . . and this final round:
"Even the guys being charged of various crimes- murder, rape- (in the heat of warfare) I do not blame as much as the people who sent them over there- and that is where we differ-I do think the war was illegal- not simply because the UN and Kofi Anan said it- but because there was no reason- no threat to our national security- and especially no threat from the reasons given at the time- WMD, 911, etc. If I could come to that conclusion from the open source reading that was available to me at the time- 2002- I can not fathom how wise Congressmen could justify giving the carte blanche to Bush that they did. It was a travesty of American principles- in my mind. The only comparisons in history that are actually close are the invasion of Poland and the invasion of Kuwait. Not very good company- but I say this meaning to show how much contempt I hold for this admin and its war mongers- all chicken hawks- neocons-and I think un-American. I believe you feel that the threat was real. That is where we disagree. You are thinking that had we not acted then we would have had to act later and it would have been even tougher. I respect that opinion- but I disagree. - I am of the perception that the Gulf of Tonkin was a fabrication to justify a war in the East- to show force in the Cold War- The men and women who fought the war are not to be blamed- it is the old men in suits who send the young men to the "glory" of war that I disparage- The Lyndon Johnsons, the Dick Cheneys- not the soldiers. I don't think the American purpose in Iraq was noble. I think there has been an attempt to spin the effort and justify the sacrifice after not finding WMD by those who are responsible. We had inspectors there- Bush gave them 48 hours to get out before he was going to start bombing. We could have avoided this travesty. Now we have emboldened Iran. We have weakened our military. We have turned Iraq into a place that even our Iraqi friends wish Saddam was back in charge. Assuming the invasion was wrong- that it broke international laws, treaties, UN resolutions- doesn't that make the war a crime? We have allowed ourselves to stoop to disregarding habeas corpus- using torture, and I understand Bush has even given himself the right to read our mail-these things are what we fought wars in the past to stop. We fought totalitarian regimes to protect what we perceived as threats to our principles- our constitutional protections. If our leaders had said give us your sons and daughters to sacrifice in a cause to remove the evil dictator Saddam Hussein, would anyone have gone along? If they had said let us sacrifice our youth and treasure in an effort to control the largest deposits of oil on the earth, would anybody have gone along? Instead they said the evil dictator has the nukes and the mushroom clouds are on their way- so give up your money and your children to save our way of life. It worked- and it was a lie. I believe many at the highest levels knew it was a lie. They could not persuade the American people with debate and reason and facts, the foundations of a democracy, so they - Bush, Cheney, Rice, Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz, and even Rumsfeld- had to use fear and hype. I am not hopeful that the Democrats are going to honor the electorate's mandate. I also think they may give in to Bush's bandaid- buying time to hand this mess over to another administration to blame for the loss. I agree with you that most men and women in uniform are noble people doing their duty and serving their country. Because this is America- because this is the land of the free and the home of the brave- it is everyman's duty to speak his mind- question his government- accuse his leaders of subterfuge, illegality, and contempt for our Constitution- Only Congress can declare war- if that is the way he sees it. To do any less would be un-American. It was Unconstitutional for Congress to vote away its power and put it in the hands of a single spoiled rich frat boy. Now we are paying the price. Please take no offense at my disagreement with you about the war- and I trust you know I mean no ill to our sons and daughters fathers and brothers, aunts and uncles, nephews and nieces who are bearing the brunt of this mistaken bush policy."
. . . and my response to this round:
Disagreement, debate, and compromise are the essence of democracy.
First, I know of no warrior who seeks to glorify war – quite the contrary actually. And yet, we who are of the warrior class do seek to glorify the warriors who stand in harm’s way in selfless service to this Grand Republic. Please do not confuse honoring the warriors with celebrating war. Every warrior will tell you that war is an ugly, nasty, disgusting business – best avoided if possible – but, what the warriors do is of the noblest endeavors.
You asked:
“Assuming the invasion was wrong – that it broke international laws, treaties, UN resolutions – doesn't that make the war a crime?”
Perhaps the question was rhetorical, as it is fraught with a myriad of presumptions. And yet, I cannot resist the urge to respond. This is one of those situations where I am left with a strong perception-perspective impression that somehow Iraq’s sovereignty is sacrosanct and the United States’ sovereignty is not. I can understand the confusion; this is not a war of armies or conventional battlefields. Concomitantly, Article 51 of the UN Charter clearly states that any nation has the right to defend itself. I continue to ask, what law – national, international or otherwise – has the United States and our Allies violated? The War Powers acts were constitutional – precisely in accordance with the Constitution; they were not far enough in my opinion. However, the President acted appropriately within the powers authorized by the Congress; that’s the way it is suppose to work.
I have joined you in being critical of the administration, Congress, and many others regarding the prosecution of this battle, but from a different perspective. Bush 43 should have sought a full declaration of war [but we’ve discussed the pitfalls there], should have recognized the inherent weakness in the aftermath portion of the plan, and should have done a better job of preparing the People for this battle and this war. Hindsight may eventually tell us we made a grave mistake in Iraq, but I respectfully submit, criticism should be in the prosecution, not the objective or mission. As I have said before, if I had to pick a battleground upon which to fight the War on Islamic Fascism, Iraq was it for a host of reasons.
One factor often overlooked in the War on Islamic Fascism remains the nature of our enemy. We are not fighting Iraq, Afghanistan or even al-Qaeda. We are fighting a broader class of Saudi Wahabists, Egyptian fundamentalists, mad clerics everywhere including the United States, Iranian agents, jihadistanis, and other radicals who share one common element – fascism, the domination of Islam over all people. Their brand of fascism is no different from the versions proclaimed by Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Hideki Tojo, Benito Mussolini, and all the other megalomaniacal madmen throughout history. The driving force behind radical Islamic fascism is centered upon religious beliefs rather than geography or political objectives. All brands seek the same thing – imposition of their rules, their beliefs, and their vision of life as they wish it to be.
We fight an enemy who has chosen to hide in the shadows, to hide their faces like cowards, to kill as many innocent people as possible with the tools of terror, to use innocent, peace-loving people to protect their dastardly deeds. They use the open communications of democracy and the financial networks of international commerce to further their violent objectives. This is not a conventional war; this is about as unconventional as wars can get.
I wish the President had done a better job explaining these things to the People, but alas, it is what it is. His failures and weaknesses do not alter the context of the war or our objectives. And, I believe we would have done a better job with more ‘constructive’ criticism rather than the selfishness of partisan political rancor.

The last contribution from last week's Update:
“A couple of other thoughts on the Episcopal Church in Virginia. It wasn't just the gay bishop, but also women in senior positions in the Church. When they first ordained a woman, this caused a number of parishioners from Trouro to leave and form their own congregation. Strong feelings about women in senior church positions, much less the clergy, combined with concerns over gays in the church have been the cause of strong concern by ultra-conservatives. There appears to be more to their agenda, but these issues were seized upon to create a crisis.”
My reply:
Truth be said, they are entitled to define their church however they see fit. I just find it sad when people become so bloody parochial -- sad, very sad. C'est la vie.

A continuation from Update no.263:
"I'm not a proponent of violating the law ever, unless, of course, that violation brings the law into court for review if the law is wrong. In the case of behavior versus public view, when we behave in public, we subject ourselves to public judgment and all the consequences that emerge. Enforcement of laws is the rule of law. I'm always bothered by who is deciding what is in the public good. Regardless, the germane concept is for people to know that what they do in public is going to be judged with consequences as well as what they do in private is their own business."
My response:
Here, here! I am an absolute supporter of the rule of law, without it we would have anarchy, chaos, and simple survival of the fittest. And yet, we have a fraction, in some cases a majority, of our citizenry who seek to use the instruments of State (the law) to project their moral values into the private lives of every citizen, and to impose their will upon anyone and everyone who does not ascribe to their views. That is not the Grand Republic envisioned by the Founders who risked everything including their lives and the lives of their families to establish a nation for every citizen to realize their vision of Life, Liberty and their pursuit of Happiness. As you note, I continue to struggle with the boundary between the public and private domains, and with the definition of the public good. I do not object to any citizen judging me as unworthy because of any of the social factors, but I shall vehemently resist any attempt by another citizen to dictate how I should live my private life or behave in public when there is no harm to the public good.
In the exchanges of last week, you said, “The gay debate is fraught with danger.” Would you be so kind to expand on this thought? What is the danger? What is the threat to the public good?
. . . with this follow-up:
"Like you I am also suspicious of anyone using their moral standard to regulate my private life and will resist any attempts to do so. The gay debate being fraught with danger centers around who is debating and where. For gays to be left alone in this current social climate, privacy in their behavior is the most useful solution to live their lives as they choose without interference even when they do not enjoy all the rights and privileges of married couples. The point is they can still live their private lives. When behavior becomes public, judgments emerge as well as interference from those who would regulate their lives. While the public good is always served having a debate, the other side of the coin is that gays are exposed when they participate in the debate or attempt to seek universal approval for their behavior from those who disapprove. I can imagine that is a frustrating dilemma for gays as it would be for anyone faced with making their lives more public and, unfortunately, more difficult at the same time. For a new law to take hold socially, the time frame is long and arduous. I suspect that is why "don't ask, don't tell" is the best gays can hope for in the military in this lifetime. In effect, you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Participate publicly in the behavior and debate, risk the condemnation of those who disapprove in one form or another, legally and/or socially. Maintain private behavior and don't participate, live your life the way you wish but risk leaving your legal and social fate in the hands of others. Fraught with danger..."
. . . with my follow-up response:
Yes, there is danger, as Matthew Shepard learned the hard way. And, of course, you are correct; those who are different from societal norms attract the condemnation and retribution of the majority who seek the normality of everyone as affirmation of their values. I was not smart enough, courageous enough, or perceptive enough in the 1950’s and 60’s to add my voice to those daring to demand equal treatment and an end to discrimination simply because of the pigmentation some of us were born with in our skin. We should all ask, how would I feel if I was a homosexual? How would I feel if I could not enjoy the simple privileges of a contractual relationship with the person I love simply because s/he happens to be of the same gender? Since the public voice of homosexuals is fraught with danger, we must all speak out for the disadvantages, the underprivileged, and indeed in some cases, the oppressed. Thus, to the self-proclaimed ‘strict constructionists’ like Antonin the Impaler and his ilk, I stretch the Equal Protection Clause to the strict interpretation of the English language in the 14th Amendment as written and beyond the judicial constraints retrospectively applied by those who seek to deny equal protection to those who have different choices for bedmates or life partners. I see this issue in very clear terms, and while the circumstances are different, the consequences are the same as those faced by citizens of color but a few decades ago. So, yes, you are precisely correct; homosexuals risk violating the law and the condemnation of society for daring to demand the same rights and privileges of citizenship afforded heterosexual citizens. If they don’t speak up and stand up, who will? I am one who has chosen to not stand in the shadows as I did during the fight for racial equality 50 years ago. Perhaps naïvely, I hope to convince others by my words to add their voices to the small choir, and let us correct this indignity and this wrong.
. . . and another round:
"Agreed. Here's one more thought coming from a realist. No law will ever eliminate bias and prejudice nor will a law change minds for most people as history teaches us. Besides, the strength of the debate is enhanced when good people like you and this blog bring it to the forefront, not from those who may suffer more because of doing so. Racial prejudice is alive and well in the world and so it is with religious, ethnic, and sexual differences among others. Expecting a public outcry of support for homosexual rights may be naive, but I'm glad you do not stand in the shadows and continue to produce a forum for all of us to speak out. The world may or may not change regarding their acceptance and rights in our lifetime, but they can still choose to live in peace together privately, regardless of what others think. Such is the nature of being free to choose in a free society. Let's hope we stay free."
. . . and my response:
A few follow-up points:
1. I have not heard any homosexual asking for any new law . . . to protect them or otherwise. My opinion: homosexuals just want to enjoy life as everyone else does; they do not want the law to discriminate against them or deny them rights and privileges available to heterosexuals. It is just that simple. They do not seek affirmative action, just equal protection under the laws – the same as all other citizens expect and enjoy.
2. Homosexuals are no different than heterosexuals; they just want to live their lives in peace, and prosper. In the ordinary routine of life, homosexuals live their lives quietly and unobtrusively, but then they are confronted from time to time with the simple privileges denied them – visitation, inheritance, children, family night, and so many other little elements of life. Heterosexuals simply do not see the discrimination felt by homosexuals, largely the little privileges they enjoy every day are taken for granted.
3. Homosexuals are just ordinary people like all the rest of us, who want to be recognized for their performance, their contributions to society, and appreciated for who they are. They know some folks despise and resent who they are; they are not asking for acceptance – just tolerance. They are asking for nothing special – just equality.
4. As you note, bias, bigotry, discrimination and prejudice will not go away. People are taught to condemn those who do not embrace their values, who are not like them. So be it. I have no problem with the bigotry, hatred and prejudice people are taught to hold in their hearts. Where the bigots cross the line is when they seek laws and the employment of the instruments of State to project their bigotry on others who do not share their values, which returns us to the definitions of the boundary between private and public domains, and of the public good.
We have a long way to go. The journey continues . . . one small step at a time.
. . . the thread continues:
“My thoughts on your points are:
“1. Homosexuals are asking for marriage laws to be enacted in their favor as noted in the news. The opposite is occurring across the country in many states. Right or wrong, that's the rub for many people.
“2. Homosexuals are different from most people just as is any minority. To ignore differences contributes to the lack of tolerance in my view. Recognize differences and find a way to work together is a functional way to move forward. Ignoring them has never worked in my experience. Recognizing them does not demean either party - on the contrary, it emboldens both, celebrates both, and encourages finding common ground. Demands for tolerance and agreement won't work.
“3. Homosexuals who parade their behavior in public demanding acceptance is what prompted my original response in the first place. Tolerance for private behavior is available to all and practiced by most. Tolerance and lifestyle agreement are not the same. What is needed is time to see if the rights issue is going to change. It may not.
“4. The jamming of values down the throats of others spans many issues over many people. The majority may always have the upper hand, but private lives can flourish regardless in a free society.
“In effect, screams for tolerance are less effective than time and respect for our differences.
“The debate rages on and keep up the good fight...”
. . . along with my response:
I'm afraid we shall respectfully disagree. I do not think homosexuals want new laws enacted. I think all they want is the current laws neutralized and discrimination against them removed. These marriage amendments are just the current version of Jim Crow laws, passed in the name of protecting marriage and family values, but for only one true purpose – to segregate and isolate homosexuals. I do not think homosexuals are demanding acceptance, only tolerance and equal treatment. I think if you asked homosexuals you would find them to be compassionate, tolerant, and respectful of the values, mores and beliefs of citizens who do not like them or accept them. I also think you would find them to be far more tolerant and respectful of heterosexuals than the other way around. And, no, homosexuals are not different; no more so than people of different ages, or different skin pigmentation, or different hair color, or different languages, are different. One thing I have learned in all my travels, to Japan, to the Soviet Union, to the Philippines, to Germany, Great Britain, France, China, Italy, and all the other countries where I have visited and lived in my life -- people are all the same. They share 99.99% of exactly the same DNA sequences. They all have exactly the same parts, indistinguishable on the inside, and differentiated only by gender. And, from my observation, they also share the same life desires -- they want to live in peace, to prosper, to be happy, and to have their children grow up to have a better life than they had. Homosexuals are not different – they are you and me – and, they deserved to be treated fairly and respectfully, as we wish to be treated. Homosexuals have made extraordinary contributions to the betterment of mankind, just as heterosexuals have; they deserve the recognition for their performance, for their contributions, not for whom they choose to enjoy sexual pleasures with.
. . . another thought:
"Sanctimony has no place in our colloquy. Moral high ground includes tolerance for all views, even mine when correctly interpreted. And as I always say, screams for tolerance from the manifestly intolerant make me deaf."
. . . and my thoughts:
I had no intension whatsoever to be sanctimonious, aloof, separatist, or anything else other than as an exchange of political opinions. Further, I suspect any attempt to explain my choice of words would be counterproductive and off the mark anyway.
My general objective in this particular topic is quite simple – homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, et cetera, are just human beings who feel different attractions and relationship needs than heterosexuals. I have felt for some time that if we could just see homosexuals in human terms, we might be able to see the equal protection argument just a little more easily.
. . . and the last round of this thread in this Update edition:
“As I review the thread, I conclude that our compassion for people is much the same. I want equal protection as do you. But, I see the cure being time, not demands or laws that people will not follow until time passes. But that does not diminish people like you from taking the debate up front to speed it up and am encouraged when you do. Regardless, I find common ground emerges when differences are recognized and resolved, not denied. “We both want the same thing - equality for all. How we get there is at issue?”
. . . the last of my thoughts for this edition:
Perhaps we are only talking about the means rather than the objective. I wish that was true for all of our society. Unfortunately, I do not believe that is the case. An overwhelming majority in numerous states have been led us to believe this is about marriage and the future of the American family, when the reality is, they think homosexuals are deviant, miscreants who deserve condemnation and ostracism. We should explore this aspect of the issue more, but that will have to wait. I need to get this Update in the can.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)