Community Perspective
Patriotic ‘Winter Soldiers’ share their tales of war
Published Sunday, March 23, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!It’s hard for me to imagine being in the military. Impossible, of course, to do so accurately — but I try.
Iraq Veterans Against the War has given me much to consider when I do. Last weekend, March 13-16, IVAW hosted an incredibly powerful event, though major media virtually ignored their efforts. Hundreds of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans gathered to share uncensored accounts of the occupations.
While stories of the corporate profiteering, shoddy living conditions, sexual assault and a lack of health care (especially mental health care) for troops were distressing, the testimony regarding the dehumanization of Iraqis and the rules of engagement, such as they were, was most painful.
During several hours of testimony, veteran and active duty soldiers of the armed forces described war atrocities they had witnessed and committed during their deployments. With sorrow and remorse, they gave examples and explained that there was no time to really describe the regularity of cruel and counterproductive situations they had experienced.
The leap from “identify your target,” as these kids learned in boot camp, to “shoot first and ask questions later” doesn’t take long once you’ve been fired on a few times, maybe losing a good friend in the process. As I understand it, war terrifies (terrorizes) soldiers, and they do what they have to do to keep themselves and their buddies alive. Shoot first and ask questions later. Who wouldn’t? But it wasn’t all reflex — there were many examples of “shoot anything that moves” orders coming down from above.
Dehumanizing the enemy is a necessary part of war, and, inevitably, racism becomes the tool — which makes for very confused and angry soldiers struggling against insurgents who live among, and are supported by, the civilian population the soldiers came to help.
I try to imagine going over to liberate Iraqis and help them recover from 30 years of dictatorship, but coming to find none of the expectations to hold, none of the rhetoric to be true and none of my commanders able to provide clear rules of engagement.
One man described the single clear rule of engagement he received: Anyone out after curfew was to be considered an enemy and “engaged” (fired upon with deadly force). His unit spotted two farmers out in a field after curfew. Though the commanding officer knew the men had no choice but to work whenever they had electricity to run the irrigation pumps and that this only occurred for a few hours during curfew, the men were killed. I cannot imagine the disillusionment of that moment, the fury and heartache I would feel.
I cannot imagine guarding staged pro-coalition demonstrations, being expected to secure several hundred kilometers of border with 40 soldiers, raiding and ravaging homes to find crying children and no weapons — and arresting all the men between 17 and 40 years old anyway — or “lighting up” a car that was approaching too fast, only to find the charred remains of an unarmed family. All this in constant fear, frustration and 100-degree heat.
Listening to the IVAW testimony did not ease my sadness for the pain and suffering of this war, not at all, but it did give me some hope. This is the most important resistance since the war became “inevitable” back in 2002.
These heroic patriots, these Winter Soldiers who are “fighting for the soul of our country,” gave testimony that would stop the war — if Americans heard it.
The first Winter Soldier event convened in 1971 and was also ignored by mainstream media, but the GI resistance it helped promote ended the Vietnam War — not that your history books would ever say so. The failure to win that unwinnable nightmare has been blamed on the peaceniks, the chicken-hearted liberals who didn’t support the troops. The truth is, the soldiers quit fighting in great enough numbers that to carry on was not possible (http://www.sirnosir.org).
Such mutiny seems less likely with an all “volunteer” force, but these brave young men and women did not actually sign up to pillage and plunder a nation that posed no threat to the US. They are starting to recognize and resist their devastating and illegal assignments in ever greater numbers. They give me hope. Visit www.ivaw.org to listen to testimony and support these heroic Americans.
Anna Godduhn is the coordinator of the UA Fairbanks Coalition for Peace and Justice.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
What the "Winter Soldiers" (oh these "patriots" - fighting for the soul of our country...)have to say is not in any way indicative of the majority of our armed forces or our government. Many of the scenarios presented above are not atrocities to begin with and there is much more to the story than is being presented here. I hope that the News Miner follows up with a less emotional and more factual community perspective in the future.
All readers are invited to contribute community perspectives and letters to the editor, DVM. Unfortunately, space doesn't permit us to print all of them in the paper, but send an email to the managing editor, and get the ball rolling.
Thank you Mr. Brooks. I wasn't aware of that.
Dana VanDam:
What makes you an expert on what is indicative of the majority of our armed forces or our government? Also what is a community perspective? The author can't write her ideas and interpretations of the actions of the Winter Soldiers as a member of your community?
AKNATUFF:
You are obviously a bigot as you attempted to insinuate similarities between Osama and Barack Obama where the only similarity is that their names rhyme, and neither are white. So honestly everything else you said really isn't worth replying to and your comment is fit for removal.
Thank you for the write up Anna.
Urban_Spaceman - She is allowed her perspective. Obviously. It is not fact - it is opinion. I saw not one single fact presented above. I do not claim to be an expert on the armed forces, but just as I know bad people who do not follow the rules exist in civilian society, the murderer or child molester is not indicative of the rest of society. I'm sorry that you seem to have a nastier view on our honorable service-members. I know any number of soldiers - they are all honorable. To suggest otherwise on the statements, with no corresponding PROOF, of a small portion of possible soldiers (IVAW has had at least ONE liar that was trusted by the group. No, that one out of 800ish is a liar is not indicative that the entire group is liars...you see my point?).
I will NOT believe that the majority of our armed forces commit atrocities or break the rules that they are bound by until someone provides me with something other than emotionally charged rhetoric with an agenda. My agenda is solely to stand up and SUPPORT THE TROOPS. It is not supportive to call them names and accuse them of atrocities with no proof no matter how many times I someone says it is.
Not one word of what Anna Godduhn had to say had proof. I read not one atrocity in her emotional appeal above. An atrocity is a rape room. An atrocity is a blood-filled torture room. An atrocity is in the mass-filled graves. These are atrocities. I see skewed perspective in the "community" perspective above, and I do not thank Anna for it. But, many a SERVICEMAN has died for her right to do it, so I would not in good conscience remove it - but I can certainly call it what it is.
Thanks for your writing, Anna.
In every war there is the official (often cleansed) version of events. And then there's the version from the grunts and pilots.
Even in the comparison of the pilots' and grunts' accounts, it's quick to reveal that different groups/individuals have differing experiences.
To assume that no attrocities are committed in war time is to assume that the Easter Bunny and Santa really brought all of those eggs and presents.
The military should only be used when our national security is at risk. Most folks who really know much about the various forces and capacities in the Middle East as of 2003, know whether that threshhold was met sufficiently or not. The rest is fluff.
The boys watching NVA and VC POWs in Saigon weren't necessarily writing the same story as Tiger Force was in the highlands. More often than not, two different histories.
Take care, and peace to you..
Anna, you should hang around more infantry types. Many people do join to pillage, plunder, and yes, kill people and break their things. After the fight, maybe different feelings on the matter.
"We sleep peacefully in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to violence on our bahalf."
Dana VanDam:
What nasty view? I didn't even talk about our serviceman... Did you even watch the Winter Soldier videos? Most of the speakers said they cannot fault their fellow serviceman and "best friends" for actions they took in Iraq but instead fault being in the wrong place at the wrong time. (Some did fault themselves and felt it necessary to apologize, which in my eyes is very "honorable" and oftentimes difficult).
So what I am trying to explain to you is that neither Anna nor the Winter Soldiers are arguing that themselves nor their fellow servicemen are unpatriotic or bad people. But that because they are in a the wrong place at the wrong time for the wrong reasons (our current administrations fault), they are forced to make terrible decisions and sometimes mistakes to save their lives and their friends lives. Is this so hard to understand? They are speaking out because they want to see their friends and fellow servicemen come home.
Watch the videos, these are sad and sometimes angry veterans who have every right to be.
AKNATUFF:
I don't even understand how you are arguing. I was attacking your Obama/Osama comparison because I am not racist, pointing out that it is unjust to compare them as they have basically no similarities. How is that racist? I voted for Obama in the primaries.. Don't twist my words. If you want to argue that Obama and Osama are similar at least provide some facts.
Also sorry for calling you a bigot if you are in fact not one, that was presumptuous on my part.
Spaceman - I disagree with the entire premise that the war is "in the wrong place at the wrong time". I understand completely Anna's and the "Winter Soldier's" argument, I have listened to the soldiers and my earlier assessment stands, no matter how much you attempt to "explain" it to me. If you, or Anna, or the Winter Soldiers can present me with a factual basis for their claims of atrocities (pictures, videotape, soundtrack?), then I will be more than willing to consider them and perhaps generalize their view of atrocities to the entire armed forces. At this point, that has not happened. The piece that Anna wrote suggested a number of "atrocities" and not a one of them can be considered such.
Tell me please. You sound like a reasonable, and well-spoken individual. What above is an atrocity? Why, when the few may consider their actions to be atrocious, does that then become indicative of our armed forces? That is what I would like to know. IVAW has over 800 members. There are roughly 140,000 in Iraq - by my math (math is not my strong suit, feel free to correct), this is less than 1% (@1000, it is .007% of the total deployed to begin with. Why should I take their word as gospel, applying atrocities to their brother and sister soldiers when there are many others with a different view (I think Dirk summed it up rather well above)?
Here's a thought. How do you think it feels for the soldier from Fairbanks who is in Iraq, the soldier that has done nothing wrong, the soldier that believes in the job that s/he is doing, to log in to their home newspaper to find something like this to read, directing them to go to the ivaw website that encourages them to disobey orders. A piece that says "[t]hese heroic patriots, these Winter Soldiers who are 'fighting for the soul of our country,' gave testimony that would stop the war — if Americans heard it." Do you think that this type of perspective gives that soldier the desire to fight harder for the cause s/he believes in? Or do you think perhaps, his or her hopes fall a little bit, his or her spirits sink, and his or her guard falls a little bit, as s/he recognizes that the job that is being done isn't good enough, isn't right enough - indeed - they are fighting for the "wrong war at the wrong time"...?
Then, the enemy sees and hears these same types of pieces. Does that make that enemy LESS likely to hunt down a soldier and commit REAL atrocities? Or does it embolden him or her? After all, the American people support his or her quest, not the troop sent to destroy him.
And maybe that little bit of spirit loss in the soldier and that little bit of spirit gained by the enemy is enough to ensure that THAT soldier doesn't come home again. Now. Does that sound patriotic to you? Does that sound supportive of the troops to you? It sure doesn't to me. I care more about our troops than that.
DVD,
My comment comparing the Saigon-based guards' experiences and deeds to the Highland-based Tiger Force was that while there were U.S. Forces in both places, the litany of misdeeds committed by Tiger Force (out of sight of the folks back home, and including the allegations of crimes by CO's), were a much different picture than what some other units experienced, witnessed, or perpetrated.
There were crimes committed against POWs as well, but there was better over-sight in the urban setting.
From another incident of criminality in that war, Colonel Thompson, whom I believe died in recent years, was a hero of mine. A man whose words have had a significant affect on me and some of my thoughts. It was his gun ship that set down between the ditch and the troops at My Lai, and it was Thompson who ordered his door gunner to shoot the next soldier who raised a rifle to the women, elderly, and children in the ditch.
To have a personal understanding of what it means to choose a higher road, even when it means taking a position against those who are supposed to be your brothers, or your family, and acccepting that there will be turmoil as a result, is something that I can relate to from my own life experiences.
Col. Thompson is one of the few Colonels I've ever felt compelled to salute, and stand rigid... and I was a civilian and youngster when he did what he did, though I'm Chapter 35, and have worked for the DoD as a civilian contractor as well.
The rockets that hit Bagdad during 'Shock and Awe' came from troops ships with no specific hatred for some of their unintended victims. But the pictures of the 5-year-old Iraqi boy with the top of his head cleanly removed by a rocket, revealing the brain tissue, and his grand father carrying him down the street, screaming to Heaven asking, "Why?" and other pleadings, is and was one of my definitions of 'attrocity' in the single snap of a camera. It scars persons who fired rockets, as well as the persons who received them.
I won't share a whole lot of my beliefs about GW. I have some strong opinions.
Suffice to say that I believe that nationalism is a poison, that we are all born where we are born simply as a result of where our parents happened to be when they gave birth to us, and not by any feat of our own. My earliest relative in America, on my mother's side, carried George Washington's flag into battle in the Revolutionary War, and came from an Irish commoner's background to become a farmer in the mid-west.. Patrick O'Shaughnessy, who later changed his name to Shockney, for a variety of reasons.
I hope that these unfortunate times and the grief associated with them provides some of us with the humility necessary to know what it is that 'we' do, beyond the rhetoric, why 'we' do it (what ever 'it' is), and, if it is morally wrong, to do it no more.
Take care.
Well, creating dialog is always my primary goal, so thank you all for replying. I must say first that I never meant to imply that every soldier has committed atrocities, but that atrocities are an inevitable and highly counterproductive part of war, especially occupations battling insurgencies. I don't have a problem with it just because it hurts, which it does, but because it doesn't work...
I see it as an atrocity that two men were killed in a field for working on their pumps after curfew because they have no choice about when electricity is available. I cannot see the justification, but let's just assume we can call it collateral damage... Those two men had families, probably including young men. Do you think those family members will just write off the deaths, or do you think they see them as criminal? And do you think they will volunteer to help the Americans, or take up arms against them? Just one example of cruel and counterproductive situations.
Indeed, IVAW is a tiny fraction of the armed forces - but they will tell you themselves, it took a long, long time and a lot of support for them to come forward and be called traitors, pussies, commies, whatever. I admire their courage tremendously. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the courage it took just to sign up and go over there. It doesn't mean I don't appreciate being American and all the rights that affords me. I just don't think those rights should be exclusively American, and those two men in that field certainly had their rights violated.
I do have an agenda - I want the crazy, criminal, and profit driven occupation of Iraq to end. I have lost hope in our federal government and the election gives me little. I am no democrat either. Over a million Iraqis have died as a result of the invasion and occupation. And as long as Americans are there, Americans will die.
I am in the majority with this agenda - most Americans want a withdrawal. Public opinion is a big joke in our “democracy” these days... The GIs can make the war stop. I will do whatever I can to encourage them.
We have to let go of "The Prize," the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world. If you don't think that's our main reason for being there, you really need to do some more reading… Even Alan Greenspan says so.
IVAW also calls for full health care for all returning troops and I share their fury that thousands of troops with PTSD are being discharged with out benefits because they had "preexisting" mental conditions - which, if it were true, would mean that they should never have been deployed!
Trust the troops to make the best of a deplorable situation - but don't expect them to be super human. War is a cruel and inhumane racket, and it always has been. That's not any soldier's fault, but rather their commanders'.
I don't know why I am coming up as anonymous... Anna Godduhn here, can be reached at anna.godduhn@gmail.com
I'm curious to know when it is that those opposed to this war feel war is warranted. What's your philosophy on war and why?
I respectfully disagree with your position on nationalism, Dirk, and while I may not think that GWB is the best President ever, I think he is the only one we have right now. But I appreciate the dialog and your opinion.
Over a million Iraqi's have died since we have been there, you say. How many died before our arrival?
Ms. Godduhn. There is a curfew. The Iraqi's are well-aware of the curfew. According to those that I have spoken with, there is a reason behind the curfew - during the night hours is when those that are hostile to our forces choose to create/plant IEDs. Those that are hostile can operate easily under cover of darkness. If the claims of the soldier are true (a big if, in my book), then "shooting to kill" was not his first option, but only his last, and then only if a device were there. The justification that you are searching for is three-fold: (1) there is a known curfew (2) there are safety reasons behind that curfew and (3) choosing to violate it more often than not means that the person violating that curfew is up to something.
As for you being in the majority, I respectfully disagree. If it does tilt that way it is because of detractors hollering about the atrocities that are being committed with no proof, comparing our troops and President to past evil regimes and attributing this to "lies" - which again, has not been proven - just spoken very loudly over and over in the hopes that people will believe it.
I read on this war daily, ma'am with all due respect. Just because I disagree with you does not mean that I "need to do more reading". I have listened to the Winter Soldiers. Have you taken the time to listen to the soldiers that believe in what we are doing? Or do you dismiss them as bloodthirsty nationalists with no morals? Should they "read more"?
War is hell, Ms. Godduhn. While I agree with you that the world would be a better place with no war, that world exists over the rainbow, across the sky - just ask evil men like Saddam Hussein. It is a wonderful goal, but it is NOT reality. These men and women signed up to be part of the armed forces. Do you really think that they were ignorant of what that meant? If there were no war, then there would be no army for these young men and women to sign up for.
If you want to sway me, and people like me, then you must come up with something other than "you really need to read more". What I read shows me a different side than what you, and the .007% of people that say they committed atrocities.
>>>I'm curious to know when it is that those opposed to this war feel war is warranted. What's your philosophy on war and why?<<<
When we are attacked on our soil by a nation state, then that is justification for war.
The Saudis who attacked the various buildings on 9/11/01 were not a nation state, or representing a nation state. They were rogue criminals. Criminals who belonged to what was, at that time, a much smaller radical group. A group that has flourished in membership since the scattered approach that GW has taken.
If you look at the German approach after the Munich attacks on the Olympics, it was patient, calculated, very little bravado, etc. But they tracked down the INDIVIDUALS responsible, and brought them to swift and certain justice. Almost ZERO 'collateral damage.' And that path maintained the respect of the rest of the 'free world,' as well as staying focused on the culprits. And they didn't butcher what they regarded as recognized privacy rights or other civil liberties in their country to do it.
The United States supposedly has the most advanced international intelligence network in the world, and a military budget that puts all others to shame. Yet instead of using that, and pacing the process, staying focused on those who actually planned or committed the acts, GW chose to stride into 'Dodge City' like a cowboy, shooting from the hip. And into a country that was at odds with the very people we were supposedly tracking.
His posturing about making every attempt to avoid war was a lie. There is proof from more than one source that he and his administration were committed to invading Iraq while they were still speaking publicly about alternatives.
No entity currently in the Middle East posed a serious threat to our national security as a whole. Could they inflict damages? Rogue INDIVIDUALS proved that. Could they topple this country or its supposed way of life? No. They lacked the personnel, the tactics, and the hardware.
Lt Col. Karen Kwiatkowski resigned her position at the Pentagon's intel. branch as a result of the cherry-picking of information that an outside team of GW's folks were engaged in. It was obvious to more than a few people there as to what was being committed. But the country's People wanted pay-back. Many had delusions that Iraq was a push-over situation, and they forgot the nature of guerilla warfare, if they ever knew it at all. And contrary to the photo ops on the carrier, the mission was most certainly not accomplished.
GHW Bush knew exactly why not to take out Saddam. And even Cheney was quoted as identifying the reality of this mess before it took place, over ten years prior.
More....
Rumsfeld took the reins on the invasion, disregarding the experienced advice of a number of respected officers at the Pentagon. The head out-ran the tail. Men and women from the most advanced military in the world were running out of WATER and small arms ammunition, due to Rummy's sand-box theories and ideas. Troops were forbade to receive decent body armor from loved ones at home, yet the fellow who was contracting to the military was selling a sub-standard set that was proven fatal and unreliable.
It took the chain of command a while to get that fiasco straight. Meanwhile the fellow selling the vests hosted a $10,000.00 birthday party for his daughter, complete with rock stars as invited guests, whom he paid for their appearances. His stuff was getting OUR folks killed, and he was already partying on the money he soaked up. SCUM-BAG!!!
Domestically, more than a handful of FBI agents went public with issues at the agency including malfeasance and incompetence, specifically at the FBI; those who dared to air Agency laundry were informally ostricized, and those who clumsily stood in the way of stopping what was one of the worst attacks on this country were rewarded. Agent Rowley was left to testify to the Congressional Committee, without a car or driver assigned to her, and no one to buffer her from the press waiting outside, despite not even being assigned to D.C. Agent Bowman, who had stopped her from opening Moussaui's lap top, got a commendation, and a $25,000.00 bonus, along with a signed certificate from GW.
Agents Wright and Vinson spoke of being threatened with disciplinary action if they had turned a surveillance gig into a criminal gig, in the Chicago office of the FBI, despite having more than enough info at that time to take down the folks they were watching; and the head of that group was not only a Saudi national, financing the folks they were surveilling, but was contracting software to...... The feds!!!!
I'll quit here, due to getting stuff ready for an annual lake trout fishing trip with dear friends in Canada. But none or few of our thrashings of the constitutions were necessary, and it's debatable whether the wars we're now into were required, had folks in charge used a more thoughtful approach, and been more honest about what are clearly additional motives..
The current administration, in my opinion, valued its contractors over the lives of the troops from the very beginning. though this is far from a new phenomenon in times of military action.
What do I have against GW? The war? There's more, but I'll leave it at that for now.. Isn't that enough??
PS: The estimates that I find for Iraqi deaths are at the lowest 80,000 and at the highest, 1.2 million http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9... - I'm sure that al jazeera is most reputable...). Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle. No source is clear as to how many deaths were collateral damage, how many were caused by Coalition forces vs. Iraqi killing Iraqi either.
Let me tell you a story. I have a friend. That friend has a father. This man became student body president of his university. Would you like to know how? By placing his name on the backs of bathroom stall doors. Nothing else - no platform, no stances, no speeches, no rallies - nothing other than simple name recognition. That was what the student body had been exposed to most, and that is how they voted. If you tell people over and over that this war is illegal and unjust, even without corresponding proof, they will eventually believe you - which is, unfortunately, the ultimate goal here. Not truth - facts be damned and let's all live by our feelings.
There is a recent study out that offers a strong correlation between the things that war detractors say and increased insurgency (http://people.rwj.harvard.edu/~riyengar/...). While the study appears unpublished as of yet, it is logical to see that if you are agreeing philosophically with the enemy, then the enemy becomes bolder. The additional loss in American lives is what I mean when I say that this type of rhetoric does not "support the troops".
You are obviously a very intelligent, educated and well-spoken individual. How well do you think your perspective, and subsequent posting, would be received if they were part or a paper being turned in for a grade? Do you think that further sourcing would be necessary? Or would a professor accept it as is? That's what I am asking for here. Please do not try to sway with emotion - it is dishonest. And for a group of people claiming that this war is unacceptable because of the "dishonesty" involved should probably try to be as honest as possible or be as guilty as those they are accusing.
I do not feel my way through my life and I am certainly not going to feel my way through this.
There is Never Victory in War..
..Vigilance begins at Home.
I support Anna and Dirk on this issue.
Gen. Smedley Butler was telling the truth.
Read Gold Warriors [Seagraves, 2003]
http://www.bowstring.net/
..the timeline of this story begins over 5000 years ago.
All wars are interconnected on many different levels.
The predominant characteristic of warfare is best described as "an epidemic mental health disaster"... militarism is a sickness.
The USA has been meddling in Mesopotamia and Persia since the beginning of the US-Navy, their first opportunity to project power there.
The USA originally installed Saddam Hussein as Iraqi dictator in 1963, when the CIA tried TWICE to depose Qasim. The CIA deposed Mossadeq from Iran a decade earlier.
Those of you who engage in "cherry picking" from History are deceiving yourselves and others.
I'm an old guy who's been around a bit and seen a few things..
I've probably spent more time in veterans hospitals than many war-amputees.
Anybody who has ever killed another human has also learned to believe their own lies they tell to themselves.. this how you cope with living with yourself. Lies are the foundation of the Culture of Violence..
..some call it propaganda.
Many Big-Biz buzzards have killed more with a pen than "heroes" have dispatched with their weapons.
In my wide circle of family and friends there are many who are career-military [including active duty generals]...
...many big-brass seek the comfort of my presence when they have tough-times.
...flash/rumble
Did you know that 47 countries' have reestablished their embassies in Iraq ? Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 million Iraqi people? Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 new schools are now under construction; and 38 new schools have been completed in Iraq ? Did you know that Iraq 's higher educational structure consists of 20 Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers, all currently operating? Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January 2005 for the re-established Fulbright program? Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational?They have 5 - 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment. Did you know that Iraq ' s Air Force consists of three operational squadrons, Which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft (under Iraqi operational control) which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers? Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion? Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers? Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over 3500 new officers every 8 weeks? Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq ? They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities. Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations? Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October? Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158%? Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations? Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004? Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a televised debate recently? COURSE WE DIDN'T KNOW! WHY DIDN'T WE KNOW? BECAUSE OUR MEDIA WON'T TELL US! Instead of reflecting our love for our country, we get photos of flag burning incidents at Abu Ghraib and people throwing snowballs at the presidential motorcades. Tragically, the lack of accentuating the positive in Iraq serves two purposes: It is intended to undermine the world's perception of the United States thus minimizing consequent support; and it is intended to discourage American citizens.
Above facts are verifiable on the Department of Defense web site.
<http://www.defenselink.mil/>
Can I go home yet?
First, I want to apologize for my comment about reading more. I should have said, ‘I beg you to consider the possibility that the war is mostly about oil…’ and made my case. I wish I had said something like that, and do greatly appreciate this dialog. I don’t however, have time to write a real research paper. I will provide several citations though.
Please understand that I come at this with the premise that many of the orders our troops are getting are illegal – beginning with their deployment to a war theater that never should have opened, that was driven by greed and justified by lies. (Please, there were no weapons, there were no connections to terrorists do I really need to cite that?) I am angry that our troops were lied to and exploited as they were. I am sorry they have an out of control warmongering commander who deceived them and continues to abuse their good name and loyal service.
Are we there because we care about the Iraqi people? This war has been tragedy after tragedy for Iraqis. 70% unemployment, sewage in the streets, cholera and dysentery ubiquitous, a few hours of electricity, rampant violence, police checkpoints prone to massive explosions, and random searches. Obviously, Reader1 and I have different sources; I don’t trust DoD for accurate statistics. If we had toppled Saddam and left, they might have forgiven us the broken infrastructure and deadly destruction of shock and awe.
But we stayed too long and multinational corporations have profiteered from all sectors of the economy, at great cost to US tax payers, and even greater cost to Iraqis. Worst of all, we continue to insist Iraq base their oil law on plans that the people in the US (probably Cheney’s energy task force) drew up, among other impositions. The permanent bases being built there don’t happen to follow pipelines and protect oilfields by accident.
Really, once you get past the miserable part of suspecting people you want to believe in (the Bush Administration), ‘it’s mostly about oil’ explains a lot of belligerent and aggressive behavior on the part of our very own government. It goes all the way back to Jimmy Carter, of all the pansy presidents, the policy that anyone attempting to exert control over middle east oil will have the US to answer to. This is not some paranoid conspiracy theory, it’s the well known Carter Doctrine. You can look it up in any thorough history of US foreign policy.
I do not encourage our troops to break any law, but rather to uphold it. They are not duty bound to follow orders blindly… They are duty bound to refuse illegal orders, once recognized as such. They are duty bound to defend the constitution and America, not the president’s reputation. I do encourage them to resist illegal orders, if they have any such capacity – which is rare because of the overwhelming disproportionate power the military holds over dissenters (and their families).
citations in next post
Here are links to two shorter pieces about the motives of the invasion of Iraq, the first from Anne Wright (retired Army colonel who resigned from the US Department of State in March, 2003 in opposition to the war on Iraq) and the second from Antonia Juhasz, an economic analyst (and anti-globalization activist). They each have a book listed below.
What Congress Really Approved: Benchmark No. 1: Privatizing Iraq's Oil for US Companies
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/052607...
Who’s Oil is it Anyway?
http://www.bushagenda.net/article.php?id...
And the million-plus lives lost estimate http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/co...
I cite and strongly recommend the following books:
“Dissent: Voices of Conscience Government Insiders Speak Out Against the War in Iraq” by Col. (ret.) Ann Wright and Susan Dixon
“A War Against Truth: An Intimate Account of the Invasion of Iraq” by Paul William Roberts
“The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism” by Naomi Klein
“The Bush Agenda: Invading the World One Economy at a Time” by Antonia Juhasz
“Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches from an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq” by Dahr Jamail
I will do my best to read at least some of what you have here Ms. Goddhun. Hopefully they too are well-cited and not full of non-information. However, we are coming at this from a very different beginning point. I don't believe this is an illegal war - I've researched war powers, Congresses role, the lack of any UN activity toward us. It appears pretty darn legal to me.
I have been told by men that I know who were over there that electricity is fine, that the overwhelming majority of Iraqi's are happy that we are there, and that much of what Reader1 had to say was indeed true ("majority" is of course, anecdotal). I have been told that orders are not illegal, and that those that violate the rules that they are bound by(e.g. atrocities) are arrested and punished
How do you explain the fact that Saddam used WMDs on his own people - it's in the soil? That doesn't sound like he did NOT have WMDs - sounds like they were moved. How do you explain how Clinton, Pelosi and others thought that he had them at least as far back as 1998? That doesn't sound like Bush lied or like this is about oil. How do you explain up to $25,000 paid to terrorists - that seems like a pretty big connection to terrorism...?
I will look at your sources. Thank you for taking the time. But, I encourage you to read some of the information from the other side. Talk with soldiers that believe in what they are doing. Get a different perspective. It is possible that your entire premise is wrong.
I am in Iraq right now. How we got here is a moot point, we are here. I want all of us out, but I understand that up and running would lead to a worse situation that we would have to come back and fix later. So we are here for oil/money, how is this any different than any other war? All wars are fought for more wealth, and when a capitalist nation goes to war, its companies benefit. Its rich get richer. The lower classes bleed red and the middle classes bleed green. That being said, I am all for capitalism but also isolationism and a limited federal Gov. Trade with all, ally with none.
Ms. Godduhn - One more question if I may. Is there a time where you find war to be justified and necessary? As candikane questioned above, what is your philosophy on war and why?
Reader1 - I'm taking you at your word that you are serving in Iraq, and I appreciate a more vocal input from someone who is actually experiencing the war, although I have found that many service-members choose to just to not waste their time on debates such as these, preferring instead to just go about their business. How does it make you (and your fellow service members) feel to read things like what the Winter Soldiers, Ms. Godduhn and others have to say? How about all the negatives - are they really worse off now that we're there and hate our presence? The report I cited above certainly gave me pause, even though the effect on increased insurgent violence was intuitive.
Apparently the internet is better than when my husband was serving out his tour, so that's a plus. Maybe he and I will have better luck next time. Godspeed and thank you for your service.
I have no idea how the war is going on outside the wire. I am a REMF, or Pouge or whatever label you want to put on someone who doesnt leave the base. For every one outside the wire, there are at least 10 inside to support them. Nowadays, probly more than that with civilians. I cant speak for anyone else, and certainly cant speak for any of the Soldiers or Marines who are actually fighting this war, but as for me, this place is a dump and I think we should start getting out. Mind you, the US military will have a presence here for years. I think that was part of why we came in here. The Saudis were growing weary of us and we needed a new platform from which to protect our interests. (oil)
Thank you for the frank assessment and honesty. I appreciate it. I, too, would like to see an end to the war (does anyone really think that - from a purely selfish standpoint - I want my husband, my children's father - over there any longer than necessary?). I just don't want to see it all end prematurely, causing yet even more harm. If we pull out, we may very well end up going right back when/if the area implodes completely. I agree with your earlier commentary about how we got there being almost moot - how we leave is at least as important in my view.
I have read all of your comments,and we can debate this issue until the cows come home! but no one has spoken about what got us into this quagmire.If i remember it was 9/11.Looking for terrorists.Weapons of mass destruction.Looking for Ben-Laden.Angry at Saddem-Husien for no longer being on the CIA payroll.So we invaded Iraq..But the majority of the 9/11 terriorists were SAUDI NATIONALS!!
Something just doesn't smell right!Maybe you folks can figure it out and get back to me.But as long as we fuss among ourselves about the bones they toss in front of us we will never see the real issues.
Ah, but we can learn from the bones they throw us, and we need to interpret them together, so I'm all for debating. I tend to agree with you that it DOES matter what got us into it, and still dream of an impeachment that would really clear all this up, but the point I want to make right now is that most Iraqis want us to leave.
Parliment calls unanimously for a complete withdrawal. That means the elected (Iraqi) officials want us to leave - only appointed officials continue to parrot the White House line about endless bloodshed if we leave. It's only endless if we stay. They expect a surge in violence as we go, but then a dramatic and welcome decline. I'd say they have the right to make the call... Indeed, I'm afraid that reader1 is correct that we will be there for a long long time. It would be much safer and more ethical to cease the construction of permanent bases, declare that we will not insist on the privitization of Iraq's (nationalized) oil, and announce a full and immediate withdrawal (and I mean after planning it so it could really be implemented immediately). The funding would have to redirected to make it happen and I'm sure I'm oversimplifying... Nor is this to say we forget the disaster we are leaving behind... we owe Iraq in a big big way. I will continue to push for those things, although it makes me feel like a kid waiting for santa clause sometimes.
That book "Beyond the Green Zone" is a very powerful account of reality outside the wire for the first few years of the war, and Jamail's continuing works finds that things have only gotten worse. He was living in Anchorage when the war began, and he wanted to know what things were like for average Iraqis, so he went. It's pretty incredible, the difference between embedded reporting and unembedded. http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/
He has been to FAirbanks to give presentations 5 times now. He went to Fallujah within days after each seige on that city, and if anyone really wants graphics, I have a whole slide show that demonstrates the use of white phosphorous and cluster bombs there. Their use in civilian areas is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions and the pictures are really, really awful.
I don't doubt your good intentions and desires for your loved ones. I don't mean them any harm. Indeed, I am doing my best to protect them from their crazy civilian bosses.
Thanks again for all the thought provoking comments.
link to Jamail's story on the Iraqi Parliment's resolution
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/arch...
not sure where I heard unanimous, but clearly a majority... sorry 'bout that.
I have a quick comment about the use of white phosphorous and cluster bombs. If using them saves our soldiers and Marines lives, drop um. I also know that the US never signed the treaty banning the use of napalm in built up areas.
Ms. Godduhn - I will look at the things you have left for me, and others, here. I'm not ready to jump off that cliff that says we were lied to - I have seen evidence to the contrary - but I will look even deeper. I still feel that the things you are advocating make my country weaker by helping to erode our armed forces, which puts my loved ones and my fellow citizens in more danger than what is already expected during wartime. I am willing to explore - I may come up with a different answer than you would like.
I'm still curious about your stance on war in general. Is there a time and a place for it? Or is it always the wrong thing in your view?
I wish all of the US-Troops in Iraq good luck for their safety and good health.
Likewise I wish all the peoples of Iraq and Iran, and the rest of the region a rapid recovery from these troubled times.
History is nearly-infinitely complex...
just one person telling a whopper can set whole nations of lemmings running off the edge of sanity headlong into WAR.
For my own personal safety I can't disclose too many facts about some of my personal experiences being near to the center of some pivotal historic events of the 20thCentury..
..but a lesson I have learned from these harrowing experiences is to keep a very very open mind to the "conspiracy theories" you often see on the internet. Many "unthinkable theories" are much closer to the truth than you think.
Here's an interesting account of an event that you don't see on TV..
http://www.gtr5.com/summary_of_events.ht...
Many educated west europeans have a totally different perspective of "Pax Americana"
http://uruknet.de/?p=-5&l=e
I suspect if the troops kicked the contractors out Iraq they would be getting rid of %50 of the "terrorists".
Subterfuge by "friendlies" was commonplace in VietNam too.
In warzones, not everybody shooting at you is "the enemy"...
...maybe it's just some guy with a gun and bullets shooting at you because you pissed him off so badly that he's just totally beyond trying to talk some good common sense into your thick skull.
Americans suffer from longterm memory loss..
profound amnesia makes history into a quagmire of self-doubt and misery. 90% of americans seem to forget who were the culprits of one of the biggest bank robberies in history..
Do you remember what happened to FSLIC???
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&...
Much of the historical records in the net seem to be getting swept down the memory-hole, a goog-search like this 3years ago would have made many more matches.
Distantthunder - Thanks for sending me to a Israel bashing, fanatical website. I don't accept bigotry from any source and will choose not to read anything you post from here on out as your judgment is obviously compromised in some way. Enjoy your conspiracy theories.
Reader1, I want you to know that I am strongly against the situation but I want you and the rest of my countrymen to come home safe, intact, and soon. Personally I don't give a damn about that place. It is not worth the price of a single American.
Thanks, Anna, for writing about the Winter Soldier event. There's plenty of evidence to show what we’re doing in Iraq is not the pretty picture the DoD and Bush administration would have us believe.
This was an immoral, corporate invasion of a nation that our own 9-11 Commission said had nothing to do with the attack on our nation, and attacking a nation that’s not a threat is against International Law, even if you lie 965 times to try and convince people the threat is real.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/
Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and not one of them was from Iraq, and Saddam did not harbor nor collude with Al-Qaeda. He was a secular leader, not an Islamic dictator, like the King of Hijacker Land our president hangs with.
Check out the Project for a New American Century to see who’s running American foreign policy with no consent or vote from the American people or Congress. The Iraq invasion was planned a long time before 9-11. http://www.newamericancentury.org/statem...
The 100 Orders Paul Bremer left that rule Iraq are not a secret either. Reading them shows the invasion for corporate control of resources, oil and others. It has nothing to do with liberating oppressed people from a horrible dictator. Example - Order 81 opens the way for American agribusiness to have a huge hand in controlling Iraqi agriculture with privatization, patents, and GMOs.
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2005/Iraq-US...
Iraqi people do not wish to be ruled by corporate invader/occupiers and will fight to the death, as the Vietnamese people did, to protect their homeland. In America, they’re patriots, in Iraq, they’re insurgents.
If you want to look directly into the face of the Iraq war the soldiers speak of and the atrocities this invasion inflicted, visit Robert Fisk's web site. http://www.robert-fisk.com/
It has twenty pages of graphic photos of just what we're doing to a nation's children, who were not a threat to us. This is part of what the Winter Soldiers are talking about. To ignore these atrocities is a crime in itself. Warning: It's really ugly seeing babies and children ripped apart by the bombs and bullets of our trillion-dollar military. If anybody thinks this occupation is making America safer, think again. This kind of carnage causes immense, justified anger, just as 9-11 caused us to be angry enough to allow our government to attack the wrong perpetrators.
The bottom line of Anna’s message though, is that we need to listen to what the Winter Soldiers say about their personal experiences regarding the war. They literally fought for the right to speak out, and deserve to be heard, as do the ones who tell more positive stories. Both have valid points. I don't doubt for a second that our soldiers are doing good things there, but I do doubt for a million years the motivation of the criminal government who sent them there.
.007% is not an impressive number.
I'm still waiting on Anna's take on war.
Don't have time to debate still, but just to attack your math a bit; your denominator makes no sense. Finding the correct inputs and assumptions is the hardest part about math really.
I think a more appropriate number rather than the 140,000 deployed troops would be the amount of troops who have been deployed but who are now home and out of the military. These people are really the only ones not at risk of losing benefits and in a position to protest. This also isn't taking into account the amount of soldiers that actually find it important to be political on the subject or even have the time and motivation be active (IE: Veteran: I think the war was wrong/worthless/take your pick, but I have to go work my two jobs).
Just some food for thought on your .007%
So much to say, so little time. I have been thinking a lot about the question of 'just war...'
I am not a pacifist. I would defend myself or others (as I deemed appropriate) with all the physical force I could muster if attacked. I know we need trained people at he ready to defend our borders if attacked. I am also convinced that we can do much better with diplomacy than weapons.
Indeed, I support the Veterans for Peace mission of abolishing war as a option in foreign policy. I do not believe in "preemptive" strikes. They are first strikes, and cannot be justified unless the threat is well proven, eminent, and can be targeted. The shocking and awful detestation of Baghdad did not come close to qualifying. And now we support attacks on Sadr's followers, while insisting they maintain their cease fire. Who are we kidding?
There are many similarities to Israel's occupation of Palestine and acknowledging that should no longer be seen as anti-semitic or even Israel bashing. If we continue to refuse to include our behaviors in the equation, we will never find the roots of terrorism, and it will destroy us in our blissful, willful ignorance.
Spaceman - I would say that considering some of the Winter Soldiers are still active duty, your distinction is inaccurate. I would even go so far as to say the number (.007) may be lower if we take into account ALL troops that have served in Iraq as a whole.
Anna - I understand time issues - my next quarter starts here pretty quick, so I appreciate your continued dialog - although I am letting some of my frustration through. Has there been a war that the US was involved in that was justified for you?
I've done some research and seen your support/involvement for groups like nonukesnorth (doesn't sound very defensive minded there), but I'll take you at your word that your not a pacifist, that you would defend yourself "as [you] deemed fit". Is it possible that you just don't have the information that is/was available to our highest offices, and that that is exactly what the President did - defended us as he saw fit?
You and I are just going to have to disagree on what constitutes Antisemitism.
As for diplomacy, I would like to see talks with megalomaniacs (like Saddam) or people that are so invested in their religion or whatever cause that they can't let it go (as we have seen in the middle east peace talks for...how long now?) actually accomplish something.
We need weapons, Anna, just like we need good talkers. The best advice I ever got was "Hope for the best while planning for the worst". Anyone who has tried to talk a rapist down can recognize that sometimes talkin' just don't work. To believe otherwise is idealistic. We need idealists and beauty, but we also need realists for when that idealism is just proven unattainable.
I have opened my mind here. I am willing to look at the sources you have provided for me. I will also take into account the source that gave me the sources. I'm not seeing a willingness on your part to explore the other side, however, so you and I may just have to agree to disagree here on what you (referring more to war critics in general) think you are accomplishing and what I see you as causing.
Spaceman - It seems to me that the best number to use would be the number of men and women that have served in total. Those that get out probably have an issue with the war to begin with and wouldn't be the best number to use. Beyond that, some members of the Winter Soldiers are still active duty, so obviously this isn't an issue either.
Beyond that, my math was wrong (I am so embarrassed, but hey, I own it, math is NOT my strong suit) - the .007 should have become .7% (I believe!) From what I've managed to find, it looks like over 1 million have served in Iraq (but other sources say that there are just over 1 million active duty, and just over 1 million reserves - I didn't know there were that many in the military - shows you how numbers can fool I guess, so unless they have all done a tour, that number wouldn't be best either). For argument's sake, take 2 million (active/reserve), cut it in half, cut in in half again, and once again, we are left with 250,000. Heck, let's cut that again for safeties sake - 125000. We can half that one more time to 62,500. Can we agree that 62,500 have served over there? If yes, let's continue: Now. Let's up Winter Soldiers to 2000, just to give them the benefit of the doubt, too. So at 2000/62500 (some number manipulation here), it becomes .032 - 3.2%. I'm still unimpressed. Sorry.
our nation is on the verge of economic chaos, we are bogged down in two wars that seem never-ending, the dollar is becomming a second tier currency as far as value,we have no decent health care system, etc.
if Obama or Clinton win the White House the war will be over next year, if McClain wins he swears he will find Bin Laden and the war will continue on as it has.
I was against the war from the beginning realizing that the American people can never maintain such commitment, and now as the yellow ribbons that remain stuck stubbornly to the bumpers of gas guzzling cars are becomming faded the Generals continue to say "we need more troops".
i continue to ask the question that is so often left hanging in mid-air, what is our strategy? what do we hope to achieve?who is going to pay the bill? what does Iraq have to do with the US? they did not attack us on 9-11 but those that did are still free and probably plotting this very moment.
Meanwhile, "W" sits in the Oval Office with his ostrich skin boots on the desk, oblivious to what is happening in middle America but always in the moment when it comes to watching the oil revenues (his money) soar dreaming of the invasion of Iran that is sure to occur.
Suddenly with the price of gasoline climbing, the war in Iraq is not the leading concern to most Americans as they prepare to visit the polls in November.
But there one good thing is that we only have to put up with that idiot for 9 more months.
Not a huge fan of Bush, but do you really think Wonder boy Obama or Clinton is going to pull us out of Iraq? Obama is closer to being one of those "rich white men" that run this country than I am, and I am white. And dont forget congress voted us in there as well. As for the economy, maybe people should buy homes within their means and read the fine print on the paperwork. It is not uncle sams place to bail the individual OR the corporations out when they make poor decisions. What should any President do about the economy? And why again?
Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This silly document seems to say that the President can send us to war. Says nothing about having some magical control over the economy.
I agree with you about 100% Reader1. You summed it up nicely - thanks.
I apologize, the President is the Commander and Chief, Congress has the war powers.
Yes Reader-1 and DVD, he has just been trying to be our Commander and Chief. Congress has all the power. Obama is a rich white guy. The President last week was just surprised that a reporter was asking him about $4.00 gas, it was the first time he had heard of it? He was also confused when he said in the State of the Union speech that more people today own homes than ever before, he's not an Economist. He didn’t know that what he meant to say was more people have mortgages than ever before? Yes, Dems just want defeat, they want more of your money and they are weak on Defense. You are right, the people should have read the fine print those homes you speak of have now taken down BEAR STRENS...who bailed them out???? The Feds!! You are right Bush isn’t giving us a tax on the future after he leaves office, right. You are going to take that stimulus check and send it right back to him and say, NO; I know this is just a tax on my kids!! Right?
Maybe go back and read where I wrote that they shouldnt bail out corporations either? Didnt congress approve the Bush tax cuts? I think income taxes should be as close to zero as possible, for everyone. That the federal Gov. should do less, not more. They screw up everything they get involved with.
The president not knowing about the $4.00 gas, everyone in Washington is THAT out of touch with things. When was the last time you think Hillary or Barrack sauntered into a 7-11 for gallon of milk?
My question to you is, what is the role of the Federal Government in regards to the capitalist economy we have?
read 1
1 Euro = 1.5 dollars US.
and you are saying that the pres. is not the one that deregulated the price of oil?
what does some idiot with a sliding mortgage have to do with any of the above? that has nothing to do with the escalation of prices and the massive unemployment that is sweeping the nation. bailing out with quick fixes is exactly what bush hopes to do by sending money that we do not really have to people in hopes they will spend with reckless abandon thinking that this action will somehow jumpstart a faltering economy.
bushs stupid assed war is costing us billions of dollars, someone is going to have to pay that tab down the road. clinton handed bush a balanced budget, a booming economy, affordable interest rates, low unemployment.
Get used to it, Obama will be the next president. he will pull us out of Iraq, he will restore respect toward our country from other nations, he will establish a health system that will offer affordable health care to those that need it, as a Senator, he has worked hard for veterans affairs, and you know what read 1, even if he doesn't do a damn thing, or even if he screws the whole job up he will still be better than what we have had to endure from bush for the last 7 years.
does a president influence our economy,? what do you think happens when he vetos or approves the crap that congress tosses his way?
yes, you are damned right, i am a liberal and an Obama supporter.
YMBC - That stimulus check is an advance on MY next tax return. I'll take it; it's just coming early this year, just like I take the PFD - I don't like it though. Bear Sterns should not have been bailed out. That was BS - no argument there. People who took out mortgages they couldn't afford should not be bailed out (it's called an ARM for a reason, folks). The lending institutions that loaned the money shouldn't be bailed out. The President is not in control of gas prices (nor should he be); you need to learn your economics a little better.
No one is claiming that Bush is the smartest guy in the world, although I lean more toward "not well-spoken" than plain out dumb (believe it or not, some people can speak publicly rather well, while others aren't that hot at it. Incidentally, have you heard Obama speak without a teleprompter? He ain't a genius either. But, some people are AMAZING public speakers - I hear Hitler could mesmerize his audiences - but I don't want HITLER in office either). Some of us are more interested in substance than style - being able to give a speech is style, my friend, not much more.
Congress does have the war powers (look up your Constitution if you don't believe me - if Bush were doing things that he's not allowed by this document, they'd be screaming for impeachment and THEY'D GET IT).
I have been disappointed in the (liberal) parts of the Bush administration from the get-go - Bush is disappointing, but to think that Hillary or Obama (or McCain for that matter) is going to save you is delusional. Democrats have HISTORICALLY raised taxes and been weak on defense. Take some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for your own money and get over your irrational hatred of allthingsrepublican. It's tiresome. Republican = Democrat right now, it's just a matter of degree anymore. However, all things being equal, I'd rather have someone strong on national defense than strong on social issues.
dumpbush - Interesting take you have there. Unemployment as of February 2008 is 4.8% (http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm). Sounds massive to me...Under Clinton unemployment was 4.2%. Big difference?
Quick lesson on gas: http://money.howstuffworks.com/gas-price...
Quick lesson on supply and demand: http://www.investopedia.com/university/e...
Has the President tried to control/help gas prices: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/j...
There is much more going on here than this, but to place the blame solely at Bush's door is a copout.
I have serious doubts about Mr. Obama. He has no substance. I hope you are wrong.
DVD - Did you know that during Bushes campaign he said that if Oil prices rise that he would as President get on that red phone and call up OPEC. He said it not me? "you need to learn your economics a little better."...
I said ...The President last week was just surprised that a reporter was asking him about $4.00 gas, it was the first time he had heard of it?
Did I say that he should fix the gas prices??? No, he should be aware through Economic advisors that the price is going up be