Here is the answer given by Russ Baker based on interviews with people who know George Bush.
Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, “a great president.” Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush’s decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.
The Downing Street Memos clearly establish that he wanted to invade Iraq as early as March, 2002. There are news reports that he wanted to invade Iraq days after 9/11 even before the perpetrators of 9/11 were clearly identified.Russ Baker in an earlier article reported that Mickey Herskowitz, a well-known Houston reporter and ghostwriter for celebrities told him the following based on Herskowitz’ 1999 interview with G. W, Bush:
“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father’s shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. “Suddenly, he’s at 91 percent in the polls, and he’d barely crawled out of the bunker.”
This explains the very poor and clearly contrived reasons given for the invasion of Iraq, even though the invasion drew resources needed badly in Afghanistan. The invasion of Iraq was clearly a decision made to take advantage of the opportunity that 9/11 gave Bush. The reasons presented for the invasion have obviously been dredged up after the decision was made.It explains the timing of the Iraqi invasion. It was more than just the need to influence the 2002 elections. It was part of a larger plan. It explains the refusal to deal with other nations or the UN to try to resolve the problems with Iraq. Such solutions would not lead to Glory for Bush as President.The only argument against such motivations are that no normal human being could be so insane as to start an unnecessary war in order to be viewed as a successful President. The insanity, horror, and stupidity of such an idea makes it immediately obvious that such a war in Iraq for domestic political reasons could not possibly succeed.Nothing in Bush’s history indicates that he would view it like a normal human being would. His choice of Dick Cheney as his vice President and his isolation from normal people in fact suggest that this is an idea that Bush would easily adopt. It would suggest that he suffers from a level of grandiosity that is truly psychopathic.But I don’t think he intended for Iraq to be a large war. Russ Baker also reports in his earlier article:
The notion that President Bush held unrealistic or naïve views about the consequences of war was further advanced recently by a Bush supporter, the evangelist Pat Robertson, who revealed that Bush had told him the Iraq invasion would yield no casualties. I see no reason at all to doubt this article. It explains too much.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Bush Wanted War
By Richard CohenThursday, March 30, 2006; 12:00 AM
It is my firm belief that if, say, a few dozen people simultaneously did an Internet search for the words "Bush lied," computers all over the country would crash and the energy grid would buckle, producing a rolling blackout that would begin somewhere around Terre Haute, Ind., and end in Barnstable, Mass. So common is the statement "Bush lied" that it seems sometimes that I am the only blue-state person who does not think it is true. Then, last week, the indomitable Helen Thomas changed all that with a single question. She asked George Bush why he wanted "to go to war" from the moment he "stepped into the White House," and the president said, "You know, I didn't want war." With that, the last blue-state skeptic folded.
I would not go so far as to say that Bush wanted war from Day One in the White House, but there was plenty of evidence he had Saddam on his mind and in his sights from the very moment he got the news of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We have it from Richard Clarke, formerly the White House's chief anti-terrorism official, that within a day of the attacks Bush was inquiring if Saddam might have had a hand in them. When told no -- "But, Mr. President, al-Qaeda did this," Clarke told him -- it became instantly clear that this was not the answer Bush wanted. "'Look into Iraq, Saddam,' the president said testily," Clarke writes in his book, "Against All Enemies."
Similarly, Bob Woodward says in his book, "Plan of Attack," that not only was Bush fixated on Iraq, but by Thanksgiving of 2001, he already had told Don Rumsfeld to prepare a plan for the invasion of that country. "Let's get started on this," the president said, cautioning the defense secretary not to tell anyone. Rumsfeld said that eventually he would have to take CIA Director George Tenet into his confidence. "'Fine."' Woodward quotes Bush as saying -- "but not now."
As for myself, I was told by a European intelligence official that after flying to Washington right after the 9/11 attacks, he was stunned to discover that talk had already turned to Iraq. This was particularly true at the Pentagon, where Paul Wolfowitz was obsessed with Iraq, and that seems to have been true of the White House as well. And now we know from various British accounts that close aides to Prime Minister Tony Blair recognized early on that Bush was going to go to war -- and that Blair, his poodle at obedient heel, would follow along. More recently we learned -- again from British sources -- that even though Bush went back to the United Nations for yet another resolution condemning Iraq, he was determined to make war almost no matter what.
None of this necessarily means that Bush doctored U.S. intelligence to make a purposely false case that Iraq was seething with weapons of mass destruction. There is plenty of evidence that others in the administration -- Dick Cheney, in particular -- exaggerated such that their pants must have caught fire, but nothing so far proved that Bush knew he was making a false case. Indeed, foreign intelligence sources were in agreement with Bush on Iraq's WMD and so were Clinton administration officials who had seen some of the same intelligence. Even within the Bush administration, critics of the war -- and there were some -- were just as convinced that Saddam had WMD. Colin Powell, you may recall, soiled his stellar reputation with a United Nations speech that is now just plain sad to read. Almost none of it is true.
There remains, though, the little matter of what was in Bush's gut -- not his head, mind you, but that elusive place where emotion resides. It was there, in the moments after 9/11, that Bush truly decided on war, maybe because Saddam had once tried to kill George H.W. Bush, maybe because the neocons had convinced him that a brief war in Iraq would have long-term salutary consequences for the entire Middle East, maybe because he could not abide the thought that a monster like Saddam might die in his sleep -- and maybe because he heard destiny calling.
Whatever Bush's specific reason or reasons, the one thing that's so far missing from the record is proof of him looking for a genuine way out of war instead of looking for a way to get it started. Bush wanted war. He just didn't want the war he got.
It is my firm belief that if, say, a few dozen people simultaneously did an Internet search for the words "Bush lied," computers all over the country would crash and the energy grid would buckle, producing a rolling blackout that would begin somewhere around Terre Haute, Ind., and end in Barnstable, Mass. So common is the statement "Bush lied" that it seems sometimes that I am the only blue-state person who does not think it is true. Then, last week, the indomitable Helen Thomas changed all that with a single question. She asked George Bush why he wanted "to go to war" from the moment he "stepped into the White House," and the president said, "You know, I didn't want war." With that, the last blue-state skeptic folded.
I would not go so far as to say that Bush wanted war from Day One in the White House, but there was plenty of evidence he had Saddam on his mind and in his sights from the very moment he got the news of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We have it from Richard Clarke, formerly the White House's chief anti-terrorism official, that within a day of the attacks Bush was inquiring if Saddam might have had a hand in them. When told no -- "But, Mr. President, al-Qaeda did this," Clarke told him -- it became instantly clear that this was not the answer Bush wanted. "'Look into Iraq, Saddam,' the president said testily," Clarke writes in his book, "Against All Enemies."
Similarly, Bob Woodward says in his book, "Plan of Attack," that not only was Bush fixated on Iraq, but by Thanksgiving of 2001, he already had told Don Rumsfeld to prepare a plan for the invasion of that country. "Let's get started on this," the president said, cautioning the defense secretary not to tell anyone. Rumsfeld said that eventually he would have to take CIA Director George Tenet into his confidence. "'Fine."' Woodward quotes Bush as saying -- "but not now."
As for myself, I was told by a European intelligence official that after flying to Washington right after the 9/11 attacks, he was stunned to discover that talk had already turned to Iraq. This was particularly true at the Pentagon, where Paul Wolfowitz was obsessed with Iraq, and that seems to have been true of the White House as well. And now we know from various British accounts that close aides to Prime Minister Tony Blair recognized early on that Bush was going to go to war -- and that Blair, his poodle at obedient heel, would follow along. More recently we learned -- again from British sources -- that even though Bush went back to the United Nations for yet another resolution condemning Iraq, he was determined to make war almost no matter what.
None of this necessarily means that Bush doctored U.S. intelligence to make a purposely false case that Iraq was seething with weapons of mass destruction. There is plenty of evidence that others in the administration -- Dick Cheney, in particular -- exaggerated such that their pants must have caught fire, but nothing so far proved that Bush knew he was making a false case. Indeed, foreign intelligence sources were in agreement with Bush on Iraq's WMD and so were Clinton administration officials who had seen some of the same intelligence. Even within the Bush administration, critics of the war -- and there were some -- were just as convinced that Saddam had WMD. Colin Powell, you may recall, soiled his stellar reputation with a United Nations speech that is now just plain sad to read. Almost none of it is true.
There remains, though, the little matter of what was in Bush's gut -- not his head, mind you, but that elusive place where emotion resides. It was there, in the moments after 9/11, that Bush truly decided on war, maybe because Saddam had once tried to kill George H.W. Bush, maybe because the neocons had convinced him that a brief war in Iraq would have long-term salutary consequences for the entire Middle East, maybe because he could not abide the thought that a monster like Saddam might die in his sleep -- and maybe because he heard destiny calling.
Whatever Bush's specific reason or reasons, the one thing that's so far missing from the record is proof of him looking for a genuine way out of war instead of looking for a way to get it started. Bush wanted war. He just didn't want the war he got.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
What are we fighting for?
Posted on February 06, 2008 by pmacdonald
Written by Peter Macdonald 465 Packersfalls rd Lee NH 03824 603-659-6217
All have my permission to print my Name, address, phone # and e-mail NH.Red.Sox.@gmail.com
“What Are We Fighting For, Next Stop Is Vietnam”. Navy Seals Nate Hardy from Durham NH and M. Koch from Pa were killed by small arms fire in Iraq yesterday. Talk in the local restaurant this morning was how sad the families must feel. Many families across the U.S. have or will be feeling this same way as long as innocent kids fight on the no experience politicians egos (orders). Don’t get me wrong I am not against the war. War is necessary to protect the rights of the individual. If someone attacks the U.S. or it’s citizens, we should wipe out that entire country. No mercy. On the other hand if our elected officials wage war on another country to create a legacy for themselves we should abolish that President. Why should innocent American kids die, why not people from another country that was unwilling to fight for themselves. There are no innocent people in a war zone and attached us.
These Veterans that are lucky enough to come back, will be discharged into a nation that has no idea or even cares about the medical or physical condition of these hero’s. These Veterans will be so happy to be back in the “world” U.S. they will not realize the demons growing in their heads. These Veterans will go back to their families only to find nothing is the same. Separating the mind controlling lessons drilled into you at boot camp, then demonstrated in service that you committed with out mercy from the cruel but lawful society of the U.S. is easy at first. Family and friends happy to see you home tolerate and rationalize the happenings you create. They laugh when you duck at loud noises. They get mad when you do something harsh or speak at people with out feelings. Society feels sorry for the Veterans that come home with no arms, legs or other (visual or not) disabilities but fails to give medial aid. Aid will cost to much or the politicians don’t care because the election is to far away for self benefit. Were these the lucky Veterans that died?
Suicide while in service or after discharge is one solution. I have thought of it many times and come close some of the times. I am told that I have no feelings but the feelings I have goes out to these families. We fought to protect and defend our Constitution for equal treatment of the law for all. Now we lose our families, jobs, friends and become homeless to keep you safe from the demons maturing in our heads. These Navy Seals as all that gave their lives for the people of the United States of America have my gratitude and I thank them all. We are fighting for our country and it’s citizens.
Peter Macdonald Sgt USMC Semper Fi
Written by Peter Macdonald 465 Packersfalls rd Lee NH 03824 603-659-6217
All have my permission to print my Name, address, phone # and e-mail NH.Red.Sox.@gmail.com
“What Are We Fighting For, Next Stop Is Vietnam”. Navy Seals Nate Hardy from Durham NH and M. Koch from Pa were killed by small arms fire in Iraq yesterday. Talk in the local restaurant this morning was how sad the families must feel. Many families across the U.S. have or will be feeling this same way as long as innocent kids fight on the no experience politicians egos (orders). Don’t get me wrong I am not against the war. War is necessary to protect the rights of the individual. If someone attacks the U.S. or it’s citizens, we should wipe out that entire country. No mercy. On the other hand if our elected officials wage war on another country to create a legacy for themselves we should abolish that President. Why should innocent American kids die, why not people from another country that was unwilling to fight for themselves. There are no innocent people in a war zone and attached us.
These Veterans that are lucky enough to come back, will be discharged into a nation that has no idea or even cares about the medical or physical condition of these hero’s. These Veterans will be so happy to be back in the “world” U.S. they will not realize the demons growing in their heads. These Veterans will go back to their families only to find nothing is the same. Separating the mind controlling lessons drilled into you at boot camp, then demonstrated in service that you committed with out mercy from the cruel but lawful society of the U.S. is easy at first. Family and friends happy to see you home tolerate and rationalize the happenings you create. They laugh when you duck at loud noises. They get mad when you do something harsh or speak at people with out feelings. Society feels sorry for the Veterans that come home with no arms, legs or other (visual or not) disabilities but fails to give medial aid. Aid will cost to much or the politicians don’t care because the election is to far away for self benefit. Were these the lucky Veterans that died?
Suicide while in service or after discharge is one solution. I have thought of it many times and come close some of the times. I am told that I have no feelings but the feelings I have goes out to these families. We fought to protect and defend our Constitution for equal treatment of the law for all. Now we lose our families, jobs, friends and become homeless to keep you safe from the demons maturing in our heads. These Navy Seals as all that gave their lives for the people of the United States of America have my gratitude and I thank them all. We are fighting for our country and it’s citizens.
Peter Macdonald Sgt USMC Semper Fi
Monday, November 12, 2007
The Plight of American Veterans
New York Times
November 12, 2007
Editorial
As an unpopular, ill-planned war in Iraq grinds on inconclusively, it can be a bleak time to be a veteran.
There is little outright hostility toward returning military personnel these days; few Americans are reviling them as “baby killers” or blaming them for a botched war of choice launched by the White House. Indeed, both Congress and the White House have been hymning their praises in the run-up to Veterans Day. But all too often, soldiers who return from Iraq or Afghanistan — and those who served in Vietnam or Korea — have been left to fend for themselves with little help from the government.
Recent surveys have painted an appalling picture. Almost half a million of the nation’s 24 million veterans were homeless at some point during 2006, and while only a few hundred from Iraq or Afghanistan have turned up homeless so far, aid groups are bracing themselves for a tsunamilike upsurge in coming years.
Tens of thousands of reservists and National Guard troops, whose jobs were supposedly protected while they were at war, were denied prompt re-employment upon their return or else lost seniority, pay and other benefits. Some 1.8 million veterans were unable to get care in veterans’ facilities in 2004 and lacked health insurance to pay for care elsewhere. Meanwhile, veterans seeking disability payments faced huge backlogs and inordinate delays in getting claims and appeals processed.
The biggest stain this year was the scandalous neglect of outpatients at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and a sluggish response to the needs of wounded soldiers at veterans clinics and hospitals. Much of this neglect stemmed from the Bush administration’s failure to plan for a long war with mounting casualties and over-long tours of duty to compensate for a shortage of troops.
Thus far, more than 4,000 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, many more than died in the almost-bloodless Persian Gulf war, but only a fraction of the body counts in Vietnam (58,000) or Korea (36,000). A higher percentage of wounded soldiers are surviving the current conflicts with grievous injuries, their lives saved by body armor, advances in battlefield medicine and prompt evacuation. A study issued last week estimated that the long-term costs of their medical care and disability benefits could exceed the amount spent so far in prosecuting the war in Iraq.
To their credit, Congress and the administration have poured billions of added dollars into veterans’ programs and streamlined procedures in a scramble to catch up with the need. That is only appropriate. The entire burden of today’s wars has been carried by a voluntary military force and its families. The larger public has not faced a draft, paid higher taxes or been asked to make any other sacrifice. The least a grateful nation should do is support the troops upon their return.
November 12, 2007
Editorial
As an unpopular, ill-planned war in Iraq grinds on inconclusively, it can be a bleak time to be a veteran.
There is little outright hostility toward returning military personnel these days; few Americans are reviling them as “baby killers” or blaming them for a botched war of choice launched by the White House. Indeed, both Congress and the White House have been hymning their praises in the run-up to Veterans Day. But all too often, soldiers who return from Iraq or Afghanistan — and those who served in Vietnam or Korea — have been left to fend for themselves with little help from the government.
Recent surveys have painted an appalling picture. Almost half a million of the nation’s 24 million veterans were homeless at some point during 2006, and while only a few hundred from Iraq or Afghanistan have turned up homeless so far, aid groups are bracing themselves for a tsunamilike upsurge in coming years.
Tens of thousands of reservists and National Guard troops, whose jobs were supposedly protected while they were at war, were denied prompt re-employment upon their return or else lost seniority, pay and other benefits. Some 1.8 million veterans were unable to get care in veterans’ facilities in 2004 and lacked health insurance to pay for care elsewhere. Meanwhile, veterans seeking disability payments faced huge backlogs and inordinate delays in getting claims and appeals processed.
The biggest stain this year was the scandalous neglect of outpatients at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and a sluggish response to the needs of wounded soldiers at veterans clinics and hospitals. Much of this neglect stemmed from the Bush administration’s failure to plan for a long war with mounting casualties and over-long tours of duty to compensate for a shortage of troops.
Thus far, more than 4,000 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, many more than died in the almost-bloodless Persian Gulf war, but only a fraction of the body counts in Vietnam (58,000) or Korea (36,000). A higher percentage of wounded soldiers are surviving the current conflicts with grievous injuries, their lives saved by body armor, advances in battlefield medicine and prompt evacuation. A study issued last week estimated that the long-term costs of their medical care and disability benefits could exceed the amount spent so far in prosecuting the war in Iraq.
To their credit, Congress and the administration have poured billions of added dollars into veterans’ programs and streamlined procedures in a scramble to catch up with the need. That is only appropriate. The entire burden of today’s wars has been carried by a voluntary military force and its families. The larger public has not faced a draft, paid higher taxes or been asked to make any other sacrifice. The least a grateful nation should do is support the troops upon their return.
Inntegrity, Honor And Loyalty: Healing And The Fog Of War At Home
"As a disabled Vietnam Veteran, I watch in anguish as this administration, by the acquiescence of Congress, perpetuates another endless war for its own self-serving purposes."By Granville Angell October 30, 2007As a disabled Vietnam Veteran, I watch in anguish as this administration, by the acquiescence of Congress, perpetuates another endless war for its own self-serving purposes. This is an administration and society that (unlike Vietnam days) says, "Support Our Troops," but that is not happening. This administration, backed by Congress, has been following policies that fail to provide adequate infrastructure for combat operations; policies that overwhelm and exhaust our troops; policies that punish our troops for their exhausted mistakes in the heat of battle; policies that do not adequately support new veterans upon their return home and policies that selfishly and dishonorably sacrifice our troops for a questionable cause that was initiated upon lies and deception. It is a war, once declared "won" that continues to escalate among an Iraqi leadership and citizenry that has yet to take adequate responsibility for its own governance. Iraqi lawmakers take extended vacations while blood-thirsty factions are more interested in killing their way to supremacy than negotiating a fledgling democracy. Through it all, our troops continue to be maimed and killed. And, trust me, the days of their feeling betrayed by their country are coming. Far more than can ever be predicted on the face of it, our troops’ realization of that betrayal will cripple lives.I don’t know another Vietnam Veteran who doesn’t share my perception that the combat dynamics and psychological pressures of this war are virtually identical to Vietnam. Change the jungle for the desert and you have it. Change Vietnamese culture for Iraqi culture and you have it again: nobody knows who the enemy is – until he or she blows you up. But what do the chickenhawks in Washington know?In Vietnam, I experienced the horror of war as a helicopter ambulance pilot. I saw firsthand how it felt to be in daily combat situations without the moral and logistical support of the leaders in the war effort. I volunteered as the son of a WWII veteran and Pearl Harbor survivor, but then – as now – the leadership of the country was not supporting us for a noble cause. At age 20, I finished growing up in Vietnam, feeling completely betrayed by my leaders and everything they stood for. Branded as a "baby killer," I was one of many veterans who spent a lifetime unable to acquire decent employment – not even after working myself through college on an inadequate GI Bill. To this day, I do not know where my pathology – my PTSD – ends and the pathology of our society begins. Now, we are breeding a whole new crop of betrayed veterans. These are among the best, brightest and most patriotic of our youth who left our shores willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. What they are discovering is they have been sacrificed, body and soul, to a cause known only to the clandestine pursuits of our present nefarious administration – sold out in the pursuit of a ruse, then manipulated to remain in this God-forsaken setting, hoping – as we did in Vietnam – that they will not be the last to die for a mistake. In today's war, however, the last one to die would not be dying for a mistake, but a lie – a treacherous lie! Added to this, after neglecting diplomacy and throwing the rock into the hornets’ nest by electing to fight the wrong war, we are now less safe than we were after 9/11. As a psychotherapist, I honestly wonder whether we are dealing with insanity or psychopathy. I am reminded of some clichés commonly used by people who are actually working on recovery from their addictions and afflictions: “We are only as sick as the secrets we keep.” Then there’s that great definition for those who are out of touch with reality: “Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.” However, add together lies, disrespect for the law, self-interest repeatedly elevated to lethal consequences, along with lack of remorse and we have the formula for psychopathy. Also, the catalyst for turning troops into cannon fodder, as history will confirm.The percentage of troops returning alive from this war, but maimed for life due to war wounds, PTSD, or both, will be greater than previous wars – thanks to more advanced battlefield medicine. However, even battlefield medicine has its limits. Will our troops be psychologically stranded on the battlefield, as they were in Vietnam? It will be the personal experience of our troops – in terms of the value they experience being put upon them and the long-term reception they receive upon their return home – that will determine their ability to "come home" to live the rest of their lives. It all begins with not asking unnecessary sacrifices.There were no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein is dead and our continuing military presence inspires daily enlistments into Al Qaeda and the insurgencies. Based upon continuing needless sacrifice of our troops, how can our troops possibly feel valued? Many of them may not be aware now – but they will grow up in war, as I did, and they will realize how little value they have in the eyes of this country's chickenhawk leadership!What does such betrayal do to the adjustment of veterans, returned from the war? Speaking for myself and many Vietnam Veterans, plus veterans of the current war I have had exposure to, many of us feel we have been lied to, manipulated, conned – and in many ways, we were – and are. The stories of decaying medical facilities, vets returning to non-existent jobs and media references to “crazy Iraq Vets” is just the beginning for this era. This is an administration that cuts funds for veterans' services even as it ups the ante in our current war effort! Further, it is an outrage that the Department of Veterans Affairs, many of its dedicated staffers veterans themselves, gets the blame when its well-planned programs are not properly funded. Weeks ago, as the Senate prepared for filibuster debates, MoveOn.org sent me an email, asking me if I would share my story as a veteran. The substance of my message is this document. What I am seeing every day is my story! I see Vietnam all over again – only worse in many ways. At least folks in our era were honest in their intentions not to give us "baby killers" support on our return. I anguish over how little support follows the lip service about supporting our troops. I especially anguish over how our exhausted troops have their tours extended or are returned to combat duty without proper rest and recovery. Over the years since this war began, I have lain awake at night in silent vigil for our new generation of forsaken warriors, have flown Iraq Dust Off missions in my nightmares and anguished at the growing disparity between the rising number of casualties and the depletion of justifiable reasons for this war.It is said that 58,000 died in Vietnam and at least that many veterans have died since at their own hand. In this new era of war, we are setting the stage for another round of destroyed lives – not just outright combat casualties, but another generation of veterans who will come home to a country that does not support them in recovering from an unjustified war, alienated from themselves and their families due to untreated PTSD, and subjugated to endless lip service backed by under-funded programs. We all face the consequences of this warfare dilemma together – not just our leadership – and our troops most of all. They must be honored for their sacrifices and the honor to be found in service to country. On the other hand, it is not realistic to expect to completely end with honor an enterprise that was initiated on the basis of lies and deception. As a nation, we must return to a state of honor and integrity – worthy of the troops who defend us. We can take our country back from self-serving political parties and corporate lobbyists. We can demand accountability of our leadership, return to the rule of law, and reinstate balance of power in government. However, change of leadership is the only way we can expect to bring integrity, honor and healing to our fractionated country – both in our eyes and the eyes of the world. Our country’s immediate change of leadership may be the most decisive act to end the “war on terror.” The evidence has accumulated indicating impeachment as the most appropriate and immediate vehicle of accountability. We have already declared victory in Iraq, as far as overthrowing a dictator and ascertaining an absence of weapons of mass destruction are concerned. We can now declare that our military role is over and bring our troops back home to a country with a renewed leadership that values diplomacy over military solutions, and the needs of human beings over corporate globalization, in international relations. If we continue to pursue a military solution in Iraq, we – as a country – will face a fate more destructive than the enemy of terrorism. We will completely fracture ourselves and split away from the qualities that built this country in the first place: honor, integrity, freedom and justice for all.Overseas, our military sons and daughters are putting their lives on the line for this country. Is it too much to ask for a Congress that will take the comparatively milder risk to stand up to a corrupt administration for the sake of our country and those who are willing to die for it?
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Presidential Commission's Reports on Walter Reed Scandal
By Col. David Hunt
The President's Commission On Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors — led by Sen. Bob Dole and former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala — has just reported back on their findings on how this nation cares for its wounded heroes.The short answer is, we don’t.The presidential commission was very politically correct and would not name names or blame anyone for the disaster that we witnessed a few months ago at Walter Reed. Only seven people were fired. We are also told that it was "just a coincidence" that the president went running with heroic amputees around the White House on the day the report was written … hmmm.Can we just stop all this bull? Can we just look straight into the camera and say, "We suck, we apologize and now we are now going to fix it?" And, perhaps give the wounded warriors, and you, their families, a free cell phone with unlimited minutes ... one that has one number to dial, that is manned by U.S. citizens — not Pakistanis — who will answer and help you with you medical issues? Can we give the press complete open access to the problem as they uncover it? Can we not just look in the camera and say, "In 30 days I will come back out here and keep coming every 30 days until every damn service members medical problem is fixed?"We had a deal with these soldiers — you fight for us and we will take care of your wounds. That means all of your wounds — physical and emotional — that you got while serving, for the rest of your life, quickly and efficiently. The soldiers kept their end of the deal they always do. We have been lying scum-buckets. We have used soldiers for backdrops to make political points — we have said how much we love soldiers … basically a “thanks for your service.” I gotta tell you, when you are missing a body part, or have such emotional and or mental problems that you lose your family, "thanks" just does not cut it.We can go to the moon, we can go to Iraq, we can worry about Lindsay Lohan’s life, we can cry with Paris Hilton … but how about we fix this massive betrayal of our service men and women. Not tomorrow. Today.
-----Colonel David Hunt, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a FOX News military analyst and the author of the New York Times bestseller They Just Don’t Get It. He has extensive operational experience in counterterrorism, special operations, and intelligence operations. He has trained the FBI and Special Forces in counterterrorism tactics, served as the security adviser to six different Olympic Games, testified as an expert at many major terrorist trials, and lectured at the CIA, the FBI, and the National Security Agency.
The President's Commission On Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors — led by Sen. Bob Dole and former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala — has just reported back on their findings on how this nation cares for its wounded heroes.The short answer is, we don’t.The presidential commission was very politically correct and would not name names or blame anyone for the disaster that we witnessed a few months ago at Walter Reed. Only seven people were fired. We are also told that it was "just a coincidence" that the president went running with heroic amputees around the White House on the day the report was written … hmmm.Can we just stop all this bull? Can we just look straight into the camera and say, "We suck, we apologize and now we are now going to fix it?" And, perhaps give the wounded warriors, and you, their families, a free cell phone with unlimited minutes ... one that has one number to dial, that is manned by U.S. citizens — not Pakistanis — who will answer and help you with you medical issues? Can we give the press complete open access to the problem as they uncover it? Can we not just look in the camera and say, "In 30 days I will come back out here and keep coming every 30 days until every damn service members medical problem is fixed?"We had a deal with these soldiers — you fight for us and we will take care of your wounds. That means all of your wounds — physical and emotional — that you got while serving, for the rest of your life, quickly and efficiently. The soldiers kept their end of the deal they always do. We have been lying scum-buckets. We have used soldiers for backdrops to make political points — we have said how much we love soldiers … basically a “thanks for your service.” I gotta tell you, when you are missing a body part, or have such emotional and or mental problems that you lose your family, "thanks" just does not cut it.We can go to the moon, we can go to Iraq, we can worry about Lindsay Lohan’s life, we can cry with Paris Hilton … but how about we fix this massive betrayal of our service men and women. Not tomorrow. Today.
-----Colonel David Hunt, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a FOX News military analyst and the author of the New York Times bestseller They Just Don’t Get It. He has extensive operational experience in counterterrorism, special operations, and intelligence operations. He has trained the FBI and Special Forces in counterterrorism tactics, served as the security adviser to six different Olympic Games, testified as an expert at many major terrorist trials, and lectured at the CIA, the FBI, and the National Security Agency.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Why I Cry for Jonathan Shulze
by Adam Charles Kokesh Tue, 03/20/2007 - 1:44am
It is 0230 and I should be asleep. Instead, I am crying my eyes out as I sit in front of my computer, reading again the story of Marine Jonathan Schulze. I am glad that I am crying. I feel like a real human again.
The past week has been incredible for me. I only joined IVAW a month ago. I joined because I had no choice. I didn’t even really know that they existed, but I went online to find something I could do, not even knowing what I was looking for. When I finally came across ivaw.org, I couldn’t deny that that was me: I was a veteran, and goddamnit if I didn’t know from the bottom of my heart that I was against the “war.” As Dante said, “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality.” It dawned on me that even if you only want to bring the troops home for one reason, you should be ashamed not to do what you are called upon to do to speak out in whatever capacity you can. It is thus by the authority of my soul that I had no choice but to join IVAW and become a part of the cause.
I eagerly accepted “speaking gigs” before panels at University of Maryland and Howard University. I was interviewed by the BBC for a segment on Fallujah. I got to introduce Michael Franti and Spearhead at their sold out show at the 9:30 club, and then sit behind him onstage at our benefit. I got interviewed by Al Arabia that night, and early again the next morning so that they could get a shot of me with a crowd in the frame. Then I was treated to no less than ten cameras pointed at me for hours as I marched behind our banner and in front of the thousands of marchers that came to support our message and to march on the pentagon.
It was also by the authority of my soul that I participated in Operation First Casualty. I walked point in our squad as we patrolled Washington to bring home the truth of the war and call attention to our cause. I didn’t want to do it. I was scared. I feared that violating the sanctity of the Marine Corps utility uniform would be sacrilege. I think if I was still on active duty right now, and was watching fellow former Marine Sergeant and IVAW member Liam Madden marching through the capitol in his utilities, I probably would have called him a “shit-bag.” But to not participate when perfectly able would have been to betray myself. In light of the stakes, making a parody of military operations is the pettiest of transgressions.
What we did was a little bit crazy, and you have to be a little screwy to do something like this. But we’re the lucky ones. We are among the relatively safe and sane of the returning vets. Take the case of Jonathan Schulze who killed himself after being turned down twice at a VA hospital after telling them twice that he was suicidal. How many more vets need help that don’t even know that they need help? We are starting to see the first homeless vets of this war trickling into shelters. This disgrace is the best proof that our elected officials are only paying lip service to the idea of supporting the troops. But then there are the real crazies, whose ranks I once was a part of, who want to go back to Iraq. I wanted to go back because I didn’t get a purple heart the first time. That is not a normal thought for a human being to have. Had I told any mental health professional outside of the military that I wanted to go back to get injured, I would have been committed.
For better or for worse, this sentiment is somewhat typical in the service. The dedication of our all-volunteer army is the best weapon of defense this country has. The guys in the rear resent being, “one of the guys that didn’t go to Iraq.” And the guys like me look up to the recipients of the purple heart and say, “those are the guys that really sacrificed.” And the guys with the purple hearts say, “Man, I didn’t do shit. The guy standing two feet away from me didn’t make it home in one piece.” The people that feel this way do so because they love their country and they want to lay down the lives for our safety and security. That was why I served.
Towards the end of Operation First Casualty, former Army Sergeant Aaron Hughes, a member of our squad of veterans, pointed out to me that “people are just done,” as we were walking towards Arlington Cemetery for our memorial service. I had suggested we continue to move in a tactical column, as we had been all day, instead of just mobbing over “like a bunch of nasty civilians.” It was then that I realized, standing between fields of crosses stretching into the horizon, that I was done. And I lost it and couldn’t stop crying. At the service, it was all I could do to keep from falling out of formation. Previously as a reservist, I had served on flag details at funerals and on twenty-one gun salute teams. I had always been able to take the tragedy and put it away and not even think about it. Now I am able to cry about it – the way that an ordinary human would if faced with such tragedy. I cry for Jonathan Shulze, a Marine I never knew, because I nearly was him. Maybe I was one incident away. Maybe it could have been your son. Maybe it could have been your friend from high school. Or maybe it was just another stranger who had taken an oath to risk his life when called upon in order to defend your quality of life. Maybe I’m still a little crazy as I go through the process of becoming human again. Maybe I’m just a little riled up from what we did today. But I would have to be fucking nuts to not do anything.
It is 0230 and I should be asleep. Instead, I am crying my eyes out as I sit in front of my computer, reading again the story of Marine Jonathan Schulze. I am glad that I am crying. I feel like a real human again.
The past week has been incredible for me. I only joined IVAW a month ago. I joined because I had no choice. I didn’t even really know that they existed, but I went online to find something I could do, not even knowing what I was looking for. When I finally came across ivaw.org, I couldn’t deny that that was me: I was a veteran, and goddamnit if I didn’t know from the bottom of my heart that I was against the “war.” As Dante said, “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality.” It dawned on me that even if you only want to bring the troops home for one reason, you should be ashamed not to do what you are called upon to do to speak out in whatever capacity you can. It is thus by the authority of my soul that I had no choice but to join IVAW and become a part of the cause.
I eagerly accepted “speaking gigs” before panels at University of Maryland and Howard University. I was interviewed by the BBC for a segment on Fallujah. I got to introduce Michael Franti and Spearhead at their sold out show at the 9:30 club, and then sit behind him onstage at our benefit. I got interviewed by Al Arabia that night, and early again the next morning so that they could get a shot of me with a crowd in the frame. Then I was treated to no less than ten cameras pointed at me for hours as I marched behind our banner and in front of the thousands of marchers that came to support our message and to march on the pentagon.
It was also by the authority of my soul that I participated in Operation First Casualty. I walked point in our squad as we patrolled Washington to bring home the truth of the war and call attention to our cause. I didn’t want to do it. I was scared. I feared that violating the sanctity of the Marine Corps utility uniform would be sacrilege. I think if I was still on active duty right now, and was watching fellow former Marine Sergeant and IVAW member Liam Madden marching through the capitol in his utilities, I probably would have called him a “shit-bag.” But to not participate when perfectly able would have been to betray myself. In light of the stakes, making a parody of military operations is the pettiest of transgressions.
What we did was a little bit crazy, and you have to be a little screwy to do something like this. But we’re the lucky ones. We are among the relatively safe and sane of the returning vets. Take the case of Jonathan Schulze who killed himself after being turned down twice at a VA hospital after telling them twice that he was suicidal. How many more vets need help that don’t even know that they need help? We are starting to see the first homeless vets of this war trickling into shelters. This disgrace is the best proof that our elected officials are only paying lip service to the idea of supporting the troops. But then there are the real crazies, whose ranks I once was a part of, who want to go back to Iraq. I wanted to go back because I didn’t get a purple heart the first time. That is not a normal thought for a human being to have. Had I told any mental health professional outside of the military that I wanted to go back to get injured, I would have been committed.
For better or for worse, this sentiment is somewhat typical in the service. The dedication of our all-volunteer army is the best weapon of defense this country has. The guys in the rear resent being, “one of the guys that didn’t go to Iraq.” And the guys like me look up to the recipients of the purple heart and say, “those are the guys that really sacrificed.” And the guys with the purple hearts say, “Man, I didn’t do shit. The guy standing two feet away from me didn’t make it home in one piece.” The people that feel this way do so because they love their country and they want to lay down the lives for our safety and security. That was why I served.
Towards the end of Operation First Casualty, former Army Sergeant Aaron Hughes, a member of our squad of veterans, pointed out to me that “people are just done,” as we were walking towards Arlington Cemetery for our memorial service. I had suggested we continue to move in a tactical column, as we had been all day, instead of just mobbing over “like a bunch of nasty civilians.” It was then that I realized, standing between fields of crosses stretching into the horizon, that I was done. And I lost it and couldn’t stop crying. At the service, it was all I could do to keep from falling out of formation. Previously as a reservist, I had served on flag details at funerals and on twenty-one gun salute teams. I had always been able to take the tragedy and put it away and not even think about it. Now I am able to cry about it – the way that an ordinary human would if faced with such tragedy. I cry for Jonathan Shulze, a Marine I never knew, because I nearly was him. Maybe I was one incident away. Maybe it could have been your son. Maybe it could have been your friend from high school. Or maybe it was just another stranger who had taken an oath to risk his life when called upon in order to defend your quality of life. Maybe I’m still a little crazy as I go through the process of becoming human again. Maybe I’m just a little riled up from what we did today. But I would have to be fucking nuts to not do anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
