I don’t have any problem hearing from conservatives, war supporters, etc., and I understand that conflict makes good radio, but it’s hard for me to understand how the debate is served by giving air to someone who spends as much airtime as he can hog, telling outrageous lies as fast as he can.

We have to do better than this.

I agree, though I’ve made the error myself. Another instance of linguistic kudzoo along the lines of “private contractor” instead of mercenary. What business do journalists, in their capacity as journaliists, have referring to themselves in the collective patriotic “we,” annealing themselves to the very people and processes they’re supposed to maintain (think Izzy Stone) a critical distance from. Difficult to be simultaneously obsequious and presumptuous, but flunkies like Kagan (why oh why was he on the micromanaging show, except to afford Chris the great line “the take off your sunglasses doctrine”…) and others nevertheless manage it remarkably well.
Thanks for your point.

As unbelieveable as it seems, we need to at least discuss the power of an apology from the current administration for getting us into this mess unprepaired to get us out. Then, perhaps, other nations may be inclined to come to our aid. There is real power in truth and reconciliation, as proved in South Africa, and we have much to admit and be reconciled to.

David Dehner

The American people have two choices here. We can plan to fight forever in the Middle East or choose to come home without VICTORY–there are a billion Muslims who are willing to assure that this is the way it is going to be. So do we want to deal with this unpalatable truth sooner or later. Clearly it is in Bush’s personal interest for it to be later, (and then he can blame the failure on his successor.) For the overwhelming majority of the rest of us, it needs to be sooner.

Baker–and the group of realists he met with–set down a road map for ending this national night mare, and I hope Congress will see to it that we get on that road. When you have the oversight, you have the ultimate authority. When those charged with managing seem to insist on making bad decisions, those with the oversight become the DECIDER of last resort.

I think what is happening now is evidence that we did learn from the Vietnam error–we learned that accepting defeat can be our best option. Hopefully after this war, we will move up the learning curve, and raise the congressional bar for getting into these kinds of no win entanglements, so that never again will our collective national stupidity be a basis for spreading our violence around the globe.

Jon
Connecting the Dots: From human behavior to ecosystem collapse
http://StudentsForTheEarth.org

I wish he would have been asked how Bush’s statement: “We had to go to war because Saddam wouldn’t let the inspectors in” was not a lie the several times Bush repeated it.

And that lie goes to the heart of the Iraq debate that is rarely mentioned. Congress authorized the war to disarm Saddam. The inspectors were doing exactly that (finding nothing and actually destroying non-complying weapons). Bush nonetheless started the war. In that sense, he betrayed Congress’s authorization of the war. In light of that, Congress certainly has the right to step in and prevent fruther damage.

Also, I absolutely do not buy the direct connection to the Khmer Rouge genocide and our leaving Vietnam, nor have I seen the “consensus of scholars” that Prof. Turner claims exists. I would greatly appreciate references to peer-reviewed papers and respected scholarship that makes this argument. Otherwise, I am tempted to consign Prof. Turner’s “consensus” to the same trash can that contains the “scientists who contest that global warming is real.” Flat-earthers will always be with us, but that doesn’t mean we have to consider them in analyzing or setting policy.

But, oh look! It’s a parade! And look
how smartly the brave soldiers march
to the cargo planes, these new coffins.
And listen! the stirring speeches of our Great Leader!
And see him surrounded by the sages of power
and reality whispering into his ear all
the truths he believes without knowledge.

Ah! The Drums! Yes the Drums! They tell us again
how mighty we are, invincible. The uplifting words of the Great Leader,
the Great Leader who talks with God every day and says:
“Look on my works, ye mighty and despair!:

And so the whispered, half-heard voices
of all war’s dead we do not hear.
Why should we? They’re dead
and we have a Leader, at last whom we can trust.

This is not a voice of reason, but the reasoning of the crackpot. Some 56,000 Americans were killed in a futile venture in Vietnam. Turner is clearly hallucinating. There was no point in the Vietnam war where we were winning, even if you considered the easiest form of “winning” defeating the enemy to the point where the enemy decides that it cannot continue to wage war. If you consider LBJ’s definition: “winning the hearts and minds” of the Vietnamese, that victory was never even in sight.

What is Robert Taylor talking about? Winning what? How defined?

And so again, the madvoices of reason which has no reason sings its refrain to those caught in quicksand. “It doesn’t matter why you’re there. What matters is THAT YOU ARE THERE! and once there the entire prestige and credibility of the United States is upon your shoulders.” That’s what Taylor said! It doesn’t matter that the Congress was misinformed; it doesn’t matter that the American people were misinformed about the reasons for going into Iraq. Once the President sends the troops they must stay until they’re all dead or a “misinformed public opinion swayed by knee-jerk liberal newspapers and television commentators” misguidedly brings them home.”

When will we stop listening to the crackpot realist? When will we realize that the damage done to America’s credibility has nothing to do with “bringing the troops home.” In Vietnam, US credibility was lost at Tet. It was lost when the world became aware that even the US President (LBJ) was being lied to about the situation on the ground. American crediblity about the use of its power was not lost on that shameful day in Spring of ‘74 as the helicopters lifted off. American power was called into question by the very fact that 1) It’s leaders were so naiive about the world and the use of power that it got itself into a war that it could not win, because 2) it’s definition for winning kept changing and each new definition was more vague and less achievable than the definition it replace (remember the “domino effect,” first containment then rollback of communism, then “hearts and minds?”), and most importantly 3) American power lost its credibility when it showed it was easily manipulated by narrow interests and pulled into a situation of war that it could not in control; that its great military might could be bogged down interminably by a foe with little advanced military materiel, unable to control the skies or the seas, yet able to inflict disaster upon American troops.

This is Vietnam. This is Iraq. American power is laughed at around the world because we are considered ignorant of history and world realities, and because we have a yahoo of a president who, dressed in a flight suit that never saw combat, cynically announced “Mission Accomplished.” That is, that mission: getting GWB elected and elected again.

I am embarrassed that someone like Robert Taylor can go on Open Source and repeat the phony wisdom that is no wisdom. Please announce to him that regarding the American people being misguided by the pansy liberal press, instead “The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light. On them has light shined.”

Also shame on him for repeating the canard against Wilson, that he lied. The Senate Report did NOT conclude that at all.

Cindy Sheehan said on Monday that the congress is not going to get to say they’re against our being in Iraq while continuing to fund the war. I hope Charles Rangel is right, but if he’s not, the antiwar movement in this country is going to swell, and we’re getting out.

The concrete or now
The conversation or pyschological back and forth of debate
The idea or poetic, which is the realm in which the constitution is embedded

This conversation is mostly about the concrete and psychological of the war in Iraq. What matters is for us asa country to step back and extract the next lessons for “Achiving our County.”

John Carver puts forward a principal of governance to consider as we shape the next evolution of our country: the policy role sets the ends/results, and constraints/what not to do. This is the role of the legislature. The executive role –the president — pursues the ends within the constraints. The US constitution requires a Carver-refined application of governance.

Something to consider as this country evolves the way we govern: In the early years of Digital Computers, the operating structure shifted between a tight hieararchy and a matrix, depending on the state of the market (or public opinion). When the market or public opinion was flush, Digital ran as a liberating matrix with decentralized decision making. When the market receded, the hierarchy steps in and takes control. Akin to a market receding…when we don’t like what is going on we demand micro management.

And one last image from Richard Rorty from his book, “Achieving our Country”: Democracy is a continuous experiment of trying to figure out what is right. We screw up and learn from the messes or failures. Are we ready to dig into our recent messes to evolve how to best “acheiving our country?”

I was already under the impression that the “McCain Doctrine” was a political position to separate himself from GW and still look tough to the base. I think he’s as surprised as anybody that we are now going that route and that he’ll actually be accountable for his position. Now he’s scampering to separating himself from GW by saying 20, 000 isn’t enough.

The sad irony is, we are seeing more political calculations about Iraq than in Iraq.

My only quibble with the premise of this show is it lends wait to Sen. Biden’s words (Of course he does lead the Foreign Relations Committee so I understand why) It’s just that his reactionary rhetoric is out of step with the public and frozen by desperate presidential aspirations. This guy always seems to be tripping over himself to sound tough and not “liberal.” He speaks with that same indignant tone of voice that says if they had only listened to me. He’s one of the curmudgeon Muppets in the balcony hurling clever criticisms below.

He says I’m against the surge but I’ll fund it. That’s sounds very similar to, I’m against going unilaterally into Iraq, but I’ll vote for it. It must be great to live in a world where you have it both ways. Biden represents the old Democrats, Republican lite.

The Democratic antithesis of Sen. Biden had his own things to say yesterday. Barack Obama said his office is looking into how we can stop funding for new troops without taking anything away from the troops that are there.

Biden better get on the bus that Murtha and Obama are driving or he’ll walking a lonely road..

This shifting has come from two directions: the foreign policy establishment via the Baker commission and a new congress feeling the heat of an upset body politic.

Jon

Connecting the Dots: From human behaviors to ecosystem collapse
http://StudentsForTheEarth.org

The Joe Biden exchange is exhibit A of why I would not vote for him, nor do I think he will get the Democratic nomination for ‘08. He may not want to give the President a hand to lift himself out of the muck. But that’s politics and that’s playing with lives.

It is the administration’s war, but we all are paying for it. It’s our hole they are digging and we should not have to dig it further.

Thanks for that link OCParrot ( and welcome back).