JMO - Impeachment

After watching the PBS Frontline show Bush's War, and reading the views on the impeachment against President Bush and Vice President Cheney, I have to agree, both should have been impeached and convicted in 2005, and definitely in 2006, but the the Republicans controlled Congress. When the Democrats took over Congress in late 2006, they should have impeached and convicte them in 2007, but they used the wrong argument to defend the reasons not to.

Despite the rhetoric about what it would do to this country in a time of war, and especially the war on terroristm, I agree with those that said it would have been the best thing for this nation, to see all the information about the leadup to and the implementation of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The Frontline show clearly provided the framework to the story and insights into the complete manipulation or distortion of the evidence against Saddham Hussein.

Those that are old enough remember the impeachment proceedings against President Nixon. He wasn't impeached, let alone convicted, but it was clear the House would have impeached him and the Senate convicted him. He resigned from office before the House could vote on the articles of impeachment.

Many remember the discussions and eventually the articles of impeachment against President Clinton, and the close vote by the Senate. That clearly was a political impeachment. The whole thing was about sex with a White House intern. And as was said, if other presidents had been put under that scrutiny, a lot of them would have been impeached and convicted, including President Kennedy.

But now we have a President and Vice President who arranged the evidence against the leader of another soverign nation and lead this country into an invasion and occupation of that nation. And as we now know, all the evidence was fabricated, manipulated or distorted, and many of the sources were known liars or discredited later. Even in mid-2007 Bill Moyers reported 45% and 54% of American wanted an impeachment of the President and Vice President, respectively.

We want the truth to see the light of day, and not hidden under veils of White House administration secrecy, much of it also withheld from Congress. Congress said it wasn't the right time and would take too long considering the time the President had left in his term. What didn't they understand we, the people, wanted the truth and people be held accountable. We didn't want politics as usual.

And we know he may have been impeached but not convicted. So be it. It would have marked his term as President as flawed and had the Senate done their job, removed both the President and Vice President for "high crimes and misdemeanors" as defined by the Constitution. It worked in 1975, the country and nation didn't collapse, and proved to be stronger than we imagined.

And the same can be said here. We need a change of direction in the management and politics for the war in Iraq. We're in a long, almost endless war, of attrition depending on which side finally runs out of resources, namely people and national will. Both sides never run out of money as well as arms and weapons. It's likely, because of the simplicity and abundance of weapons used by the insurgents and the expensiveness of US technological weapons, the US will begin to blink first.

We can't sustain 200,000 troops and 100,000 contractors in Iraq with all the other global interests for US forces. Since the "surge" now is near-permanent, we're looking at a slow escalation of involvement because it takes troops to sustain the ever slowing losing civil war and this will require additonal surges of troops. And anything approaching disengagement or withdrawal only leads to a worsening.

But I wander. I want a public viewing of the evidence the President used in his 2003 State of Union address. I want a public discussion about the President and Vice President's conduct from 2001-2008 along with all the other people who helped. I want them before a House committee answering questions to the American people. Now we have to wait for history.

That's my view. Bush will leave office thinking he won. But I hope he lives a very long time and comes to the realization, as history will show, what a real screwup he really is and the damage he has done to the country and nation. I want him to see the history which he didn't see then.

JMO - Thoughts on Iraq

I was reading George Bush's comments on the 4,000 troops lost in Iraq, not to forget the 30,000+ permanently disabled and injured troops. I won't touch the issue of the innocent Iraqis killed, injured, disabled, displaced and emigrated. I was amazed that George doesn't seem to get the Vietnam connection, and not about the country, strategy or tactics, that's all different.

It's about the rhetoric. It hasn't changed. But what does bother me is the number of people who worked to create and justify this war, those neocons, especially Cheney, Rumsfeldt, Wolfwitz, etal, who lived through the Vietnam war era but didn't serve or have any military experience, and tout war as the answer. Even George Bush, who "served" on paper but didn't really serve (sorry, he's never proven he was on active duty and papers show him elsewhere), talks about the sacrifice?

I mean who can believe a man who tried to escape even Air National Guard duty? What can he say to the families of the 4,000+ dead soldiers? To the 30,000+ injured and disabled? He told the audience that he didn't want them to know their sacrifice was in vain. Hmmm..., somehow I heard that three-plus decades ago from two other Presidents about the 58,000 dead and 100,000+ injured and disabled from Vietnam.

If you want to believe what George and company wanted in Iraq, watch the PBS Frontline documentary on the Iraq war. If you've seen it, do you really still believe what he's said about why we're in Iraq? Remember the 2003 State of the Union address? Nothing he said was true and everything he didn't say was true, it was about global geopolitics and oil.

Then read the Washington Post series on Dick Cheney. Still believe this elite groups of neocons have America's and the American people's interests at heart, or their own personal interests and those of their corporate friends? A small handful of elistist egotist have damaged this country, this nation and the people more than any administration in history.

And we'll all pay well into the future, especially the young. I feel sorry for the youth of America. We, being a Vietnam-era vet and youth, still have the aftermath and after effects from that war, started and continued by a World War II generation of elistist and egos. We should have known better with Iraq except those that started and continue this war weren't of our experience. What didn't and don't the neocons understand about history?

What's my point here, beside ranting or venting, again? I don't know, but it sure relieves the anger and frustration about Iraq. I will always believe this was a wrong war. And I know we can't withdraw in the immediate future, no matter what the candidates say, but we can't stay more than about 4-6 more years without bankrupting the military, America and American's.

Bush's legacy will be giving us a war that can't end without losing. We might find a military victory in some sense, much like Vietnam where we announce victory for name sake, but unlike Vietnam where we completely left, in Iraq we'll stay. We'll have 3 or 4 permanent bases, the world's largest US embassy, and something on the order of 50-100,000 troops with as many private contractors.

That's my guess for the situation in five years or so, and probably worth as much as anyone elses. Even the best analysists and experts can't seem to provide any clear idea except muddy, fuzzy ideas about potentials and possibilities. So, I'm always open to hearing new ideas about what could and might happen, and hopefully, we'll begin to see something approaching reality. Or not.

And for now we're in the middle of a quagmire, where we're damed if we stay and damned if we leave. And the dead, injured and disabled on all sides will continue.

JMO - Patriotism

I was watching Lou Dobbs today (Sunday) and Lou and the media journalists or analysists, aka pundits, talking about the last week's news, especially Barrack Obama's speech about the Reverend Wright. By the end of the session I was almost ready to strangle all of them, even Lou Dobbs, whom I respect as well as his show. They've been watching and analyzing the candidates too much they missed the message the common person gets with only the slightes attention to the media about the candidates.

They kept criticizing Obama for the speech, but their reasons seemed to be more about their opinion than anything actual, even being well respected journalist with decades of experience in politics and with politicians. Or, it's the case I misunderstood Obama's speech? I don't think so. While I saw their points, it seems the just overanalyzed it. Obama wasn't presenting it to them but to the American people who understood and accepted his explanation.

They did touch on one subject that touches the issue of the war. The candidates on both sides have made this campaign, as all of them since 9/11, about patriotism. But they didn't touch on the issue of patriotism that isn't being discussed. What is patriotism?

I'm angry our political system, especilally with George Bush and Dick Cheney, have hijacked the term patriotism from what it really means to something it's not. And I'm personally tired of the consistent argument many politicians and others use that their position on Iraq and the war there is patriotic and anyone who disagrees with their view or criticizes them is unpatriotic. Nothing could be farhter from the truth.

Patriotism, to me, is believing in the good of your country and the good of the people. It's about the freedoms and civil rights and liberties we have and our system of government, in and with all it's flaws and problems. And that's the key to me. It's not about one view anyone thinks or expresses as right, but the diversity of views and the freedom to express those views, no matter how conflicting and divergent.

And what's even more important to some, and me, is that I believed in my country enough, despite disargeeing with the President and his Vietnam war policy, to serve my country (1969-73). I am and always will be proud I served, and that also gives me the privilege to say I support my country. I don't believe you support it right or wrong, that's what the public forum and freedom of speech is about, but you will when called or needed, serve.

But I also respect the rights of those who haven't served, decided not to serve, or express their view by refusing to serve. That's the beauty of our republic and democracy, personal freedoms, even when we disagree with the majority and our government, and we're willing to accept the responsibility as well as the consequences of our decisions and actions.

To believe and support that is patriotism. It's about standing in the public forum and express your view, then listen to the view of others, and then discuss the facts, the reality, the views and whatever else to come to a compromise. Not that we all have to agree with it or have to agree to its entirety, but something we can accomplish to work toward if not actually accomplish a solution.

And that's what 9/11 and the war in Iraq has changed. Like many I saw the invasion and occupation of Iraq in the 2003 State of the Union address by President Bush. It was clear to me he was setting the stage for the invasion announcement, and it was just a matter of time when he made the decision to act, to invade another soverign nation without provocation or truthful reasons, as we now all then presented were lies.

The war was about global geopolitics and energy, nothing else. And now we're in the sixth year of this war with 4,000 soldiers dead, tens of thousands permanently injured or disabled, billions of dollars down the toliet and unaccounted, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, the same or more permanently injured or disabled, millions emigrated or displaced, a country destroyed, a civil war now well established, millions in arms and weapons lost to the insurgents and terrorists, and our international reputation gone.

And if you were to ask if the person or persons responsible for this was patriotic, they would deny the facts and reality and say it was and they are, and anyone who disagrees with them is unpatriotic. Or so, our President, Vice President, many Congressional representatives, and other politicians would say. They would not only deny the truth but deny those opposing them the truth (we all know the secrecy now in the false name of national security) and their right to say it.

The truth is we're all patriotic. It's just some have made some really big blunders and have decided denial of the reality and rejection of opposing views is the better choice that stand in the public arena and not only hear the dissent, but listen and understand other patriots believe them to be wrong, badly wrong.

These same people who profess a false sense of patriotism are also the ones who think power and control make them better people and especially better patriots. Being a patriot isn't a lapel pin and espousing your sole right to be one, but about being humble to know without saying you are one. To respect the rights of all, especially to be and express. And to say we say we are all equal as is our views, and our patriotism.

And so, to anyone, especially politicians, and the President if necessary, that is my view of patriotism, and I'll fight for that view and my right to express my view. Plain and simple, I'm as patriotic as you.

JMO - Editorials on Iraq

Reading the Sunday newspapers, I ran across a few editorials which were interesting. On this Easter Sunday, 3,996 US soldiers have died in Iraq and nearly 500 in Afghanistan, just past the five year anniversary of the start of the war, and 6 weeks short of the same anniversary when President Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" on an aircraft carrier just off shore and out of sight of land from San Diego.

The Seattle PI made an excellent point about the war against Al Qaeda in Iraq. According to the best estimates there are about 6,000 Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq, and about 160,000 US troops, not counting the additional 40,000 support troops, and 100,000+ security contractors, all fighting those 6,000 terrorists.

We know that's not the whole story as many troops are taken up with fighting Iraqi insurgents, criminals, and other elements in Iraq, as well as providing security in the many areas we've "cleared" of Al Qaeda. But that still leaves a lot of troops fighting 6,000 terrorists. So what's the problem?

And now we're not really hearing about victory, but a long, protracted war with many small successes against Al Qaeda. For how long no one seems to know and their best guess is 5-10 years minimum. And almost everyone is privately recommending permanent bases, which are under construction, something the new President won't stop, despite the campaign rhetoric they're "against the bases", meaning yes but not in the face of reality.

And the editorial goes on to point out that the Al Qaeda in Iraq is not the one of 9/11 nor the one with connections to Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan or Pakistan depending on our sources. They originated in Iraq after the invasion and occupation, are mostly Iraqis, and have no affiliation with bin Laden. Quite the contrary, they're exporting their knowledge and tactics to the Taliban in Afghanistan.

They argue it's time for some honesty with the American people, something neither side in Congress, the White House or on the campaign are providing. Only the same rhetoric in an election year to sell the ability to look tough, but with and against whom?

The New York Times had a columnist who also made some good points. A recent estimate calculated the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is costing every American household $100 per month. Except we're not paying this, our government is borrowing the money from the rest of the world, of which currently China hold 40% of that debt.

Think about that. China holds 40% of our national debt and the war debt. And our debt grows larger every day. And every day, future generations will have to pay it back with interest. And by the time the wars are over it will cost every American household $330 a month. Right off the top the family income, straight to the debt holders, no questions asked.

So what exactly does the debt collector say when calling the White House about payments?

And the longer the war goes on, the more we borrow and the more we don't rebuild America's infrastructure, provide jobs for Americans, secure the future health, welfare, education, etc. for everyone, and reduce the current national debt, now over $9 Trillion. That's $3,000 per American. Not household, but individual. That's $10-12,000 per household.

And that's only for the current debt, not the future one.

Finally, Representative Adam Smith, Democrat from Tacoma, Washington, wrote a good column on waterboarding. In short he points out that we have long held waterboarding and other forms of torture to be illegal, and we have prosecuted individuals after wars, including US soldiers who have used waterboarding and other forms of torture, expressing outlawed by the Geneva Convention.

And now the Bush Administration is following in the footsteps of those who have in the past not only condoned it but used it, including Saddham Hussein's government, along with the Khymer Rouge in Cambodia and the North Korean government. All the while Bush is saying, "We don't torture." Adam Smith says it's the integrity of the US that's at stake and Bush can't have it both ways.

Well, not a good way to discuss matter on Easter Sunday, but then again, maybe it is. Maybe George Bush should have a revelation about torture with his faith to understand what he's really doing. But then again, I doubt he will, if ever, realize the calamity he's created. I don't see he has the strength of character to see the truth and reality and his own failures as a human being, let alone the leader of a free nation.

He's one of those people you really wish would change to see what's he done. And he's more than almost anyone more in need of someone saying when he leaves this earth, in all sincerity, for all he death and destruction he has created, "May God have mercy on your soul." He will need it.

JMO - Freedom is relative

If you follow the link with the photo, it's war photojournalist Yuri Kozyrev taking a photo of American troops' serial numbers on Iraqi citizens for each town or village for identification. While I can I see the simplicity of this for replacing any papers the US military requires citizens to carry for all the check points they must go through in the course of their day, it strikes me of something a little more sinister of times past when a government did the same to some of its citizens to label them.

While you think this is harsh criticism and this practice is necessary in a time of war, it's fair to ask who are we fighting, the Iraqi citizens? Who? Is every citizen a suspect now we mark them with numbers because we don't trust them or trust any papers they may have, which we may suspect is counterfeit, stolen or borrowed? Who's the enemy, them or us? And did we forget who's country it is?

And if you think we're the liberators helping them build a democracy, why aren't we working with them than controlling the situation, circumstances and the facets of their life there? And do we prove who we are, or being the occupying military, we can just do and say what we want? Who do we fear? The very citizens we're their to help?

My question is, if our government, in the name of security, tried this in this country, enforced by our military with checkpoints throughout the US, how far do you think they would get before we, the people, revolted? What's that, freedom? What a concept, but apparently when we said we were bringing it to the the Iraqi people, we weren't quite telling the truth? We only believe in our freedom to control you, and we can't give you your complete freedom, just yet.

Check out his images of Iraq, and check out other photojournalists, and tell me you still believe this, or any war, is a good war? When will we learn war doesn't beget peace, but simply more war?