The Real John Murtha

Today I was reading my copy of December's "Army" magazine -- the excellent publication of the Association of the United States Army (AUSA), www.ausa.org. On page 11 is an ad thanking the supporters of the annual fundraiser put on by the Army Distaff Foundation/Knollwood, www.armydistaff.org. For anyone who doesn't know, Distaff Foundation/Knollwood was formed in 1959 and operates retirement housing and health care services in Northwest Washington DC for retired career military officers of all services as well as their female relatives, regardless of financial resources.

The ad indicates that one guest of honor at the organization's 10th annual fundraiser was Army General (Retired) John Vessey, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The other was Congressman and United States Marine Corps Reserve Colonel (Retired) John P. Murtha. You remember Congressman Murtha don't you? The gentleman who only a week ago was being slandered by the chickenhawks in the Bush administration and their lackies in the media for lacking patriotism and for giving aid and comfort to our enemies?

That's John Murtha -- doing the right thing for the military and for veterans without fanfare. As far as I'm concerned, none of those chickenhawks is fit to polish John Murtha's combat boots.

Bush Administration Idea Thieves

On Saturday, Senator Joe Biden, Democrat of Delaware, had an op-ed published in the Washington Post, "Time for an Iraq Timetable:"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/25/AR2005112500864.html

In this article, Biden makes the case for putting together a list of goals and objectives to be met in Iraq and a timetable for meeting them, including training Iraq's military and police, helping to achieve political consensus between all factions, and implementing the recently adopted Constitution. His ultimate goal is for US troops to be able to withdraw from Iraq, with Iraq's military and police taking over the security of their own country and its borders.

Incredibly, the response of the Bush Administration, which has steadfastly refused to set a timetable, and which routinely excoriates anyone who disagrees with their Iraq policy as a "traitor" or someone "giving aid and comfort to the enemy," is to say that Biden stole THEIR idea!!!

I'm serious. Bush spokesman and serial prevaricator Scott McClellan actually released a statement entitled "Senator Biden Adopts Key Portions Of Administration's Plan For Victory In Iraq."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051127/pl_afp/usiraqtroops

In this statement, McClellan said the administration was happy to have Biden's support for their plan:

"Today, Senator Biden described a plan remarkably similar to the administration's plan to fight and win the war on terror."

I call BULLSHIT! Everyone knows the Bush administration had never called for a list of goals and objectives for our efforts in Iraq, that they never called for withdrawing troops, and that they questioned the patriotism of anyone who didn't agree with them 100 percent. Just ask Jack Murtha, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Wes Clark, or Eric Shinseki. The best evidence that the administration doesn't have such a plan is that if it did, Biden wouldn't need to call for one in an editorial.

The administration never started saying any of what Biden said in his op-ed until Murtha called for a phased redployment out of Iraq that would enable Iraqis to take over their own security, while American forces could be positioned nearby to rapidly respond if a need arose. After questioning the patriotism and commitment to the military of a veteran of 37 years with the Marines and Marine Reserves, the administration realized it couldn't win, then took over Murtha's arguments as their own. Now they've done the same thing with Biden's words.

There are too many members of this administration who lie as a matter of strategy, and who are willing to destroy people and rewrite history rather than admit mistakes. They have now added plagiarism to their list of bad acts. When will the allegedly liberal media take these guys to task? When will they have to answer for their bad faith, their dishonesty and their actual, honest-to-God CRIMES? Is there anything they can do that's so bad that people will finally scream "ENOUGH!" or are they correct in their belief that they can say and do anything to further their own power?

Only good news please...

From the November 25 New York Times:

"...NBC did not interrupt its broadcast of the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade yesterday to bring viewers the news that an M&M balloon had crashed into a light pole, injuring two sisters.

In fact, when the time came in the tightly scripted three-hour program for the M&Ms' appearance, NBC weaved in tape of the balloon crossing the finish line at last year's parade - even as the damaged balloon itself was being dragged from the accident scene. At 11:47 a.m., as an 11-year-old girl and her 26-year-old sister were being treated for injuries, the parade's on-air announcers - Katie Couric, Matt Lauer and Al Roker - kept up their light-hearted repartee from Herald Square, where the parade ends..."

This is why no one trusts the mainstream media -- they show by acts like this one that they CAN'T be trusted. If these guys will LIE about something as inane as a parade float, what else will they lie about? The people in charge of the print and broadcast outlets are all too willing to ignore what's really happening and make stuff up when it suits them.

The Constitutional protection of freedom of the press should be a guarantee of an informed citizenry, which in turn should contribute to a thriving democracy. In fact and unfortunately, when a media outlet acts irresponsibly, as it did in this case, there's not much anyone can do about it.

Scalia's outcome based adjudicating

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/58101.htm

Frankie Edozien in the November 22, 2005 New York Post:

{start} U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says the high court did not inject itself into the 2000 presidential election.

Speaking at the Time Warner Center last night, Scalia said: "The election was dragged into the courts by the Gore people. We did not go looking for trouble."

But he said the court had to take the case.

"The issue was whether Florida's Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court [would decide the election.] What did you expect us to do? Turn the case down because it wasn't important enough?"

The conservative justice, who grew up in Queens, contended there would have been a difficult transition had the court not stepped in.

He also pointed out that studies by news organizations after the election showed Bush still would have won a Florida recount. {end}

What a load!

First, the case the Supreme Court acted on to steal the 2000 election from Al Gore was "GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., PETITIONERS v.ALBERT GORE, Jr., et al." I'm no lawyer, but I can advise Justice Scalia here: The fact that Bush's name comes first means that he was the petitioner or plaintiff. The fact that Gore's name came second means that he was the defendant. The fact that Bush was the petitioner or plaintiff means that he is the one who brought the issue to the courts. Not Gore. Look here to see the actual title of the case:

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

Scalia then goes on to say that the Supreme Court had no choice but to take the case because it was "so important." This is a ridiculous assertion. Appeals courts like the US Supreme Court refuse to hear cases all the time when they believe the lower court has ruled correctly and there are no grounds for an appeal. Appeals courts also refuse to take cases when they have no jurisdiction to do so.

As a matter of judicial philosophy, conservatives like Scalia claim to believe in "state's rights" -- that the federal government should not usurp the supremacy of the states on matters that are germaine to the states. Why then would Scalia say the Florida Supreme Court was incapable of handling the case, except that he believed the state court would not render a decision acceptable to him? And Scalia's not supposed to care who prevails in court -- as a judge he's only supposed to care that the law is applied fairly.

In addition, the conservatives on the Supreme Court, including Scalia, claimed that Bush would be denied his rights under the US Constitution's 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause if the courts in Florida allowed a recount to proceed. The Equal Protection Clause was part of a Constitutional amendment enacted after the Civil War. In America's early years the US Constitution guaranteed individual rights against intrusion by the federal government. After the 14th Amendment, states were required to give all citizens equal protection of the law.

In Bush vs. Gore the Equal Protection claim was based on Bush's charge that in a recount different standards would be used in different counties to determine which ballots were valid. There are several problems with this argument. First, Florida law, rightly or wrongly, calls for each county to handle its own elections, so by state law different standards are likely to apply. Second, different localities use different methods to vote -- optical scanners, punchcards, pencils on paper ballots, lever operated machines, etc. Naturally, different types of ballots will require different standards to determine their validity.

But more importantly, Scalia and the other conservatives on the Court do not believe in the application of the Equal Protection Clause to voting rights. In other words, they applied law with which they do not agree and which they usually attempt not to apply in order to reach a decision favorable to the guy they wanted to be the winner.

Scalia then goes on to say that it was OK for the Supreme Court to hand the election to Bush because recounts show he would have won anyway if there had been a recount. Oh, bullshit! Yeah, the real recount story got buried in the stories about the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks when everyone wanted to rally behind Bush in a crisis, but if you care to look, you'll find that if there had been a recount, Gore would have won. To see for yourself, start here:

http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm

http://www.americanpolitics.com/2001gore.html

http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=248

Finally, I will point out again that Scalia and for that matter any judge isn't supposed to care who won or who would have won -- judges are supposed to ensure that the law is applied fairly -- they're supposed to be interested in the process, NOT the outcome.

Why should journalists protect sources who lie?

Off and on I'm listening to Bob Woodward try explaining his deception to the always credulous Larry King. Here's what I'm wondering about reporters and their pledges of confidentality to sources: Why is a journalist obligated to keep the identity of a source secret if the source is lying?

The idea behind a promise of confidentiality is that the source will be protected for saying something that otherwise wouldn't be said -- say a whistleblower who fears she will be fired for exposing something bad about her employer. The reporter promises to keep the source's identity secret in exchange for receiving information the reporter otherwise wouldn't get. The obvious presumption is that the source is telling the truth -- if she's not, the information is of no use to the reporter.

Why should Bob Woodward keep the identity of his source a secret? His source told him that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. According to the special counsel investigating this matter, the facts surrounding Valerie Wilson's employment at the CIA were classified information. The White House staff, most notably Scott McClellan speaking for Karl Rove and Scooter LIbby, denied having anything to do with revealing Valerie Wilson's identity. Since Woodward KNEW what McClellan said wasn't true, meaning either McClellan was lying or the White House staff (including Woodward's source) lied to McClellan, why does Woodward feel obligated to keep his source's identity a secret? As far as I'm concerned, the pact is broken -- since Woodward's source lied, his motives were not altruistic, like a whistleblower's. Woodward owes him nothing. Woodward should stop dissembling, reveal the name of his source, and admit he didn't conduct himself the way a professional journalist should when he commented on this matter without revealing his own involvement.

CIA Agents know torture doesn't work

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1119nj1.htm

Jason Vest at the National Journal has written a piece about CIA operatives leaving the agency over the administration's policy on torture. These guys know torture doesn't work and opens the US up to having our enemies inflict the same treatment on our guys who become prisoners.

I just got back from Iraq. While I was there I instructed Iraqi soldiers on the Seven Army Values. If you don't know them, go here:

http://www.goarmy.com/life/living_the_army_values.jsp

When I taught Iraqis, I was mindful of their pride and I recalled that Americans do not always uphold these values. The approach I took was that the American Army believes it achieves the best results by adhering to these values and that when its members commit acts not in keeping with these values, they can expect to be punished.

I used the My Lai incident as an example of what happens when a military member doesn't uphold the Army Values -- Lieutenant Calley behaved dishonorably, he had no integrity, he didn't put the needs of the service above his own. On the other hand, Captain Thompson did uphold the Army Values by risking his life to stop Calley, saving the lives of innocent people, reporting Calley to his superiors and following through until Calley was prosecuted.

After using this example I would tell my Iraqi friends that I was aware that anyone with a TV could find out all about incidents like the prison abuses at Abu Ghraib -- I know that in a land where the Crusades are viewed as current events, one bad act like that will stand out over all the good ones and be remembered not for weeks or years, but for generations.

The point is that abuses like torture are ineffective -- they prevent a military from achieving an objective. They keep potential friends and allies from coming to your aid -- why should they if you look just as bad to them as your emeny does? They turn public opinion against you. They encourage your enemy to commit the same abuses when your troops become their prisoners. In short, acts like torture are just unprofessional. Clearly the CIA operatives referred to in this story get it, just like I do and just like the Iraqi soldiers I taught.

Caller to Hannity radio show is wrong

The title of this post almost goes without saying. The guy to whom I was listening as I drove home from work today told Sean that Americans shouldn't allow liberals and Democrats (who must not be American by this guy's definition) to distract us from the REAL reasons we invaded Iraq. The caller went on to say it doesn't matter if no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, because as we now know, "they" were able to use commercial jet airliners as WMDs to attack the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

What a ridiculous statement. First, the "they" who are in Iraq are not the same "they" who attacked the United States in 2001. The US was attacked by Afghanistan-based terrorists, almost all of whom were Saudi -- there were no Iraqis attacking America on September 11, 2001.

Second, the administration never said we were invading Iraq because Saddam owned an airline. Secretary of State Powell didn't go to the United Nations and show photos of jets in hangars as "proof" Iraq was ready to attack the United States -- he showed photos that purported to show activity at WMD development and production sites, as well as exhibits that included the ersatz anthrax vial.

Third, the guys in charge of and in league with the "they" who attacked us are still at large. Anyone remember a guy called Osama bin Laden?

We were told the invasion was necessary because Saddam had and was likely to use chemical and biological weapons, and because he was attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. We now both of those claims to be incorrect, and there's a possibility that the administration knew the claims were incorrect when it made them.

By the logic of the dumbass caller to Hannity today, any country that owns an airline or any country that has commercial airlines is subject to preemptive attack by America. You hear that, Air Canada? Virgin Air? American? United? Southwest? For that matter, if Boeing insists on continuing to produce its anti-American WMDs, what choice will we have but to attack it preemptively?

The beginning of 1st Republic 14th Star

Welcome. I've decided it's time for someone with a military background who's not a slavish follower of right wing propaganda to air his views on politics, government, history, current events, and whatever else comes to mind. I've wanted to say some of these things for a while and I've been thinking about the best outlet -- blogging seems like a good fit.

For those of you who are Vermonters, you'll get the reference contained in my blog's title. For those of you who don't know the story, when Vermont was settled by whites, there was a long-running dispute about whether it was part of New Hampshire or New York. During the Revolutionary War period, the people who lived here decided they were neither. Calling their home "Vermont" (French for "Green Mountains"), they established a republic that lasted until Vermont was admitted to the Union as the 14th state in 1791 -- the first state that had not been part of the original 13 that ratified the Constitution. So Vermont was the first independent Republic to become a state (the others were Texas and California). During the Revolution and immediately afterwards, Vermonters interested in joining the United States referred to Vermont being represented by the 14th star on the US flag if the little republic achieved statehood.

Vermonters have always had an independent streak coupled with an understanding of what it means to be members of a community. This attitude was recalled by a local TV station in the early 1990s when it celebrated the 200th anniversary of Vermont's 1791 ratification of the US Constitution with its "1st Republic 14th Star" series. I remembered the title when I was setting up this blog, and I decided to appropriate it for my own use.