Thursday, November 15, 2007

Outrage fatigue? Get over it

I'm turning my little soapbox here over to Mark Morford of SF Gate. Many of us are suffering from Iraq fatigue, war fatigue and even presidential campaign fatigue. Mark writes about outrage fatigue, and as he usually is, he's spot on about this.

Outrage fatigue? Get over it

Are you sick of being sick? Suffering way too much Bush-induced nausea? Well, tough.

I know how it is. You've had it up to here. There are only so many stories about blood and death and pain you can take, only so many times you can hear about random shootings and corporate malfeasance and how BushCo's squad of scabrous flying monkeys have, say, supported torture or endorsed wiretapping or gouged the nation for another $200 billion to pay for a failed war. Your nerves are raw and your heart is tired and the media will just not shut the hell up already about the sadness and the war and the mayhem and the Cheney and the doom doom doom.

It is outrage fatigue, and it is epidemic. It's that feeling that we are being hammered unlike any time in recent history with so many appalling and disgusting and violently un-American incidents and scandals and manipulations that our b.s.-detectors are smoking like an old V-8 engine on a hot summer's day and it's all we can do to get up every day without screaming.

What's more, it's not the mere quantity of moral insults, either. It's the bizarre absurdity of the subject matter, the things we are being forced to consider, or reconsider, that seem to make it all so horrific.

Torture? Are you kidding? Allegedly the most civilized, the most morally aware nation on the planet and we are still debating, in the highest courts and government offices in the land, about whether the United States should strap human beings to gnarled metal benches in rancid foreign bunkers and inflict such inexplicable terror and fear upon them that they confess to things they didn't even do just to get us to stop? Is this the Middle Ages? Are we regressing back to the goddamn cave?

Oh my, yes, plethoric are the reasons you should be outraged indeed, and torture just might be one of the most incendiary reasons in the past few years. If nothing else, its disgusting return to U.S. political dialogue certainly means it's no time to be laying down arms in exhaustion, no matter how tempting it might be.

Take this fine example: Keith Olbermann, as is his wont, executed another pitch-perfect bout of outrage recently on his excellent MSNBC show, taking BushCo to task on the issue of waterboarding like you never hear in major on-air media anymore.

Olbermann only barely held on to his trademark fierce hyper-articulation against the sheer disgust he/we have to endure at the idea that a sitting American president obviously thinks medieval torture is a gul-dang swell idea, no matter what psychologists, military experts, ethicists, the United Nations, the Geneva Convention and Jesus himself all say.

It was wonderful, powerful stuff, a razor-sharp, highly informed media pundit who dares to presume an unusually high level of intelligence among his viewers, speaking truth to power in a way most liberal media-haters complain never really happens anymore. And of course, his subject was one of the most deserving of our moral outrage in recent history.

But then I read some of the reaction to Olbermann's diatribe on various political blogs and on some news-aggregate sites, with many saying, gosh Keith, lighten up already, who cares, enough with all the outrage and the spittle, wow I'm so sick of all this ranting and raving and gosh I'm tired of these smarty media people telling me how to think and hey maybe torture is good let's kill us some more, haw haw haw snort.

On the one hand, it is, you can argue, generally the way of the meaner-than-thou blogosphere, with all but the most professional and intelligent and positive-minded of outposts seeming to suffer an undue percentage of reactionary chyme in their comment areas, hordes of Net-drunk twentysomethings and extremists and shut-ins who have way too much free time and merely chime in to see their sneers "published" and to prove how much more jaded and apathetic they are than the next person, while adding zero to the conversation.

But maybe it's worse than that. Because this is where it can happen, where you can get sucked into the vortex of whining and bitterness and where you might feel part of yourself wanting to wallow too, desiring to avoid doing the actual moral and spiritual work of dissecting and researching and analysing something as politically messy and morally ugly as torture for yourself, opting instead for the easy path, for closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears and going, nyah nyah nyah shut up shut up SHUT UP! Hey, it sure beats thinking.

Or maybe we can flip it around. Maybe, with the right intent, the exact reverse can happen, and you see this ocean of nasty ennui, this pile of oft-misspelled, poorly punctuated reactionary effluvia as, in and of itself, something to be a bit livid about.

Maybe, in other words, you can enjoy, as one blogger put it, a big dose of "fatigue outrage," the feeling of disgust you get when faced with all those people who think mental lethargy and laziness is, like, way funny, dude.

In other words, enough with the childish, frat-boy-grade complaints about media overload and too many rants and outrage fatigue. You have to earn that sort of thing. If you never give a crap about engaging the world, if you never want to think deeply about complex issues and care about ramifications and see what truly resonates with your own informed spirit and then stand up for what you believe, this pretty much eliminates your right to sneer at others who do.

It is, for me, all about modulation. It is about remembering that outrage does not necessarily equal misery. Outrage does not mean you must wallow in fear and fatalism and yank out your hair and wake up every morning hating the world and hating yourself and hating humanity for being so stupid/numb/blind and wondering how the hell you can escape it all.

Outrage is rich with humanistic understanding. It is not some evangelical Christian parent "outraged" that her kid saw a woman's nipple on TV. It is not some right-wing Family Council "outraged" that someone put S&M outfits on Barbie, or that some art gallery is displaying Jesus as a woman, or that scientists dared to say that stem cell research does not equal abortion, or that the mayor isn't taking care of all the potholes and stray kitties. That's not outrage, that's reactionary whining.

True outrage, like Olbermann's, like (occasionally, hopefully) this column's, like what you should ideally be experiencing on a daily basis while Bush is in office, is honed and sharp and poignant. It contains a powerful sense of deeply informed decency, and therefore has a true feel for when that sense has been violated. Outrage has meat and substance and intellectual nourishment. It is actually healthy.

Smart, informed outrage engages you and fires your heart, your mind. It is fuel. It is the reason you claim you enjoy being an American, to question malevolent government actions and take a stand and demand accountability where there has, for the past seven years, been none. Bottom line: We simply cannot let them convince us, by way of an all-out assault on science, sex, love, et al, that the good fight just ain't worth fighting.

After all, the flying monkeys are far from done raiding the closet and stealing your babies and making a mockery of everything wise and calm and open-hearted people hold dear. And baby, if you ain't outraged about that, something is very wrong indeed.


Mark Morford

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2007/11/14/notes111407.DTL

Sunday, November 11, 2007

Veterans Day 2007

In 1961, President John F Kennedy marked Veteran's Day at Arlington National Cemetery with these words:
Today we are here to celebrate and to honor and to commemorate the dead and the living, the young men who in every war since this country began have given testimony to their loyalty to their country and their own great courage.
And it is so this Veteran's Day 2007.

But the truth is that we have been performing a disgraceful disservice to the men and women who serve our country. Our current president and his administration sent a new generation to fight their war. The premise for the invasion of Iraq was based on lies and fear. Our military was sent, not to defend our country, but to insure the bank accounts of George Bush and his military contractor cronies would grow into obscene piles of gold and to insure that our country got a piece of the pie; oil, that is. Our military was sent to Iraq without proper equipment, proper training and proper planning, but they went, because that is what our military does when their Commander-in-Chief gives them orders. This president, this administration knows nothing of loyalty to our country and our troops. Courage is not a word in their vocabulary or in their soul.

What a sad coincidence in these days before Veteran's Day, that a report, Vital Mission: Ending Homelessness Among Veterans was released this week telling us that Veterans make up one in four homeless people in the United States, though they are only 11 percent of the general adult population, according to a report to be released Thursday. This is true despite the fact that veterans are better educated, more likely to be employed, and have a lower poverty rate than the general population. And that is a national disgrace. Is this how we honor the men and women who stood for this country when we asked them to?

There are many excellent and compassionate programs to support returning veterans, but sadly, they are generally paid for and instituted by caring private organizations who understand that we made a commitment to our veterans. They understand it is time to "pay back", they understand what it means to authentically support the troops. Too bad this administration doesn't.

When a new recruit raises his or her hand to take the oath of recruitment, we, who benefit from this symbiotic relationship, must commit to providing for them while in service to our country and when that job has been completed. We owe them that. Where is the government when it comes time to honor that commitment? How is it so easy for much of this country turn their back on the commitment we made to veterans?

What are you doing to support veterans? I know we can do better. But will we?

To Veterans from any era- thank you for your service.

Saturday, November 10, 2007

Support funding for Vets, our troops & their families

As one of the Board of Directors of Military Family Speaks Out, we are diligent in our efforts to make sure the voices of military families are heard. Although this letter was sent to members of MFSO, there is no reason you can't or shouldn't take a few minutes to contact your legislators to make sure they hear your voice and that you support H.R. 3043 and veterans and their families.
=============
The Board of Directors of MFSO has just voted to endorse H.R. 3043, an appropriation bill currently before Congress, which includes funding for critical services for our veterans, our soldiers and their families.

We have joined with IVAW, Gold Star Families Speak Out, the National Coalition for the Homeless and other organizations, representing thousands of veterans and soldiers, in signing a letter which was sent on Tuesday, November 6, to every member of Congress, urging passage of this bill. Today, we are asking MFSO members to individually contact their Congressional representatives and Senators. Ask them to not only support this bill but also to pledge to override a threatened presidential veto.

In asking you to take this action, we do not intend in any way to let Congress off the hook for their continued funding of the Iraq war. This bill is a totally separate issue from war funding votes and our support for it shows commitment to our mission to "take care of them when they get home". While most veteran-related programs are funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services also provide vital services to help our veterans, especially for the two-thirds of recently returning veterans who have not enrolled in the federal veterans' health care program.

Specifically, H.R. 3043 would provide:

  • $231 million for Veterans' Employment and Training programs to assist returning veterans to find and train for good paying jobs.
  • $23.6 million for the Homeless Veterans' Program. Currently 23% ofAmerica's homeless are military veterans.
  • $10 million for those veterans suffering from traumatic brain injuries (TBI), for their rehabilitation, hospital care and long-term support. Thousands of returning National Guard soldiers rely on community-based systems of care that are not funded by the VA.
  • $3.4 billion for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. With Army suicides recently reaching a 26 year high, our returning veterans suffering from PTSD and depression have an urgent need to rely on this funding. This bill is currently being debated on the House floor.

Bush has said he will veto the bill because it does not conform to his request for $3.6 billion in cuts below last year's total funding levels. As military family members, we are outraged that this administration and Congress can continue to spend $5 billion dollars a week in Iraq and yet not care if our soldiers and veterans are denied these critical funds for practical help in finding jobs, providing shelter for homeless vets, and for medical and mental health care.

Please take a simple action today. Call, send a postcard to or write a letter to your representative and senator and ask them to approve H.R. 3043. Ask them not to back down from overriding a Bush veto. Tell them, as a military family member, what this bill's provisions will mean to your child, spouse, or loved one returning from Iraq. And tell them that passing the provisions in this bill demonstrate the kind of authentic support for our troops that every soldier and every American understands.

In peace and solidarity,

The Board of Directors of MFSO

==========

NOTE:

The Senate passed the bill 75-19. Here is the the list of members of the Senate Hall of Shame for voting NO on this bill. If you are in the district for any of this Senators; please ask them why they do not support the troops and their families. And don't ever let them tell you they do. If they say that this country cannot afford to spend more money, tell them they are wrong; we cannot afford to NOT support veterans and their families. And remind them of the $2 billion dollars a week we are spending on the occupation in Iraq.

And here is the Hall of Shame for the members of the House who voted NO. 274 Representatives saw fit to vote yes and pass this bill 274-141

Notice all the "R"'s? Where are the "D"'s? Oh yeah, the Democrats do support the troops.

Out of Iraq, bring 'em back!

So says Montana in successful election referendums passed this week. Helena & Missoula in Big Sky Country, never the bastion of liberalism has had it with this ill conceived morass in Iraq and is searching for a peaceful future.

The Missoula News reports:
Here in Montana we often read the results from national polling and wonder if they represent our views. But in both Missoula and Helena, referendums to bring the disastrous war in Iraq to an immediate end passed with overwhelming margins that almost exactly reflect what the national polls have been saying. Simply put, about two-thirds of our citizens agree with the campaign slogan of the Iraq referendum organizers: "Out of Iraq, bring 'em back."

Critics of the ballot measures complain that the referendums are meaningless and that municipal governments have no business involving themselves in foreign policy, much less opposing President Bush, the self-described "war president," while troops engage in active combat around the world.

In Helena, those opposing the peace referendum went so far as to put their own ballot measure in front of voters that called on Congress to "fund our military forces totally and without conditions in the global war on terror." Obviously having the opposing measures in front of voters presented a clear choice and, perhaps not surprisingly, when the ballots were counted the votes reflected public sentiment in an equally clear manner.

Helena's peace referendum drew about 62 percent approval with the opposing measure losing by almost exactly the same numbers. Missoula voters approved their own peace referendum by an even larger margin, drawing 64 percent of the vote. Considering the clear language of the measure, which calls for Congress "to authorize and fund an immediate and orderly withdrawal of the United States military from Iraq," it's hard to see how anyone can misinterpret the results.

That these votes were cast on the same day as the announcement that 2007 has become the deadliest year in Iraq for American soldiers only adds to the urgency to pull us out of the expensive and un-winnable war immediately.

Friday, November 02, 2007

Bush's post White House plans

Richard Roeper, a columnist from the Chicago Sun-Times writes

In a recent column I speculated on President Bush's post-White House plans.
What should he do with himself?

Alice Collins of Oak Lawn has an idea.

"Three hundred and sixty-five days a year, in the wind and snow of winter and the heat and humidity of summer, let him tend to the graves of the almost 4,000 men and women who have given their lives in the debacle of Iraq. They honored their oaths, obeyed their commander-in-chief and sacrificed their lives of promise to a lying, unprincipled warmonger.

"He can begin at the grave of my grandson, Lcpl Jonathan W. Collins, killed in action on 8/8/2004."

Amen.

Marine Lance Cpl. Jonathan Collins of Crystal Lake was killed by enemy fire in the Al Anbar province of Iraq in the summer of 2004. He was 19.

Nineteen. You're supposed to be attending college and going to football games and meeting girls and dreaming about your future when you're 19.

Access tributes to Jonathan and other soldiers at
www.fallenheroesmemorial.com. It's impossible to read the comments from friends and relatives and loved ones without feeling your heart get so heavy you can barely breathe.

Amen, indeed!

Sunday, October 28, 2007

Dialing for Dollars

I got an unsolicited phone call this afternoon from a woman who explained it was a political call. It didn't take long to figure out she was dialing for dollars for the Democratic party. She explained how George Bush had taken this country down the wrong road. Money was being spent on the war instead of domestic issues was another example.

I said I agreed with everything she said. I'm sure she was hopeful when she asked if she could count on me to support the Democratic party.

My response was this: "I agree with everything you said, but my son was killed in Iraq 3 1/2 years ago and until the Democrats stand up to the President, stop funding the war and continue to apologize when there is no reason, I will not send money to any Democrats.....and you can quote me on that"

Enough said!

#1 War Profiteer

To say David Brooks puts profits before people is an understatement. To do this when it involves military men & women who are fighting in his name is unconscionable. While we have heard of many cases of shameless war profiteering and the extravagant lifestyles enjoyed as a result, this one is the most egregious (that we are aware of).

David Brooks, spent a scandalous $1o Million of profits from his company was spent on a bat mitvah for daughter, Elizabeth in November 2005. Then CEO of DHB, a defense contractor that provides protective armor to the US military, the bat mitzvah and was just the tip of the iceberg when it came to extravagant living. $120,000 worth of electronic toys, including ipods and digital cameras was in the goody bags for guests; more than a million dollars for entertainment frames this party for a 13 year old. What will she get for her Sweet Sixteen? I was raised Catholic so I don't know, but I can't see how all of this frivolity relates to a religious ceremony.

Don Henley, Stevie Nicks, Kenny G, Aerosmith and, 50 Cent performed at the event. I wonder how they feel knowing it was blood money that paid for this event. Stevie Nicks journal on her official website talks about how Stevie Nicks, Steve Tyler & Joe Perry have supported the troops in the past. They visited Walter Reed Army hospital and passed out ipods to some of the soldier/patients there. Aerosmith's website shows only low key and little support for the troops. Kenny G's website indicates nothing. Don Henley's site, nope, nothing there, either. Hollywood has been far too absent during these wars when it comes to showing support for the troops.


This story gets worse as more details and photos are revealed. One particularly offensive photo from the Mitzvahpalooza is of David Brooks and shows him wearing a bright pink suede suit adorned with a dog tag. I wonder what that meant to him. Was there a name on it, or was it some gold, diamond encrusted obscene, "I'm making boatloads on your backs, while you die" F-you message to the troops who wear the real deal around their necks as they fight in this man's name? Everything I have read about this defense contractor's arrogance suggest that wearing the dog tag would be his way of saying "He supports the troops". The military dog tags I wear everyday belong to my son, Lt Ken Ballard; they were given to me at the same time as I received his flag covered casket from Iraq.

One Down: Obscenely Decadent War Profiteer Hauled Off in Handcuffs reports Paul Rieckhoff, an Iraq war veteran and founder of Operation Truth (and my frequent radio partner), told me, “It is already disturbing that anyone can live the high-life as a result of the booming war business, but it is particularly disheartening to hear about someone having their own private Lollapalooza, in part from the sale of defective equipment that put our troops in harm’s way. America must take a long, hard look at the idea of profit on the battlefield.”

A comment from Capn Solar on the Alternet article seemed appropriate to me. A good quality control system should guarantee a good product.


To ensure this never happens again:
Simply put the CEOs of defense contracting firms in their own body armor....
and shoot them....
if the CEO walks away --use it....
if not -- look elsewhere.

Fortunately, David Brooks and the Sandra Hatfeld, former COO of DHB industries were indicted Thursday on charges of insider trading, fraud and tax evasion as reported by the New York Times. They were charged with manipulating DHB’s financial records to increase earnings and profit margins, in that way inflating the price of DHB’s stock. Beyond the $10 million bat mitzvah, a sampling of the charges authorities say Brooks concealed from shareholders and the IRS:
  • $7,900 for a facelift for Brooks' wife
  • more than $1 million for expenses related to his 100 trotting and breeding horses
  • $101,190 for a belt buckle studded with diamonds, rubies and sapphires
  • $101,500 for an armored vehicle for his family's use
  • more than $1 million for numerous family vacations, including frequent stays at the Bellagio in Las Vegas and various Caribbean and European villas
  • $31,802 to transport one of his daughters and her college friends to Halloween parties in Madison, Wisconsin, using a private jet
  • hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonus checks drawn on a DHB bank account handed out by Brooks at a company Christmas party to non-DHB personnel, including his horse trainer
  • and of course the predictable $10,000 here, $5,000 there for purchases at Luis Vuitton, Gucci, Gianni Versace, and Prada boutiques around the world

The 71-page indictment (PDF) tells the whole ugly story.

War profiteering is ugly and it should be illegal. There is a special place in hell for these people. If we can make their time on earth feel like hell, so much the better. Brooks could spend up to 70 years in prison if convicted of all charges. I've got a few ideas of my own for Brook's punishment. The jury, while certainly not of his peers, should be made up of family members whose loved ones were killed as a result of his shoddy equipment.

Maybe they would decide that Brooks should be sent straight to Iraq, with the same defective, overpriced protective gear his company provided to the military. Or maybe a big red tattoo with the letters WP right on the front of his forehead. He should go to a real jail, with real hardened criminals where his new "friend" is waiting to show him around. If he gets released from jail, he should have to perform community service to a veterans organization for the rest of his life. He should never, ever see be allowed to participate in a for-profit business again. How about all of the above?

An interesting side note to this story. On October 1, 2007, DHB Industries, Inc changed their name to Point Blank Solutions, Inc.





Larry Ellis, President and CEO stated, "In changing the name of the Company to Point Blank Solutions, Inc, we are aligning our corporate name with our vision to become the global leader in safety apparel and protective solutions.... By doing so, we seek to give the Company a name and brand that will afford great opportunities in the future and become an excellent moniker for our planned product line expansion."



I think that is PR speak for "We are taking the DHB out of our name and moving as fast and far away from anything that has to do with our former CEO". Probably a good business strategy, but there is still blood dripping off the hands of this corporation, and we will continue to watch them.

Point Blank Systems is, by far, not the only corporation on this war profiteering bandwagon. CorpWatch who investigates and exposes corporate violations has this to say about Reconstruction as related to war profiteering and disaster planning, they have this to say:

Today the victors of modern wars no longer rape and pillage as their predecessors did, instead they make extraordinary profits by giving contracts to their favorite companies to rebuild what they have destroyed and then hand the bill to local taxpayers to pay.
Read up, folks, and see how your taxpayer dollars are being spent!

Friday, October 26, 2007

Oct 27 Protest


San Francisco

http://www.oct27sf.org/DotNetNuke/

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Pick me, pick me!

I was fortunate that I listened to and did not watch Bush's shameless guilt-ladened demand to Congress to give him another $46 Billion to continue his adventure in the Iraq and Afghanistan war. He may as well have had a gun pointed at Congress for as much as it was a shakedown rather than a request.

But he did even better. I missed actually seeing that the President was accompanied by the family of a dead US Marine to stand with him as he executed the shakedown. This president, who says he supports the troops has made it common practice to use the troops as backdrop to prove his patriotism. Although not surprising, even this was low for Bush. I honestly don't know how he does what he does with a straight face. On second thought, I guess his ever present smirk doesn't qualify for a straight face.

You would think that after 5 years of these supplemental requests, someone in congress could figure out how to demand that there be no more supplemental budget requests for the war. It's time to demand that the administration includes the funding for the war in the budget. This administration cannot do that because, they say, they can't predict the costs. By submitting these requests as supplemental, they imply that it's just not that much money; it's just not significant enough to research and provide facts and solid numbers and anyway, you've got to approve it, or you just don't support the troops. The supplemental is working just fine for them.

The 110th Congress was sent to DC to end the war. Whatever else they may accomplish would be a bonus, but ending the war and bringing our troops home was priority one, numero uno, top of the list. So far, not so good on that front.

Funding the war is killing the troops- PERIOD. Additional funding insures additional death sentences to our military and the Iraqi population. Additional funding insures additional waste, fraud and abuse from the contractors like Blackwater, KBR and Halliburton. Additional funding means putting good money after bad when numerous Inspector General audits have proven time and time again that there is little control of US taxpayer money. It's time to stop the madness! How will Bush have been able to spend to $1 trillion on this war by the time he leaves office in 2009? How do we explain to the nearly 3900 families of the US military who died that this $1 trillion and loss of their loved ones was worth it? We can't.

Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid have the opportunity to include families of dead US soldiers & Marines like me to accompany them as they just say NO to funding the wars. Just because the president can find families to stand with him, doesn't mean that there are not Gold Star families who wouldn't stand proudly with the courageous members of Congress who are willing to stand up for their constituents. We do not want the deaths of our loved ones to be used as an excuse to continue this endless war. We do not wish this lifelong journey of bereavement on any other family. We are not unpatriotic; we are not treasonous and we do support the troops. We want to bring the troops home now and take care of them when they get home. I would be happy to stand with them if only they had the courage to just say NO. Nancy, Harry, pick me, pick me!

Saturday, October 20, 2007

For the President's Amusement

I don't have a problem with Rep Pete Stark's (CA-D) comments about Bush's attitude about the war. I tried to let the Congressman know at his offices in Washington and California on Friday, without success as his voice mailboxes were predictably full. Stark's comments are probably closer to the truth than anyone would like to think. No one wants to think this president undertook this war with anything but the sober understanding that war is a serious proposition and not a game, but we have little evidence.

So when Pete Stark stood in front of the House of Representatives during a debate about the proposed SCHIP funding (State Children's Health insurance Plan focused on uninsured children from low-income families), and said what he said, some Republican's heads predictably exploded as they felt the words were harsh. (video & transcript from Raw Story here)

"You don't have money to fund the (Iraq) war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people -- if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

Bush has never given us any indication that he takes his little wargame's in Iraq & Afghanistan with any kind of seriousness, care or empathy. The Republicans may have forgotten his speech to the Radio & Television Correspondents Dinner back in March of 2004. This was the speech that Bush thought he was sooooooooo funny when he presented a White House Election year photo album with his amusing commentary. Especially hysterical talking about the search for WMD's. A series of photos showed the president in awkward positions -- on his knees, looking behind draperies and moving furniture in the Oval Office -- accompanied by such comments as "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere," "Nope, no weapons over there!" and "Maybe under here?" Yes, it was hilarious! Especially when the president knew there were no weapons of destruction in Iraq at all.

I spoke to a reporter who had attended the RTCA dinner that night. She said that many of them were embarrassed at the comments and couldn't believe he was making jokes while our service members were dying. And when the White house was asked at the time whether they thought Democrats were using the issue of the president's comments to engage in partisan politics, a spokesperson said, "I'll let you be the judge of that." For this White House, it is never about taste, decorum or empathy, it is always about politics.

I was horrified as my son, 1Lt Ken Ballard was in his 10th month of hell in Iraq at the time of the RTCA dinner. This president was joking about the serious job that our soldiers had undertaken on his orders with nearly 600 who had died by then. We did not think it was funny nor very presidential.

I know that my friends, the Zappala's, the family of Sgt Sherwood Baker, who was a member of the Pennsylvania National Guard sent to Iraq to provide security to the Iraq Survey Group, didn't think it was funny at all. Less than a month after the RTCA dinner, Sherwood was killed in an explosion guarding those looking for those same weapons of mass destruction, that we now know never existed.

Bush's joking about war as young men & women are dying show us he is more Frat Boy In Chief, rather than the Commander in Chief of US Armed Forces. Despite the president's claims that he suffers with each death and that he frequently cries about the war, it is hard to believe with his cavalier attitude. When the president landed on the aircraft carrier back in May 2003, and announced "Mission Accomplished", he was hearkening back to his days of "service" in the Texas National Guard. It was a game to Bush then and it is a game now.

Members of the military serving in Iraq are thought of as little green army men or a game of Risk to this president and his supporters. Multiple deployments, increased divorce rates, PTSD, many cases of shoddy medical treatment, lack of appropriate resources and equipment; these fighting men and women and their families are on their own.

War is not for anyone's amusement, it's not funny and jokes about anything related to our son's and daughter's dying are inappropriate and disrespectful. Ask any of the families and friends of the 3834 US military who have been killed to date. We don't think it is funny at all.

Thanks to Pete Stark for having the courage to say what many people have been thinking all along.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

The ‘Good Germans’ Among Us

I'm turning my soapbox over to Frank Rich of the New York Times. This Op-ed, The ‘Good Germans’ Among Us, appeared on October 14, 2007.

“BUSH lies” doesn’t cut it anymore. It’s time to confront the darker reality that we are lying to ourselves.

Ten days ago The Times unearthed yet another round of secret Department of Justice memos countenancing torture. President Bush gave his standard response: “This government does not torture people.” Of course, it all depends on what the meaning of “torture” is. The whole point of these memos is to repeatedly recalibrate the definition so Mr. Bush can keep pleading innocent.

By any legal standards except those rubber-stamped by Alberto Gonzales, we are practicing torture, and we have known we are doing so ever since photographic proof emerged from Abu Ghraib more than three years ago. As Andrew Sullivan, once a Bush cheerleader, observed last weekend in The Sunday Times of London, America’s “enhanced interrogation” techniques have a grotesque provenance: “Verschärfte Vernehmung, enhanced or intensified interrogation, was the exact term innovated by the Gestapo to describe what became known as the ‘third degree.’ It left no marks. It included hypothermia, stress positions and long-time sleep deprivation.”

Still, the drill remains the same. The administration gives its alibi (Abu Ghraib was just a few bad apples). A few members of Congress squawk. The debate is labeled “politics.” We turn the page.

There has been scarcely more response to the similarly recurrent story of apparent war crimes committed by our contractors in Iraq. Call me cynical, but when Laura Bush spoke up last week about the human rights atrocities in Burma, it seemed less an act of selfless humanitarianism than another administration maneuver to change the subject from its own abuses.

As Mrs. Bush spoke, two women, both Armenian Christians, were gunned down in Baghdad by contractors underwritten by American taxpayers. On this matter, the White House has been silent. That incident followed the Sept. 16 massacre in Baghdad’s Nisour Square, where 17 Iraqis were killed by security forces from Blackwater USA, which had already been implicated in nearly 200 other shooting incidents since 2005. There has been no accountability. The State Department, Blackwater’s sugar daddy for most of its billion dollars in contracts, won’t even share its investigative findings with the United States military and the Iraqi government, both of which have deemed the killings criminal.

The gunmen who mowed down the two Christian women worked for a Dubai-based company managed by Australians, registered in Singapore and enlisted as a subcontractor by an American contractor headquartered in North Carolina. This is a plot out of “Syriana” by way of “Chinatown.” There will be no trial. We will never find out what happened. A new bill passed by the House to regulate contractor behavior will have little effect, even if it becomes law in its current form.

We can continue to blame the Bush administration for the horrors of Iraq — and should. Paul Bremer, our post-invasion viceroy and the recipient of a Presidential Medal of Freedom for his efforts, issued the order that allows contractors to elude Iraqi law, a folly second only to his disbanding of the Iraqi Army. But we must also examine our own responsibility for the hideous acts committed in our name in a war where we have now fought longer than we did in the one that put Verschärfte Vernehmung on the map.

I have always maintained that the American public was the least culpable of the players during the run-up to Iraq. The war was sold by a brilliant and fear-fueled White House propaganda campaign designed to stampede a nation still shellshocked by 9/11. Both Congress and the press — the powerful institutions that should have provided the checks, balances and due diligence of the administration’s case — failed to do their job. Had they done so, more Americans might have raised more objections. This perfect storm of democratic failure began at the top.

As the war has dragged on, it is hard to give Americans en masse a pass. We are too slow to notice, let alone protest, the calamities that have followed the original sin.

In April 2004, Stars and Stripes first reported that our troops were using makeshift vehicle armor fashioned out of sandbags, yet when a soldier complained to Donald Rumsfeld at a town meeting in Kuwait eight months later, he was successfully pilloried by the right. Proper armor procurement lagged for months more to come. Not until early this year, four years after the war’s first casualties, did a Washington Post investigation finally focus the country’s attention on the shoddy treatment of veterans, many of them victims of inadequate armor, at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and other military hospitals.

We first learned of the use of contractors as mercenaries when four Blackwater employees were strung up in Falluja in March 2004, just weeks before the first torture photos emerged from Abu Ghraib. We asked few questions. When reports surfaced early this summer that our contractors in Iraq (180,000, of whom some 48,000 are believed to be security personnel) now outnumber our postsurge troop strength, we yawned. Contractor casualties and contractor-inflicted casualties are kept off the books.

It was always the White House’s plan to coax us into a blissful ignorance about the war. Part of this was achieved with the usual Bush-Cheney secretiveness, from the torture memos to the prohibition of photos of military coffins. But the administration also invited our passive complicity by requiring no shared sacrifice. A country that knows there’s no such thing as a free lunch was all too easily persuaded there could be a free war.

Instead of taxing us for Iraq, the White House bought us off with tax cuts. Instead of mobilizing the needed troops, it kept a draft off the table by quietly purchasing its auxiliary army of contractors to finesse the overstretched military’s holes. With the war’s entire weight falling on a small voluntary force, amounting to less than 1 percent of the population, the rest of us were free to look the other way at whatever went down in Iraq.

We ignored the contractor scandal to our own peril. Ever since Falluja this auxiliary army has been a leading indicator of every element of the war’s failure: not only our inadequate troop strength but also our alienation of Iraqi hearts and minds and our rampant outsourcing to contractors rife with Bush-Cheney cronies and campaign contributors. Contractors remain a bellwether of the war’s progress today. When Blackwater was briefly suspended after the Nisour Square catastrophe, American diplomats were flatly forbidden from leaving the fortified Green Zone. So much for the surge’s great “success” in bringing security to Baghdad.

Last week Paul Rieckhoff, an Iraq war combat veteran who directs Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, sketched for me the apocalypse to come. Should Baghdad implode, our contractors, not having to answer to the military chain of command, can simply “drop their guns and go home.” Vulnerable American troops could be deserted by those “who deliver their bullets and beans.”

This potential scenario is just one example of why it’s in our national self-interest to attend to Iraq policy the White House counts on us to ignore. Our national character is on the line too. The extralegal contractors are both a slap at the sovereignty of the self-governing Iraq we supposedly support and an insult to those in uniform receiving as little as one-sixth the pay. Yet it took mass death in Nisour Square to fix even our fleeting attention on this long-metastasizing cancer in our battle plan.

Similarly, it took until December 2005, two and a half years after “Mission Accomplished,” for Mr. Bush to feel sufficient public pressure to acknowledge the large number of Iraqi casualties in the war. Even now, despite his repeated declaration that “America will not abandon the Iraqi people,” he has yet to address or intervene decisively in the tragedy of four million-plus Iraqi refugees, a disproportionate number of them children. He feels no pressure from the American public to do so, but hey, he pays lip service to Darfur.

Our moral trajectory over the Bush years could not be better dramatized than it was by a reunion of an elite group of two dozen World War II veterans in Washington this month. They were participants in a top-secret operation to interrogate some 4,000 Nazi prisoners of war. Until now, they have kept silent, but America’s recent record prompted them to talk to The Washington Post.

“We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture,” said Henry Kolm, 90, an M.I.T. physicist whose interrogation of Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s deputy, took place over a chessboard. George Frenkel, 87, recalled that he “never laid hands on anyone” in his many interrogations, adding, “I’m proud to say I never compromised my humanity.”

Our humanity has been compromised by those who use Gestapo tactics in our war. The longer we stand idly by while they do so, the more we resemble those “good Germans” who professed ignorance of their own Gestapo. It’s up to us to wake up our somnambulant Congress to challenge administration policy every day. Let the war’s last supporters filibuster all night if they want to. There is nothing left to lose except whatever remains of our country’s good name.

photo courtesy of Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

there was no one left to speak out for me

A poem from 1946

First the Nazis came…
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Martin Niemöller (1892—1984), Protestant pastor and social activist

~~~~~~~~~~~
Who is going to be left to speak out for you if you don't start speaking out against this war NOW?

Saturday, September 29, 2007

Gold Star Mother's Day 2007

The Congress, by Senate Joint Resolution 115 of June 23, 1936, has designated the last Sunday in September as "Gold Star Mother's Day" and has authorized and requested the President to issue a proclamation in its observance.

In 1994, President Bill Clinton proclaimed that we should "honor women whose sons and daughters have pledged their lives to securing for all Americans the blessings of liberty. These mothers have made tremendous sacrifices, the most painful being the loss of their children, and deserve the respect and recognition of the nation."

In 2007, George Bush proclaimed


The gift of liberty is secured by heroes who have answered the call to serve when America needed them most. On Gold Star Mother's Day, we honor the mothers of the service men and women who have given their lives in the defense of our great Nation.
America's Gold Star Mothers are remarkable patriots who serve their communities by demonstrating good citizenship, providing support and services to our troops and veterans, and helping comfort the families whose loved ones have made the ultimate sacrifice. Their sense of duty and deep devotion to our country inspire our Nation, and we thank them for their compassion, determination, and strength. Though they carry a great burden of grief, these courageous mothers help ensure that the legacy of our fallen heroes will be forever remembered. On this day, we offer our deep gratitude and respect to our Nation's Gold Star Mothers; we honor the sons and daughters who died while wearing the uniform of the United States; and we pray for God's blessings on them, their mothers, and their families.




As a Gold Star Mother, I do not find comfort in this cold President's words; they do not ring true. His meetings with Gold Star Mother's are arranged to include only women who support his ruthless, endless war and more death. Where is his compassion and sense of patriotism to those mothers who disagree with him and work diligently to end the war and to bring our troops home?

Gold Star Mothers Day is not a Hallmark holiday to send flowers or cards; there is no happy in this day. Gold Star Mothers Day 2007 should be a day for sober reflection about how President Bush set in place a new generation of Gold Star Mothers when he sent our children to fight his illegal war in Iraq. These new Gold Star Mothers will be his legacy as the war president, he proudly claims himself to be.

The current president says we must honor the sacrifices of fallen soldiers by completing the mission and achieving victory. How will more bloodshed and more dying honor my son, 1Lt Ken Ballard, who was killed in Iraq more than 3 years ago? This president can prevent the creation of new Gold Star Mothers. It is time for president Bush to remove the burden from the military and work to find some kind of political solution that would allow us to bring our troops home.

We will never forget our loved ones; they will live forever in our hearts. And we must not forget the Iraqi Gold Star mothers who suffer so much from this war that came to their front door step unwelcome and unnecessary.

Today, the citizens of this country must remember our sacrifice and consider the human cost of this war. That and our broken hearts are something that Gold Star Mothers live with forever.

I am the proud Gold Star Mother of 1Lt Ken Ballard.

Enough already!

What a week!

MoveOn.org puts out an ad that criticizes General David Petraeus for not telling the truth about what's going on in Iraq when he testifies before Congress. The President gets all huffy and disgusted and says "I felt like the ad was an attack, not only on Gen. Petraeus, but on the U.S. military," Bush said. "And I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Democratic Party spoke out strongly against that kind of ad."

Not to worry; this do nothing Senate comes out swinging and passes S. Resolution 315 condemning Move-On To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces. I know technically how Sen Harry Reid let this vote come to the floor, but what were the Democrats thinking - or not thinking? They knew this resolution would be a huge distraction for what they say is really important- ending the war in Iraq. I have trouble believing what is really important to this Senate.

As if the Senate's resolution hadn't wasted enough time, I thought the House would at least keep their nose to the grindstone and not allow a similar vote to pass. But no, the House followed suit and yes, they, too voted overwhelmingly to condemn the ad by MoveOn.

I'm actually not sure if they meant to condemn the organization, MoveOn, or the ad, but in the name of whatever they were trying to achieve, the result of these resolutions was to restrict free speech.

I do not see the MoveOn ad as an attack on the military as Bush accuses. General Petraus is a big boy. He's been in the military for many years and should be able to handle criticism.

And finally on September 26, 2007, Rush Limbaugh, the blowhard conservative radio talk show host accuses soldiers who speak out against the war as being "phony soldiers" In an attempt to clarify his statement, he also accuses Rep Jack Murtha (PA-D) of being a phony soldier. Limbaugh's sweeping attacks on the military is likely to do more damage to the morale of military members serving in Iraq & Afghanistan than an ad focusing on one General.

Rush Limbaugh's hate is served up on a silver platter to our military on Armed Forces Network 5 days a week- Monday through Friday. We can safely assume that many of members of the military within earshot of his radio program would be offended at being accused of being a "phony soldier". Armed Forces Radio is part of the Armed Forces Information Service and is part of the Department of Defense. This is our tax dollars at work.

Fortunately, a great organization of veterans, VoteVets asks the real question Rush, who is the real phony, here?



Rush Limbaugh, the hypocrite, avoided military service by having his physician certify his medical unfitness due to an "inoperable pilonidal cyst" and "a football knee from high school. And he dares to call soldiers who have actually had boots on the ground and who question this illegal occupation in Iraq, "phony soldiers"?

In hopes that this "will it ever end" distraction finally wear out it's welcome, news from Greg Sargent says no, we'll go at least one more round.



I've just learned that Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) will be introducing a resolution in the House of Representatives on Monday condemning Rush Limbaugh for his "phony soldiers" remark.
This is significant because it has the potential to dramatically up the stakes in this fight. If the Democratic leadership allows it to go for a vote, it will force all the Republicans in the House to either vote for it, against it, or skip the vote -- and to pass judgment on the powerful conservative talk show host's contention that troops who don't support President Bush's war policies are "phony soldiers."
It will also potentially present the Dem leadership with a not-so-easy choice. Many people will naturally call on the leadership to allow the resolution to come to a vote, which is not necessarily something the leadership might want, since it could look like a tit-for-tat reso in retaliation for the measure condemning MoveOn. It also is potentially problematic for some in the leadership because there is an internal sentiment that it's not Congress' job to go around denouncing the remarks, however reprehensible, of private citizens.
Sources tell us that there's a lot of interest in this resolution among rank and file Dem House members, and that it may come up for a vote soon. There's no guarantee by any means that this will end up happening, though it's likely that there will be some pressure on the leadership make it happen.

Haven't we had enough? Aren't there more important things for Congress to achieve than taking the time to censure someone or some organization because of a lack of civility? Can you really legislate civility? Should you?

If these resolutions can improve that situation and get rid of personal attacks, I'm all for it. Too many people in Washington enjoy this part of the game, so I am not optimistic.

Sunday, September 23, 2007

Absurd Neocon Thinking

The Washington Post reports that the war in Iraq is costing $720 million dollars a day. By anyone's measure that 's alot of money. The American Friends Service Committee has a campaign that shows what the cost of the war would pay for- $720 million a day could buy homes for almost 6,500 families or health care for 423,529 children, or could outfit 1.27 million homes with renewable electricity. These are facts.

One of the original signers of the PNAC report titled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century , Frederick Kagan thinks it is money well spent. "Either you think the war in Iraq supports America's national security, or not. If you think national security won't be harmed by withdrawing from Iraq, of course you would want to see that money spent elsewhere. I myself think that belief, on a certain level, is absurd, so the question of focusing on how much money we are spending there is irrelevant." said Frederick W. Kagan, also a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

You cannot separate the human cost of the war from the financial cost, so Kagan ties with Rep John Boehner (OH-R) for most insensitive statement of the week. "Kagan says "How much money we are spending is irrelevant" while Boehner suggest that the cost America is paying is for the war in Iraq is a "small price to pay".

Kagan will never know the human cost of war unless his wife Kim decides to sign up- they have no children as best as I can tell. But the Boehner family consists of daughters Tricia & Lindsay; I wonder how they are serving this country.

I wonder what, if anything it would take to change either Kagan's or Boehner's minds. And by the way, I think Kagan's beliefs are absurd. It's time to bring the troops home NOW!

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Iraq Moratorium- September 21, 2007

Iraq Moratorium


On the third Friday of every month,

people from all walks of life and all parts of the country have

committed to stop business as usual
and take action to end the travesty of the US occupation of Iraq.

Wear a black ribbon or armband.
Be visible.
At noon, stop whatever it is you're doing
and stand silently for a few minutes.
Talk to a neighbor.
Phone Washington.
Do something to end the war.

It's got to stop. We can stop it.

Monday, September 17, 2007

A "Small Price"

House Minority Leader John Boehner (OH-R) spoke his parties truth when he said that the cost of the war in Iraq will be a "small price" in a CNN interview with Wolff Blitzer. The loss of lives and the obscene amount of money being spent isn't a concern to this Congressman or to this administration. We have not found a number in lives or dollars that has made this administration and it's backers uncomfortable and until we do, the occupation in Iraq will continue, blood will continue to be shed and the blank checkbook will remain open.

Wolf Blitzer asked Rep Boehner how much longer Americans will US taxpayers have to shell out $2-$3 billion dollars a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure? The loss in blood the Americans who are killed every month; how much longer do you think this military commitment is going to require?

Boehner's first mistake was saying that General Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. He went on to explain "We are making success; we need to form up those successes, we need to continue our effort because long term, the investments we are making will be a small price if we are able to stop al Qaeda here, if we are able to stabilize the Middle East"

Fortunately, enough people heard John Boehner being cavalier and flying fast and loose with the loss of life and are calling him on it.

Even Republican Senator John MCain who continues to vociferously support the war stated Boehner should retract his statement.



In an attempt to clarify his bosses statement, Representative Boehner's spokesman stated "the congressman was referring to the amount of money spent in Iraq" (as if that makes it better) He went on to say "there isn't a member of Congress who appreciates the sacrifices of our troops more than Mr Boehner". I wonder if the 159 Gold Star families of Ohio agree with that? Ohio has the 4th highest casualties from Iraq , only behind California, Texas and Pennsylvania.

I agree with John Kerry who says the small price comment is "was stunningly cavalier".

The 3781 US casualties, including my only child, Lt Ken Ballard are an incalculable cost to our families and to our country and is something we will live with with minute by minute for the rest of our lives. What cost John Boehner and his family paid for this war?

Representative Boehner owes all of us an apology. It's the least he can do.

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

We're kicking ass

"We're kicking ass" is how Bush responded to a question from the Australian Deputy Prime Minister about his recent stopover in Iraq on his way to the APEC summit in Australia.

Kicking ass, my ass! There is a big white ass in DC I would like to fire or impeach or send to Guantanamo. The things that comes out of this man's mouth continue to amaze me. I suppose the words don't really amaze me as much as give me the feeling that the president of one of the most powerful countries in the world thinks it's okay to say something that arrogant and stupid with no regard to how it might affect others. It's amazing he is allowed outside of Washington DC, let alone out of the country.

Think of someone who you know; you know, the person who constantly says the unspeakable stupidity without thinking and every time, you and your friends say, can you believe s/he said that? And yes, you have to say, well, I guess, yeah. That's how it feels when Bush opens his mouth, except he's not any ones friend; he's like the lame, fratboy freak who just won't go away.

"We're kicking ass" is right up there with "Bring 'em on" in terms of respect for our professional military and their families. Imagine how the 4 families of US troops, whose loved ones were killed in Iraq today feel about the US "kicking ass". Forever those words will be seared into their memories as they remember this was the day they heard their loved ones were never coming home.

"Kicking ass" is how you respond to an unbalanced victory at the Saturday college football game. "Kicking ass" is how you respond to a winning streak at the roulette wheel. But "kicking ass" is never how you respond to a question about a war you started that has resulted in the death, injury and displacement of more than a million people.

War is not a game and that is something George W Bush will never know.

Monday, September 03, 2007

FUNDING THE WAR MEANS KILLING THE TROOPS

I thought Ari Fleischer was long gone when he left the White House, but he has crawled out from under his rock with a new organization and $15 million to spend on an ad campaign featuring Iraq Vets and families who have lost a loved one in this so called Global War on Terror.

Freedom’s Watch is dedicated to educating individuals about and advancing public policies that protect America’s interests at home and abroad, foster economic prosperity, and strengthen families. Through outreach and education, communications to key members of Congress, and bold public awareness initiatives, Freedom’s Watch is fighting for the ideals and policies that keep America strong and prosperous. Their goal, simply is to capitalize on FEAR, a tool right from the Bush administration playbook, which shouldn't be a surprise considering the pedigree of people involved in this new organization. According to the Washington Post, Freedoms Watch leadership is Bradley A. Blakeman, Ari Fleischer, and Matthew Brooks. Donors are Mel Sembler, John Templeton Jr., Sheldon G. Adelson, Kevin E. Moley, Howard Leach, Anthony Gioia, Richard Fox, and Gary Erlbaum.

FREEDOM’S WATCH does not warrant the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or reliability of the material or data on this website. I'll say they don't. Freedom's Watch is yet another propaganda site made up of rich Republicans whose only connection to Iraq is to profit from the war. You won't see their family members fighting a war that they support but refuse to fight themselves. This glossy ad campaign implies that all Gold Star families support a victory in Iraq- whatever that means. It implies that voting to stop the war is for purely political reasons. No one should buy what this front group for the White House is selling. There are some who are betting this campaign will backfire on them; we can only hope.


I've thought about this alot. These Gold Star families, who have suffered with the loss of their loved one are telling their stories. They cannot bear the thought that their loved one died in vain. We should not fault them for whatever they believe that allows them to get up in the morning and face another day. They insist our country continue the mission because "Victory is America's only choice". I insist our country end this mission to save lives- of our military and the Iraqi civilians who are caught in the midst of this quagmire.

When I stood over the Arlington grave of my only child, Lt Ken Ballard, I vowed that I would not be silent and that people would know what it is like to lose a son in this war. Freedoms Watch and these families do not speak for this Gold Star mom. I know I am not alone.

Freedoms Watch also does not speak for my friends and fellow members of Gold Star Families Speak Out, Dante & Celeste Zappala who came up with a video of their own. "Bring Them Home, don't be fooled again"








This video should be seen by everyone in this country. The message "FUNDING THE WAR MEANS KILLING THE TROOPS" should be delivered to every member of Congress. Write a letter, pick up the phone; operators are standing by. If you don't do something now, what are you waiting for? How many more soldiers will die because you stood by and did nothing?

Dante posted a diary at the Daily Kos describing The truth about my dead brother


Sherwood was a soldier. At least for the last few months of his life, when his National Guard unit was activated. Politics is high stakes, especially for the ones who look beyond it to make the simple sacrifice of serving their country.


maggiemae over at the Daily Kos commented on Dante's diary and video We Native Americans believe as long as someone remembers you, and speaks your name, you are never gone. May the winds whisper the name of our brother, Sherwood Zappala, over all the earth for eternity.

There are so many names, it is no longer a whisper; we hear the names of Sherwood, Ken, Patrick, William, David, Neil, Bob, Adam, Jeremy, Sean, Jonathan, Jeffrey, Omead, Jon, Mike, Seamus, Seth, Jacob, Alex, Nick, Jamie, Steven, TJ, Edward, Darius, Phil, Ernest, Chris, Wes, Alan, Joseph, John and so many others. They will never be gone from our hearts.

Dead Certain

Dead Certain is the name of a book to be published on Tuesday about the Bush White House.

In an article in the New York Times, Bush told Draper I want this damn book to be right.” No worries there. I don't expect any surprises, just more evidence of Bush's own personal and presidential arrogance.

In interviews that took place in December 2006, Bush said he saw his unpopularity as a natural result of his decision to pursue a strategy in which he believed. “I made a decision to lead,” he said, “One, it makes you unpopular; two, it makes people accuse you of unilateral arrogance, and that may be true. But the fundamental question is, is the world better off as a result of your leadership?” I am dead certain the answer to that question is a resounding NO.

Bush's leadership has caused the death of more than a million people as a result of the war in Iraq. His leadership led to the utter and wretched destruction of the Gulf Coast with his handling of Hurricane Katrina. Bush's leadership has led to the loss of our privacy; he has thumbed his nose at the quaint Geneva Convention and has called the Constitution nothing more than a "damned piece of paper"- need I go on? It will take our country and this world a very long time to recover from his 8 years in the White House. The sooner he leaves, the better and if that includes impeachment, I'm okay with that, too.

That Bush says he bets he's shed more tears than you can count as president, referring to the Iraq war, is offensive to those of us who have tried to figure out a new way through this world that does not include the life of our loved one who was killed in Bush's war. One would think that after 3 years, a mom would figure out how to live this new normal, but you don't. Bush said "I’ve got God’s shoulder to cry on, and I cry a lot. Oh puhlease!

Bush thinks history will judge him kindly, but that will be for historians to decide and he says that they would have to consult administration documents to get to the bottom of some important questions. That seems a bit disingenuous and difficult considering the executive privilege stance allowed per the Presidential Records Act that insures the privacy of presidential documents IF they were even retained.

Bush plans on pursuing his "freedom agenda" at his institute, modeled on Stanford's Hoover Institution. I have no doubt that this will become a reality, and I also have doubt that their definition of freedom will be any more in line with the general US population than it is now. Just make sure his fantastic freedom institute is stocked with plenty of purple koolaid. The president obviously intends to live his retirement in his fantasy world while the rest of us try to put the pieces back together again.