Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
"It's like screaming into an anechoic chamber"
Well hopefully with the help of this great work by GG and others in the frontline we'll all get out the anechoic chamber and into the open. But your comment does not disprove my assertion; rather it proves it. I do place some hopes in the new base that Obama is building.
It's my sober opinion that the people you describe in the sentence above are the majority in today's military. I've been talking (or trying anyway) to vets I know and none of them want to talk about the disaster in Iraq.. And I haven't talked to one yet that had any strong objection to going on to Iran..
I wish I could disagree.
On the one hand, you could always, anytime, find a bunch of spec4s (and not a few NCOs) who are ready to go fire up anybody, anytime, and can give you a bunch of reasons why that's justified. That doesn't mean anything, though. Policy isn't made by Spec4s, a point I keep making to people everytime one gets quoted on Faux News as an authority about who we should be invading. 'They're there! They know!' WTF?
It gets a lot more complicated, psychologically, after you've been in combat. One would love to believe that a soldier would be able to separate the truth from the bullshit here just as effectively as they regularly do about less consequential matters. But it doesn't happen often enough ... the seige mentality enters, the emotional shit I was referring to above, an inability to process what you're seeing around you about a 'foreign' culture, etc. Not to mention the reinforcement those ideas get here at home.
It's partially why I feel so strongly that those of us on the 'other side' of that equation have a duty to engage about this ... former military, sure, but also people who have lived and worked in the ME (or wherever the so-called 'enemy' is), lawyers or govt workers or other people who, for whatever reason, have had access to the details of how things work that have been stolen, broken, corrupted ... that is separate from, but in addition to, our duties as citizens.
And why I am such a bigmouth about the issue, alas.
About 'politically adept' senior officers. We talked about this before. I guess I don't really disagree with you, but would note a) it ain't JUST politics that put you in the chair, and B) I've been fortunate in knowing many good senior officers who don't fit this description, and who got there in spite of the BS. I would never argue that they are a majority ... but I would argue that they could use a hand, when it comes to standing up for the law, from 'out here'.
RE: Colin Powell. Woodward's three books about the current admin (but largely State of Denial) seem to show Powell surrendering his principles gradually ... either out of a desire to influence things in a positive way, or out of a desire to be close enough to his boss, the President, to influence things in a positive way. What the 'positive way' was is probably something it would take brain surgery to figure out. I'm not convinced he didn't know he was spouting bullshit when he went to the UN ... i think he was willing to supress his doubts for the reasons above.
Sadly, I'm betting we'll hear a lot of this when the other tell-alls appear. Generals who knew better (Abizaid comes to mind), who stayed on board to try and steer things in the right direction, rather than leave or resign, or those who claim to have done so. Whether or not that was the right thing to do, we know it was in vain.
Former talk show host makes truth his mission, now on other side of the camera
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-phil-donahue-0511may11,0,5767389.story
" ... The other half of the feature-length film, which opens Friday in Chicago at the Century Centre Cinema, tells the story of Tomas Young, a Kansas City, Mo., man who is living with the consequences of that debate. Inspired by President Bush's vow to take action against the terrorists who plotted the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the 22-year-old Young enlisted in the Army, and, five days after arriving in Iraq in 2004, was shot through the spine. He was left paralyzed from the chest down.
" 'Little Miss Sunshine' it ain't," Donahue said. "This is not a take-your-girl-to-the-pictures kind of film."
Sparing no detail, the film opens with Young struggling to pull on his pants and goes on to show how every facet of his life has been turned upside down, along with the lives of his newlywed wife and mother. Along the way, he becomes an outspoken opponent of the war in Iraq. ..."
But your comment does not disprove my assertion; rather it proves it. I do place some hopes in the new base that Obama is building.
You have no clue what I was talking about, do you?
It is my considered opinion that Obama is a world class hypocrite.
And no, I don't like Clinton and I despise the Republicans.
The press is just waiting for the story to die down and will never mention it which means that unless we get congressional involvement there will be no accountability and the process of state supported propaganda will continue.
The anti-peace movement depends on there being a continuous war, one that is unwinable by insisting there is an enemy trying to attack us. Economies thrive on this and it is highly profitable to keep it going. It depends on military 'experts' spouting the need for war to "protect" us which in turn generates huge profits for security businesses just like the weapons industry. Owning the press is essential to maintaining the fear, paranoia and justification. Gradually the American public has turned against this war/occupation but it would have happened much sooner without the daily propaganda (lies) fed to us by the corporate media. NBC news should have a disclaimer before every newscast stating they are owned by corporations profiteering from this war/occupation.
How is it even legal that corporations who own defense contract companies, security cos.,weapons companies etc... how is it legal that they should also own national news organizations and TV stations etc.. Why is this not a conflict of interests involving national security? Does this not make our national TV news a subtle advertising campaign to sell the products of war by using news to increase the demand for such products by suggesting there is an increased need (in this dark and sinister terroristic world)for our own threatened security?
Are they still following us home?
The usual neocon formula: Pray for disaster or else create it and have the profiteering teams ready to move in to privatize, deregulate, take the money (or resources) and run, using the military 'experts' and the MSM to justify it all.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
