I Write a Letter

An e-mail I recently sent to a friend currently serving in Iraq:

I was thinking about you when I read Murtha's speech regarding the war. I am glad you are aware of what's happening here. What struck me most about his comments was the fact that, as an 'insider' he almost certainly would not make such a bold and controversial statement without having thoroughly discussed his concerns with his associates in the defense establishment, or without a strong feeling that he was taking a position that wouldn't be considered by serious people as extreme. He strikes me as a reasonable man, and a man fully informed about the consequences of the use of American military power.

I watched the floor debate in the House Friday evening when the sham "Murtha Resolution" was introduced (it basically said 'let's just cut-and-run'), and it was deeply disturbing and disappointing. I found Murtha's actual proposal well thought-out and worthy of honest debate - as it would open the door to a debate about just what our role should be in Iraq over the next two or three years. It is a national discussion that we most sorely need. With the Administration so weakened politically, and with the public no longer taking the Administration's word for granted, in my judgment it is the natural course for us as a national citizenry to reevaluate our role in Iraq. Instead, what the Cabal in the House arranged was a farce. The comments by the Ohio rep (the one who barely defeated veteran Paul Hackett in Sept) made a complete mockery of the entire House and of our public discourse. And it was all orchestrated.

It is quite clear that our political leaders (and I'm limiting this term to mean those who really control the instruments of power) are unwilling to engage the public in discussion of the real policy issues relating to this war. Forget for a moment the issue of whether we should be there or not, or why we went in or any of the other post-mortem issues. Just on the issue of what should we be doing today and tomorrow, most of our leaders simply are unwilling to have a real honest discussion and debate. It's all politics.

The American people are far ahead of their elected leaders on the war - and Murtha rightly pointed that out. The public wants to reevaluate and honestly debate this war and then decide on a strategy that serves the best purposes. That is what I believe. I also believe that having an honest discussion of the war will go a long way to restoring the public's confidence that we can, ultimately, find an acceptable solution - both political and humanitarian.

But, what is occurring, it seems to me, is an age-old tactic of repression - take the reasonable objections (of reasonable people) to the status quo and equate them with uber-extreme ideologies to stifle change or alteration. Make patriots into traitors, decent men into pariahs, liars and cheats into the guardians of virtue. This is dangerous.

Who's to say that after an honest debate occurs, that a renewed commitment to success in Iraq is not agreed to by all? Why is it that those opposed to a debate think that "debate" equals "cut-and-run" or cowardice? Maybe through honest dialogue we find a solution where everyone wins. How could that be a bad thing? Maybe it's true, maybe wise men are protecting us from ourselves and what horror we might unleash if we go down this road of honest assessment. But if they were so wise, why are things not going better?

As I said, a majority of people in this country are ready to examine this war from top to bottom so that we find a solution that serves everyone, or at least as many people as possible. At some point, the public will tire of politicians who refuse to recognize this. I only hope that this tipping point occurs soon - both for our own interests and for those of the millions of Iraqis whose very lives hang in the balance.

America: Welcome to the Michael Moore Wing!

Scott Mclellan made this statement today for the C+ Augustus Administration:

Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America. So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party. The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists. After seeing his statement, we remain baffled -- nowhere does he explain how retreating from Iraq makes America safer.

In other words, the Administration believes that a majority of the people of this country inhabit the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic party. That's it boys and girls, keep on attacking the position that most Americans have taken. Just don't whine to us Michael Moore-wingers when you find yourselves the minority party a year from now.

UPDATE (10:55pm): Armando at Daily Kos has more - Mclellan thinks most Americans are surrender-monkeys!

Reeling from the strong indictment by Rep. John Murtha of the Bush Administration's Iraq Debacle, Scott McClellan appears to have lost his sanity completely. He now accuses the majority of the American People of being traitors.

And check out the Newsweek poll:

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Nov. 10-11, 2005. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

"We'd like your opinion of the way George W. Bush is handling certain aspects of his job. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"

Approve 30%

Disapprove 65%

Unsure 5%

Way to win back the public's support!

Finally - The Speech I've Been Waiting For

Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha's speech calling for the immediate redeployment of US troops from Iraq. I've been waiting for someone in a leadership position to make this statement:

The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us.

Maybe now the rest of the Democrats will line up with Murtha and give the American public a real alternative in the '06 midterms.

Revisionist History

Being one who opposed the war before it started, I am not affected by the Administration's criticism of those who voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution but now oppose the Administration's conduct of the war.

And because I have a B.A. in history, I feel I am more qualified to discuss the history of events leading up to this conflict than Preznit C+ Augustus. Of course, I'm also efficient, so I can make use of the information that's out there for everyone to see. Here's a taste from Knight-Ridder:

ASSERTION: In his speech, Bush noted that "more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate - who had access to the same intelligence - voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power."

CONTEXT: This isn't true.

The Congress didn't have access to the President's Daily Brief, a top-secret compendium of intelligence on the most pressing national security issues that was sent to the president every morning by former CIA Director George Tenet.

As for prewar intelligence on Iraq, senior administration officials had access to other information and sources that weren't available to lawmakers.

Cheney and his aides visited the CIA and other intelligence agencies to view raw intelligence reports, received briefings and engaged in highly unusual give-and-take sessions with analysts. Moreover, officials in the White House and the Pentagon received information directly from the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an exile group, circumventing U.S. intelligence agencies, which greatly distrusted the organization.

The INC's information came from Iraqi defectors who claimed that Iraq was hiding chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs, had mobile biological-warfare facilities and was training Islamic radicals in assassinations, bombings and hijackings.

The White House emphasized these claims in making its case for war, even though the defectors had shown fabrication or deception in lie-detector tests or had been rejected as unreliable by U.S. intelligence professionals.

All of the exiles' claims turned out to be bogus or remain unproven. (Emphasis added)

One other point - a recent Wall St. Journal/NBC News poll and an AP-Ipsos poll found 57% of Americans believe the Administration misled the country in the lead-up to the war. Does this Administration really want to get into this debate by calling nearly three-fifths of the country "dishonest and reprehensible."

Fitz Goofed! Recite the New Pleasing Narrative!

Now we have real drama! I thought up some pleasing headlines:

"Libby Wasn't First to Reveal Plame to Reporters!"

"Fitz's Case in Shambles!"

"Bush and Everything He's Ever Done - Justified!"

Woodward creates Deep Throat, Jr., so the press must indulge in this lunacy. First mentioned by ABC News (by the pretty Elizabeth Vargas) earlier, and now in the WaPo. From the Washinton Post.com:

Woodward testified Monday that contrary to Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's public statements, a senior government official -- not Libby -- was the first Bush administration official to tell a reporter about Plame and her role at the CIA.

Wow - compelling! Fitz didn't know about Woodward! I almost want to start a 'Free Scooter' Movement!

Surely, Fitz is an incompetent. Good thing the Corpse hasn't been giving him repeated tounge baths regarding his meticulousness and attention to detail.

Of course, Fitz never said that Libby was the first to reveal Plame to reporters. He said on the day of the indictments Libby was the first known official to do so as of that time. But that doesn't stop the press from pursuing their newest pleasing narrative!

When I read this Woodward piece at the WaPo, it jumped of the screen at me. I guess an open-and-shut case against Scooter wasn't going to be interesting enough for the Corpse, so they are going to manufacture the drama.

It's appalling what our modern discourse as evolved into over the last several years.