Dr. Ivan Eland, an anti-interventionist libertarian and Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at the Independent Institute, on Bush Continues the 'Big Lie' in the Face of Mountains of Contrary Evidence
Incredible as it may seem, despite the 9/11 commission's conclusion that Al Qaeda and the regime of Saddam Hussein had no 'collaborative relationship,' President Bush and Vice President Cheney continue to insist that there was a 'relationship.' The president and vice president are calling a few meetings between members of the terrorist group and Iraqi government officials a 'relationship.' But by analogy, if a charity was able to arrange an appointment with a large corporation or foundation in an attempt to get a contribution but then ultimately got rejected in its solicitation, the Bush administration's logic would conclude that the charity and the corporation had established a philanthropic relationship. A similar outcome apparently occurred between Al Qaeda and the Iraqis. According to the commission, Osama bin Laden requested a haven for his training camps and help in buying weapons, but the Iraqis apparently never responded. That doesn't sound like much of a relationship.
All of the Bush administration's quibbling about the definition of the word 'relationship' is as ridiculous as President Clinton's hair-splitting over the definition of the word 'is' during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. When a president's justification for actions taken hinges on the definition of a single word, that usually spells trouble.
Read the rest here.
I’ve often heard that the U.S. military has become wedded to the Republican Party and will support any Republican – even G.W. Bush.
Over the weekend, I talked to a friend who said that her daughter and son-in-law are in the military and support Bush because Republicans shower the military with money and new equipment, while Democrats cut back. This does contradict articles I’ve read saying that the soldiers in Iraq have been given inferior or inadequate equipment. What is your opinion of this?
__________________________
Joe Conason’s Journal
If they’re smart, Democrats will reach out to more military communities — Republican strongholds or not.
Salon.com
– – – – – – – – – – – –
Nov. 10, 2003 | An officer and a Democrat
The U.S. military remains a Republican redoubt, and most service members are still likely to support a second term for George W. Bush next year. But the grave doubts about this administration that have long troubled top officers, both active and retired, are now heard among the enlisted and the noncommissioned as well. The troops are not thrilled about the war. They’re restive about the cutbacks in their pay and benefits. And they feel insulted by the seeming callousness with which their sacrifices are treated by this government. If the Democrats are smart, they will be reaching out to the disaffected military communities — from which I receive increasing numbers of letters like the following:
“I am currently an active-duty Army noncommissioned officer with 27 years’ service, and a lifelong Democrat. Those two alone are enough of a conflict to start an argument in any VFW [post] or military club I might go into on any particular day.
“I fought in the first Gulf War and was [in the region] for seven months. I was responsible for the lives of 31 soldiers who, I am proud to say, all came back alive and in one piece. I am completely against this current goatscrew we as a nation are involved in now. [Last summer] I lost one of my best friends in Iraq who was riding in his [Humvee] and was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade and died instantly. His death just intensified my dislike for the current conflict and how it’s being run.
“It’s very tough to be a Democrat in the military. There are a lot of closet Democrats in the Army, but they don’t show their colors for fear of being crapped on in some sense or another that no one could do anything about. And believe me when I tell you that there are not a lot of soldiers who do support this current conflict. Oh, they will say they do if they’re on MSNBC or CNN. They have no choice. But even the youngest troops, and much more the seasoned troopers like myself, know this is a quagmire. This is another Vietnam in the making, and we are stuck.”
A.D. Powell said: “I’ve often heard that the U.S. military has become wedded to the Republican Party and will support any Republican – even G.W. Bush.”
This used to be true, to a large extent. The tide has begun to turn recently. Even though there are those who would bully other servicemembers from publicly identifying as something other than Republican. I actually had an E-7 tell me and a group of E-3s that unless we voted as Republicans, we weren’t real Marines. At the time, I was the battalion voting NCO, which meant that I helped Marines register to vote, procure absentee ballots or get in touch with their elected officials. The level of political sophistication of the average first-term enlistee was not exactly awe-inspiring. Most had no idea what Congressional District they lived in, who the Member of Congress was, or what party they belonged to. Let’s not even broach the lack of knowledge of the issues…
A.D. Powell said: “Over the weekend, I talked to a friend who said that her daughter and son-in-law are in the military and support Bush because Republicans shower the military with money and new equipment, while Democrats cut back.”
Your friend may not be aware that its Congress who legislates what the President may spend on the military. For most of the last 15 years, Republicans have controlled the pursestrings, legislating what can be spent on the military. They’ve failed full-force to shower the military and veterans with what they needed. For instance, while Clinton was President, Republicans controlled the pursestrings. Yet Republicans like to blame anything wrong with the military on Clinton. As I pointed out, it was Republicans who controlled the appropriations and authorizations of the military budget for that period. They neglected to take care of several problems, one key issue being the shoddy chemical and biological protection gear issued to troops and dealing with critical health care issues for an aging veteran population.
A.D. Powell said: “This does contradict articles I’ve read saying that the soldiers in Iraq have been given inferior or inadequate equipment. What is your opinion of this?”
There is a lot of old, antiquated equipment in the military supply system (Vietnam era flak jackets, aging aviation equipment, malfunctioning gasmasks, that piece of malfunctioning junk known as the M-16 A-2 service rifle). Meanwhile, a company our Vice President used to chair has been busted committing millions of dollars worth of fraud in Iraq. That’s not support. Like two-time medal of honor recipient Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler said, “War is a racket” – https://www.jameslandrith.com/freebies/butler.html
And it isn’t the troops who benefit from this racket.
7/1/2004 11:41:00