THE FOUR THOUSAND

All day long, as I've bustled around at work, I've had the number 4000 imprinted on my brain. Four thousand of our military dead in Iraq. Eight times that number wounded, damaged. Even more times that number suffering from PTSD. Many more times that number members of families and loved ones of the dead, the wounded, the traumatized. And to add to that, from 80,000-600,000 Iraqis dead or damaged.

And the response of our president and his presumed successor, John McCain? To declare that more must die or be damaged in order to honor the sacrifice of those before them.

There is no honor in such a position. There is great honor in what our military men and women have tried to do in order to do their duty as their country has defined it. But there is only disgrace in what we have required of them. They have served with diligence in the worst of circumstances. We have not returned the favor.

There are so many issues in this presidential election cycle that are critical to our future as a people in the United States. But for me, the first and most important is to end our involvement in Iraq and to preclude any such future neocon misadventures. We cannot mend our international relations, fix our economy, institute universal healthcare, address climate change, or succeed in almost any of our progressive agenda items until that is accomplished.

Hillary Clinton is the most prepared to bring us out. She's been working on this issue thoughtfully, decisively. She has the confidence and backing of the cream of our military. They will eagerly work with her to find a solution for withdrawal from Iraq. They have publicly stated that she is best-positioned to end the war and to give them only missions that make sense.

Hillary Clinton must be the next president of the United States.

HILLARY HAS ANSWERS FOR IRAQ

Read it all for the details. -- Even as she is involved in an exhaustive campaign for the nomination, she's working and planning for the best interests of the nation.

Now, withdrawal is not risk-free, but the risks of staying in Iraq are certain. And a well-planned withdrawal is the one and only path to a political solution. The only way to spur the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future and to ensure that we don't bear that responsibility indefinitely. The only way to spur other countries to do their part to help secure stability in the region. The commitment to staying in Iraq has driven President Bush's foreign policy. It looks like it would drive Senator McCain’s foreign policy as well, but it will not drive mine. My foreign policy will be driven by what is in America’s national security interests.

So it is time to end this war as quickly and responsibly as possible. That has been my mission in the Senate, and it will be my mission starting on day one as president of the United States.

For the past five years, I have served on the Senate Armed Services Committee. I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan three times. I have met with our soldiers and military leaders. I have met with Iraqi, local, regional, and national elected and other influential officials. Here at home I’ve attended countless meetings and committee hearings where I have challenged high-ranking Pentagon officials and military leaders investigating the situation in Iraq, probing the facts presented, and demanding real answers to tough questions. And I am honored that more than 30 of America’s most esteemed former admirals and generals, including two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and five retired officers of the four-star rank have endorsed my candidacy.

The American people don't have to guess whether I’m ready to lead or whether I understand the realities on the ground in Iraq or whether I’d be too dependent on advisers to help me determine the right way forward. I’ve been working day-in and day-out in the Senate to provide leadership to end this war. That’s why I cosponsored legislation with Senator Robert Byrd to reauthorize the war, legislation that would actually end the president's authority to fight it.

That’s why I’ve started laying the ground work for a swift and responsible withdrawal beginning in early 2009 by demanding that the Pentagon start planning for it now. I’ve introduced legislation ensuring that Congress would be briefed on those plans and that's also why I’m working to block President Bush's effort to keep this war going after he leaves office. I’ve introduced legislation banning him from unilaterally negotiating a long-term security commitment to Iraq, including the possibility of permanent bases.

Here's more.

MOMMY, YOU SHOULD HAVE STOPPED ME FROM SUPPORTING THE WAR!

Wow. What an insightful post. New discovery Anglachel's Journal speculates on the reason so many progressive bloggers are dripping with vitriol about Hillary and clinging to Obamamania:

It's all about Iraq and their own guilty consciences.

Josh Marshall, Matt Yglesias, Mark Kleiman, Kevin Drum, and any number of other high profile bloggers were all rah-rah war supporters when it first began. They had no real reason to support it besides wanting to kill people and get some revenge. They were reading the New York Times and Judith Miller and gulping the White House kool-aide as avidly as they gulp Obama's kool-aide today. C'mon, c'mon, c'mon, we gotta get Saddam! They swore by Colin Powell. If Powell said there was proof, well, by golly, that was good enough for them.
...
Anyway, Hillary acts with others to authorize force if Saddam does not comply with the terms of the UN deal for reasons that have to do with politics, rule of law, and trying to put limits on Bush, as well as being under enormous public pressure to kill some towel heads as revenge for 9/11. Like pressure from the Blogger Boyz, who were slobbering and bouncing up and down in anticipation of a glorious little war, bitching about the UN's attempt to slow things down, and really wanting to go get Saddam. Bush thumbs his nose at the COngress and the UN and orders an invasion anyway. The boyz all cheer.

Then the war goes tits over teakettle and they realize that they are on the losing side of the argument. They are guilty as hell for having brought their considerable intellectual talents to bear on promoting an unjustified war and they want to blame someone else for their bad judgment. I know, Hillary made me do it! She should have been a better mommy and kept me from indulging in my murderous desires! Bad Mommy! Bad!

I spoke out about the Iraq invasion for months before it actually occurred, and had to listen to the "What if Saddam has even an ounce of biological weapons he could use to poison our water system?" meme ad infinitum. The Sage and I would listen to Saddam's mouthpieces deny having WMD and say to one another, "The funny thing is that for once they're most likely telling the truth." Hans Blix and the U.N. inspectors were clearly not finding any evidence of WMD, and it seemed the simplest and most rational thing in the world to give them time to finish their job and report to the U.S. and the world their findings before invading Iraq and starting a Middle East conflagration. As a couple of 50-somethings who once protested the Vietnam War and witnessed just what a CF and quagmire it was, we're always on the side of verification and validation before military action. But we found ourselves, even among progressives/liberals, in a very small minority.

Even so, we haven't been angry with those who rushed to judgment, or arrogant about our own prescience. The only people we've blamed have been those who lied to the American people and the world to justify a military action they'd been itching to launch since before Bush/Cheney took office. And that's George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz et al.

Read the whole thing. You'll recognize many of those you know -- not just bloggers, but media figures and even friends and relatives -- in the description Anglachel paints. The motivations he/she ascribes to the Hillary-haters may be speculative, but they sure ring true.

THE QUESTION FOR MCCAIN

Joe Conason:

Within the next two weeks, the number of American troops killed in Iraq is likely to reach 4,000, assuming that the average number of fatal casualties per day remains steady. It is an arbitrary number, given meaning by the fact that the nation may briefly take notice, but a day will come in this presidential campaign when Sen. John McCain must explain what he thinks we have gained by the sacrifice of those men and women.

Emphasis mine.

DEBATE DISCOVERIES

Two important moments during the Tuesday night debate:

1. Hillary repudiated her vote for the authorization of force in Iraq.
2. Barack Obama ran as fast as he could from the term "liberal."

Video and transcript here.

"SUICIDE AND CORRUPTION"

Frank Rich riffs on the widespread corruption endemic to Bush's adventure in Iraq, and concludes that the death of Col. Ted Westhusing wrote coda to the problem.

The cost cannot be measured only in lost opportunities, lives and money. There will be a long hangover of shame. Its essence was summed up by Col. Ted Westhusing, an Army scholar of military ethics who was an innocent witness to corruption, not a participant, when he died at age 44 of a gunshot wound to the head while working for Gen. David Petraeus training Iraqi security forces in Baghdad in 2005. He was at the time the highest-ranking officer to die in Iraq.

Colonel Westhusing’s death was ruled a suicide, though some believe he was murdered by contractors fearing a whistle-blower, according to T. Christian Miller, the Los Angeles Times reporter who documents the case in his book “Blood Money.” Either way, the angry four-page letter the officer left behind for General Petraeus and his other commander, Gen. Joseph Fil, is as much an epitaph for America’s engagement in Iraq as a suicide note.

“I cannot support a msn that leads to corruption, human rights abuse and liars,” Colonel Westhusing wrote, abbreviating the word mission. “I am sullied.”

I've written about Col. Westhusing's death before. It's a tragic irony that two years later, his warning has not resulted in any change.

DAYTRIPPERS

Listening to one Congressman after another speak glowingly of the “progress” they saw on the ground in Iraq as a result of the so-called “surge” – after a day trip to the Green Zone – reminds me of a story I’ve been telling for several years.

Around five years ago a friend of mine, Bob Phillips of “Texas Country Reporter” fame, got a phone call from some out-of-state developers who were planning to build what would become the Gaylord Texan Resort and Convention Center near Dallas in Grapevine, Texas. They asked if they could hire Bob for a half day to give them a “tour of Texas.” After choking for a few minutes to suppress hysterical laughter, Bob explained to them that to see Texas would take a bit more than a half day. It actually took them a week to visit such sights as the Alamo and Riverwalk in San Antonio, the Big Bend area, oil fields, etc. At the end of the week, Bob asked them, “Now what one thing have you observed that will help you design the resort?” and they correctly responded, “The lone star!” The lone star did, in actuality, become the leid-motif of the resort.

It should be noted that Bob largely served as tour guide and let the developers make their own observations (I don’t suggest that Bob didn’t spout considerable Texas history and culture along the way). He arranged the tour just as they requested, though he added a couple of spots that he thought they should see.

This was just research to help build a hotel, not to evaluate a war. It is not only naïve, but criminally ignorant, to suggest that a quick in-and-out daytrip wholly arranged and controlled by the Bush administration and its military enablers, qualifies a politician to make sweeping judgments about the success or non-success of U.S. strategy and tactics in the war in Iraq. And it’s just as silly of the media to repeat them.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS

Of all the hypocritical, pandering-to-the-slavering-war-beast actions Congressional Republicans have taken since Democrats assumed control of the House and a meaningless (because of Lieberman) majority in the Senate, this is it.

Of all the Democratic amendments to the Defense appropriations bill, the measure championed by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) was the most obvious no-brainer. The amendment, which was co-sponsored by another decorated war hero, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), didn’t have a direct impact on troop withdrawal or timelines, so it should have been easier for Republicans to support.

Webb’s measure focused on the multiple and extended deployments and rotations that have undermined U.S. readiness, and have strained the military to the breaking point. Webb/Hagel was quite simple: it requires every deployed soldier receive at least the same amount of rest when they return home. In other words, serve six months in Iraq, rest for six months back home.

“We have an amendment before us that is critical for the strength of our military and the well-being of our troops. Regardless of where we stand on the war, I would hope that we stand as one in our commitment to keeping our military the strongest in the world,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said before the vote. “We should all agree that we can’t sustain that strength if our men and women in uniform aren’t given the protection and care they need. That’s not a Democratic talking point or a Republican talking point — it’s just common sense.”

Well, it should be. As it turns out, most Senate Republicans not only opposed Webb/Hagel, they filibustered it so that it wouldn’t receive an up-or-down vote. This afternoon, Dems fell short of breaking the filibuster, 56 to 41, four votes shy of what they needed.

I want to hear those 46 Senators who voted against Webb-Hagel to tell their constituencies and the American people once again how much they "support the troops." I want John McCain and Joe Lieberman, who are so fond of visiting Iraq and returning to tell touching stories about our soldiers being eager to fight on and of the tender feelings their executive officers have for their men and women's welfare, to go back to Iraq, look those soldiers in the eye and say, "I just opposed in the Senate an amendment that would have ensured that you don't return to fight in this place until you've been fully rested, equipped, and retrained for your next deployment. I did that because I support and care about you so much." And I want the right-wing mouthpieces who beat the war drum ad nauseum while demonizing the opposition for not caring about our "brave men and women" to explain to their audience why they've remained mum about the defeat of this amendment.

HOW IS IT POSSIBLE that the Bush administration, Republicans and conservatives can continue to celebrate their lovefest for the military and yet oppose increasing their salaries and improving their healthcare?

This latest outrage should have been the top story of the day and week. But what's one more outrage out of so many?

Still, I would hope that somebody is going to thrust this issue upon the consciousness of the American voting public, who will then, in my fantasy, raise a loud enough clamor -- such as the right-wing did on the immigration bill -- to force Webb-Hagel back onto the Senate floor, where Republicans will discover they cannot raise enough votes to filibuster, the amendment is passed, and it is up to George W. Bush, the Decider and Commander-in-Chief, to explain to his troops and the public why he will veto it.

A MOSAIC OF CORRUPTION

Frank Rich reflects on Bush administration-related scandals (Alberto Gonzales, Paul Wolfowitz, Bernie Kerik, et al) and concludes that they are part of the same mosaic that has led to the debacle in Iraq:

What’s being lost in the Beltway uproar is the extent to which the lying, cronyism and arrogance showcased by the current scandals are of a piece with the lying, cronyism and arrogance that led to all the military funerals that Mr. Bush dares not attend. Having slept through the fraudulent selling of the war, Washington is still having trouble confronting the big picture of the Bush White House. Its dense web of deceit is the deliberate product of its amoral culture, not a haphazard potpourri of individual blunders.
...
Had Iraqi reconstruction, like the training of Iraqi police, not been betrayed by politics and cronyism, the Iraq story might have a different ending. But maybe not all that different. The cancer on the Bush White House connects and contaminates all its organs. It’s no surprise that one United States attorney fired without plausible cause by the Gonzales Justice Department, Carol Lam, was in hot pursuit of defense contractors with administration connections. Or that another crony brought by Mr. Wolfowitz to the World Bank was caught asking the Air Force secretary to secure a job for her brother at a defense contractor while she was overseeing aspects of the Air Force budget at the White House. A government with values this sleazy couldn’t possibly win a war.

Like the C.I.A. leak case, each new scandal is filling in a different piece of the elaborate White House scheme to cover up the lies that took us into Iraq and the failures that keep us mired there. As the cover-up unravels and Congress steps up its confrontation over the war’s endgame, our desperate president is reverting to his old fear-mongering habit of invoking 9/11 incessantly in every speech. The more we learn, the more it’s clear that he’s the one with reason to be afraid.

I don't expect the White House to be bipartisan. But I do expect it to seek to promote the best interests of the nation rather than the personal interests of its cronies. They're paid to do just that. The evil triumvirate of Bush-Cheney-Rove has corrupted almost everything and everyone it touches.

Rich is right in pointing out that the media still doesn't know how to confront or address the administration's record of lies and deceit. I would suggest that it's largely because they're unable to face their own complicity in the situation the nation now faces. Their active cheerleading for the administration and the war, their cozy, insider relationships with Republican power brokers, and their awe of their corporate masters didn't start with 9/11. They actively despised and challenged the Clintons and Gores at every opportunity. I don't care if a sizable majority of the so-called mainstream media acknowledge, as individuals, positions that classify them as "liberals." They are not politicians pursuing those policies; they are employees, people trying to make a lucrative living, and that living depends to a great extent on their access to power. With a few exceptions, the so-called "liberal media" have sold themselves and their "liberal" souls for a fat paycheck and the chance to rub shoulders with the powerful. And that, by definition, is prostitution.

TWO GENERATIONS IN IRAQ?

On This Week just now, Newt Gingrich compared the U.S. military involvement in Iraq to that in South Korea. He stated that our work in South Korea, starting with the Korean War, was a two-generation effort as that nation evolved from a dictatorship to a prosperous democracy, and that Iraq was an even more serious and difficult situation. His argument was reminiscent of those right-wingers I often hear talking about how many years after WWII our military spent completing the pacification of Europe and Japan.

Spare me. The equations are specious. The American military after both the Korean War and WWII ended were not, by definition, engaging in armed warfare as they are in Iraq. Nor is there in Iraq, as there was in WWII, a clear enemy that can surrender, ending the conflict, or as in the case of the Korean conflict, agree to a cessation of hostilities, so the U.S. troops can be transitioned to simply a peacekeeping presence in the region.

The bogus "when [Iraqis, South Koreans, Italians, etc.] stand up, we will stand down" strategy has no logical application in Iraq. Iraqis are Sunni, Shiite, Al Qaeda, loyal to this and that sectarian leader. At present there is no recognized Iraqi identity and no central government with any significant power to enforce its will. And there is little prospect that either will emerge in the foreseeable future. The more likely scenario, if you accept the position of the chickenhawks and the 101st fighting keyboarders, is two generations of American men and women fighting and dying in a futile effort to "crush" the insurgents/terrorists in Iraq while creating exponentially more of them throughout the region and the world.