Fort Hood Memorial Service

The memorial service at Fort Hood

Remarks of President Barack Obama - As Prepared for Delivery

Memorial Service at Fort Hood

November 10, 2009

We come together filled with sorrow for the thirteen Americans that we have lost; with gratitude for the lives that they led; and with a determination to honor them through the work we carry on.



This is a time of war. And yet these Americans did not die on a foreign field of battle. They were killed here, on American soil, in the heart of this great American community. It is this fact that makes the tragedy even more painful and even more incomprehensible.



For those families who have lost a loved one, no words can fill the void that has been left. We knew these men and women as soldiers and caregivers. You knew them as mothers and fathers; sons and daughters; sisters and brothers.



But here is what you must also know: your loved ones endure through the life of our nation. Their memory will be honored in the places they lived and by the people they touched. Their life's work is our security, and the freedom that we too often take for granted. Every evening that the sun sets on a tranquil town; every dawn that a flag is unfurled; every moment that an American enjoys life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that is their legacy.



Neither this country - nor the values that we were founded upon - could exist without men and women like these thirteen Americans. And that is why we must pay tribute to their stories.



Chief Warrant Officer Michael Cahill had served in the National Guard and worked as a physician's assistant for decades. A husband and father of three, he was so committed to his patients that on the day he died, he was back at work just weeks after having a heart attack.



Major Libardo Eduardo Caraveo spoke little English when he came to America as a teenager. But he put himself through college, earned a PhD, and was helping combat units cope with the stress of deployment. He is survived by his wife, sons and step-daughters.



Staff Sergeant Justin DeCrow joined the Army right after high school, married his high school sweetheart, and had served as a light wheeled mechanic and Satellite Communications Operator. He was known as an optimist, a mentor, and a loving husband and father.



After retiring from the Army as a Major, John Gaffaney cared for society's most vulnerable during two decades as a psychiatric nurse. He spent three years trying to return to active duty in this time of war, and he was preparing to deploy to Iraq as a Captain. He leaves behind a wife and son.



Specialist Frederick Greene was a Tennessean who wanted to join the Army for a long time, and did so in 2008 with the support of his family. As a combat engineer he was a natural leader, and he is survived by his wife and two daughters.



Specialist Jason Hunt was also recently married, with three children to care for. He joined the Army after high school. He did a tour in Iraq, and it was there that he re-enlisted for six more years on his 21st birthday so that he could continue to serve.



Staff Sergeant Amy Krueger was an athlete in high school, joined the Army shortly after 9/11, and had since returned home to speak to students about her experience. When her mother told her she couldn't take on Osama bin Laden by herself, Amy replied: "Watch me."



Private First Class Aaron Nemelka was an Eagle Scout who just recently signed up to do one of the most dangerous jobs in the service - defuse bombs - so that he could help save lives. He was proudly carrying on a tradition of military service that runs deep within his family.



Private First Class Michael Pearson loved his family and loved his music, and his goal was to be a music teacher. He excelled at playing the guitar, and could create songs on the spot and show others how to play. He joined the military a year ago, and was preparing for his first deployment.



Captain Russell Seager worked as a nurse for the VA, helping veterans with Post-Traumatic Stress. He had great respect for the military, and signed up to serve so that he could help soldiers cope with the stress of combat and return to civilian life. He leaves behind a wife and son.



Private Francheska Velez, the daughter of a father from Colombia and a Puerto Rican mother, had recently served in Korea and in Iraq, and was pursuing a career in the Army. When she was killed, she was pregnant with her first child, and was excited about becoming a mother.



Lieutenant Colonel Juanita Warman was the daughter and granddaughter of Army veterans. She was a single mother who put herself through college and graduate school, and served as a nurse practitioner while raising her two daughters. She also left behind a loving husband.



Private First Class Kham Xiong came to America from Thailand as a small child. He was a husband and father who followed his brother into the military because his family had a strong history of service. He was preparing for his first deployment to Afghanistan.



These men and women came from all parts of the country. Some had long careers in the military. Some had signed up to serve in the shadow of 9/11. Some had known intense combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, and some cared for those who did. Their lives speak to the strength, the dignity and the decency of those who serve, and that is how they will be remembered.



That same spirit is embodied in the community here at Fort Hood, and in the many wounded who are still recovering. In those terrible minutes during the attack, soldiers made makeshift tourniquets out of their clothes. They braved gunfire to reach the wounded, and ferried them to safety in the backs of cars and a pick-up truck.



One young soldier, Amber Bahr, was so intent on helping others that she did not realize for some time that she, herself, had been shot in the back. Two police officers - Mark Todd and Kim Munley - saved countless lives by risking their own. One medic - Francisco de la Serna - treated both Officer Munley and the gunman who shot her.



It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know - no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice - in this world, and the next.



These are trying times for our country. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the same extremists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans continue to endanger America, our allies, and innocent Afghans and Pakistanis. In Iraq, we are working to bring a war to a successful end, as there are still those who would deny the Iraqi people the future that Americans and Iraqis have sacrificed so much for.



As we face these challenges, the stories of those at Fort Hood reaffirm the core values that we are fighting for, and the strength that we must draw upon. Theirs are tales of American men and women answering an extraordinary call - the call to serve their comrades, their communities, and their country. In an age of selfishness, they embody responsibility. In an era of division, they call upon us to come together. In a time of cynicism, they remind us of who we are as Americans.



We are a nation that endures because of the courage of those who defend it. We saw that valor in those who braved bullets here at Fort Hood, just as surely as we see it in those who signed up knowing that they would serve in harm's way.



We are a nation of laws whose commitment to justice is so enduring that we would treat a gunman and give him due process, just as surely as we will see that he pays for his crimes.



We are a nation that guarantees the freedom to worship as one chooses. And instead of claiming God for our side, we remember Lincoln's words, and always pray to be on the side of God.



We are a nation that is dedicated to the proposition that all men and women are created equal. We live that truth within our military, and see it in the varied backgrounds of those we lay to rest today. We defend that truth at home and abroad, and we know that Americans will always be found on the side of liberty and equality. That is who we are as a people.



Tomorrow is Veterans Day. It is a chance to pause, and to pay tribute - for students to learn of the struggles that preceded them; for families to honor the service of parents and grandparents; for citizens to reflect upon the sacrifices that have been made in pursuit of a more perfect union.



For history is filled with heroes. You may remember the stories of a grandfather who marched across Europe; an uncle who fought in Vietnam; a sister who served in the Gulf. But as we honor the many generations who have served, I think all of us - every single American - must acknowledge that this generation has more than proved itself the equal of those who have come before.



We need not look to the past for greatness, because it is before our very eyes.



This generation of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen have volunteered in a time of certain danger. They are part of the finest fighting force that the world has ever known. They have served tour after tour of duty in distant, different and difficult places. They have stood watch in blinding deserts and on snowy mountains. They have extended the opportunity of self-government to peoples that have suffered tyranny and war. They are man and woman; white, black, and brown; of all faiths and stations - all Americans, serving together to protect our people, while giving others half a world away the chance to lead a better life.



In today's wars, there is not always a simple ceremony that signals our troops' success - no surrender papers to be signed, or capital to be claimed. But the measure of their impact is no less great - in a world of threats that no know borders, it will be marked in the safety of our cities and towns, and the security and opportunity that is extended abroad. And it will serve as testimony to the character of those who serve, and the example that you set for America and for the world.



Here, at Fort Hood, we pay tribute to thirteen men and women who were not able to escape the horror of war, even in the comfort of home. Later today, at Fort Lewis, one community will gather to remember so many in one Stryker Brigade who have fallen in Afghanistan.



Long after they are laid to rest - when the fighting has finished, and our nation has endured; when today's servicemen and women are veterans, and their children have grown - it will be said of this generation that they believed under the most trying of tests; that they persevered not just when it was easy, but when it was hard; and that they paid the price and bore the burden to secure this nation, and stood up for the values that live in the hearts of all free peoples.



So we say goodbye to those who now belong to eternity. We press ahead in pursuit of the peace that guided their service. May God bless the memory of those we lost. And may God bless the United States of America.

Enriching Liberty

Almost a year ago Senator Joseph Biden wrote a very brief article for the Atlantic that I had not seen till this morning. Anyone who has visited The Limb knows that his words are in perfect harmony with mine. My greatest disappointment in the Bush/McCain Republicans has been their readiness to do for the Islamic extremists what the bad guys could not do for themselves. Reading this little piece reassured me that Barack Obama has made an excellent decision in tapping Biden as his prospective Vice President.

We don’t have to diminish the American idea in order to save it. Indeed, the only way to prevail in the struggle between freedom and fundamentalism is to enrich that idea in the face of threats.

--

Like the choice of Gore in 1992, Biden's VP choice does not add specific electoral vote possibilities, but does give a prospective new President better foreign policy credentials and a congressional tie that will help him accomplish his legislative goals.

The Republican response has been typical Rovian childishness: playing gotcha with Obama's word slip -- immediately corrected -- in introducing his running mate. Then, of course, all the standard ads noting the words of Biden and Clinton during the primaries. There is no traction in any of those arguments. The fact is Barack Obama made a very mature, even "Presidential", choice in the most important decision he has made as a candidate. Virtually everyone agrees that Joseph Biden is ready to be President if, God forbid, he has to fulfill the ultimate Vice Presidential duty. Obama and Biden will make a great team. No one who has watched Obama can believe there is any question about who will be the President if the team is elected. Good job, Barack!

Meltdown

The frustrations he must have felt this week have brought John McCain's famous volatility to the surface. Barack Obama spent the week demonstrating his ability to operate with discretion, ease, maturity, flair, and open-mindedness in diplomatic circles. Iraq's leader endorsed Obama's timetable for redeploying the US troops from his country. Even Bush undermined McCain by agreeing to a "time horizon" for leaving Iraq and by negotiating with Iranians. McCain's campaign has floundered. A few more weeks like this and you can remove the "l" -- his campaign will founder! It is understandable that McCain is unhappy.

So McCain goes ballistic and accuses his opponent of evil motive.

This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.

-Senator John McCain

McCain's meltdown was a very angry, partisan, uncontrolled, undiplomatic, unpresidential moment at the very time Senator Barack Obama has shown himself the very epitome of dignity, bipartisanship, diplomacy, and calm.

Time Magazine's Joe Klien noticed:

This is the ninth presidential campaign I've covered. I can't remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. It smacks of desperation. It renews questions about whether McCain has the right temperament for the presidency. How sad.
(Read the rest of Klien's article here.)

I have sometimes seen McCain, in calmer moments, be very polite toward those with whom he strongly disagrees, as he was only yesterday when an voter took issue with him at a "town hall" meeting. I hope Senator McCain will apologise for his appalling insult of Senator Obama.

No Timetable on the Horizon for Bush and McCain

President George Bush and his would-be successor John McCain have been put in a difficult squeeze of late.

The man they characterize as naive and inexperienced is visiting our troops in Afghanistan, Kuwait, and Iraq and being greeted with smiles, and cheers, and requests for autographs. And that beautiful three-point shot from outside the circle -- wildly applauded by a gym full of American soldiers -- has not been his only score.

He is listening to, and talking with, world leaders in his usual calm, mature, thoughtful, and anything-but-extreme manner. He looks right at home with high level diplomacy. He looks like the dynamic, patriotic, visionary President that he will be, provided we have the wisdom to elect him in November. He just does not fit the caricature the Republicans have so relentlessly tried to sketch for the electorate.

I am not sure Obama had even landed in Kuwait before a magazine reported Iraqi President al Maliki's endorsement of the redeployment schedule from Iraq that Obama has proposed. Of course, our Republican administration quickly persuaded al Maliki to claim he had been misunderstood or misquoted... but he did not specifically retract the words and the German magazine had VERY complete transcripts of the interview. And the translation was by al Maliki's OWN translator. And the recordings have been reviewed by third parties who find his views clear. And now his government says they have a "vision" of US redeployment by mid-2010.

From the New York Times:

The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Maliki’s comments by The Times: “Obama’s remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.”

Bush and McCain, of course, cannot ignore the Iraqi government's clear wish for us to leave their country, so they now agree with Maliki that we can set a "time horizon" for withdrawal! I suppose Ol' 100-year-McCain can argue that horizons go ever, ever on.

And they now meet with the Iranians to boot!

Barack Obama's foreign policy positions are being adopted by the Republicans!

But he is still too naive and inexperienced to trust as President?

Sorry guys, I don't think the usual cartoons -- wind-surfing, swiftboating, Willie Horton, Rovian funny-stuff -- are gonna fool America this time.
You can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time but ...

Two Georges

I have talked before about what I consider the immoral funding of the Republican adventure in Iraq. Today Ruth Marcus covers the topic well.

Confronting the debt amassed during the Revolutionary War, George Washington was determined to pay it off, warning against "ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear." Confronting the enormous costs about to be piled up in Iraq, George Bush determined to press for new tax cuts -- not just "little bitty tax relief," as he put it, but hundreds of billions more.

Do you think Barack or John is closest to George Washington on this issue?
Who is closer to George Bush?

Read the whole article here.

Confirmation

In my very first post in 2005 I wrote:

I believe we should go to war only when there is a clear national interest that can be protected no other way and when there is a strong consensus among the people to support the war.
I believe that lying, exaggerating, or hyping information in order to take our country to war is a high crime.

I therefore believe the current occupant of the White House is right out there with Richard Nixon and James Buchanan in the race for the most dangerous President of all time.

In January 2006 I wrote:

When I read the blogs of those, who at least in regards to the "war on terrorism," are on the radical right, I suspect they largely think themselves realistic "pacifists" forced by terrible circumstances to drop those preventive bombs. Put them at the sites of those bombs, many of these same people would be risking their own lives to save the bystanding babies and even grown babies maimed by their bombs. They are not evil people, just scared and mistaken people.

The evil is in those who manipulate the fear and who look on terrorist attacks, war, and recession as a "trifecta" for their political interests.

In February 2006 I wrote:

I have virtually no respect for George W. Bush. I believe he sold his soul to become president. I think he is shallow. I think he is horribly mistaken and unwilling to face his own errors. I think he surrounds himself with yes-men and refuses to listen to contrary views. I think he is an insecure man who covers his frailties with bluster and swagger. But I don't accuse him of being anti-American. I have to believe that even that little man loves his country and hopes that his mistaken policies will work out for the best for America.

Now, from a very unexpected source, comes confirmation of virtually everything I have ever said about George W. Bush and his arrogant buddies.

Bush's Texas buddy Scott McClellan fesses up:

"Over that summer of 2002, top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war. . . . In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage."

“As press secretary, I spent countless hours defending the administration from the podium in the White House briefing room. Although the things I said then were sincere, I have since come to realize that some of them were badly misguided.”

"Bush is plenty smart enouh to be president... A more self-confident executive would be willing to acknowledge failure, to trust people's ability to forgive those who seek redemption for mistakes and show a readiness to change."

“History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided: that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact. What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.”

"The president had promised himself that he would accomplish what his father had failed to do by winning a second term in office, and that meant operating continually in campaign mode: never explaining, never apologizing, never retreating. Unfortunately, that strategy also had less justifiable repercussions: never reflecting, never reconsidering, never compromising. Especially not where Iraq was concerned."

In the late sixties and early seventies when Richard Nixon was being elected and re-elected, I was dumbfounded that so many could not see the lack of self-confidence so obvious in his body language and formalized bluster. I knew on a gut-level that the man could not be trusted. I have had exactly the same gut-level reaction to George W. Bush from the very beginning. You do not want a President who is insecure in who he is. (I won't use the phrase that some got so het up over.)

Now we have John McCain. His case is a little different. In the eighties he likely compromised his conscience during the Keating Five scandal. From then through the 2000 race he seems to have straightened up and decided that that was not the real him, and really did seem to engage in "straight talk" from his very-conservative viewpoint. Then he was run over by the Bush/Rove-win at-all-costs-ethics-be-damned steamroller. He began to make more compromises. And more compromises. And as the primaries heated up and his standing faded he made more compromises. Last year he supported Bush 95% of the time.

McCain's awkward delivery, lame body language, forced grimace-smiles, and partisan shots at Obama on Tuesday showed a lot of discomfort. Contrast that with the grace, eloquence, confidence, ease, and inspiration of the Obama speech. McCain's speech was about his opponent. Obama's speech was about America.

If America misses the opportunity of this great moment, what a terrible loss it will be.

Sesquipedalianism

Look it up.

Or read this piece by Dick Cavett.

I won't be as hard on General Petraeus for his chest full of hardware. Tradition and all that. But Dick Cavett is spot-on regarding the sesquipedalianism of Petraeus' and Crocker's language.

Politics aside, wouldn't Harry Truman's plain speaking be a blessing nowadays?

I have sometimes said that "comfort in his own skin" is an attribute of every great political leader. I wonder if "plain speaking" would not work as well as a universal discriptor of Clinton, Reagan, Lincoln, and now, Obama, and other effective leaders.

Or good preachers, for that matter.

The pontificating sesquipedalianists ... well, sometimes I suspect they are just desperately trying to obfuscate the unpleasant or to make nonsense or confusion or ignorance sound erudite.

Obscenity

The obscenity of the war in Iraq grows more obvious with each pasing day. War is, of course, by its very nature, tragic.

This war is obscene.

Especially obscene to me is the fact that this war is not our nation's war. It is a war of the folks fighting every day in Baghdad and the rest of Iraq. It is a war of their parents and siblings and children and spouses. It is a war of the people of Iraq. It is a war of the future citizens who will eventually pay for it.

But to the majority of Americans it is a political issue. We are not sacrificing for this war. Good heavens! This year, while billions are being spent on the war and our young men and women continue to fight and die, each of us will receive a financial bonus from our government.

If a nation is to go to war, the NATION should go to war. We should all be required to sacrifice to pay for it. Our sons and daughters should be equally liable for service in the war.

If war is the only recourse -- and there should not be war unless it is the only honorable recourse -- then all of us should be invested in it.

This war was too easy for those that initiated it -- most of whom have never seen war themselves.

This war is too easy for most Americans.

All war is tragic.

This war is obscene.

"Falaqa" and "Farruj"

Once again our national reputation is being drug through the mud compliments of possible actions of the current Republican administration. The Washington Post is reporting about accusations of our outsourcing torture to Jordan. (Thanks to the Moderate Voice for the heads up.)

Former prisoners have reported that their captors were expert in two practices in particular: falaqa, or beating suspects on the soles of their feet with a truncheon and then, often, forcing them to walk barefoot and bloodied across a salt-covered floor; and farruj, or the "grilled chicken," in which prisoners are handcuffed behind their legs, hung upside down by a rod placed behind their knees, and beaten.

I do not know if the reports of torture are true or not. The sad thing is that, given the history of the last seven years, such a scenario is not out of the question for the administration of the current successor to Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Eisenhower, et al.

"You have to decide..."

Several times since the Republican misadventure in Iraq turned sour, I have been told by a few defenders of the decision to invade that "even Bill Clinton believed Saddam had WMD". These folks seem to think that means he also supported the invasion.

I have known that was not true. I am glad, now, to be able to give chapter and verse. A transcript of President Clinton's remarks of March 14, 2003 -- less than a week before the invasion -- has been posted at the Hillary Clinton website. Here are some excerpts:

"... you have to decide if it matters whether we bend over backwards to try to disarm him in a way that strengthens rather than divides the world community. If you don’t think it matters, then you’re with a lot of the people in the current administration...

[Saddam]'s finally destroying his missiles, so let’s give him a certain date in which, in this time, he has to destroy the missiles, reconcile the discrepancies in what we believe is the truth on chemical weapons, reconcile the discrepancies on biological weapons, reconcile the issue of the Drones, and offer up 150 scientists who can travel outside of Iraq with their families for interviews. ... I’m for regime change too, but there’s more than one way to do it. We don’t invade everybody whose regime we want to change..."

I, like President Clinton, believed President Bush was acting foolishly in the months leading up to March of 2003. I was quite vociferous about that, despite the ridicule of a whole gaggle of my Republican friends. I saw an administration hyping the case for preemptive war. They may have believed some of what they said about WMD, but they blatently hyped it. They knew Saddam was not an immediate threat to the US and they knew Saddam was unconnected to the terrorist attacks of 2001 (and never SAID he was, as they are quick to point out) but blatently lied about the first and actively promoted the second impression, and those misconceptions became majority assumptions in the US. The Machiavellian neo-cons viewed war as an exercise of the unique power of the world's only remaining superpower. It was an opportunity, the neo-cons seemed to think, that the US should not pass up. From slimy politics, to slippery slope, to free fall.

What a different and better world this would be today if the election of 2000 had not been compromised.

What a difference it will make for our country if in 2008 we can elect a statesman (or woman) to repair the tragic mistakes of the Republicans. I will be thrilled to support Edwards, Biden, Clinton, Obama, or Dodd.

Iraqi Civilian Deaths Increase and US Defense Stocks Roar

20,000 Documented Violent Deaths of Iraqi Civilians
In First Nine Months of 2007
According to Iraqi Body Count (IBC), at least 20,000 Iraqi civilians have died violent deaths in the first nine months of 2007, and a total of between 74,689 – 81,391 Iraqi civilians have died violent deaths since the start of the Iraq War in 2003.

IBC’s web-site is impressive in its detailing and documenting of the names of violently killed Iraqis and the specific incidents that caused their deaths. IBC’s web-site says of itself, “IBC builds on innovative uses of new technologies without which this citizens’ initiative would be impossible. The project was founded in January 2003 by volunteers from the UK and USA who felt a responsibility to ensure that the human consequences of military intervention in Iraq were not neglected.” And it says,

• IBC’s figures are not ‘estimates’ but a record of actual, documented deaths.
• IBC records solely violent deaths.
• IBC records solely civilian (strictly, ‘noncombatant’) deaths.
• IBC’s figures are constantly updated and revised as new data comes in, and frequent consultation is advised.

IBC calculates between 74,689 - 81,391 Iraqi civilians have died violent deaths since the start of the Iraq War in 2003. But according to the medical journal The Lancet, many, many more Iraqis have died as a direct result of the war. Just Foreign Policy, uses the research reported in the Lancet in 2006 and asserts that over one million Iraqi civilians have died as a direct result of the US invasion.

Defense Stocks Make Huge Gains
The AMX Defense Index tracks 14 major defense company stocks. At the start of the Iraq War, the Index was 500, it is now the Index is almost four times that initial amount. The AP reports, "Defense stocks hit new highs as Defense Secretary Robert Gates requested an extra $42 billion in funding from Congress to cover military costs in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008. The AMEX Defense Index, which tracks 14 major defense company stocks, rose 14.25 to a high of 1,686.72 in afternoon trading. Since last year, the index has risen roughly 47 percent, outperforming the broader S&P 500 index, which has climbed nearly 15 percent over the same period."

Vote2008Video/Iraq: Joe Biden

This clip includes, I suppose, all of Sen. Biden's answers in the debate last night. The first couple of minutes cover Iraq.


"It's time to speak truth to power." Here is Biden's response to Rudy Guiliani's comments on the recent intelligence report:


The Biden-Gelb plan for Iraq

Vote2008Video/Iraq: Hillary Clinton

This is the first in a continuing series of posts to point the way to what the candidates are actually saying on the issues. In the debate last night, despite being also very pleased with Edwards, Biden, Obama, Dodd, and Richardson, I was most impressed with Senator Clinton, as I reported below. In reading that post over, I thought: I'm no better than the goofusses at CNN who are busy making the horserace-meter of one little focus group the BIG STORY of the debate. I watched the debate. It was a good one. Why not show us more of what the candidates actually said and less of what your little roomful thought of it! Although I was very pleased with the manner in which Senator Clinton acquitted herself last evening, I was also pleased with the substance of her remarks. So here is my little effort to inform the debate by helping my readers hear what the candidates are actually saying on the issues.

I did not find, in a quick search, the video of Hillary Clinton's responses about the war from the debate last night, but I did find a video, produced by her campaign, which actually expands on what she was able to say in the debate.

The Cindy Sheehan Flameout

SW Anderson is an astute observer and has the most insightful words I have heard on Cindy Sheehan's decision to retire from the field of battle.

There is an important role for the maverick in American politics. But we also need statesmen/women who can govern reasonably in the real world of multiple factions and multitudinous factors. Long range success in politics often requires shortterm half-measures and disappointments.

Those of us who want to see the errors of the Bush years put behind us should be careful not to form a circular firing squad.

In 1980 it was disunity among Democrats that assured the election of Ronald Reagan.
In 1994 it was disunity among Democrats that allowed Newt his "revolution".

Shocking News! The Tragedy in Iraq was Forecast!

The Washington Post has broken the story (gasp!) that intelligence analysts knew, and advised the administration, before the Republicans invaded Iraq (without a consensus of support in the world or even at home) that the likely result would be terrible sectarian violence, new bases in Iraq and Afghanistan for Al Qaeda, a surge of radical politics in Islamic countries, an opportunity for Iran to exert more influence in the region, and a financial windfall for terrorist groups. Good grief! I knew those things were likely and I am just a reader of the news with one college course in the history of the Middle East who has lived 60 years in an reasonably sane state of awareness.

The magnitude of the Republican folly of the last six years is mindboggling, and plain for all to see. Though a small percentage (less than 30%) of Americans still profess support for Bush, I believe, if you could read their hearts you'd see most know a castastrophic error was made and fib to the interviewers in a misplaced sense of patriotic duty.

A Life's Work

Brian at Brave Humans has written another thought-provoking post. He has 25 students in his 8 o'clock class:

... Over the weekend twenty-five U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq. The equivalent of my entire 8:00am class in a single day. My entire class. The student who calls Mountain Dew a girlie drink, gone. The one who thinks he knows everything, gone. The one who struggles with math, gone. The one who sits in the back staring at the ceiling only to ask really advanced questions from time to time, gone...

Senator Webb on the War in Iraq

Senator Jim Webb responded beautifully to the President's speech tonight. Thank you, Virginia, for sending this good man to the Senate. I suspect Webb will be an important figure in the history books that cover the next few years of our national life. Wouldn't it have been great to have someone so thoughtful and serious to deliver the primary address tonight.

Here are the concluding paragraphs that deal with the war in Iraq:

Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues - those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death - we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm's way.

We owed them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us - sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.

The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable - and predicted - disarray that has followed.

The war's costs to our nation have been staggering.

Financially.

The damage to our reputation around the world.

The lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism.

And especially the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve.

The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction.

Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.

On both of these vital issues, our economy and our national security, it falls upon those of us in elected office to take action.

Regarding the economic imbalance in our country, I am reminded of the situation President Theodore Roosevelt faced in the early days of the 20th century. America was then, as now, drifting apart along class lines. The so-called robber barons were unapologetically raking in a huge percentage of the national wealth. The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt.

Roosevelt spoke strongly against these divisions. He told his fellow Republicans that they must set themselves "as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other." And he did something about it.

As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. "When comes the end?" asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War II. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.

These Presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world.

Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.

Thank you for listening. And God bless America.

Senator Webb takes on Lindsey Graham & Robert Gates

Craig at Donkey Path points the way this morning to some comments by our new US Senator from Virginia, Jim Webb. Here's a taste:

There's really nothing that's occurred since the invasion and occupation that was not predictable and in fact, most of it was predicted. It was predicted in many cases by people with long backgrounds in national security...and in many cases there were people who saw their military careers destroyed and who were personally demeaned by people who opposed them on the issues, including members of this administration. - Senator Jim Webb

Is it possible to unscramble an omelette?

At least twelve Republican Senators are now expressing some degree of concern about the Bush escalation of the war in Iraq. Here's one example:

Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, decorated Vietnam veteran, to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as she testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee-

"Madam Secretary, when you set in motion the kind of policy that the president is talking about here, it's very, very dangerous. As a matter of fact, I have to say, Madam Secretary, that I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam -- if it's carried out."

Why 20,000?

I am no military expert, to state the obvious, but:

I oppose escalation of the war in Iraq, but given that the forces in Iraq are not going to be redeployed by this President, it seems to me that an escalation of 20,000 is just a minor tactical move rather than a real new strategy. If we are serious that we will settle for nothing short of "victory" (I assume that means we insist on a stable, friendly, government in Iraq before we withdraw) doesn't that call for overwhelming force and real sacrifice by the American people? Shouldn't he be asking for a great many more troops? Maybe doubling the troops there? Can we really pacify such a large (and largely hostile) population with such a small escalation (in percentage terms).

On another topic: I notice that John Edwards has called for cutting off funding for the escalation. This is the first time I have been very uneasy with something Edwards has said. Can we force Bush to abandon his plan for escalation or will cutting off funds serve to weaken and make more vulnerable our troops?

These are concerns I'd like to hear discussed by some of my blogging friends.