Cindy Sheehan calls it quits--and has some strong parting words.

Today, in a diary post at Daily Kos, Cindy Sheehan, tendered her "resignation letter as the 'face' of the American anti-war movement." In so doing, she left with words that should give all of us pause for thought. However, the people who most need to pay attention are the those at the far left of the Democratic party.

While I agreed with Sheehan on many substantive issues during her time of activity, I had problems with her methods. At times she was rather ham-fisted. At other times she was too melodramatic. At other times she combined those approaches with an overly simplistic and extreme expression of ideas. My problem with all of that was that any substantive message was then obscured or lost. It was too easy for the wingers to attack her and dismiss her. And the problem with that was that she was the "face" of the anti-war movement. By maginalizing her, the wingers were able to use effective tactics from a PR perspective against everyone who was against the war. Instead of attention going to real substance and ways to counter the BS arguments of the wingers, time and energy were spent on ineffective tactics and responding to winger attacks.

And who was backing Sheehan the most during her most visible and over-the-top efforts? That would be the far left. With that in mind, take a good look at the first paragraph of Sheehan's "resignation."

I have endured a lot of smear and hatred since Casey was killed and especially since I became the so-called "Face" of the American anti-war movement. Especially since I renounced any tie I have remaining with the Democratic Party, I have been further trashed on such "liberal blogs" as the Democratic Underground. Being called an "attention whore" and being told "good riddance" are some of the more milder rebukes.

Why in the world would these people turn so viciously on the woman that they used as the face, heart, and soul of the anti-war movement? Sheehan provides an explanation.

I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican Party. Of course, I was slandered and libeled by the right as a "tool" of the Democratic Party. This label was to marginalize me and my message. How could a woman have an original thought, or be working outside of our "two-party" system?

However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the "left" started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used. I guess no one paid attention to me when I said that the issue of peace and people dying for no reason is not a matter of "right or left," but "right and wrong."

I am deemed a radical because I believe that partisan politics should be left to the wayside when hundreds of thousands of people are dying for a war based on lies that is supported by Democrats and Republican alike. It amazes me that people who are sharp on the issues and can zero in like a laser beam on lies, misrepresentations, and political expediency when it comes to one party refuse to recognize it in their own party. Blind party loyalty is dangerous whatever side it occurs on.

Sheehan is definitely speaking some strong truth here as far as I am concerned. Democrats were complicit in this mess that always has been the Iraq war. My first post on that subject was back on October 28, 2005, and it pretty well sums up my feelings. The derision heaped on Sheehan by the far left also supports some points I made in my second follow up to my initial rant about the Democrats' cave in:

My problem with the hard core anti-war crowd is one of approach, not objective. Their approach is extreme. Their approach is such that there is no room for any kind of compromise.

*******

Taking extreme positions filled with righteous indignation and scorn is not going to win the election in '08.

The far left has just tried to destroy someone who not only shared their views on the war, not only took more action in protest than any one individual, but was at one time trumpeted by the far left as the face of the anti-war movement and was used by them. The far left has basically told the world--in true George W. Bush style--"you are either completely and unquestioningly with us or you are the enemy." That is not going to win Republican votes. That is not going to win many votes from moderate or centrist Democrats. And it could very well cause the loss of some voters who otherwise might vote Democratic.

Some ways to win over Republicans, moderates, and centrists are 1) run with the idea that, as Sheehan put it, Iraq is "not a matter of 'right or left,' but 'right and wrong;'" and 2) showing that it is the Republicans who are making it all about politics rather than doing what is in America's best interests. However, the far left's approach--exemplified by their treatment of Sheehan--does neither of these things. Instead, the far left is now guilty of using the very same tactics as the far right.

Sheehan is correct in stating that blind party loyalty is dangerous. What the far left is now doing is not so much blind party loyalty as it is a demand that everyone in the Democratic party be loyal to the far left's vision and tactics. While that is dangerous indeed, it is also stupid and shortsighted.

Some Memorial Day thoughts

Memorial Day is an American holiday to commemorate the men and women who have died in service of this nation in our military. Whether one is for or against any particular military action does not change the fact that this nation's fallen were serving this country. It does not change the fact that the fallen and those still living put themselves in harm's way and others of us have not and do not. It does not change the fact that most of us have not had to put ourselves in harm's way because the men and women of our armed forces have done and continue to do that for us. And it does not change the fact that in so doing, many have given their lives, and that is true regardless of the conflict or whether they were drafted or volunteered. We as a nation should remember the men and women who have died in service of this nation in our military and be grateful to them. And we should be grateful that today's active duty personnel and reserves are willing to take the risk of being next year's Memorial Day honorees.

...and here's something else the Democrats could have tried.

All the bills which have provided funding for the Iraq war have often been referred to as "blank checks." One reason for that is that never has the Pentagon or any other part of the Bush administration been required to account for how the money was spent. As a result, we do not know how the money was spent. Moreover, giving Bush a blank check now means we don't even know if the money will be spent to fully "support the troops." As shown in the previous post, Bush damn sure doesn't want more money going to the troops and their families directly, so where is it going? I guess we will never really know for sure.

So why didn't the Democrats write a bill that merely proposed that after a given time Bush would be required to give some sort of itemized list showing how the money had been spent? I'm not talking about some sort of list saying how the money had to be spent. I'm not talking about putting restrictions on how the money could be spent. All I am talking about is an explanation after the fact of how the money was spent. That would not restrict anyone's discretion and flexibility in determining how to spend the money. That would not put any preconditions on how to use the money. All it would do is require an accounting of what was done with the money. What in the world is wrong with that? Why would anyone object to that? I'm not sure, but maybe Bush doesn't want us to know where the money has gone.

In any event, the Democrats could have tried this "accounting" measure, and if Bush had vetoed that, it certainly would have looked suspicious, and maybe the Democrats could have said something along the lines of "Bush wants the money to go to companies like Haliburton instead of the troops. We just want to make sure that the money went to support the troops in the best way possible and so we could know better how to support them in the future." Instead, they chose to do basically nothing and then give in to everything Bush wanted from the start. Maybe they will consider a few more options when this whole funding issue comes around again by September. Of course they will also need to find some spines by then as well.

The Democrats' failure to point out Bush's nonsupport for the troops

In the previous post, I mentioned the Democrats could have used Bush's rejection of an increase in pay and death benefits to show that Bush does not support the troops. That fact could have been used to counter the charge that the Democrats were not supporting the troops. After all, as referenced in the first follow up to my rant, the Democrats were scared of being criticized for not supporting the troops if no bill was passed before this weekend. Had they jumped all over Bush's refusal to support pay raises and death benefits--especially in light of everything quoted in the previous post--they at least would have had a chance to defeat the White House spin of which they were so dreadfully afraid. Instead, they did practically nothing.

The Democrats also could have included pay raises and increased death benefits in the Iraq funding bill. They could have presented a bill with no timelines and no other strings except for the pay raises and increased death benefits. Then what would Bush have done? Sadly we will never know, for the Democrats are afflicted with a stunning lack of foresight or strategic analytical ability--or maybe those qualities were simply overwhelmed by their fear of criticism.

Yeah, Bush is all about supporting the troops.

I began working on this post a couple of days before the Democrats caved in on funding the Iraq war, so in some ways it is not timely. However, it is timely in at least two ways: 1) it shows a way that the Democrats could have used to show that Bush is the one who does not support the troops; and 2) anything that shows that Bush is a fraud and a hypocrite when he accuses others of not supporting the troops is and always will be timely.

With that in mind, let's take a look at what Bush and his flacks have been saying lately about supporting the troops in light of the what the Democrats were saying before they caved in on funding the war.

On May 1, 2007, Bush gave a speech which pimarily explained his veto of the Democrats' bill which would have funded the Iraq war but had a timeline for withdrawal. Among his numerous references to "the troops," Bush said the following:

The Democratic leaders know that many in Congress disagree with their approach, and that there are not enough votes to override a veto. I recognize that many Democrats saw this bill as an opportunity to make a political statement about their opposition to the war. They've sent their message. And now it is time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds they need.

(emphasis added). Earlier that same day, assistant White House press secretary Dana Perino was asked about the bill being vetoed on the 4th anniversary of the the Mission Accomplished, and here's what she said in response:

Obviously, that is -- even thought the Democrats won't say so on the record, it is a trumped-up political stunt that is the height of cynicism and it's very disturbing to think that they possibly held up this money for the troops and the troops' families and the resources they need to try some PR stunt on this day.

First of all, Perino complaining about PR stunts is a HUGE steaming pile of crap. The Bush administration is all about cheap, shallow PR stunts, and "George's Aircraft Carrier Carnival" was the biggest one of all. Do yourself and everyone else a favor Ms. Perino--the next time you want to say out loud in a judgmental tone that others are simply engaging in PR stunts, just shut the hell up. Second, notice that Perino focused on the "troops and the troops' families and the resources they need[.]" Remember that.

On May 2, 2007, White House press secretary Tony Snow told reporters that "There has to be a constructive effort to get a bill that is going to serve our national interest, meet the basic conditions the President has laid out, and provide the kind of -- the support that the troops need." (emphasis added).

On May 10, 2007, Bush held a press briefing at the Pentagon, and here is part of what he said about the need to "support the troops:"

We should be able to agree that we have a responsibility to provide our men and women on the front lines with the resources and flexibility they need to do the job we've asked them to do.

I believe that leaders of goodwill can deliver to our troops, and we've got to deliver it soon. Time is running out, because the longer we wait, the more strain we're going to put on the military. All Americans know the goodness and character of the U.S. Armed Forces. They are risking their lives each day to fight our enemies and to keep our people safe. Their families are making tremendous sacrifices on behalf of our country. It's important for the people who wear the uniform and their families to know that as the Commander-in-Chief, I'm proud of the sacrifices they have made, and the American people honor their service to our country.

(emphasis added). Notice that Bush really took the "troops and families" theme that Perino mentioned and expanded it. The following day he went even further at a ceremony for Military Spouse Day:

Through many conflicts, America's war fighters have counted on their spouses for love and support. Our communities have depended on your energy and your leadership. Our nation has benefited from our -- the sacrifices of our military families. Today, I've asked you to come so I can thank you on behalf of all the military families for your noble and needed service to the United States of America.

*******

Pretty soon, we'll hear more about the President's Volunteer Service Award recipients. But I do want to thank your families for joining us. I thank members of the Armed Forces who have joined us today. I can't think of a more noble cause than for people to volunteer to protect our country in the face of grave danger. And it is a -- I marvel at how fantastic our military is. And the reason why it's good is not only because we're modern and well trained, but we've got such wonderful people who wear the uniform. And we thank you for serving, and I appreciate your families who have joined us, as well.

*******

You know better than anyone that military service is a family commitment. As one wife in this audience recently noted, military spouses do not raise their right hands and take an oath of enlistment. Yet, their service begins as soon as they say two words: "I do." (Laughter.)

Military spouses enter into a life filled with uncommon challenges.

*******

Many military spouses have the added difficulty of spending long periods raising their children alone. Being a parent is hard work under any circumstances -- just ask my mother. (Laughter.) Yet military spouses tend to have to go an extra mile. They raise their own families and they find ways to help others as well.

*******

This is just a sampling of the good and important work performed every day by military spouses all across the country. I want you all to know that your work is noticed, your work is appreciated, and your work inspires our nation.

Some of my most moving experiences as President have come during my visits with military families. Laura and I have had the privilege of meeting troops and their loved ones at bases all across the world. We've sat beside the bedsides of those who have been wounded in battle. We've met with wives and husbands who have received a folded flag, we have hugged the parents of soldiers lost in combat. In these meetings I have found that what motivates our service members most is their love for their families. Oh, they love our country, but they really love their families. You're in their prayers every morning, their thoughts every day, and their dreams every night.

*******

I know that nothing can compensate for the sacrifices you endure while your spouse is away. And so do a lot of people in Washington understand that. But you also got to know that our entire country stands with you -- we love you and we respect you. America has seen and survived many wars over many generations. What has remained constant is the love we have for each other, the nobility of duty, and the strength that our men and women in uniform find in their heroes who serve at home.

And so we honor you today -- whether you're in this room or around the United States of America. We thank you for your sacrifices. We thank you for supporting our Armed Forces. And we ask for God's blessings on you and your family.

I agree with all of Bush's words. It's just a damn shame that for Bush, they are merely pretty words and that his actions are in direct opposition.

See, for the 2008 military budget, the Democrats proposed a 3.5 % pay increase for the troops--while Bush proposed a 3% raise--and an increase of $40 a month for widows of troops killed in action.

And what was Bush's response? He has said he would veto any bill that contained these provisions.

Here's what the Army Times reported regarding the proposed 3.5% pay raise:

Troops don’t need bigger pay raises, White House budget officials said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy laying out objections to the House version of the 2008 defense authorization bill.

The Bush administration had asked for a 3 percent military raise for Jan. 1, 2008, enough to match last year’s average pay increase in the private sector. The House Armed Services Committee recommends a 3.5 percent pay increase for 2008, and increases in 2009 through 2012 that also are 0.5 percentage point greater than private-sector pay raises.

The slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today. Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay increase.

Bush budget officials said the administration "strongly opposes" both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases "unnecessary."

Todd Bowers served two tours in Iraq and is a sergeant in the Marine Corps Reserves. He is also on the staff of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. On May 17, 2007, he appeared on "Countdown" and told Keith Olbermann that

Average service member, you join the military as a private. You get $1,300 a month. You‘ve got expenses that you have to cover for. You‘ve got to take care of family members, you‘ve got to take care of car payments. It essentially adds up. This 3 percent raise would give them approximately $29 extra, all right? Point-five percent gives them an extra $6. We‘re talking about $6 for someone that‘s serving over in Iraq and Afghanistan that is away from their families. It‘s not too much to ask.

(emphasis added). Well, apparently it's too much if you ask George W. Bush. But wait...there's more:

OLBERMANN: Six bucks. Service members have been largely supportive of this president. They have certainly frequently served, willingly or otherwise, as backdrops for his political campaigns. How do they react when he says a 3 percent raise...is enough for those in harm‘s way?

BOWERS: Well, I have to be very honest. I‘d be very frustrated. It‘s like working in a restaurant, and you have your manager that's not doing their job. And what I‘m connecting here is the VA bonuses that we just saw. Millions of dollars are going to an organization that's having a hard time taking care of our men and women in uniform.

Yet we can't provide those serving overseas right now, we can't provide them with a few extra dollars to take of their families. I think it's just absolutely ridiculous. And I sort of fall back on even military officers, 6 percent of military officers are having to use Food Stamps also. So it‘s not just the difference between enlisted and officer ranks.

But wait...there's even more:

OLBERMANN: But sufficiency, this term sufficiency as the appropriate criteria for determining how this nation repays them. If you went to the guys on the front line and said, You‘re being on sufficiency for your family, sufficiency for six bucks a month in the terms of a raise, what would their reactions to that be? Have you talked to people still in—serving who've heard this phrase sufficiency before?

BOWERS: Well, I've spoken to them directly about how these pay—how we're seeing this lack of pay increase, and people are not getting this extra 0.5 percent. And to be regarded as what we're receiving right now is sufficient, well, I have been to be honest, the ultimate goal of pay increases is to bring our pay up to the same as civilians.

Well, what I worry about when I drive to work in the morning here is spilling my coffee in my lap. What these folks have to worry about is IEDs, snipers.

(emphasis added). And for George W. Bush, that is not worth an extra $6 a month.

And for all of Bush's pretty words about the sacrifices that military families make, he is not willing to provide another $40 a month to those families if a soldier or Marine is killed in combat. Jon Soltz, co-founder and chairman of VoteVets.org, had this to say about Bush's refusal to support this benefit:

Forty dollars a month might seem like chump change to millionaires like the president and vice president, but for a mom of a young kid who just lost her husband in Iraq, that $480 a year means some school clothes and supplies, a few trips to the grocery store, and some health insurance copays. Believe me, even with the current benefits that get paid out by the Department of Defense and insurance that many troops buy into, those who lose spouses in Iraq aren't sleeping in mounds of cash. The increase proposed by Democrats will mean a hell of a lot. At VoteVets.org, we've heard absolute horror stories on the type of cutbacks that widows and widowers have had to make because the government doesn't provide enough to those who lose a loved one in war.

Soltz also summed up just how full of shit Bush is in rejecting the pay raise and increase in death benefits.

The president just vetoed legislation so he would be able to send more troops into the middle of the Iraqi religious civil war -- without end, mind you -- but is against increasing benefits to the spouses of those lost, or a pay increase to those who are serving? If there's a more fitting definition of "outrage," I'd love to see it.

*******

With the military dreadfully unable to meet recruiting goals, or retain our best men and women, you think the president would see the wisdom of paying troops as much as we possibly can. That's just the practical side of the equation. On the moral side, how could the president possibly oppose a half a percent increase in pay over what he asked for, when he has offered absolutely no hope that troops will ever be able to get out of the Iraqi civil war, and back home?

Mr. President, please, address the nation and tell all of America why you oppose increased benefits for spouses who lose their loved ones in war, or greater pay for those who are sacrificing for your endless war.

Ah, but Bush will never offer such an explanation. He will only accuse those who oppose him of "not supporting the troops." And in the meantime, he, the one person who could and should support the troops more than anyone else, refuses to do so.

The third follow up to yesterday's rant

Want to see how the Dems' deal is going to affect the '08 primaries? Go this this post regarding Hillary's and Obama's votes on the bill and make sure to read all the comments. Hillary and Obama both voted "nay," but their votes officially came after the matter had already received a majority of "aye" votes, and while some are applauding both of them, others (Democrats, no less) are raking them over the coals.

The second follow up to yesterday's rant, or how the Dems' deal could lose the '08 election

By caving in on the issue of funding the Iraq war, the Democrats in Congress just might have handed the '08 Presidential and Congressional elections to to the Republicans. Their cravenly conduct could very well cause one or more significant groups within the Democratic party to stop supporting the party, and that could spell defeat for the Democrats.

Sound crazy? Allow me to explain.

The far-left, hard core anti-war group has gained strength since the '06 election. More to the point, that part of the party has become increasingly vocal and assertive. Even more to the point, that part of the party was already becoming increasingly impatient, but now they are at the breaking point. And who can blame them? The far left folks have every reason to be livid with the Democratic caucus right now. As shown by my initial rant, I am also livid.

There are two basic reasons why the hard core anti-war folks are at the breaking point. First, the Democrats haven't done shit about the war. Second, as discussed in the previous post,

Many of (the Democrats) made Iraq the #1 issue in the midterm elections. After the Dems got slim majorities in both the House and Senate, many of them were saying "now we have a national mandate to change things in Iraq."

First of all, while Iraq was a big issue, the rampant corruption in the Republican party was also a huge issue in the '06 election, and so was the blatant hypocrisy of the Republican party. Second, by focusing exclusively on Iraq, the Democrats raised expectations among the nation in general and among the far-left wing of the Democratic party in particular. That portion of the party already felt like they had been perhaps the deciding factor in the election, and the Democrats' behavior after the election only strengthened that view.

Before proceeding, I have to say that I share many of the views of the hard core anti war crowd. Anyone who has read this blog knows that I vehemently oppose the Iraq war and that I have been very harsh in my criticism of Democrats regarding the war. My problem with the hard core anti-war crowd is one of approach, not objective. Their approach is extreme. Their approach is such that there is no room for any kind of compromise. To put it another way, I think we all know that there are some things that, once said, cannot be taken back or explained away--things that burn bridges to an irreparable degree. The hard core anti war crowd is very close to that point in my opinion. For many of them, getting out of Iraq immediately has become a rigid litmus test, much like abortion for some on the far right, and they are speaking out in a manner which reflects that. It is an extreme position.

Taking extreme positions filled with righteous indignation and scorn is not going to win the election in '08. While I feel this applies to both parties, I think it applies more to the Democrats. I have been saying since 2003 that in order for Democrats to win the Presidency, they must get Republicans to vote for a Democrat. The extreme approach will not get that done.

However, the Democrats also cannot afford to lose any votes they received in '06, and now there is a real possibility of alienating the far-left anti-war group, and their numbers are such that the Democrats likely could not overcome such an occurrence.

At this point, trying to keep this group in the party is going to be a challenge. Trust has been breached in a big way with this group, and the Democrats in Congress have only themselves to blame. To revisit an analogy I used earlier, the Democrats in Congress have basically said they are not going to do anything to oppose Bush, and they are going to have a damn hard time trying to take that back.

However, Democrats in office and running for President also cannot pander to the far-left anti-war group, because that could very well lead to the loss of support from the moderates and centrists in the party.

Whether people like it or not (and regardless of what the Republicans say), the Democratic party is no longer full of the traditional "bleeding heart, tax and spend, big government, entitlement" types. The Democratic party now has lots of people who want a rational, reasonable alternative to the power-hungry, hypocritical, elitist bullshit that the GOP has been shoveling out for years. I count myself among them. As a party, the Democrats have to realize that a move toward the center is necessary. The Democrats have complained that the GOP is controlled by extremists, and the Democratic party has to avoid that situation. If the Democrats now even talk like they are going to appease fully the anti-war group, I am telling everyone right now that they will lose the votes of many moderates and centrists. That will leave the door open for some teflon-esque, double-talking Republican (Romney or Giuliani, for example) to sway those votes in the general election.

The Democrats need the votes of the following groups to win in '08: the moderate and centrist Democrats, some Republicans, AND the far-left anti-war Democrats. Impossible, you say? Well, it is certainly looking that way now. By absolutely caving this week, the Democrats have come close to causing an irreparable breach of trust with the anti-war group. Any repair might come at a very steep price, namely catering greatly to the anti-war crowd, and that will likely cost the Democrats any Republican votes and a significant number of moderate Democratic votes.

And this brings me back to a theme I expressed yesterday. You see, it did not have to come to this. If the Democrats had held their ground, if they had backed up their tough talk with similar action, they could have gone to the anti-war group and said, "We tried. We knew we could not override a veto, but at least we tried." That might have helped keep the anti-war group in the fold. If the Democrats had passed a bill at least two months ago, that would have left them with enough time to still come up with other alternatives so that they could tell moderate Democrats and Republicans, "We are trying to present alternatives and yet we are not going to leave the troops in the lurch." And they could have gone to the entire country and showed that the real problems would be Bush and the Republicans. They could have gone to the country and showed that they were trying to act in accordance with what a majority of people have expressed.

And they could have gone to people like me (and I believe I am only one of a large group) and shown that they are not a bunch of spineless dumbasses who either 1) wouldn't know how to get out of a room full of open doors and windows, or 2) wouldn't want to get out because of what might be waiting in plain view for them once they got out.

The first follow up to yesterday's rant

Over at TPM Cafe, Greg Sargent has a post that takes some of the themes from my rant and expounds on them with most appropriate levels of disdain and sarcasm towards the Democrats.

And this explains why the description of this blog says I "will likely be an independent..."

I started writing this post late last night, then decided I needed to calm down and get some sleep so that I could compose my thoughts in a more objective and rational manner. Sleep helped a little, but not much. There is still some semi-disjointed ranting here, but I really don't care at this point.

After weeks of talking tough about funding the Iraq war, the Democrats pretty much totally caved in. As in "wimped out." As in "showed they are spineless."

Last night's coverage of this deal on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" last night reflects my sentiments:

OLBERMANN: Good evening.

And you thought that big statue of Saddam Hussein fell over quickly and symbolically and with surreptitious help.

Our fifth story on the COUNTDOWN, right up there with the fall of Baghdad itself, you can now add the fall of the Democratic Congress, agreeing to fund the conflict in Iraq without any timelines for withdrawal, with mere benchmarks, which the president can waive, Democrats in the White House reaching a so-called bipartisan agreement to keep funding the war through September without holding President Bush accountable.

After weeks of refusing to back down to the White House, today Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pretty much did just that, only days after rejecting a measure put forward by Republican John Warner as too weak, today Mr. Reid accepting an agreement that looks remarkably like the Warner war supplemental funding bill.

The agreement would fund the Iraq War through September, requiring President Bush to give Congress reports on Iraq‘s progress. As for benchmarks, yes, there are benchmarks. And the president has the ability to waive the benchmarks, the only possible fly in that ointment, emphasis on the word “possible,” Speaker of the House Pelosi saying earlier this evening she would not be likely to vote for anything that does not have timetables in it, adding she would wait to see what the final draft of the legislation actually says.

Time now to call in our own Howard Fineman, senior Washington correspondent for “Newsweek” magazine.

Howard, good evening.

HOWARD FINEMAN, SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, “NEWSWEEK” MAGAZINE:

Good evening, Keith.

OLBERMANN: How the hell is this anything if the president can waive the benchmarks?

FINEMAN: I really want to play Texas hold-‘em with these people, because what they were doing, the Democrats, was pushing piles of chips into the middle of the table with each card, and then when the last one came by, they folded.

And I talked to one of the top Democratic strategists on the Hill just a few minutes ago, and I say, How do I describe this? A cave, a punt, a collapse? He said, Take your pick, that‘s what it was. In the end, we had no choice, because the president had the votes, that is, the president could sustain a veto in the Senate.

OLBERMANN: How, though, small problem with this entire exchange. Obviously it would have required a back and forth throughout the summer to do anything other than what they did. But how do they sell going along with the president on funding the war in Iraq with these sort of optional benchmarks, not even optional, they‘re just formalities, and sell that to the Democrats?

FINEMAN: Well, I think they‘re going to have a hard time. And tonight, Nancy Pelosi was out there with her team of leaders, saying this was the beginning of the end of the president‘s policy in Iraq. Rahm Emanuel said that with a straight face, but I know Rahm, and I know he doesn‘t believe it.

I mean, this isn‘t the end of the beginning of the beginning of the end of the beginning of changing the president‘s policy. There‘s nothing in this bill that affects the president‘s policy. He‘s going to get the $100 billion that he wants, and there essentially are no real strings attached. So after all these weeks, after all of what this Democratic strategist on the Hill told me was kabuki theater, the Democrats basically got nothing, and they know it.

OLBERMANN: And the Pelosi comment that she‘s not going to vote for anything doesn‘t have timetables in it, is that more kabuki theater, or what did she wind up not voting for this while the rest of the Democrats do?

FINEMAN: Well, that‘s just pure embarrassment. What‘s going to happen on the House side, I think, Keith, is that most Democrats won‘t vote for this, or at least a lot of them won‘t vote for it. And it‘ll probably pass the House with a lot of Republican votes.

So you have this so-called compromise with the White House that Rahm Emanuel described it as the beginning of the end of the president‘s policy in Iraq, that the speaker of the House is probably not going to vote for, or at least she indicated she might not. It‘s confusing, to some Democrats, it‘s embarrassing. To a lot of Democrats at the grassroots, it‘s probably going to be infuriating.

I talked to some of the leaders of some of the antiwar groups earlier today as this was being argued over. They were furious. They were holding their fire. But I guarantee they‘re not going to hold their fire now. They‘re going to look forward to the fall. They‘re going to say we‘re going to refight this this summer, and then in September, and, yes, this is the president‘s policy, it‘s still the president‘s war.

But this Democratic Congress was elected primarily to change the course of this war, and so far, and especially tonight, they haven‘t done so.

(emphasis added). Let me explain further why this really pisses me off. It's not about the policy. It's all about the Dems being spineless and stupid. So what if Bush was going to veto a bill and there are not enough votes to override such a veto? Send Bush a bill that gives him all the money he wants but that calls for some--ANY--level of accountability. He vetoes it. Immediately send him another bill that he can sign. That way the Democrats can claim that 1) they tried to change the course of policy in Iraq, 2) the only reason they could not do that is because Bush kept it from happening, and 3) given the speed with which another bill got sent to Bush, the Democrats did not withhold funding for the troops. In other words, that course would have enabled the Democrats to make a strong statement, still "support the troops," and then pin the blame for Iraq continuing to be a cluster fuck on Bush.

Instead, the Democrats wimped out. They are too concerned with being blamed for "not supporting the troops." There are ways they could have gotten around such a charge (some of which I will discuss in a subsequent post), but they are too scared to even try that. Many of them made Iraq the #1 issue in the midterm elections. After the Dems got slim majorities in both the House and Senate, many of them were saying "now we have a national mandate to change things in Iraq." If that was and is true, then why in the hell are these cowards now refusing to even try to show they are acting in accordance with that mandate?

Moreover, the Democrats should have taken the course proposed above at least two months ago. They knew in November that they had slim majorities in both houses, meaning that they knew in November that there was little chance they would be able to override any Presidential veto. Negotiating with Republicans and the White House on this funding deal was thus a strategic blunder. The GOP and the White House never were going to try to resolve the negotiations quickly. That would do them no good. The longer the negotiations went, the chances would increase for them to say that the Democrats were making this a political game, were not supporting the troops, were being defeatist, etc. (and of course, that's exactly what they did). Furthermore, the time spent on "negotiations"--which Bush made clear all along were never going to be true negotiations--has been a big reason why the Dems find themselves in this position. Now they seemingly have no choice but to give in so that the troops can get funded. All of this could have been done months ago, and had the Dems acted months ago, their options might have been more numerous.

The Dem leadership is already trying to sell this deal as a win. I am not even going to dignify that crap. They caved in, they showed no resolve, they showed they are gutless.

Here's what Sen. Russ Feingold had to say about this deal:

Under the President’s Iraq policies, our military has been over-burdened, our national security has been jeopardized, and thousands of Americans have been killed or injured. Despite these realities, and the support of a majority of Americans for ending the President’s open-ended mission in Iraq, congressional leaders now propose a supplemental appropriations bill that does nothing to end this disastrous war. I cannot support a bill that contains nothing more than toothless benchmarks and that allows the President to continue what may be the greatest foreign policy blunder in our nation’s history. There has been a lot of tough talk from members of Congress about wanting to end this war, but it looks like the desire for political comfort won out over real action. Congress should have stood strong, acknowledged the will of the American people, and insisted on a bill requiring a real change of course in Iraq.

Again, my complaint is not about the policy per se. My complaint is that the Dems are once again being complicit in the mess that always has been and continues to be Iraq. In many ways, this is no different than Democrats overwhelmingly voting for the Iraq War Resolution and the USA PATRIOT ACT. However, there is one big difference. This time around, they have shown that even when they talk tough and seemingly have national support behind them, they still lack the guts to make a stand.

UPDATE ON 5-26-07: I realize that the Democrats had previously sent a bill to Bush which he vetoed about a month ago, and that the Dems could not get enough votes to override that veto. That bill contained a date certain by which withdrawal was to start. In other words, it had a definite timeline. So there was no way another bill could have a timeline. However, benchmarks--actual, real benchmarks with consequences for failure to meet them--could have been part of another bill. Instead, the Democrats did not even do that much. Moreover, if the Democrats had sent the first bill to Bush months earlier, they would have had plenty of time to try one or two more bills before the Memorial Day holiday. Even if those subsequent bills were vetoed, there would have been time to do what they eventually did, but at least they could have shown that they had some spine in the meantime.

Kevin Drum sums up Iraq.

Two days ago, Kevin Drum had a post that began by discussing a CIA report which concludes that the situation in Iraq has resulted in a large increase of fund raising by Al Qaeda, but then he went on to sum up the current situation in Iraq overall:

Say it with me: We. Need. To. Get. Out. The sooner the better. Our presence in Iraq is doing nothing for Iraq itself, which is doomed to sectarian civil war no matter what we do. It's actively hindering the destruction of al-Qaeda in Iraq, which will almost certainly proceed more quickly and more ruthlessly once we leave. It's made Iran into a more powerful regional player than it ever could have dreamed of. It's produced a relentlessly worsening foreign policy catastrophe by swelling the ranks of Middle Eastern Muslims who support anti-American jihadism in spirit, even if they don't directly support al-Qaeda itself. And it's turned into a bonanza of recruiting and fundraising among those who do directly support al-Qaeda.

In almost every way you can think of, our continued presence in Iraq is bad for Iraq, bad for the Middle East, and bad for America's own national security. I can't even think of anything on the plus side of the ledger anymore, and every additional day we stay there only makes the ledger look worse.

We desperately need to construct a national security policy that actually addresses violent jihadism in a serious and effective way. We can't do that as long as we're in Iraq. That's why we need to leave.

Bingo.

Once again, I say that Bush and Rumskull are to blame.

Overview

Via Kevin Drum and Phillip Carter, I found an article by Army Lt. Col. Paul Yingling which basically tears a new one for the military brass over the Iraq war. Before discussing the article, here's the bio blurb from the article:

ARMY LT. COL. PAUL YINGLING is deputy commander, 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment. He has served two tours in Iraq, another in Bosnia and a fourth in Operation Desert Storm. He holds a master's degree in political science from the University of Chicago.

In other words, his article is written with more than a bit of firsthand experience and knowledge. The article is published in the Armed Forces Journal and is entitled "A Failure in Generalship." The article overall is an examination of what Yingling see as the deficiencies in the current general officer corps and the system which has produced those officers. Part of that examination is how we arrived at the current situation in Iraq, and that is the focus of this post.

That being said, the overall focus of Yingling's article is the need for a different direction for and from the general officer corps. After reading his article, I cannot dispute his conclusions in that regard, and nothing in this post should be interpreted otherwise. I will be using portions of his article to discuss my view that the people primarily responsible for the mess in Iraq are George W. Bush and Donald Rumskull. Consequently, I have to admit that I will be taking some of Yingling's article out of context.

Yingling's argument is that the military generals are primarily responsible for the lack of planning that resulted in the absolute mess that Iraq inevitably became. I still maintain that while the generals deserve blame, the real responsibility rests on George W. Bush and Rumskull.

Previous discussion on this matter

On August 17, 2004, I posted Official campaign planning doctrine and the post-war period, which explained my position that under the official doctrine in effect before the war (Joint Publication 5-00.1, Joint Doctrine for Campaign Planning), the persons primarily and ultimately responsible for such planning were Bush and Rumskull. My view differed a bit from that of Phillip Carter, and we each noted that difference on our respective blogs. Carter's view back in August 2004 is reflected in Yingling's analysis in 2007, and that view is that the generals are primarily to blame for the situation in Iraq. Last year I found more evidence to support my position (see Disagreements among military commanders over the war resurface, I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it: Bush and Rumskull are to blame, and Rumskull defense #2: There has to be trust). My view does not excuse the generals, but I still maintain that, according to official doctrine and facts that have been established since the war began, Bush and Rumskull are to blame. This post is a continuation of the previous discussion.

Generalship in general

The first section of Yingling's article is entitled "The Responsibilities of Generalship," and the paragraph excerpted below shows much of the foundation on which he builds his case that the generals are to blame for Iraq.

Popular passions are necessary for the successful prosecution of war, but cannot be sufficient. To prevail, generals must provide policymakers and the public with a correct estimation of strategic probabilities. The general is responsible for estimating the likelihood of success in applying force to achieve the aims of policy. The general describes both the means necessary for the successful prosecution of war and the ways in which the nation will employ those means. If the policymaker desires ends for which the means he provides are insufficient, the general is responsible for advising the statesman of this incongruence. The statesman must then scale back the ends of policy or mobilize popular passions to provide greater means. If the general remains silent while the statesman commits a nation to war with insufficient means, he shares culpability for the results.

(emphasis added). In other paragraphs Yingling says that generals "must visualize the conditions of future combat," learn and apply the lessons of previous armed conflicts, "explain[] to civilian policymakers the demands of future combat," and speak out about these matters in the event that policymakers seem to be taking an ill-advised path. I have no quarrel with any of the foregoing on general principle (no pun intended). Indeed, Yingling's analysis is consistent with the doctrine established in Joint Publication 5-00.1. However, the Iraq war has had a twist to it which presents a flaw in the application of these overall principles. That flaw actually appears in this sentence from the opening section of Yingling's article:

However much it is influenced by passion and probability, war is ultimately an instrument of policy and its conduct is the responsibility of policymakers.

(emphasis added). Stated differently, the ultimate responsibility rests on civilians rather than the military. Moreover, since the military is run by the executive branch, that means that the Bush administration has that responsibility. Therein lies the flaw. Moreover, as I have explained before, under JP 5-00.1 there are two policymakers who expressly have that ultimate responsibility: Bush and Rumskull.

As discussed below, Yingling makes the case that the general officer corps failed to perform the duties mentioned above. There certainly is evidence to strongly support Yingling's argument. However, my view is that it likely would not have mattered what the generals did or did not do because they were not running the show. The civilians in the Bush administration were in charge, and they already had their minds made up on almost everything.

Vietnam and Iraq--some similarities

Yingling cites the Vietnam War as having presented hard lessons that were ignored when the Iraq war came around almost 40 years later. He summarizes the failure in Vietnam as follows:

America's general officer corps refused to prepare the Army to fight unconventional wars, despite ample indications that such preparations were in order. Having failed to prepare for such wars, America's generals sent our forces into battle without a coherent plan for victory. Unprepared for war and lacking a coherent strategy, America lost the war and the lives of more than 58,000 service members.

Specifically, he notes that there were many prior indications that Vietnam would become an insurgency conflict, that indeed it became an insurgency conflict, and that "America's generals failed to prepare their forces for counterinsurgency." I knew this already, but, as a holder of a History degree, I am sad to say that I did not know something else Yingling stated:

These lessons were not lost on the more astute members of America's political class. In 1961, President Kennedy warned of "another type of war, new in its intensity, ancient in its origin — war by guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins, war by ambush instead of by combat, by infiltration instead of aggression, seeking victory by evading and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him." In response to these threats, Kennedy undertook a comprehensive program to prepare America's armed forces for counterinsurgency.

This bit of history presents a major difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War, but that will be discussed in the next section.

Over at Millennium Challenge 02 and the Iraq War, I discussed some lessons that should have been learned and applied in the Iraq war. Millennium Challenge 02 was the major war game held prior to the Iraq War. General Paul Van Riper was commanding the opposing force in MC 02, and he utilized many unconventional tactics, including the use of small planes and boats in suicide attacks and communicating through motorcycle messengers and coded messages in the call to prayer. Many of the results of such tactics (such as the sinking of almost the entire U.S. fleet) were nullified, and he was order to stop using many of these tactics. As I explained in Millennium Challenge 02 and the Iraq War, in the context of war gaming in general and MC 02 specifically, such actions were not necessarily wrong or unfair, but they presented valuable lessons which went unheeded. As Van Riper said,

A phrase I heard over and over was: "That would never have happened." And I said "nobody would have thought that anyone would fly an airliner into the World Trade Center"...but nobody seemed interested...[T]hey refused to accept that we'd do anything they wouldn't do in the west.

MC 02 should have prepared our forces to expect unconventional tactics, and yet most acted surprised when the insurgency in the early days of the war employed unusual tactics and had some measure of success. In that sense, Vietnam and Iraq are similar.

Another similarity is that in each war, we were unprepared to fight an insurgency even if we had recognized that such a conflict would exist. According to Yingling,

The armed forces fought the global war on terrorism for the first five years with a counterinsurgency doctrine last revised in the Reagan administration...Procurement priorities during the 1990s followed the Cold War model, with significant funding devoted to new fighter aircraft and artillery systems. The most commonly used tactical scenarios in both schools and training centers replicated high-intensity interstate conflict. At the dawn of the 21st century, the U.S. is fighting brutal, adaptive insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq, while our armed forces have spent the preceding decade having done little to prepare for such conflicts.

So we went into Vietnam without any real experience with or policy for counterinsurgency, and we went into Iraq with an outdated counterinsurgency doctrine.

Yingling's point, I believe, is that hard lessons were presented in Vietnam and that these lessons should have been applied in Iraq but were not. Certainly the generals bear some of the responsibility for such failure.

Yingling's greatest criticism seems to be that--like with the Vietnam war--the generals this time around did not sufficiently make their concerns known to the public or Congress. As discussed below, I am doubtful that if the generals had spoken out they would have made any difference.

Vietnam and Iraq--some big differences

Prior to Vietnam, the President and his administration were saying one thing and the military refused to listen. Regarding Iraq, Bush and the rest of his neocon buddies--including the Secretary of Defense--had already made up their minds about what was needed and how the war would be run, and--in my opinion--no one, including the general officer corps, could have done anything about that.

Yingling--like everyone else with any sense and grasp of reality--notes that we went into Iraq with far fewer troops than were needed to secure the country after Saddam was gone:

The most fundamental military miscalculation in Iraq has been the failure to commit sufficient forces to provide security to Iraq's population. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) estimated in its 1998 war plan that 380,000 troops would be necessary for an invasion of Iraq. Using operations in Bosnia and Kosovo as a model for predicting troop requirements, one Army study estimated a need for 470,000 troops.

Yingling is correct about the original plan for the war, and, as explained in Rumskull defense #2: There has to be trust, Rumskull initially wanted about 40,000 troops, and thus began a negotiation process in which Rumskull kept pressuring CENTCOM to reduce the number of troops, and eventually Rumskull approved a plan for 250,000. Not only that, but, as reported by Knight Ridder, "the additional troops that the military wanted to secure Iraq after Saddam's regime fell were either delayed or never sent." So, there is evidence that the generals did speak up to the civilian leaders before the war, and that the civilians overruled the generals. Further evidence is found in a recent TV commercial by VoteVets.org, in which Maj. Gen. John Batiste, former commander of the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, bluntly says "Mr. President, you did not listen [to the commanders on the ground]." Gen. Batiste resigned from the Army so that he could publicly speak out about what was going on in Iraq.

Still, Yingling is correct in stating that before the war, "Alone among America's generals, Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki publicly stated that 'several hundred thousand soldiers' would be necessary to stabilize post-Saddam Iraq." And Shinseki was publicly ridiculed by Rumskull and Wolfowitless and forced to retire early.

The previous two paragraphs present the basic reason why I claim that generals speaking out probably would have made no difference. Their concerns and desires as stated "in house" were ignored and/or rejected by the civilian leadership, and anyone who did speak out publicly was ridiculed and shown the door, to be replaced by someone who would follow the company line as established by the civilian leadership. I have detailed in many posts that loyalty and obedience are the qualities most prized by the Bush administration. Anyone who does not sufficiently show those qualities eventually gets replaced. The Bush administration does not tolerate dissent within its ranks, and, more significantly, once a policy decision has been made, it is almost never reevaluated. "Stay the course" is the more than the Bush administration mantra for the Iraq war. It is the very essence of everything the Bush administration does. Some generals did speak out about some things regarding the war, but Bush, Big Dick, Rumskull, etc., had already made decisions and were not going to listen to the military.

And now I will attempt to answer the following question: Why?

Why not enough troops? In a word, "Transformation."

"Transformation" refers to transformation of the military. And just what does that mean? I gave the following explanation in I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it: Bush and Rumskull are to blame:

The subject of transformation (also known as "revolution in military affairs" or RMA) is worthy of several books, but here some of the policy's basic characteristics: 1) greater emphasis on and use of high-tech weapons and reconnaissance systems, 2) greater emphasis on and use of special forces, and 3) the removal of bureaucratic and institutional barriers so that all branches of the military can operate in cooperation.

Yingling explains that this "transformation" as pursued by the Bush administration was really nothing more than doing the same things with different equipment, and that Iraq called for a completely different approach. While I agree with him on those points, I still think that the primary blame for that rests not with the generals, but with the civilian leadership and Bush and Rumskull in particular.

Under the official campaign doctrine in place prior to the Iraq war, the National Command Authorities (Bush and Rumskull) were to provide the objectives and desired end state for the war, and they were supposed to provide strategic guidance that would define the role of the military in achieving the desired national strategic objectives--which were also to be determined by Bush and Rumskull. Not only that, but Bush and Rumskull were supposed to provide the termination criteria for the campaign (which would include the reconstruction/occupation phase). The military's job was to then come up with a plan that would accomplish all the foregoing things. Put simply, the military was to figure out the means by which it was to accomplish the goals as set by Bush and Rumskull and within the role for the military as defined by Bush and Rumskull. [See Official campaign planning doctrine and the post-war period for the detailed explanation.]

Instead, Bush and Rumskull did damn near nothing to provide what they were supposed to provide, and then they predetermined the means by which the military would accomplish its tasks. This matter is largely the subject of I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it: Bush and Rumskull are to blame. It turns out that Bush was determined from the start of his first term that "transformation" was going to be implemented, and Rumskull, who also favored that goal, was supposed to achieve it. As I stated before, I believe that the Iraq war was viewed by Bush and Rumskull as the way to prove that their vision of "transformation" was right, and they decided from the beginning that the entire Iraq campaign would be done with fewer troops and more reliance on high tech systems and Special Forces. As a result, the generals had no meaningful chance for input and no chance to effectively plan the campaign. And, as Yingling explains in his article, prosecuting this Iraq campaign in the same manner as previous wars with the only change being a "leaner and meaner" military was a recipe for disaster. Regardless of what the situation on the ground was or ever was going to be, Rumskull and Bush were never going to change their approach.

Could the generals have done anything to change that situation? I lack the experience and expertise to make a definitive determination, but I do know that under the official campaign planning doctrine, the generals did not have the ultimate responsibility or the power to make the determinative decisions. Those matters were in the hands of Bush and Rumskull.

Who was supposed to do the work?

Yingling describes the poor planning for the "post-war" period as follows:

Given the lack of troop strength, not even the most brilliant general could have devised the ways necessary to stabilize post-Saddam Iraq. However, inept planning for postwar Iraq took the crisis caused by a lack of troops and quickly transformed it into a debacle. In 1997, the U.S. Central Command exercise "Desert Crossing" demonstrated that many postwar stabilization tasks would fall to the military. The other branches of the U.S. government lacked sufficient capability to do such work on the scale required in Iraq. Despite these results, CENTCOM accepted the assumption that the State Department would administer postwar Iraq. The military never explained to the president the magnitude of the challenges inherent in stabilizing postwar Iraq.

Again, Yingling seems to place much of the blame on the military. I do not. The Bush administration never had its act together when it came to administering Iraq after Saddam was gone. Various methods were tried, and that showed a penchant for inconsistency. There were, however, at least two constants: 1) the military would not do much of the work because that would require more troops, and more troops would show that "transformation" would not work; and 2) private companies would contract to do a lot of the work.

Initially, if the military assumed that the State Department was going to be responsible for the administration of postwar Iraq, the civilians who were the military's bosses certainly did not. Again, this is something that has been discussed in detail on this blog. Here's the short version...The person originally put in charge of the post-war effort was retired general Jay Garner. He was supposed to report to Tommy Franks. For 18 months prior to the war, the State Department had a group working on planning for the post-war period. That effort was the Future of Iraq Project. When Garner found out about that project, he made the leader of the project part of his team. Rumskull then went to Garner and told him that person had to be dismissed and that such order came from someone higher up in the administration than Rumskull. Severals months after the war started, Garner was dismissed, and the CPA, led by Paul Bremer, took over.

Through all of the various attempts at administering Iraq, private contractors were omnipresent. That is a topic on which I have not not written much, but I will say I think it is pretty clear that Bush and Rumskull decided before the war that private contractors rather than the military would provide the manpower and materials for reconstruction and occupation and administration. That way, the number of troops used could be kept down (in theory). Also, it would be part of the Bush administration's efforts to privatize more and more governmental functions. Most importantly, that decision would mean that Bush would make sure that his good buddies in the private sector (like Haliburton, for instance) would make billions of dollars and be happy. In other words, the decision to use private contractors was a basic (and base) political decision. And when it comes to politics and huge amounts of money, it is the civilian politicians, not the military generals, that call the shots. I have said over and over that the Bush administration is far more concerned about getting and keeping power than actually doing anything constructive, and the "selling of Iraq" to the U.S. private sector is more evidence of this. I really do not think that the generals had any chance to influence the Bush administration in this regard.

Also, when it comes to deciding how elements of the executive branch are to be utilized, that is the exclusive domain of the President, and the military generals have no controlling say. Try and tell me that the State Department was ever in charge of anything regarding Iraq and I will say you are delusional. Again, that was a decision that was completely out of the generals' hands. If the military assumed that the State Department would be running the show, then why did the Pentagon--headed up by Rumskull--shut out the State Department and just about every other federal organization? Rumskull, as the person in charge of running the entire military, had to be complicit in all decisions regarding Iraq.

Conclusion

Again, I concede that I have taken parts of Yingling's article out of context for my own purposes. Am I saying that the generals bear no responsibility? No. Am I saying that the generals should get none of the blame? No. However, I am saying that the generals never were the persons who were going to make the big decisions, and the civilians who got to make the big decisions made poor ones for poor reasons and refused to listen to anyone else and change those decisions. In other words, I do not think that the generals could have affected the situation significantly. I might very well be wrong about that. Also, I think that one of Yingling's main points is that it appears that the generals did not really try. There is some evidence to the contrary, but he might very well be right. In any event, I am still saying that the civilians in the Bush administration--especially Bush and Rumskull--do bear the primary responsibility and they should be hit with the vast majority of the blame. While I do not dispute Yingling's contention that the general officer corps has failed in the past and needs to be critically evaluated and changed, I do not want people to overlook the failures of the civilian leaders in this Iraq fiasco. I do not want the need for accountability in our civilian leaders to be swept under the rug.

And until someone can explain why I should contend otherwise, I will keep saying that George W. Bush and Rumskull are to blame for the horrific lack of planning for Iraq.

"Mission Accomplished" four years later

Today marks the fourth anniversary of Bush's "Mission Accomplished" event aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln.

I dubbed the event "George's Aircraft Carrier Carnival." It was--and still is--one of the most pompous, harebrained, and ridiculous things this administration has done. Click on the link to read all the reasons for my opinion--but be forewarned. It is possibly the longest post I have ever published. It explains not only the stupidity of that that event, but goes into detail about the Bush administration's obsession with appearances and PR over substance and actually accomplishing anything of meaning.

Four years after the event and 33 months after I wrote about the event, nothing much has changed. The "mission" still has not be accomplished, and the Bush administration still cares about nothing but PR and propaganda.