Wesley Clark

Former NATO General Wesley Clark wrote a great piece in today's Washington Post. There are many anti-Iraq war writings that criticize our President but don't offer solutions. Wesley Clark presents some valuable ideas on how to win peace over there. He calls on a change of policy in our war in Iraq. He also suggests pulling out if the President continues to stay the course.

The growing chorus of voices demanding a pullout should
seriously alarm the Bush administration, because President Bush and his team are repeating the failure of Vietnam: failing to craft a realistic and
effective policy and instead simply demanding that the American people show resolve. Resolve isn't enough to mend a flawed approach -- or to save the lives of our troops. If the administration won't adopt a winning strategy, then the American people will be justified in demanding that it bring our troops home.

Many of the reasons we were given for going into this war have turned out to be based on lies. The war has been run poorly to this point through no fault of the men and women fighting it. We owe it to our troops and their families to do the what is best for Iraq. There will probably always be turmoil in that region. There always has been. We need to leave Iraq in a state of turmoil they can handle themselves.

I believe change starts with getting rid of Rumsfeld. The Neocon agenda has failed in Iraq. His replacement needs to be an experienced Military man or woman. We need someone who has been in combat. Lets learn from our mistakes in Vietnam and let the military do what it needs to do. Then lets get out.

Remember Rovegate?

Rovegate is not going away. There hasn't been that much new information in the last month surrounding the Rovegate case. The L.A. Times recently published a comprehensive account of the case. It is over eight web pages long but it is worth it. It is the best overall article about the case I have read so far.

The only new information, to me, were some statements made by Colin Powell's top aide at the time of his speech to the United Nations in February of 2003, Lawrence Wilkerson.

Does anybody find this story as fascinating and important as I do?

Cindy Sheehan

What a few weeks Cindy Sheehan has had. I really admire what she is doing and the debate she has created. I wonder if she ever imagined the impact she has had on the country when she decided to camp out in Crawford TX, near President Bush's ranch. Ms. Sheehan intentions are to meet with the President. I don't think he will meet with her. He doesn't answer to people.

I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation.
-- As quoted shortly following 9/11 in "Bush at War" by Bob Woodward, Washington, D.C., Nov. 19, 2002

Cindy Sheehan won't get an audience with our President but she has sparked a renewed debate about the War in Iraq. Ms. Sheehan wants to see the troops pulled out. I'm still not sure this is the answer. On side I feel that we were lied to about the reasons for going to war so we should cut our losses and save our troops. On the other hand its not just our losses but the losses of the Iraqi people. Although they are better off without Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi people have a long road to any kind of stability ahead of them. We are responsible for this instability so we should help stabilize it. They call this the Pottery Barn philosophy, you break it you buy it. Isn't that what Colin Powel said before the war?

I'm not buying the crap about how we are safer with our troops over there. Terrorists will attack us any time they feel like it regardless of which country we decide to occupy. Al Queda attacked our country four years ago. Al Queda is not a country. Al Queda is everywhere. My concern is with the Iraqi people. Pulling our troops out right now would not be fair to the Iraqi people. I believe we have to change our current strategy. We can't continue to keep losing cities to the insurgents months after we took control of them. We can't continue letting insurgents come across the borders. If it takes more troops then let it be more troops. It just doesn't have to be all of our troops. I believe that we have to put our tails between our legs and ask the international community to help us do this. Tell them that we fucked up Iraq and we need their help to fix it. Unfortunately this isn't going to happen under our current regime. Bush didn't appoint John Bolton to ask for help from the U.N. It's my blog and my fantasy.

Cindy Sheehan is bringing some these arguments to the surface again by drawing our attention to the real losses of this war. The real losses of our troops like her son Casey. The real losses of the over 100,000 Iraqi people who have been killed so far. We went to war based on lies. Our troops went over there to get rid of the terrorists responsible for 911. They went over there to protect us from WMD and from imminent use of them on us. These reasons turned out to be false. Our troops did liberate the Iraqi people from a violent tyrant. Our troops have been spilling their blood for over two years to bring peace to Iraq. Bush owes it to the troops and their families, who have sacrificed their sons, daughters, husbands, mothers and fathers as well to the Iraqi people, to do whatever is necessary to end this war without leaving a mess behind. We need to do this quickly. "Staying the course" isn't going to cut this time.

What do other Journalists think of Judith Miller?

This article puts some perspective on how some of Judith Miller's fellow journalists are torn on whether her intentions to keep silent are good. Here is an excerpt I thought was good.

Anita Bartholomew, a freelance journalist who has contributed to Reader's
Digest, wrote in a resignation letter, "The First Amendment is designed to
prevent government interference with a free press. Miller, by shielding a
government official or officials who attempted to use the press to retaliate
against a whistleblower, and scare off other would-be whistleblowers, has allied
herself with government interference with, and censorship of, whistleblowers.
When your source IS the government, and the government is attempting to use you
to target a whistleblower, the notion of shielding a source must be
reconsidered. To apply standard practices regarding sources to hiding wrongdoing
at the highest levels of government perverts the intent of the First Amendment."

Is Judith Miller shielding her source to protect a free press or is she obstructing justice?