Al-Maliki is celebrating victory over the American invader.

Hits: 0

MourningRibbon "A great deal of Mr. Maliki’s political support rests on the fact that violence has declined since the carnage of 2006 and 2007, that he has rebuilt the security forces, that he has presided over the beginning of the end of the American war. He rarely mentions any American role in the improved security in Iraq — though 130,000 American troops remain in the country.

“We will not ask them to intervene in combat operations related to maintaining public order,” he said in an interview with Le Monde published last week. “It is finished.”"  NY Times

——————————————————————–

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the neocon scum will be held accountable somewhere, someday for their crimes against the American soldier.

Here is a partial list of my accusations.  It will be argued that some of these things are not technically "crimes."  I think that irrelevant. These specifically apply to Iraq.  You may add your own and I may comment further:

– "Planning and waging aggressive war.." Keitel and Jodl were executed for this.  In this case the "aggressive war was against Iraq, a country that, however ill governed, had not attacked the United States and that did not have WMD weapons any longer.  This latter point was in the process of being proven by the UN's inspectors when the miscreants under dicussion succeeded, with the help of White House staff still in the public square, of deliberately propagandizing the American people by making a false case against Iraq in the public media.  By carrying out these actions those charged involved the United States in a senseless war in which many thousands of American military personnel were killed or mutilated.

-  Those charged directly intervened in the operational planning of the invasion of Iraq in such a way as to risk defeat in detail in many smaller actions.  They did this by denying to the ground component commander (Mckiernan) the forces that he reasonably and prudently requested and by "nickel and diming" him endlessly in such a way that the forces involved were still minimal and barely adequate.  The success of these forces is not an indication of whether or not the force was adequate in strength.  The additional risk assumed by fielding too small a force placed the troops involved at risk.

– Those charged insisted on assuming in pre-invasion planning that Iraqi resistance would be minimal and that the coalition invasion force would be met with "open arms" rather than IEDs by the Iraqi populace.  This foolish and willfully blind assumption caused the death or wounding of many American soldiers.  Many experts tried to tell the accused that their assumption was wrong but they would not listen.

– Those charged insisted on disestablishing the public institutions of Iraq; the army, the police, the civil service, etc.  These actions were taken against the advice of US Army and USMC senior officers on the ground who were in the process of sorting out which units and commanders could be used to re-establish public order.  Considerable progress had been made.  These disestablishments drove many Iraqi officers and men into the various insurgent groups where they formed a hard core of competence that killed and wounded many American soldiers.

– Those charged refused to accept the plain and abundant evidence present in the first two years of the war that what was faced by the coalition was nothing less than a full-blown national resistance insurgency.  By so refusing, they caused US forces to operate in an inadequate planning environment that exposed US soldiers to much greater risks than might otherwise have been the case.

– Those accused encouraged the use of brutal and illegal methods of interrogation of prisoners.  This was done in spite of US doctrine and law that specifically forbade such conduct.  Was this not a crime against the souls of the junior soldiers encouraged and pressured to do such things?

I will stop at this point and wait for your comments.  pl

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to Al-Maliki is celebrating victory over the American invader.

  1. linda says:

    colonel, i hope you are right; but i fear otherwise. who is to hold them accountable for the murderous policies and degradation of our country’s institutions and values? it certainly won’t be congress; the idea of a truth commission is laughable. and, can you imagine the uproar should any international attempts be made against them? oy.
    although i must say the one institution that prevented the wholesale evisceration of our constitution were the assorted members of the judiciary who ruled against the bush regime’s assault on those rights. and who continue to rollback those policies.
    it will be very interesting to see what comes of john yoo’s testimony in jose padilla’s upcoming case.

  2. Bill Wade, NH, USA says:

    They should also be held accountable for the allowing of torture which ultimately too is a crime against the American soldier.

  3. Dave of Maryland says:

    Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the neocon scum will be held accountable somewhere, someday for their crimes against the American soldier.
    Sounds like you’re waiting for Godot. If the men & women of this country want justice, they have the means at their disposal. If they fail to use those means, they are undeserving of their country.

  4. srv says:

    The Surge has been a spectacular success, if you’re Mr. Maliki and you didn’t intend any political reconciliation.
    And that will work out very well for the neocons. Our “non-combat” troops will serve their recruitment purpose, that will lead to the inevitable blowback, and the neocons will return with honor.

  5. fred says:

    “Even some Iraqi officers are worried. Brig. Gen. Mahmoud Muhsen,…
    “They are taking away all the equipment that the Americans provide.”
    Just where did all those billions go over eight years of neocon leadership? How much healh care would that have provided for our own people? Perhpas they could at least have saved a couple million to fix the old soldier’s home, which is fast approaching Walter Reed levels of dilapidation.
    http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/heroes/history1.html

  6. Highlander says:

    Colonel,
    I’m not arguing with you.
    But if you are going to accuse Bush and Cheney of crimes against the American soldier. Then I think, you should be specific. As to what you precieve these “crimes” to be.

  7. Dave of Maryland says:

    With all respects to Highlander & yourself, we know the charges.
    We are looking for a leader. Which last year’s elections failed to give us.
    Someday July 4 will be a day to celebrate again.

  8. Ronald says:

    “Was this not a crime against the souls of the junior soldiers encouraged and pressured to do such things?”
    I agree that when we discuss the costs of torture, we frequently forget what it does to those who perpetrate it.

  9. Two words: Gross Negligence.

  10. Arun says:

    At least let them be tried in the court of public opinion!

  11. J says:

    fred,
    i’d venture to say that some of those ‘billions’ went into cheney’s new mansion.
    neocon = mismanagement + criminal malfeasance.

  12. jdledell says:

    Highlander – With all due respect, within the confines of a Blog entry, I think the Colonel has laid out his charges pretty well. If you are looking for a wordy legal indictment, this is not the place. I applaud the Colonel for his forthright, no BS, recital of the Bush and Company catastophic errors.

  13. As a practicing Catholic (which I am largely in ignorance of Church doctrine) you rightfully charge these minions with violation of “natural Law” but also violation of International Law and the laws of the United States. A devastating and in my judgement accurate indictment but the bill of particulars is still in draft. And new culprits arise even before the old ones have been made accountable. Time will tell as to accountablilty.

  14. Dan M says:

    Well put colonel.
    The last time i spent any time with the men asked to risk their lives for this charade was 3 years ago now. A Marine company in Anbar, with the added twist that they were reservists. A viagra salesman; a reputed “gentlemens club” owner from Nola (he had apparently been shot twice in civilian life); your assortment of college kids, both malingerers and future scholars; a crack sniper who in civilian life was a swat team member from bryan texas and whom i was very taken with (who has struggled mightily with PTSD for years now); etc…
    My friend the sniper comes particularly to mind now. As patriotic as the day is long, with never a word of complaint about being there. But he, like almost every man in the company, had no idea why they were there. Once they’d got in country and learned a little bit about the Iraqis, they’d scratch their head. Fight people that want to hurt my family? Yes sir, reporting for duty. But what do these idiots in anbar have to do with any of it.
    These men were used as instruments in service of a hair-brained academic theory, and the academecians never gave a thought for their wellfare from day one.
    Pat is right. The men who visited this crime upon them will pay some day. But probably not on this earth.

  15. Grimgrin says:

    DoM: “We are looking for a leader. Which last year’s elections failed to give us.”.
    Really? Bush, like it or not was a leader. I’m looking for a follower. Specifically someone who will follow the public opinion that the wars on drugs and terror are lost and start finding a new path. It will take someone of no small character to follow the needs and wants of the public. But I’m sick to death of leaders of all stripes, good or bad and I’m sick to death of the assumption that I need or want to be lead.
    As for the Col. Lang’s list of charges, Amen to that. Here’s hoping justice is served in this world and recorded for history, rather than deferred to the next where it must remain speculation.

  16. linda says:

    here’s another crew i would love to see indicted; it’s grotesque that they continue to suck up billions in taxpayer dollars:
    Did toxic chemical in Iraq cause GIs’ illnesses?
    By SHARON COHEN, AP National Writer
    …Among the issues now rippling from the courthouse to Capitol Hill are whether the chemical made people sick, when KBR knew it was there and how the company responded. But the debate is more than about this one case; it has raised broader questions about private contractors and health risks in war zones.
    Questions, says Sen. Evan Bayh, who plans to hold hearings on the issues, such as these:
    “How should we treat exposure to potentially hazardous chemicals as a threat to our soldiers? How seriously should that threat be taken? What is the role of private contractors? What about the potential conflict between their profit motives and taking all steps necessary to protect our soldiers?
    …KBR denies any wrongdoing…
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090627/ap_on_re_us/us_toxic_legacy_of_war/print

  17. par4 says:

    Gallows next to the reflecting pool. As far as I’m concerned you can leave them hanging until the crows pluck their eyes out.

  18. steve says:

    Excellent post, thank you.
    I would add a count of war profiteering to the indictment.

  19. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Col. Lang:
    Is that even possible under the Laws of the United States?
    Does any one else know?

  20. fanto says:

    Colonel, the facts are pretty clear, many citizens know them but what puzzles me is the relatively low volume of outrage about all these crimes in the military; do you, or other discussants here have an explanation why it is so?

  21. Homer says:

    One has to admit that Maliki, al-Hakim, et al are cool, heartless sons of bitches.
    As evidenced by the almost total absence of the completion of US directives (e.g., oil carbon law, re-Baathification, etc) they’ve always had a publicly stiffened raised middle finger raised to the US since day one.
    Despite that finger, all sorts of bullshit was generated by the main stream media (ABC, worst: Terry McCarthy was highly productive) to make Iraq a success story.
    If you compare the media coverage of Dawa in the 80s with that in the post 911 era, you will see what I mean.
    Why Dawa was taken off state’s list of state sponsored terrorist groups was never examined.
    Shit like that.
    The feasts and festivals should be no surprise to anybody.
    The writing has been on the wall since the results of the first election were published.
    Al-Maliki, al-Hakim, et al had NO history of co-operation with the US, whereas they had decades of experience with Iran.
    Bushies did a heckuva job, no?

  22. John Kirkman says:

    Any history of or lessons learned by the trials at Nuremburg are disregarded by our government. This government is elected by and represents us. Where is the outcry for justice? Someday, we, who show no justice to others, will be shown none in return, and fate will bring that day. There can be no peace without justice.

  23. Farmer Don says:

    Colonel,
    A clear summation.
    I agree with you 100%.

  24. Mac Nayeri says:

    Impressed by your honesty.

  25. Yes to BABAK’s question. It is possible under the LAWS of the US!

  26. Medicine Man says:

    I agree with you entirely Colonel Lang. I have been mindful of this ever since Corporal Pat Tillman’s death. In fact, the scale of the malpractice is what made me politically conscious for the first time in my life.
    Anyhow, once again I hope you’re right, and that some reckoning comes for those who violated their (unwritten?) contract with the soldiery of the United States. I don’t think it will happen though. The great engine in Washington is calibrated to protect those who are a part of it.
    Personally, I take comfort in the fact that the US is much more than the summation of its worst politicians and corrupt capital city.

  27. Propagandist says:

    I couldn’t agree more with the Colonel’s accusations, but I wonder just where and when such judgment will come. Waiting for some eternal judgment at the hand of God (if you believe is such a thing) will not help restore American rule of law. From where I stand, few seem willing to defend our nation against the currently suspended neocon counter-revolution, whether politician, civilian or soldier. American militarism has become a frightful thing to watch as it invades every corner of our Republic. It is a sickness that our founding fathers understood well.
    The best way to underscore my feelings on the matter is to repeat a phrase the Colonel used on this blog just a few weeks ago:
    The dogs bark but the caravan moves on….

  28. Cloned Poster says:

    Tony “f—–g” Blair gave Bush the PR to instigate the Iraq fiasco.
    It is he who should die at the gallows first.

  29. R Whitman says:

    An excellent post. I agree.
    We are looking backward again. What should this country be doing to prevent this from happening again??
    Any ideas.

  30. Leanderthal says:

    Col.
    Here’s what I posted on my blog, leesvoicecryinginthewilderness.blogspot.com.
    “My guy Col. Patrick Lang, Ret.
    Here’s a true American patriot soldier on the “neocon scum” who should be tried as war criminals just as Keitel and Jodl were.
    I’m against capital punishment. but Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their neocon scum should languish in Leavenworth for the rest of their lives.
    Pat Lang makes the strong case.
    Leanderthal”
    Don’t let up on these thugs.

  31. confusedponderer says:

    You are perfectly right about aggressive war.
    I have tried drive that point home to Americans I discussed the Iraq war with, and they didn’t understand what was wrong about the invasion even after I explained to them the principles of Nuremberg, and that even Iraq had sovereignty, and that war, as the ultimate violation of national sovereignty, is always prohibited, except in self defence or when mandated by the UN security council in cases when there is a threat to world peace.
    The responses I got went like that: When pointed to the illegality and the lack of a UN empowerment, they usually started talking about UN resolutions (that they never read, and when, didn’t understand) and asserted that they gave the US a right to attack, or retroactively sanctioned the US war. And anyway, China, Russia … and France are sitting in the security council, how could a mandate they signed off on be worth anything? And if not for a UN mandate, the US had a right to attack anyway, because Saddam was, they claimed, a threat to world peace (how? … oh never mind), and Saddam was bad, and he had those WMD, or not, but better safe than sorry, and anyway, his human rights record was ghastly (granted, so what?), Saddam had ‘terrorist links’, and even if it is true that the war was illegal, the Iraqis are better off without him now etc. pp. Not that any of those points were relevant legally in any way, but it was obviously felt that the points had to be made.
    The average American citizen doesn’t understand (and likely isn’t interested in) the rules and principles of international law. That’s not to blame him, but to simply state the obvious.
    What you say, Sir, is quite right, but in many aspects it flies into the face of a professionally propagandised established and persistent (false) narrative. It isn’t as if the journos who helped whip the US into war fever couldn’t have checked a basic international law book to find out that the official argument for the Iraq war was a load of BS, or they could have simply asked a serious law professor. It’s that they didn’t care or didn’t want to go there. There was no serious interest in fact checking what the Whitehouse said, after all America had ‘to get even’ for 9/11, somehow, and Saddam just looked right. As for the liberal or nationalist interventionists in the US, they are not interested in hearing about anything that can be understood to limit America’s freedom of action.
    America has some soul searching to do, and to discover that even the ‘most virtuous’ and ‘greatest of all countries’ is bound by international law, and has, as shown by the case of Iraq, proven to be perfectly capable of war of aggression, war crimes and the like. That is not a popular message, so unpopular in fact that, so it was attested, I obviously must be a leftist and deeply hate America to say all those disturbing, mean and highly inflammatory things. Anyway, with time passing, passions have cooled down somewhat.
    It will take the US more than a decade to work up the Iraq war and the questions of culpabilities of the miscreants who created the mess. There will be persistent and effective Störfeuer from the right in general and the neo-cons in particular to prevent that from happening, and to ‘shape the debate‘.

  32. COL,
    Thank you for this post. I have nothing to add except that I too await the day when those responsible (in and out of office) are held completely and totally accountable for their high crimes and misdemeanors.
    SP

  33. Kafka says:

    Thank you Colonel for your post. Although I’ve seen these same charges from many others at the very beginning of the neocon project, it carries more weight coming from a military man. I think of the generals too who came out publicly against many of the policies listed- I hope their views are also included in the histories yet to be written of this sad period. I second the charge of war profiteering also…

  34. Pat Lang,
    I’ve no comment on the text as I’m in complete agreement. I would add, however, that in general the American public, present company and others excepted, are not the brightest bulbs on the tree. And, the congress in the autumn of 2002, once again with exceptions, performed their constitutional duty like a bunch of buffoons.
    WPFIII

  35. Nancy K says:

    Col Lang, I have a military question. Are serving military leaders allowed to criticize the president’s war stratigies or do they have to resign before they can say anything negative?
    If they are not allowed to say anthing negative, what would happen to them if they did?

  36. J says:

    Colonel,
    How would you characterize Retd. Gen. Myers CJCS and ‘his’ JCS’s ‘actions’ under George W. Bush/Richard B. Cheney/Donald Rumsfeld in regards to their:
    1. Performance as America’s ranking Military personnel charged with the care of U.S. Military personnel.
    2. Their being in a position to speak up.

  37. fasteddiez says:

    Ok, here goes…attempt 2
    Dave of Maryland:
    “Sounds like you’re waiting for Godot. If the men & women of this country want justice, they have the means at their disposal…..”
    As you know, we are both acolytes of the Bovine explanation/link to various Humanoid goings-on. As such, is not waiting for the electrician (or someone like him…Barrister Fitzgerald?, the AG?) to decide to act in the American Peoples’ names not like waiting for Mrs. O’Leary’s cow to return to the cinders of her former life? Dogs would do it in a New York heartbeat!
    My doubts to the Colonel’s thesis goes like this:
    1-America was a better country post WWII.
    2-RE/Nuremberg, The winner writes the rules and decides who shall be in the docket. Allies like the Russkies, incluiendo.
    3- There is no equivalent of George Marshall and his black book, today. Generals in the military are by and large sycophantic, racist toadies (General Taguba was played like Sammy Davis Junior), I am white, BTW. they will close ranks.
    4- They nickled and dimed McKiernan…LBJ Nickled and dimed the DMZ in 66′ Truman nickled and dimed the military prior to Korea.. Who cares? Your Honor, I plead civilian control of the military.
    5-The WMD issue? Wolfie admitted it was the one excuse they thought would fly with the American Morons and the media….So, he was right?
    6- Disestablishment of the public institutions of Iraq. Yes, but they’re Wogs, and they blew us up on 9/11. This is believed by a sizable portion of the useless breathers of this republic…ergo, you have no case, because of massive disinterest, hatred of Ay-Rabs, and institutionalized stupidity. Besides, Saddam was evil, and he was a Baathist, and his institutions were Baathist.
    7-Insurgency-Schmuckturgency. The Baathists were resisting our valiant troops’ efforts to bring democracy to a justice starved Iraq. A multitude of Congresscritters voted to keep the Circus going Post Iraqi Army meltdown . They are the direct representatives of the people, are they not?
    8- the Interrogation irregularities. Well Colonel, as you know, I am a former Interrogator, among suffering from other MOS inflicted brain poisonings. I have always acted within the confines of the Geneva conventions. So What! Cambone, Addington, Yoo, Geofrey Miller all read the Riot act to our Vaunted Military commanders. The commanders all Sig Heiled. “Know ye that reposing Special trust and confidence in the fidelity and abilities of General Sammy Meatloaf…” BWAAHHAAAHA.
    Colonel you remember the CWO interrogator who was court martialed for his actions in the death of General Mowhoush (Iraqi Army RET.)? The Jury let him skate, because they knew the big dogs muddied up the waters on the “taking off the gloves” stuff.
    You also know that the Langley Boys had no business taking up Interrogation as a hobby post 9//11…but they’re always trying to win missions back from DoD. They had no practical experience since Viet Nam.
    Nope, now that the Hippie Panetta has drunk the CT Kool-Aid, I think that hope for justice in that lawbreaking realm is also at a dead end.
    I would like you to be right, but since The Goldman Sachs boys and their banking/insurance compadres do not seem to be in any legal jeopardy, “We must move on!” why oh why would the masses care about all this other stuff? It’s yesterday’s fish wrap, that has long since tossed out and gone out with the tide.

  38. Patrick Lang says:

    fasteddiez
    “civilian control of the military” means that they have to be obeyed. It does NOT mean that they should not be held accountable for their actions after the fact. pl

  39. Will says:

    from a ZionKon perspective, the dismemberment of Irak state institutions such as the Army, its universities, & technical institutions, and setting it back twenty years make perfect sense.
    Don’t forget Doug Feith & Wolfie were in charge. Don’t be too quick to dismiss conscious design and the obvious motive to give the Likud settlers a free hand to the actors involved.
    Remember the Israeli Firsters are the third rail of American policy. The third rail is a term taken from subway design where a third rail supplies the electric juice that makes the train move.

  40. DaveGood says:

    The colonels summary of crimes committed by the Bush Regime sums up the opinion I’ve held for many years.
    I was against this war before it started, as were the majority of my countrymen ( The UK ).
    The public here bought into taking on Al-Qauida and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
    But we knew we were being lied to when it came to Iraq.
    We were taken to War despite the directly expressed will ( in the form of all Polls conducted at the time, plus the largest protest marches ever seen in this country) of the people of this Kingdom
    But we had a government then, and still do today, who claim to be “Socialist”, but use it as a brand marketing tool only.
    Most of the British Cabinet should face exactly the same charges as Bush and the Neo-cons.
    But the American public is directly complicit in the Neo-cons crimes, lied to, misled, scared, too lazy to work out the facts… It doesn’t matter.
    The American public cheered on this war.
    Therefore Bush and the Neo-cons will never face Justice because if they do, then the American Nation as a whole and as Individuals will have to face up to it too, something they will not voluntarily do, ever.
    Shortly before the Invasion the capital city of Scotland, Edinburgh, was brought to a standstill for two days by schoolchildren who took over Edinburghs main Street.
    I remember some smarmy suited TV “Journalist” from a Murdoch owned Cable News channel asking this young girl, on live TV, why she imagined she knew as much about international politics as George Bush and Tony Blair?
    I’ve never forgotten that girls reply.
    “I’m Twelve years old, that’s old enough for me to be bombed in Iraq, and it’s old enough for me to know that’s wrong.”
    Almost no-one on this thread, apart from Will, is addressing WHY the Neo-cons forced this shambles on us, what they expected to gain?
    There is a discussion forum that offers opinion articles and research from established Academics and Journalists called Opendemocracy which in the run up to war was heavily used by an international community including some from American political and military circles which debated the coming war and it’s possible outcomes.
    I predicted then that if America and the UK insisted on invading Iraq, we’d be finished as world powers within fifteen years.
    The vast majority of the planet would oppose us, openly or covertly and allow us more then enough rope to hang ourselves
    Our wealth would be squandered in the desert sands and our armies would exhaust and degrade to the level 19th century colonial Gendarmerie fit only to keep the wogs in check but no longer capable of fighting a determined foe ( Which is what the west bank occupation By Israel has turned it’s army into).
    I was clearly over optimistic about the fifteen years.
    The damage Blair here, and the Neo-cons in America have done is so immense, the survival of free liberal democracies is now doubtful going forward.
    DaveGood

  41. robt willmann says:

    The accusations are phrased quite well.
    Babak Makkinejad asks whether charges are possible under the laws of the United States. Vincent Bugliosi made an attempt in 2008 in a book entitled “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder” (ISBN number 159315481X). Bugliosi was an excellent prosecutor in the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office and successfully prosecuted Charles Manson in the notorious Sharon Tate murders (although he is wrong in his opinion on the assassination of President John Kennedy).
    While they were in the federal government, George Bush jr., Dick Cheney, and others could have been banished by impeachment and removal from office, but the compromised, cowardly, and/or blackmailed Congress did not even try to do so.

  42. Walter says:

    To what extent do you think the war was motivated by the “Iraqi oil reserves as low-hanging fruit” theory. At $60/barrel, the proven, probably, possible value is $14 trillion. A huge chunk of that money is going/has gone to Republican political contributor businesses/constituencies…they have all won .. defense contractors, oil companies, oil service companies, engineering companies … How about that as The Supreme Crime … war for money

  43. otiwa ogede says:

    The whitewashing of history is about to commence here in the UK with the semi-open Iraq war inquiry.
    Sir at the start of your post you named “Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld” and neocon scum, I wish from now on you would include, and highlight the role of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown who are both guilty of crimes against the American, and the British, soldier.
    Tony Blair gave the push for war an international credibility it would have otherwise lacked, and he now struts the world stage posing as a peacemaker in audition for his Nobel Peace Prize. Meanwhile the cowardly Brown is our unelected PM!!

  44. isl says:

    The indictment could easily include many domestic crimes, too, the worst being the damage to the constitution, that I see no effort on Obama’s part to repair.

  45. “Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the neocon scum will be held accountable somewhere, someday for their crimes against the American soldier.”
    Not if Obama can help it.
    Really, the entire Washington establishment is complicit.

  46. optimax says:

    olonel, the facts are pretty clear, .. what puzzles me is the relatively low volume of outrage about all these crimes in the military; do you, or other discussants here have an explanation why it is so?
    Posted by: fanto
    Two words–Michael Jackson

  47. Patrick Lang says:

    fanto
    I presume that you mean “AGAINST” the military, and not “IN” themilitary.
    As to why there is not public outrage— The American people seem to have the attention span of a herd of jerbels. pl

  48. JimV says:

    “By carrying out these actions those charged involved the United States in a senseless war in which many thousands of American military personnel were killed or mutilated.”
    Probably everyone here, but I think not the American public in general, knows that in addition to about 4200 dead, there have been over 30,000 U.S. soldiers wounded in Iraq, many of them seriously and permanently. Estimates of Iraqi deaths due to the war range from a few hundred thousands up to a million.
    I share some of the blame for this as an American citizen who did not speak out against the war (fooled by the Bush administration WMD propaganda – shame on me). All I can comfort myself with is that I did get a job in a swing state (Ohio), from which to vote against Bush in 2004.

  49. optimax says:

    From “Mockingbird” by Walter Tevis:
    “Television is for morons.”

  50. Carl O. says:

    You’re bill of indictment is on the mark, but incomplete. For every American soldier suffered because of this unjust and illegal war, at least 100 Iraqis also suffered. They deserve justice just as much as the Americans who suffered do.

  51. 505th PIR says:

    Tonight CNN led the 5 O’Clock news with an hour of coverage on the now dead pedophile M. Jackson.
    Today was a historic day in the Iraq War. A new page turned. It took a back seat.
    I went out on my porch and threw-up in disgust.
    Nothing will happen. It is not in our mass national conscience to examine such things.
    A side note, one week after the clampdown on Iran’s stolen election protest…MSM has all but forgotten it. Western media has also censored itself to a large degree.
    More dry heaving.

  52. fanto says:

    Colonel, I did mean “in the military” (not “against”) – I referred to the non-existent or very meek support for courageous people like Zinni, Shakasvili and others whose name we may not know yet, – those people did not get enough support inside the military and that is a shame and needs explanation, why those responsible for the adherence to the constitution did not say NO to the orders which were patently illegal and many people knew it and some resigned to keep away from illegal actions.
    Thanks for bringing this topic to your blog and the echo proves how important it is.

  53. Mary says:

    Col.
    Stay healthy, please. We need your voice.

  54. Nevadan says:

    “Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the neocon scum will be held accountable somewhere, someday for their crimes against the American soldier.”
    On the news, and in various forums, I’m hearing quite the opposite. Cheney stated that Obama was wasting the sacrifice of so many who died for the Iraq cause.
    Time is the only aid to seeing the facts. Until then, we continue to play something akin to football, e.g. “my team is better than yours.” Until “we” put down the pompoms and remember that we are all Americans, constructive dialog seems impossible; revisionist recent history will continue.

  55. Patrick Lang says:

    Nevadan
    The facts are very clear if you wish to see them.
    “Constructive dialog” is difficult to have with people who strive continuously to silence those who do not agree with them. pl

  56. optimax says:

    Col.
    I second Mary’s thoughts. Your intelligence, experience and open mindedness are unique and important to us.
    Hoping you are well.

Comments are closed.