Click here to view the embedded video.

I have spent hours skimming interviews and news stories about Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin. It is not outside the realm of possibility, given Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain’s age and medical history, and the potential pressures of a presidency, that Palin could find herself in the Oval office, and not as a “visitor.” It’s is something American voters must consider as they prepare to cast ballots in the November election.

I question her experience and her agenda, particularly on the global scale; her lack of visible experience on a broader beyond-Alaska governance, is slim; on the world stage it is nil. Her recent foreign travels found the press pool (CNN) being allowed 30 seconds or less of filming as met with foreign leaders.

Then I heard defensive words and a hint of national policy from Palin in an interview with ABC’s Charles Gibson (whom I greatly admire). Palin’s answers (the questions are evident in the answers):

• “We are on a holy war … we are on God’s side … there is a plan and it is God’s plan…”
• “I have the experience to be vice-president … I am ready …”
• “I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.”
• “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.”
• “I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words. But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.”

Sounds lot like the extremist and terrorist “Holy War” “Jihad” mentality, which, when vented against us, is said to be wrong and perpetuated by “evil-doers.”

Gibson, in questioning Palin on “the Bush Doctrine,” had to first explain the 2002 statement to Palin to incite a semblance of intelligent response.

The Bush “Doctrine” ~~ his National Security Strategy (9.02):

“While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country.”

Palin to Gibson:

“I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent in destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made, and with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.”

As September 11th memorial services unfurled, Palin said that should Georgia join NATO, the U.S. may find itself waging war on Russia, if Russia invades Georgia. She also warned of the threat posed by a nuclear armed Iran and from Islamic terrorists. She subscribes to the Bush-like principle that “the United States has the right to preemptively strike another country the U.S. thinks will attack first.” She defended the Iraq War as a task from God, which makes her sound as fanatical as the Islamic terrorists. I couldn’t help wonder where all the soldiers will come from to fight these wars … oh yes, it would have to be the “D” word: Draft. She hasn’t suggested that, but hey folks, read between the lines. Our troops can barely withstand the repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, much less consider battles on new fronts. And then there is the matter of equipping them … and nowhere does she speak of diplomacy, or of alternatives to war.

More recently, it has come to light that Palin as Wassila mayor likely knew, and appears to have supported, her city’s billing of rape victims for the rape kit/medical exam that constitutes evidence for the prosecution. The rape kits cost approximately $1,000. That’s akin to asking a murder victim’s family to pay for the bullet before they prosecute a killer.

Palin may find support for her views in some corners of the country, but voters need to ask to how much experience, understanding, and ability does she really have on a national and a global scale before opting to have her second in line to determine America’s future. What happens if she is left to step into the Oval office?

For the past twenty years, beginning with the Reagan administration, economic war has been waged on you, the middle class. The champions of the “free market” demanded that all fetters, all regulations, be removed from the market. It was claimed that regulations were bad, that they prevented the market from operating “efficiently”, that the “freer” the market, the more we would all benefit.

Along with deregulation, those pushing the “free market” concept also demonized “taxation”, claiming that the less you are taxed, the better — that you should be allowed to “keep your money”. Several things were seldom discussed in relation to “tax reduction”. First, the majority of the “tax relief” went to the wealthiest in our society. They saved hundreds of thousands compared hundreds of dollars for those in the middle class. Secondly, the spending did not decrease. Rather than “tax and spend” as they accused the Democrats of doing, the Republicans (champions of the “free market”) simply borrowed and spent. But the spending was not for things of benefit to the middle class. Instead of health care and education, we were given endless war, from which the corporations who had bought the government profited immensely. While our sons and daughters fought and died, Halliburton made billions.

But woe to any who pointed this out. They were accused of waging “class war”. While the moneyed interests waged vicious and constant “class war” against the middle class, they feigned outrage that any would question their intentions. Meanwhile, the middle class saw its wages and standard of living erode. The banks and lending institutions tightened the noose around the necks of the middle class, making it harder for the “little guy” to claim bankruptcy, jacking up credit card interest to usurious levels, killing any legislation that might possibly benefit anyone other than a multi-millionaire. Middle class Americans fell deeper into debt, relying increasingly on credit cards to bridge income shortfalls, the dream of a better future for their children evaporating before their eyes.

During all the time of increased immiseration of the middle class, the wealthy and the multinational corporations were raking in the profits. The income gap between the rich and the poor widened as the “uberwealthy” sucked up more and more of the social wealth. But all good things must come to an end. The “creative” financial instruments designed by Wall Street to suck any remaining wealth from the middle class finally collapsed like the house of cards they were. Wall Street, in a panic, turned to the government it had spent good money for, and demanded a bail out.

So this is where we now stand. Those of you who question the preceding analysis, consider the fact that it is demanded that the taxpayers foot the 600 billion bill for the bailout with no oversight at all. The message delivered by that demand is this, “Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class, you have been punked”.

The Bush/Cheney team on the move(scene from I.O.U.S.A.)

Across the country today corporate media headlines screamed the news that “an agreement has been reached” that would pull troops out of Iraq’s major cities ten months from now, in June, 2009. Read the fine print. Scrutinize between the lines. If you think all our troops are destined to come home, think again.

Yes, the United States and Iraq have “tentatively” reached an agreement that would see American troops vacated Iraq’s major cities, but that leaves a lot of ground out of the pact. That’s when the terms “broader withdrawal” and the words “tentative” and “but” come into play.

Iraqi leaders have yet to put a final stamp of approval on the deal, and as for that 2011 withdrawal date, it’s “contigent” on the implementation of additional security and on the “political progress” achieved in Iraq. So, folks, don’t hold your breath. The door is still ajar and our soldiers will still be rotating in and out of Iraq.

This agreement only touches one stressor on our military forces; we cannot forget that the door is still wide open and growing in Afghanistan, which has increasingly been a bubbling hotbed for insurgencies and terrorism.

Subject to final approval by the top Iraqi leadership, the exit date for U.S. troops would be December 2011, although American negotiators (Bush and company) insist on linking that target to additional security and political progress.

Timing is everything. The possibility of removing our troops from the Middle East is the new American Dream, fueled (1) by the insane billions of dollars we are now, as a country, indebted for, and (2) by the unconscionable number of lives lost for a war built on politically expedient lies. The longer the war drags on, the lower President Bush’s rating dip, with the end result that he’s now being called “the worst president ever.”

Timing is everything. What better way to boost the image of the Republic Party than a pre-presidential election resolution that appears to deliver a much-wanted objective without having to guarantee that the objective is met. The Republicans can “Rah Rah Rah” this issue through their upcoming convention as “mission completed” and make their party look like it has done the job after all.

It’s been done before.

In September, 2007, President Bush in a speech heard ’round the world’, attempted to support a gradual troop withdrawal:

“The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is ‘return on success’ — the more successful we are, the more American troops can return home.” (In other words, there is no, as the NY Sun explained, “no dramatic change in course.” –9.14.07

Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, responded to that day’s speech with “The President failed to provide either a plan to successfully end the war or a convincing rationale to continue it.”

The NY Times immediately posted an No Exit, No Strategy editorial that said:

“Mr. Bush’s claims last night about how well the war is going are believable only if you use Pentagon numbers so obviously cooked that they call to mind the way Americans were duped into first supporting this war.”

A post editorial, The Korea Parallel, offers a darker perspective: ,

“In retrospect, Iraq may prove to be another Korea – a seemingly stalemated war in a strategically vital region that dominated a bitterly partisan presidential campaign.”

Newsday offered this editorial comment:

“[In his speech,] Bush will make it clear that, beyond a token troop reduction, he has no intention of deviating from a course of action that has produced minimal results at a heavy cost in lives and treasure – and provides no guarantees of future success.” 9.14.07

Same speech, different year.

Sen. Barack Obama

Sen. John McCain

Democratic Candidate Barack Obama has stated he wants all US forces out of Iraq within 16 months of his taking office (that’s July, 2010). He also says they are more urgently needed in Afghanistan. That means we will still have forces at war, but hopefully not as many.

Republican Candidate John McCain can’t even go that far; he says the timing of any withdrawal from Iraq must be based on “the conditions on the ground” (read: indeterminate) rather than on prearranged timetables. The Webster’s Dictionary defines “indeterminate” as “not able to be determined.” In other words: Who the hell knows?

Bush and company believe that a firm withdrawal date makes US presence more acceptable to the Iraq government and is rooted in the belief that Iraqi forces can stand on their own. It also has the caveat that some US military training forces would still be required even after 2011. Iraq has slated provincial elections in late 2008 and a national election in 2009. The new agreement being bandied about places US contractors under Iraq law while US troops remain subject to US law. Questions of immunity are reportedly the sole sticking point in this agreement.

What makes this deal so urgent?

The United Nations Security Council resolution that is the legal and binding authority for US troops to stay in Iraq ends December 31, 2009. After that, and in the absence of a an agreement for troop withdrawal in place, America’s presence in Iraq becomes illegal. It is why Britain is pulling all of its troops out by the end of the year. It will be interesting to see if Bush and company, if unable to seal the Iraq deal, will defy the UN and keep a highly visible presence in Iraq, in essence thumbing the US nose at the world.

As I read various reports on this “wonderful deal” I try to focus on the subtext, and on the terminology officially used:

• Aspirational: to aspire to (i.e. we hope that…)
• Broader withdrawal in 2011: implies that withdrawal will not be “complete”
• Contigent: it will happen if…

Troops in Iraq

The bottom line is yes, troops will be out of Iraq’s major cities … if conditions are met.

The bottom line is yes, they will out of one place … but moved to another.

The bottom line is yes … but many will be waging war in Afghanistan.

The bottom line is yes, we will remove troops from Iraq by 2011 … but we will still have a military presence there as “advisors.” Yeah, right.

In the meantime, military families can expect still more deployments to both Iraq and Afghanistan, because the troops there now have to be rotated home for some R&R with families before taking that 2nd, 3rd, 4th or heaven forbid, 5th tour of duty in an unending war zone.

Even with this almost-agreement, US forces will be deployed on the desert sand, waiting to step in “as needed” to assist Iraq military and police.

Some agreement!

The liberal ‘monster’ awoke and raised its head today on the Austin Peay State University Campus, growling its way to awareness a bit earlier than planned due to a scheduling conflict in time and place. But despite this little known, last minute change, some 30 people showed up to stand with the fledgling antiwar group, including professors, administrators and FreeThinkers.

A dozen students at Austin Peay State University have resurrected Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). They gathered Friday from 10:30-noon at the Student Center plaza for an anti-war rally. They were a small group with a loud voice, large banners, small signs and handouts opposing the War in Iraq and the assault on civil liberties.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

— The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

They were a vocal minority, gathering additional voices of support as the rally on this conservative campus unfurled. The group utilized the momentum of national Iraq Moratorium movement as the catalyst for what they hope will be a series of peaceful protests against the War in Iraq and the flawed policies that support it. Iraq Moratorium is a movement that has designated every third Friday as a day of protest against the Iraq war and Bush Administration policies. The group was outspoken about supporting the troops by working to “bring them home.”

The demonstration started peaceably with megaphone chantings of “end the war,” but the peaceful tone changed quickly. Two bystanders, both claiming to be Iraq vets, made it clear they aspired to be the center of attention with an escalating and threatening heckling of the SDS students.

SDS members were fiercely challenged by several Iraq veterans on campus who seemed intent on verbally disrupting the message of the protest, filming the protesters and their hecklers, and refused to listen to another side of the issue. The vets in attendance refused to engage in civilized debate and disregarded the fact that the SDS students have a right to free speech and free assembly — in this case via a protest; it is one of the very rights the veterans are sworn to uphold and defend, both here in the United States and overseas, in Iraq. That doesn’t end when their term of service is over; it is a lifetime pledge.

“SDS confronted [the vets]. A growing crowd gathered to watch the jeering. More and continuous questions, more like attacks, came from the crowd and it was tense, to say the least. Meanwhile, more anti-war students were showing up in the background, taking their place on the steps of the student center. ‘Coconut Tom’ (joined by Kimp Chi) danced between the angry confrontations.

“The jeering twosome said “‘I’ve been to Iraq. You can’t say anything bad about the war because you haven’t been there. Why don’t you enlist so that you can have an opinion?’”

– Debbie Boen, Freethinkers founder

SDS members engaged in the heated debate as the rest of the protesters stuck to the plan of a peaceful dissent. The persistence of the hecklers made them seem like ‘plants’ injected to degrade the assembly and stir up controversy and agitation.

APSU, which is notoriously conservative and non-controversial to the point of invisibility, has been conspicuously silent on the issue of politics, the war and the 21st century peace movement, which increasingly mimics the peace movement of the 1960s during the Vietnam era. We’ve heard the songs, the chants, the speeches before. Deja vu.

Granted, the SDS is facing a tough audience and a tough sell in a city that derives a hefty percentage of its economy from Fort Campbell and its troops. What is evident, though, is that there is a growing national discontent with the state of the War in Iraq, the state of Congress on Capitol Hill and the President in the White House, and that discontent is slowly garnering power and form even in conservative Clarksville. That discontent is garnering power and form even on a campus where quiet hours begin at 8 p.m., where wine, candles, and incense are banned, and homecoming, football games and amplified music at the noon hour are the rowdiest it gets.

Outside the Student Center at APSU

On Friday morning, SDS had the guts to stand up and speak out on issues they believe in, and their courage is the kind of thing that will draw others to their fledgling group and draw in other groups, organizations and concerned individuals, one at a time. Where better to find and develop a voice than on a campus of higher learning where one is supposed to think “outside the box,” develop opinions and ask difficult questions?

“We don’t know how many friends the SDS won this morning, or if they felt better about themselves afterwards, but we do know they didn’t back down. They got a lot of attention, and were filmed by several people.We showed up in solidarity with them, and so did other people from on and off campus. We’ll stand with them anytime. And we are damn proud and so glad that the liberal monster has shaken off its sleep drool at Austin Peay.

“This is the same university that was not allowed to discuss current politics during the 2004 election (what did they do in political science classes?). This is the same university which was not allowed to post anything on the school grounds unless it got the President’s approval. We applaud Austin Peay and it’s SDS with an appropriate cheer: Go Peay!”

– Debbie Boen

Boen said that current issues facing America are “not going to go away, become less important or boring.” She added:

“… liberals cannot crawl back into their shells, especially as they learn to talk back to these bullying (plants) still spewing about our not supporting the troop (a lie), still thinking the war is about 9-11. If they really cared about the troops, they’d do a little research. And turn off Fox News.”

SDS was joined in this event by FreeThinkers for Peace and Civil Liberties, who offered support and who have staged other peace vigils and anti-war events in Clarksville. The FreeThinkers, which formed in Clarksville in 2004 after the presidential election, brought one of their free-standing war statistics signs to the rally.

A bit of SDS History

Historically, the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), with its minimalist logo, was one of the iconic representations of the country’s new left. The organization developed and expanded rapidly in the mid-1960s before dissolving at its last convention in 1969.

As a student group with a strong belief in decentralization and a distrust for most organization, the SDS did not have a strong central bureaucracy. In the academic year 1962-1963, the President was Tom Hayden, Most activity was oriented toward Civil Rights issues.

SDS was the organizational high point for student radicalism in the United States and has been an important influence on student organizing in the decades since its collapse. Participatory democracy, direct action, radicalism, student power, shoestring budgets, and its organizational structure are all present in varying degrees in current national student activist groups. Though various organizations have been formed in subsequent years as proposed national networks for left-wing student organizing, none has approached the scale of SDS.

In early 2006 SDS was “refounded” by high school and college students, with the help of former members of SDS from the ’60s, and has grown rapidly through local chapters, regional and national conventions. The “New SDS” takes the name, inspiration and focus on participatory democracy from the original group, but is a completely new youth- and student-led organization.

As Vietnam worked its way toward disaster, in the spring of 1968, National SDS activists led an effort on the campuses called Ten Days of Resistance and local chapters cooperated with the Student Mobilization Committee in rallies, marches, sit-ins and teach-ins, which culminated in a one-day strike on April 26. About a million students stayed away from classes that day, the largest ever student strike in the history of the United States.

It was largely ignored by the New York City-based national media, which was intensely focused on the student shutdown of Columbia University in NYC, which was led by an inter-racial alliance of Columbia SDS chapter activists and Student Afro Society activists. As a result of the mass media publicity given to Columbia SDS activists such as Columbia SDS chairperson Mark Rudd during the Columbia Student Revolt, SDS was put on the map politically and “SDS” became a household word in the United States for a few years; and membership in SDS chapters around the United States increased dramatically during the 1968-69 academic year. Polarizing groups within the SDS ultimately caused the organization to collapse upon itself.

On June 26, 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court gave a unanimous opinion, in the case of Healy vs James, stating that members of the SDS had been unconstitutionally deprived of their First Amendment right to freedom of assembly when a group was denied permission to form on the campus of Central Connecticut State College in New Britain, CT.

Beginning January 2006, a movement to revive SDS took shape. A small group of high school and college students reached out to former members of the “60s” SDS, to re-envision a student movement in the United States. They called for a new generation of SDS, to build a multi-issue organization grounded in the principle of participatory democracy. Several chapters at various colleges and high schools were subsequently formed.

Within its first year and a half, the new SDS for the 21st century has grown to include hundreds of chapters and thousands of members. SDS has bulit an impressive list of ally organizations, with which it works on issues locally ranging from worker’s rights to climate change. The organization has developed a deep commitment to strategy., mentorship and peer training, which has focused a new generation of student radicals on the fundamentals of movement building.

A sampling of SDS headlines around the USA from 2007

‘Whose Streets? Our Streets!’ Students protest war by hundreds on anniversary – Daily Tarheel

Students mark war’s anniversary – News & Observer

Locals, students call for troops to be sent home – Daily Tarheel

SDS members at UNC plan walkout today over Iraq – Herald Sun

Rutgers students walk out of class to protest war – Star Ledger

Protest halts traffic – Hundreds rally at Rutgers, on Route 18 against war – Home News Tribune

Student walkout spills onto Route 18 – Daily Targum

400 protesters swarm downtown New Brunswick, NJ, shut down highway, block recruiting center – Infoshop News

Anti-war org is back – Rutgers Observer

Students spread message, stop traffic – Minnesota Daily

Winthrop students rally for end to Iraq war ‘Peace. Shalom. Salaam.’ – Herald Online

Students observe Iraq war anniversary – Middlebury Campus

Hundreds Rally for Peace – The Daily Iowan
Anti-War Protest at SIU – WSIL TV

Memorial steps host Iraq war vigil – Harvard Crimson

MSU student war protest – 6 News WLNS.com

Macalester Students Walk Out Against War – photos on Twin Cities Indymedia

Students arrested at SDS ‘die-in’ downtown – Brown Daily Herald

SDS organizations are blossoming in dozens of colleges and universities across the country, including HarvardUniversity, Middlebury College, UNC/Asheville, UNC/Chapel Hill, University of Iowa, Winthrop University, New York University, University of Minnesota, University of Illinois/Chicago, Rutgers University, University of Alabama/Tuscaloosa, Maria Carillo High School/California, Drew University, Cherry Hill High School/New Jersey, University of Florida, North Carolina State, Macalester College, University of Maryland, Ventura College, Raleigh High School/South Carolina, Binghamton University, Sacramento State, and UC/Santa Barbara. That’s just the beginning.

Young America is finding its voice, and learning to use it.

You can contact the APSU SDS group by e-mail at or by phone at 731-695-7498. To learn more about the new SDS movement, log onto their website at studentsforademocraticsociety.org. To learn more about the moratorium, log onto IraqMoratorium.org.

No kidding. It’s obvious that whoever is elected to succeed Bush is being handed a mess, a quagmire that some members of the administration say could require U.S. presence in Iraq for ten years or more. It’s not an idea drawing popular support.

~~ 5,700 troops home for Christmas ~~

In his speech to the nation tonight, President Bush said he will continue to stay the course without actually saying the words “stay the course.” Despite the fact that he has pledged to return 5,700 troops stateside by Christmas, that still leaves approximately 155,000 troops in Iraq, including 25,000 of the “surge” troops. These troops were already scheduled to return home. The only difference is that they will not be replaced. Do the math.

Augmenting troops by 30,000 may have made a difference in some areas, but the country remains a powder keg with matches allegedly being put the fuse by neighboring countries Iran and Syria. On Monday and Tuesday, before Congressional hearings, General David Petraeus said he wanted to bring home 30,000 troops by July of next year. That’s still just the “surge troops,” not a meaningful decrease in the base number of 130,000.

Bush had slightly different numbers on the table: he expected to bring 23,000 troops home by next summer, leaving 137,000 still in Iraq, 7,000 more than before the “surge.”

“The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is ‘return on success’. The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home…I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy.” – President Bush

With presidential popularity at a meager 36%, not much different from the January ‘07 numbers, Bush cited successes in Iraq as the reason these troops can come home. But is it enough, even “for now?” What about 2008?

Addressing a public increasingly disenchanted with the war and questioning its cost in dollars and dying, Bush said Iraq “is fighting for its survival,” and noted that the “surge” of US troops has quelled violence by 50% in Iraq and 80% in Baghdad. The “surge” is the 30,000 additional troops the President last January said were required to make a difference in the level of sectarian violence across the country. Bush said:

“In Iraq, an ally of the United States is fighting for its survival. Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to topple Iraq’s government, dominate the region, and attack us here at home.”

Bush cited Iraqi gains in job creation and recruitment of Iraqi for police and military forces, but had to concede that the Iraqi government has fallen substantially short of its goals. Bush Continued:

“Americans want our country to be safe, and our troops to begin coming home from Iraq. Yet those of us who believe that success in Iraq is essential to our security, and those who believe we should bring our troops home, have been at odds. Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can seeing our troops come home.”

Bush said he has made it clear to Iraq’s leaders that they must step up to the plate and meet the highly-touted legislative benchmarks.

“The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is “return on success”. The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home. And in all we do, I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

In responding to the Presidential address, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel said:

“You can’t continue to feed troops into Iraq, break our Army, break our Marines, undermine our influence in the Middle East, and especially in Iraq, and think that you are somehow going to come out at the other end with a so-called victory.”

Armed Services Committee member Jack Reed, Democrat, responded by saying the President failed to provide a plan for successfully ending the war and “failed to provide a rationale” for continuing it.

On Tuesday, Gen. Petraeus told Senators on Capitol Hill that if the situation in Iraq did not see significant improvement, particularly in terms of the Iraqi government taking control, he would be hard pressed to see victory in Iraq and would have to review whether or not it would be advisable or justifiable to continue. Even as he went down that path, those supporting the ongoing effort in Iraq were prodding for possible tie-ins to Iranian backing of the Iraq insurgency, feeding into the growing suspicion that Iran could be the next target of the Bush administration, with weapons as the justification.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Senator and presidential hopeful Hilary Clinton said the President’s announcement of the return of 5,700 troops to the U.S. within three months is “too little too late, and unacceptable to this Congress.”

Earlier today, Ohio Senator Barack Obama, another presidential candidate, announced his own strategic plan to return all troops from Iraq by Spring, 2008.

The President’s speech was his eighth prime time address since the 2003 Iraq invasion.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I recently spoke with the woman who made this statement, a military wife, Leslie (her name changed to protect the innocent), at a local restaurant, and asked her what she feels about the ongoing war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“I’m very upset about the war,” Leslie said. “The more I read the more I know it was a big screw up from the start. I never supported it when Bush wanted to go. Bush knew what he was going to do and did it and he didn’t care about facts.”

The following is a transcript of my questions (CO) and Leslie’s answers:

CO: Where do you get your facts?

Leslie: “I’m always looking on the internet for what’s going on. And I read a lot of books.”

CO: Do you trust mainstream media?

Leslie: “No, not at all. There’s so much information out there, but the media doesn’t want to look for it, and doesn’t want to tell it.”

CO: Do you have a lot of friends in the military who feel the same way?

Leslie: “None of my friends feel the same way. A lot of my friends are avid supporters of Bush. But some of them are now against the war, because their husbands have to go. I have seen attitudes change as they become personally involved.”

CO: Do you ever meet people who are also against the war?

Leslie: “Most military people, especially wives, don’t talk about the war. It isn’t something that we just start talking about.”

CO: Has the war changed your husband?

Leslie: “He wasn’t directly in the war zones when he went over there. He wasn’t exposed to death like others. I’ve heard of soldiers having nightmares, and a lot of problems, after being there. My understanding is that most soldiers are affected negatively by the war. Spouses and children can’t stand to see soldiers leave, but then they come back stressed out and angry, and their kids become deathly afraid of them.”

CO:How does that affect you?

Leslie: “I refuse to have kids while this is going on. Soldiers are over there a year or longer, some are going on their 3rd or 4th deployment. I know a man whose daughter learned how to walk and talk and he missed all of it; now she’s 2 years old and they don’t know each other.”

CO: What are your emotions about this time?

Leslie: “I’m extremely disappointed. I can’t believe that people aren’t upset. I can’t believe our media doesn’t tell us what’s going on and people want to avoid the truth. People should be very angry and scared about our rights being taken away by our government. I know I’m scared. It’s been portrayed that opposition to the President equals opposition to the troops. We’ve been controlled into silence with that.”

CO: How do you oppose the war?

Leslie: “I can’t lie about how I feel. I share my opinion when asked. But I do a lot more. I write at least one letter to a congressperson, representative or senator every day.”

CO: Really?

Leslie: “At least one letter a day.”

CO: What would restore your faith in the rest of us?

Leslie: “Care enough to look for the truth! Get involved in elections. Tell Senators what you want them to do. They work for you! Get everyone out, Republicans and Democrats, who give the rubber stamp to Bush and the neo-cons. Impeach Bush and Cheney for lying about the cause of death for so many soldiers and Iraqis.”

CO: What should military people do?

Leslie: “Military families should speak out to their representatives and share their feelings, because it directly affects them and their loved ones. Soldiers don’t have the right to protest, but their families and relatives do. Speak up!”

With those words, Leslie encouraged all Americans to look deeper than the spoon-feedings of mainstream news, to seek out information and voice their concerns.

As of this writing, the current Iraq war statistics are as follows:

Iraqis dead 69,907-76,365

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

US military dead 3,706, wounded 27,409

http://antiwar.com/casualties/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In addition to the irreplaceable loss of life, and the physical and emotional damage to soldiers and their families in the aftermath of war and deployments, the United States, which means the American taxpayer, is spending $200 million dollars a day, or $6 billion a month, to sustain the war, with a total of $400 billion dollars allocated so far, according to Congressional Budget Office. The final cost is expected to be counted in the “trillions” of dollars.