Barak Obama: Some of his ideas actually make some sense.

 

On another BBS I am a member of, this link to a youtube video of Obama was posted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs. The video features some of his ideas about DOD and spending cuts and policy changes he would make, viz DOD.  The comment the poster made was ’Why this man must be kept out of the White House, OR….How to destroy America.’

Now, I am NOT an ObamaFan.  I think that without question he is a populist.  I think that he has one thing in common with Hilary, aside from the obvious - membership in the Democratic Party and being pretty liberal in political thought - he wants to be President REALLY BAD!   So he is pretty much, in my humble opinion, selling the basic populist themes ‘Not your fault’ ‘Give me the power and I will fix it’ ‘It’s those rich people who get all the unfair breaks fault, and we’re gonna stick it to them’ and my favorite ‘All we need to do is CHANGE THINGS’.

OK. We are going to change WHAT? HOW are we going to change it, and perhaps MOST IMPORTANTLY, WHY are we going to change it?  These are questions he has adroitly managed to not answer.  The what and how are obviously important (like How are we gonna fund these initiatives and how is that going to impact who) but I am more inclined to worry about the Why question.

It seems that the younger generation (I am arguably a member, being born in 1964) talk a lot about the NEED FOR CHANGE.  What is never answered is WHY.  Why do we need to change this or that?  I’m not saying that change isn’t needed, but what I have seen is a conviction on the need for change without ever showing any reason why it needs to change.  I guess what I am trying to say is that it appears there is a lot of change just for the sake of change, without ever being shown why something needs to be changed.

Its kind of like this.  Say that there is a new drug just coming out. And this drug will cause the male body to have an erection.  And the drug company starts saying that EVERY MAN NEEDS TO TAKE THIS MEDICINE.  Why? Is every man not able to have erections? Or, as another example, take my brother.

My brother is an IT director for a small company.  He is about 14 years younger than I am, and he is a computer geek. All the computers in his house run LINUX.  He is really smart about computers.  He makes the pretty common younger IT guy pitch that “BUSINESS NEEDS TO CHANGE” but when my mom, who is 70 and in many things pretty pragmatic (and this is a woman who in the 60’s was a Goldwater Republican/Conservative, broke a lot of political ground for women in 1960s Florida, and is now a pretty committed Hilary Liberal) asks him “Change What? Why?”, he can’t answer her with anything other than “It just does!”

That’s what’s going on with Obama. All populism, but with no “WHY”.  In my humble opinion, if you don’t know why something needs to be changed, it generally means that you don’t really understand it in the first place.  Again, take my brother.  Great guy, smart about computers.  But he’s never really been IN business.  Being an IT director is an important job.  You have to know a) what computers can do, b) how to make them work together, and c) what you producers NEED in order to produce.  One of the discussions he and I would get into was his frustration with the sales force.  He couldn’t understand why they wanted the Microsoft Office suite of applications, when in his opinion the Lotus suite was far superior.  I tried to explain to him that their needs really overshadowed his, because they, sales, were the only ones in the company who made the company money.  They wanted Office, because, regardless of your opinion of Microsoft, you gotta admit that the Office suite is a pretty well (mostly) thought out approach.  All of the componants interacted and interfaced easily and smoothly (mostly) with each other.  And the Windows GUI is pretty intuitive, whereas the Lotus one was not so much (This was about 6 years ago).  The sales force already knew how to use Office, and it did what they needed to do.

I think what confused him the most about it all was what I said about sales being the only element of the company that makes the company money.  “Without IT (The company makes a high end computer peripheral) and the factory, the company makes no money.” So I explained to him that you can make the BEST widget in the world, and make it cheaper than anyone else, and support it better than anyone else, and none of that makes a hill of beans, if you ain’t selling it. 

Point being here, is that he’d never been IN business. I know IT guys will hate this, but IT is support. It is pretty much on the same level as maintenance. Not saying it isn’t important, but there is a BIG difference between support and sales.  Support is a cost.  Unless you make computers (and really even there, as IT isn’t production) the IT costs you money and doesn’t bring in a single cent. IT expenses are in the liability column, and there is no income column in the IT department ledger. IT doesn’t make money. Sales does, which is why sales is the most important department in the company. No sales, no income. Simple as that.

Now people who are IN business know that. They know that while good production is highly important, good sales is a must.  An effective sales force can market and sell a, shall we say ‘less than optimum’ product. Microsoft is a PRIME example of this.  Netscape was far superior to Microsoft’s corresponding offerings.  To do what Netscape Navigator could do for free, you would have to buy OUTLOOK, IE, and FRONTPAGE. And you still wouldn’t have everything, because OUTLOOK doesn’t really have a seemless newsreader segment. But Outlook Express did. (I never understood that). So you could get free from Netscape what would cost you $100+ from Microsoft. 

Can you even get Netscape anymore? Nope. But Microsoft Office still leads the pack. Now Lotus and OpenOffice are moving up, but still not anywhere near the top of the heap. Why? Because Microsoft hires a good sales force. And sales includes marketing. And someone IN business would know all that. And without knowing things like that, and really ‘grokking’ them, you might be inclined to think that ‘your way’ is better.  But the sales force will tell you that every minute spent trying to learn a new program is a minute you aren’t spending prospecting for new clients.  And that costs the company more money than adopting your new program MIGHT save the company. 

Business people, people who ‘grok’ business know (unlike those in Congress) that POTENTIAL savings a) aren’t REAL savings and b) ARE NOT INCOME. You cant spend potential savings.  They MIGHT (once they become REAL cost savings) enhance the bottom line, but really not by that much.  Put another way, every department in a company (and this is a general rule) represents costs except one - sales. Sales is the only department that shows an income.  This is business.

And yet we have myriads of people advocating change. But they aren’t advocating change for a reason - this or that function, organization or process isn’t working as it should. They are advocating change for changes sake.  Ultimately they are advocating changing the ‘what is’ for ‘what they want it to be’ so they can understand it, because they don’t really understand the why of ‘what it is’.  This is not only bad practice from a management standpoint, it’s pretty stupid and wasteful from an economics standpoint as well. Incurring costs, and make NO mistake about it - change costs money and time - that you do not really need to make causes chaos and confusion in the organization.  I saw that many times in my 23 years in the Navy.  A new ‘fad’ would come along and the Navy would spend oooodles of money trying to force it in place, and what resulted was mass confusion, chaos, frustration and lost productivity, when even a cursory examination of the ‘what is’ would have shown that the change, as presented,  a) would most likelycost a lot of money and time and b) would not produce the desired effects and c) was not grounded in a true understanding of the ‘what is’. 

This is what ‘We NEED to CHANGE’ will bring you when you have agents of such change can’t offer up the WHAT and HOW and again, most importantly WHY of change.
 ==========================================================

Anyway, I find I have wandered FAR away from where I started this post at. As one of my former Chiefs liked to say, ‘to make a short story long’, my point was to illustrate that while I do  not support Obama, and my reasoning for such lack of support is based on his populist rhetoric of ‘We Need To Change’, I do think that Obama does have some good ideas.  And they should be looked at by whoever ascends to the Oval Office this November.

BACK TO THE SUBJECT AT HAND. OBAMAs Comments regarding DOD as reported in the video on YouTube.

 After watching this video, I felt the following remarks pertinant. Basically just to be fair to the guy.

 

1.  You either agree with unproven, flawed logic supporting going into Iraq or you were/are against the war in Iraq.  Much evidence supports the position that we shouldn’t have gone in, at least with the plan that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield created, which is kinda hard to say ‘it worked’ ’cause by any rational metric, Iraq is an unsafe country to be in.  I firmly believe that we should not have gone in, but that is really a moot point (BTW, I was on active duty at the time, on a combat staff over there at the time, and this war was manufactured - they had made up their minds and put things into motion in 2001/2002, WELL before they said publically that they were going in).

 

Question is, now that we’ve gone in there and basically made a mess, and allowed the situation to develop that created the mess that is there now, what do we do about it?  I don’t think that we can just cut and run.  And I think that if he gets elected he’ll get educated as to why we’re gonna be there awhile.  I’d like to hear what he proposes to do about the abysmal situation that is there now. 

 

2. Eliminate wasteful spending. Well, there is certainly enough of that in DC - WHAT a target rich environment.  My question is WHAT EXACTLY does he plan to eliminate?  There is ALOT in DOD that is wasteful.  DDG-1000, LCS, etc etc etc.  I like the idea of an independant review board vetting DOD programs.  Just because DOD wants something doesn’t mean they need it. There are quite a number of programs that in reality have no current defined Operational Requirement (No new weapon or other system is SUPPOSED to be developed except in response to a combatant commander defined Operational Requirement. That ain’t happening), and exist merely because the program happens to be produced by a company in a congress critters district. NOT the way we need to be doing business. 

 

Case in point. 

I was at a conference several years ago (Late 2003), that dealt with a particular weapons system.  At the conference the CAPT in charge of the conference gave a brief about a program that they were worried was going to be forced on the Navy.  An activity within the Navy was tasked to evaluate the target aimpoints shoot at during OIF, and determine which of the aimpoints could have been serviced by this proposed new weapon system. Only about 5% of the targets could have been hit with this weapon.  Funny part of the story. The company that was developing this system was headquartered in the House Armed Forces Services Committee chairmans district.  The Navy didn’t want and didn’t need the system, but for a time it looked like the system, which had 1/10th the range and 1/5th the warhead of my weapon system, was going to be imposed on the Navy.  So I like his idea of an independant commission keeping DOD grounded in fiscal realities.

 

Missile defence systems? Well, look at me with a straight face and tell me how North Korea or Iran is going to attack the US with ICBMs.  And those were two of the countries that this administration cites as ICBM threats.

Russia? Umm, maybe.  I MIGHT be more inclined to support the Missile Defense System if they were putting the interceptor bases closer to where real threats are…i.e. Middle East.  Israel and Bahrain.  Maybe Qatar.  Don’t see a need for them in Poland or that other country (forgot which one it is). 

 

Not saying we should shut down the entire thing, but I do think that the pace of it should be scaled back.  Also think that the interceptor launch platform would better be the AEGIS platforms.  Fixed launch sites can be negated.  That’s why SSBNs were and are better than bombers or Silos.  Basically I think that the Navy should take over the program.  After all, we’ve proved we can hit a satillite, which in reality is about as hard as hitting an ICBM - same basic orbital mechanics. Less time of response, but it’s a ballistic trajectory which is the simplest and most predictable of flight paths.

 

3. Eliminate Nuclear Weapons.  I don’t think that this is a bad goal……as long as the other guys do the same thing.  Now I’m suspicious and pragmatic enough to believe that the other guy, if so inclined, is gonna make it really hard to find ALL his nukes. So, there does need to be a minimum number of warheards.  And this would necessitate a given amount of maintenance and replacement activity.  But how many would this number need to be?

 

Projected operational U.S. strategic nuclear warheads and bombs after full enactment of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty in 2012: 1,700-2,200.  Additional strategic and non-strategic warheads not limited by the treaty that the U.S. military wants to retain as a “hedge” against unforeseen future threats: 4,900

(Source: http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/50.aspx Accessed 3 MAR 0

So at a MINIMUM DOD wants 6600 Nuclear warheads.  Do we REALLY need that many? 4,900 warheads, JUST IN CASE SOMETHING COMES UP?  What do they know that they aren’t telling us?  4,900 is a LOT of firepower.  Assume an average yield of 100KT.  You are talking about 49 GIGATONS of firepower.  That is WAY more than you would need to blow up the entire planet.  And thats what DOD wants as a HEDGE?

 

Oh, just a curious factoid about nuclear weapons.  I had thought that the following number was around 2-3. Number of U.S. nuclear bombs lost in accidents and never recovered: 11 Where are they at? Is anyone ELSE worried about that?

 

SO reducing absolute numbers of nuclear weapons isn’t a bad thing.  And a goal of zero in the world is a nice goal.  Not gonna happen, but it’s nice to shoot for.  ANd he NEVER says that he would (and he couldn’t anyway) engage in unilateral disarmament.  So you really can’t fault him on his position on that.

 

Now, all that being said, I don’t support Obama no matter how crazy I am.  He is a populist that has provided very little substance on how he’s gonna pay for all the benefits he wants to provide.  He’s offering a lot of head patting and class envy to suck people into buying what he’s selling. Which is ‘elect me!’ and nothing more.

 

But just because I don’t support him doesn’t mean he doesn’t have some good ideas.  Just because he’s a liberal, doesn’t mean he can’t have ideas that make sense.  Ain’t NONE of us cornered the market in the smart ideas department, so it behooves us to be open to all quarters when it comes to ideas on how to fix what’s broke in America. And there is so very much broke.

 

The Games Islam plays - they play for keeps

First

Don’t judge Islam by the Muslims you know, and do not judge the Muslims you know by Islam.

 

That being said, we as a people, westerners, need to really get smart about Islam.  It is quite likely the biggest long term threat the west faces.

Now I am about religious tolerance.  But it has to be a two way street.  Islam DOES NOT believe in such a two way street.  Islam cannot even concieve of the concept of plurality.

 

I am a Libertarian by belief. My ‘credo’ if you will is that my rights end where your’s begin, and vice versa.  So I’m pretty tolerant of most things.  I am pretty open minded.  But.  The more I read nad research, the more I see that Muslims pose the greatest risk to the west of all the threats out there.  There can be, as far as I can tell, from their side of the aisle, any form of compromise or co-existance.  Their belief system won’t allow it. 

 

One of the reasources below, the tretise, outlines in great detail why we cannot co-exist.  Islam is NOT just a religion.  It is even more than a way of life.  It is a complete societal contract that brooks NO possibility of anything other than Islam.  No co-existance.  No plurality.  No tolerance of anything other than reimposition of the caliphate.  Islam a) says that there is NO religion save Islam. Period.  b) Muslism are to impose Islam on the world c) Islamic law, as laid down by the prophet in the koran and the hadith(sp), is inviolate. Period. Cannot be re-interpreted in the light of new events.  If it’s in the 9th sura, then it’s more than gospel.  d)  Islamic law is THE law.  Period.  Any treaty or constitution or any other rule, regulation, code whatever is SUBORDINATE to Islamic law. Period.

 

MAJ Stephen Coughlins’ tretise explains it all much better than I do.

Do not delude yourself on this. Islam is and will be the defining threat until a) they defeat and subjugate us or b) we defeat and subjugate them. Period. 

 

I refer you to the following sites/resources:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019465.php 

 

http://www.strategycenter.net/docLib/20080107_Coughlin_ExtremistJihad.pdf

A tretise by Maj Stephen Coughlin.  This is about a 330 page dissertation.  BUT, a) it is pretty readable and b) it explains in a straitforward coherant and thorough manner why Jihad is 1) MANDATED by the Koran, despite what Muslim apologists say and 2) Why Al quida et al are not ‘extreme’ in their beliefs (in the Muslim/Islam context) and practice regarding jihad.

 

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Games-Muslims-Play.htm

A good exposition of the games muslims play promoting/defending Islam.

 

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Myths-of-Islam.htm

A good shootdown of various ‘myths’ promulgated by the muslims and their apologists.

Explain this to me, conservatives

George Bush, whom many call conservative, has managed to do something interesting.  He has drawn, publically, the ire and criticism of the President of the John Birch Society, arguably one of the most conservative of organization.

 

What appears to have pushed Mr McManus over the edge, was bush’s use of a signing statement regarding the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act.

“Congress passed the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act and sent it to the President for his approval. Citing his designation as “commander in chief,” Mr. Bush added a signing statement that voided four sections of the law. “

“The National Defense Authorization Act recently passed by Congress prohibits the use of federal funds to establish permanent military bases in Iraq. Mr. Bush’s signing statement cancels that sensible directive. With the stroke of his pen, his action also voids protections for whistle-blowers who complain about corruption in government contract work, impedes turning over to Congress intelligence reports, and cancels the creation of a bipartisan commission designed to investigate allegations of waste and mismanagement in federal contract work.”

This is the act of a conservative?  Aren’t conservatives committed to the rule of law?  Isn’t there something that sets out who writes the laws and who executes the laws? Oh yeah, the Constitution.  Funny, I’ve read the Constitution many times now, and I have yet to see ANYTHING that could even remotely be construed as granting the President the authority to ignore the parts of a law he doesn’t like.  He can veto a bill sent to him, but CONSTITUTIONALLY, it is an all or nothing proposition.  He doesn’t get to pick and choose.  Didn’t he (and all of us on this BBS) take an oath or something? Oh Yeah, to UPHOLD AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

 

It seems to me when you disregard something, something you have sworn to defend, you fall out of the support and defend catagory and slide into the enemy catagory.

 

http://www.jbs.org/node/6982

And still, they waste time

I read today that, contrary to any sense of propriety or shame, the Congress, specifically the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform,  still feels compelled to hold hearings on steroid use/abuse in Major League Baseball.  I am, as I have observed previously, outraged over this politically motivated headline grandstanding.  I still cannot see by what strange interpretation of the Constitution that Congress has any jurisdiction over this.  It appears to have only one purpose - to get congresscritters additional press headlines. 

Further confusing things, is that this non-issue is being examined by the Government Oversight and Reform Committee.  (http://oversight.house.gov/contact/http://oversight.house.gov/contact/) to contact the committee.

What possible stretch of interpretation could land steroid use in MLB in the Government Oversight and Reform Committee? This is bizarre.  I mean, I could MAYBE understand Commerce, but Government Oversight and Reform?

We have many issues facing this country.  A war begun under questionable premeses at best,  spending out of control, etc etc ad nauseum.  And yet, the Congress can waste time on this. 

And they wonder why their approval rating is lower than even Bush’s

REAL ID - OVERT FACISM IN THE GOOD OL USA

REAL ID is essentially Facism cloaked in 9/11 hysteria. It would not have prevented 9/11.  Fellow ops types and intel weenies back me up on this - REAL ID mirrors almost exactly the internal controls the Soviet Union employed.  Do we REALLY want that HERE?  We seem to have spent so much effort studying the Russians we appear to be trying to become them.  The type of controls imposed by REAL ID are dictatorial, un american, and completely against the stated principles of Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Conservatives, Moderates, and Liberals.  In other words, REAL ID is based on fear-mongering.  

Find and contact your state and federal representitives

http://www.vote-smart.org/

Urge the federales to repeal REAL ID

Urge your State government reps to FIGHT implementation of REAL ID

Following from (Sources: EPIC: http://epic.org/press/011108.html

ACLU: http://www.realnightmare.org/

Libertarian Party: http://www.lp.org/media/article_557.shtml

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-healey22jan22,0,5551102.story ) Homeland Security on REAL ID: http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/programs/gc_1172767635686.shtm

On January 11, the Department of Homeland Security released its final rules on  what states must do to implement REAL ID, the national identification law Congress passed in 2005.  Homeland Security has taken the gloves off. States have until May to accept the  plan. Beginning May 11, 2008, says Homeland Security, residents of states that have not agreed to implement REAL ID will not be allowed to use their state drivers licenses to board airplanes or enter federal buildings. They can use a U.S. passport or possibly other documents in some circumstances, but they must  expect to “suffer delays due to the requirement for enhanced security screening.” In other words, take your shoes off, pal, and get in that LONG LONG line over there.

States that agree to comply may be granted extensions of several years to fully implement REAL ID. But when REAL ID is in place, notes CNET NEWS, in addition to flying and entering federal buildings, “REAL ID could in theory be required for traveling on Amtrak, collecting federal welfare benefits, signing up for Social Security, applying for student loans, interacting with the U.S. Postal Service, entering national parks” as well as purchasing firearms.

In practice, it may be impossible even to get a job or open a bank account without REAL ID. REAL ID is widely expected to become the standard ID for the private sector. And that’s just the start. Homeland Security is already floating additional uses for the cards, including “reducing unlawful employment, voter fraud, and underage rinking,” and monitoring the purchase of over-the-counter medicines. The REAL ID Act explicitly says that REAL IDs shall be required for “any other purposes that the Secretary [of Homeland Security] shall determine.” A more open-ended grant of power could not be written.

REAL ID requires all states to make major changes to their driver’s licenses, turning them into police-state national ID cards that will be loaded with sensitive personal information, all of which will be tied together in huge databases. These databases will make it easy to routinely track, monitor, and regulate the movements and activities of all citizens. The cards would also be computer-readable, allowing government and private-sector scanners to collect the personal information on the cards.

The stakes are incredibly high, says former U.S. Congressman and current Libertarian Party National Committee board member Bob Barr.“The massive database that would be created by the REAL ID Act, containing all manner of private information on citizens, is potentially one of the most privacy-invasive laws in the history of our country,” Barr says. “Anything less than scrapping this offensive national identification card law is unacceptable.”

The ACLU points out that the REAL ID “will become tantamount to a license to leave your house,” since it will be required virtually everywhere you go. “The end result could be a situation where citizens’ movements inside their own country are monitored and recorded through these ‘internal passports.’”And so the stage is now set for a massive battle right out of the movie “V For Vendetta”: Big Brother at its most evil and intrusive versus outraged citizens who cherish civil liberties and privacy rights. A true grassroots rebellion against REAL ID is forming. So far, 17 states have passed laws or resolutions rejecting REAL ID: Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, llinois, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Washington.

Twenty-one other states have either introduced legislation or had legislation pass in one chamber opposing REAL ID. But all those states are facing tremendous pressure from the federal government. Like so much recent statist legislation, REAL ID was sneaked into law. It was slipped into a May 2005 emergency-spending bill to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and provide tsunami relief. Such bills are almost impossible to defeat. It passed the House 368-58 and the Senate unanimously. There was not a single debate on the Act in the Senate, and insufficient discussion in the House. President Bush, who, his spokespersons once said, “does not support a national ID card,” strongly backed it and quickly signed it into law.

There have been attempts to kill the REAL ID beast in Congress. Legislation has been introduced in both the House and Senate to repeal the act, but thus far they have not progressed.

As this battle begins in earnest, state by state, no one should be fooled into thinking REAL ID has anything to do with fighting terrorism. The federal government has pushed for a national ID card for years, well before the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Previous justifications have included health care, the War on Drugs, protecting children, and controlling immigration. Any excuse, it seems, will do. This is all about massive, Orwellian control of Americans by a federal government run amok.

As Ron Paul said when the bill was introduced in 2005: “National ID cards will be used to track the law-abiding masses, not criminals.”REAL ID is a Real Bad Idea: a giant move towards a 1984-ish police state where the government monitors and controls everything you say and do.

 

Find and contact your state and federal representitives

http://www.vote-smart.org/

Urge the federales to repeal REAL ID

Urge your State government reps to FIGHT implementation of REAL ID 

The realities about a draft being enacted

With no credible enemy actively attacking the US, and a war based, at best, on questionable premises, enacting a draft would be just about the worst thing for the military. The ‘bad days’ of the 70s were in part the result of the draft, the pains from the retreat from and abandonment of Vietnam, and the backlash from the vocal minority against the Military Industrial Complex.

 

Upsides to a draft. 

1.  Theoretically you achieve a broader cross section of society, both economically and otherwise.   This will ensure a more diverse military population.

 

2.  Theoretically a steady state influx of personnel that are predictable, statistically, i.e. you know that in week 1 of month 1 you’ll get x number of people inducted at location x, and that in week four of month ten, same numbers.  For combatant commanders this would be a great thing. 

 

3.  Theoretically, the burden of supporting a war is shared more equally among all classes. This will bring more national cohesion due to shared sacrifice. Theoretically.

 

Downsides to a draft

1.  Realistically, you’ll never achieve the mythical cross section of society. And is that REALLY an upside? The jury is still out on that. No definative studies that I am aware of have shown that this is the plus that pro-draft people say it is.  I have my doubts.  Is an unwilling conscript who has no desire to be in the military really an asset? I don’t think so. 

 

2.  Realistically, any steady state numbers are doubtful.  There is MUCH more information available today about the draft, how it works, and how to beat it.  Local draft board and appeals boards will be swamped with requests for deferments, reclassifications, exceptions and the like.  Training for these boards, and staffing them is spotty at best.  Based on my converstations with key players in the Selective Service System; a) there are not enough people signed up to fill all the slots that would be needed, and b) the system is not funded nor trained enough to actually respond to what will happen in the event of a draft being enacted.  One of the things that isn’t addressed is security of/for the draft boards.  There WILL be violence directed at them, and they do not have a security plan in place. So the system will be overwhelmed and that will prevent any semblence of predictable input/throughput numbers.

 

3.  Realistically, the burden will NEVER be equally shared among the classes.

The rich/upperclass/influential/politicians will take great pains to ENSURE that their kids will NOT have to serve.  Always been that way, pretty much always will be. Just the facts of life.  Same principle as the tax system.

 

4.  The backlash against a draft would be astronomical.  In EVERY conflict the US has been in, where there has been a draft, there have ALWAYS been draft riots.  In WWII they were toned down, but mainly because Japan and Nazi Germany were clearly aggresive threats against the contiguous United States, and the US Government made a very credible case that the war HAD to be fought. But remember, this ONLY came about AFTER Pearl Harbor.  Prior to 12/7/41, the overall mood of the US was isolationist.  And the backlash and societal upheaval would be more on the order of what we saw in the late 60’s/early 70’s.

 

5.  Unwilling conscripts are not the answer, unless what you need is cannon fodder.  And I submit that that approach is too cynical for me.  Unmotivated draftees are worse than empty files.  I’d rather be several sailors short, than have people filling the slots that required me to expend extra time motivating, monitoring and supervising because they didn’t want to be there.  And it would be even worse if you were in ground combat.  Imagine what it would be like, being on the line and you couldn’t trust the guys around you to watch your ass. Oh, THATs a great solution to the thin green line. 

 

6.  Unwilling conscripts are a poison in the heart of a military.  They lead, in absence of a direct threat, to discontent, resentment and bad morale.  I refer you to why you don’t want your new guy to get in with the punk on restriction. 

 

I could go on about the downsides to a draft, but the truth of the matter is that a draft is not in the cards.  The politicians KNOW why it’s a bad idea. The truth is, the morons in congress squawking about bringing back a draft (Of note, the only ones who are mentioning a draft are Democrats)  are only doing so in a cynical ploy to screw the Republicans.  They (those pushing for a draft) only do so to force the administration to have to oppose it, giving the dems an opportunity to say ‘See how the administration doesn’t care about the troops’ when they (again, the dems) don’t care either. Its merely yet another political ploy.

 

More on the waterboarding issue

As noted in a previous post, a debate has been ongoing in a forum I am a member of. One of the other members attempted to minimize the severity of waterboarding, noting that it’s actually performed on US Service members who attend  Survival, Escape, Resistance and Evasion (SERE) training. Here is my reply

Don
It is one thing to go through SERE. I will GUARANTEE you that what was done viz waterboarding at SERE was NOT the same as what is being practiced on the people that the CIA and others are picking up. I understand and acknolwedge that in a situation where you KNOW that they (the inflictors of waterboarding) are NOT going to kill you, that in fact there is only but so far that they can and will go (i.e. SERE) that you can overcome such treatment with self discipline, through training.

THAT is not what is going on right now. As I said previously - and I’ll allow that maybe not as explicitly stated (Although I thought so) , my objections to waterboarding have much less with the fact that suspected terrorists/terrorists are being waterboarded, as they are WE are conducting waterboarding on ANYBODY. So what that air crew etc et al are exposed to a lite version of waterboarding at SERE? (And it IS a lite version. As I alluded to above, a SERE attendee KNOWS that no one is going to kill him/her. A SERE student KNOWS that they (the staff) will and can ONLY GO SO FAR.  Can a SERE instructor rape a female trainee? Not on your life.)  That has nothing at all to do with my point.

The point I am making, and I guess not very well, is that when you blur the lines we (Americans, especially Military) operate under and allow, and in the case of this administration implicitly/explicitly encourage bluring the lines, it becomes easier and easier to justify ever increasingly brutal and increasingly inhumane actions until we are no better than our opponants, and even, one could argue, worse because we should and do know better.  Other than the fact that they are human beings, I could give a rat’s @$$ about pretty much the entire population of the middle east, no matter WHAT their faith. They refuse to act like rational humans. My concern is not really what is done to them, but what WE are doing.

Saying that waterboarding is nothing more than unpleasant MAY BE TRUE IN THE ABSTRACT.  But let us consider Chief’s Initiations from say 10-15 years ago. I think no one would say that Chiefs are brutal inhumane bastards. BUT. We still had, not a lot but just a few instances where a few e-7s, 8s and 9s went over the lines. I won’t psychobabble about the psychology involved other than to say this: When you have a dominance situation, and you begin to remove or negate constraining factors, and/or loosen inhibitions, you ALWAYS get a negative spiral of increasingly bad behavior. The more stress or violent/intense emotion you inject or are subjected to, the faster and deeper said spiral goes. Simply put: Chief’s initiation, plus alchohol resulted in slugs getting treated badly, to the point of injury and criminal behavior. This cannot be argued. Was documented.  A SMALL number of initiations got out of hand.

So considering this, what constraints are there on the interrogators? Ain’t the law. Someone noted above that laws on CIA ops are vague to give tacitcal flexibility. Professionalism of CIA interrogators? Aren’t Chiefs considered the Acme, the ne plus ultra of professionalism? And yet WE had episodes. Is it the belief that these terrorists are deserving of protection under the law? Oh, yeah, we’ve said that they don’t fall under our laws, don’t fall under the Geneva conventions, that their status is ‘vague’. I was always taught that EVERYONE was subject to some law somewhere. We go overseas, not only are we subject to US Federal Law as well as the UCMJ, but we are also subject to the host nations laws.

So we have muddied the waters. As far as I can tell there are NO restraints on the behavior of the CIA interrogators. And there is even LESS when we outsource ‘interrogations’ to third world dictatorships whose secret police don’t even attempt to behave along civilized norms.

An aside on the outsourcing of interrogation. If we have to send these guys to said third world nations, because they’ll do ‘what has to be done’, aren’t we really saying that This is just too close to or over the line legally at least if not morally? Seems so to me.

So in such an environment what is to keep the interrogators from going over the line from an action from just being uncomfortable to where it becomes potentially or actually deadly? Or torture? Better not to go there in the first place. The first sin is the hardest. After that they all get progressively easier.

When we start equivocating about whether or not something is or isn’t torture, what we are really doing is rationalizing a descent into brutality. Because what isn’t ok today, can become ok tomorrow, if we just ignore that twinge of conscience.

I cannot remember who said it, but I’m minded of the saying “All it takes for evil to trimuph is for good men to do nothing” Ultimately I’m not concerned about the health and welfare etc of the suspects. I’m worried about the souls of our people. The soul of our Nation.

More on torture

I wonder.  How many people who justify Waterboarding have actually been waterboarded? Only guy I know who may have been waterboarded comes out strongly against it - CAPT John S McCain.

I think that, perhaps, saying that waterboarding is being included as a courtesy is just more chaff and misdirection by people who want to take a path that has the illusion of working, which it doesn’t, and who want to, instead of taking the right path would rather go down a morally bankrupt path because a) A talking head (Bush) says it’s ok and b) they secretly relish the idea that those ‘b@stards are having this done to them’

Ultimately my objection to waterboarding is moral and I think pragmatic. The pragmatic is simple. One, Torture doesn’t work. Not cosistently. And you do not have any real way to sort out how much is just what you want to hear, and how much is actually useful truthful information.  Two, the practitioners of torture ALWAYS end up creating more converts and recruits AGAINST themselves. In other words they do more harm to themselves by practicing torture than they do good to/for themselves.

Now my moral objections are to me more important.  It’s the slippery slope concept.  One you cross a moral abyss, one you take that first step into behavior that is morally questionable, you become like Luke Skywalker.
Inviting the ‘dark side’ to step in and giving it more power. The next expedient step into morally questionable behavior is easier to take and easier to justify. And the next easier still. And eventually you become as bad as, if not worse, than the very people you are fighting against.  I just don’t want Americans to go down that slippery slope.

There was a statement I read somewhere in the Navy long ago, I think it was an instruction on ethical behavior. Anyway it struck me as a very good yardstick for ethical behavior. “Avoid EVEN THE APPEARANCE of impropriety.”  If you think it looks stinky, it IS stinky. And so, if it LOOKS like Torture, IT IS TORTURE.

Torture is torture. I say again that if you think waterboarding is merely uncomfortable, then go have someone do it to you.  Again, the only guy I know of that may have had it done to him, is against it.

Now, feebly trying to turn my argument around by saying “So, how many US warriors has the broadcast of your ignorance “inadvertantly” killed today? ” is evidence of the frailty of your position.  No matter how many people might have been killed by standing against torture, that number is still less than how many have been killed by the number of people who stand against us now, because we have engaged in torture. So how many American soldiers sailors marines and airmen are dead because YOU support torture?

You know, it is interesting how many people justify and excuse the use of torture.

How can we, as military people, consider waterboarding anything other than torture?

I am a member of a BBS/Forum for professional Navy Senior NCOs.  There is a wide variety of points of view, from far left to far right.  One of our discussions that keeps popping up, as it is with many people and groups, regards waterboarding in particular, and the use of torture by the US in general.  Recently the topic came up again in response to a Navy Judge Advocate General (Military Lawyer ) resigning over a Senior JAG comments regarding waterboarding. ( see http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,158983,00.html?ESRC=navy-a.nl)

Below is my response. 

I cannot believe what I am reading here. It astounds me. That men and women who have sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, against ALL enemies foreign AND domestic, the genesis for a country that constantly and consistantly SAYS that it is committed to the Rule of law, and indeed castigates many other countries that fail to meet that standard, would say that torture, and make no mistake about it, waterboarding IS torture, is ok as long as it’s enemy combatants, or terrorists or those other guys, baffles me.

Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Now I could dissertate about my thoughts of just who the Constitution applies to, but bottom line it applies to all US Citizens - i.e. Americans. Now do NOT mistake me for a left leaning peace at all costs, don’t hurt them liberal. I am most assuradly NOT. I believe if you go to war, win it. But I cannot see where if we do what they do, we are any better than they are.

To put it another way. The Japanese in WWII conducted live vivisections on Chinese and North Koreans to examine the effectiveness of their biological warfare programs. The Nazis conducted all sorts of medical experiments on Jews, Gypsies, Communists, Christians et all. Japanese POW camps were a study in man’s capacity for inhumanity. Josef Stalin wasn’t a saint either, witness the treatment of the Kulaks. The point of this, what ties all of those groups together is that the victims of their cruel and inhuman treatment was this - the victims were not human or were semi-human, barbarians, etc.

And let us not forget the Slaves of the United States during the era of slavery (and even after 1865). What was the justification of permitting this horrid institution? Simply this - blacks were not human, or were semi-human.

And also let us not forget how we treated the real or at least first, Americans - The Indians. Trail of tears. Need I say more? And what was the justification for this? They (the indians) were not human or were semi-human.

And so I come to this place were I see that we don’t call the Victims of waterboarding sub-human or semi-human, but merely barbarians or terrorists and that THAT label is the one that justifies treating these people as less than human. If someone treated an animal (dog, cat, etc) in the same manner, i.e. waterboarding, then everyone would be up in arms about it, screeching to the high heavens that such treatment is inhuman and inhumane.

Can you not see my confusion? Can you not see the dichotomy, the utter implausibility of such a stance? Before anyone takes off down the yellow brick road of defending waterboarding and other forms of torture on the grounds that IT IS JUSTIFIED IN THE PURSUIT OF NATIONAL SECURITY, I must ask you to indulge me in this: Read what I am saying, all of it, the black things called words, and do not insert words or ideas that are not there. Do not ‘read in’ or interpret beliefs that I have not specifically articulated. If I haven’t said it, then I HAVE NOT SAID IT.

Anyway, as to National Security ‘NEEDING’ us to pursue torture as a viable option. PLEASE, give me a break. We are supposedly the more technologically advanced, richest, brightest nation on earth. And the ONLY way we can get someone to talk is to break all of our ideals and torture people? If that’s our only alternative, we got bigger problems. We need to hang it up. Oh, yes and BTW, there is far too much research and actual experience that, at least to rational people, proves that all you really get from torture, the information at any rate, is what you want to hear. That is NOT the same thing as truth. Torture is ineffieciant and ineffective.

Now someone will most likely trot out the argument that “Well, they’ve been doing this since 9/11 and we haven’t had a Terrorist Attack on American Soil since”. Well, here is my take on that. There are a couple of reasons why AQ et al haven’t attacked us on home soil since.

1. They haven’t had to. We have obliged them by sending tens of thousands of victims over there to them. Made it easier. Now I am not saying we should pull out of Iraq and Afghanstan. We made the mess in Iraq, and as many have said “You make the mess, you clean it up” I am also not belittling our brave men and women over there. My brothers and sisters in Arms are precious to me. They are the best people I know. What I am saying is this: Afghanistan was the right move.

But we moved most of our troops out of Afghanistan (Which was going well up until we a) reduced our presence and b) pimped the job out to NATO), we sidelined the real war on terror. Iraq was NOT THEN part of the war on terror. I was on active duty then, and on a battle staff. That war HAD nothing to do with the war on terror. I won’t go in to what it WAS and/or why we went it. What I AM saying is that Iraq a) was the WRONG move and b) because we went in there, WE MADE it part of the war on terror.

2. It is an implausible argument that torture has been the instrament that has prevented AQ from attacking the US on home soil. The overwhelming majority of who we’ve nabbed and tortured have been small fry. And this is amazingly similar to our efforts on the war on drugs. And again, amazingly, we seem to be having the same level of success….

There just isn’t any real evidence that torture commited by us or at our behest has really stopped ANYTHING. If anything, it (torture) has given a great many of former supporters and those who were neutral towards us, a causus belli against us. In other words, our use of torture has been, to the Militant and disenfranchised Muslism community what 9/11 was to us - a major stimulus to recruiting.

3. To me this is the most compelling argument against the plausibility of torture being the instrament that has prevented another attack on US soil. AQ is simply not effectively organized or structured to act in a cohesive and operationally effective organization. A) they are more like a terrorism idea franchise rather than an effective terrorist organization. Want to know about effective terrorist organizations? PLO, IRA, Red Brigades, to name a few. AQ, by comparison, are a bunch of keystone cops that got lucky on 9/11.

The reason that 9/11 was successful? AL QUIDA GOT LUCKY BECAUSE WE WERE LAZY, OVERCONFIDENT AND STUPID. PERIOD. Read up on what happened and HOW it was able to happen. The 19 terrorists on those airplanes were not the brightest bulbs in the box. Neither are any of the rest of the group. They just got lucky. Reason that they haven’t done anything here (In USA) since, is a) We disrupted their freedom to maneuver and operate, via Afghanistan operations and b) we actually follow some of our security rules now.

It ain’t that we’ve garnered enough useful intelligence that we’ve been able to interdict AQ. It’s that the type of person attracted to ANY form of militant fundamentalist terrorist group is unstable, and unable to consistantly operate in an effective and structured manner long enough and with enough intelligence to actually plan, organize and execute anything other than what we are seeing in Iraq, and now increasingly in the one area (Afghanistan) where we were actually winning the war.

Final comment on waterboarding and torture.  If it wasn’t torture, would we outsource it, so we can appear (to ourselves) that we aren’t the ones doing it?  Why do we have to send victims (I won’t say innocent victims, because not all, in fact I believe most that we’ve nabbed are dirty to some extent) to third world dictatorships of one stripe or another, to have them do the dirty work? If WB is ‘ok’ why do none trumpet to the world “Sure, I’m doing it! I’m proud to be doing it!”

Would you want to tell your 10 year old daughter or son that you were sending people off, fathers, sons, some of whom are innocent of all alleged changes, to be tortured? Would you want to tell said 10 year old the specifics of what you do to people when you waterboard them? What would your mother say about your doing that?

Now, just to REALLY confuse you, there are actually some instances where I’d condone torture. On the battlefield when you have gotten ahold of someone, and you honestly have a) reason to believe that there is an Imminent threat to your troops and b) reason to believe that this person may or does have knowledge that will allow you to defend your troops and c) absolutely no time for any other approach, then do what you gotta do.

But make no mistake about it, the situation where we are doing waterboarding and other forms of torture fit none of those three situations.

If it is so vital to get the information, why not simply use Sodium Pentathol, Sodium Amatyl etc? They work better than torture.

I know that many who will read this post will feel compelled to call me a liberal, a do gooder, naive, unamerican etc.  I do not worry about that.  When someone who condones behavior that is so fundamentally Unamerican, and indeed Inhuman, well, I consider the source.    

For those who think that they know what waterboarding is, I’ve suggest that you review the definition/explanation from http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/Waterboarding-Definition-Wikipedia24dec05.htm. There are several different varieties of interrogation techniques referred to as waterboarding. In the medieval form of waterboarding, a victim was strapped to a board and tipped back or lowered into a body of water until he or she believed that drowning was imminent. The subject was then removed from the water and revived. If necessary the process was repeated. There are other forms, but all of them have in common that the victim almost drowns but is rescued or re-animated just before death occurs. The technique is designed to be both psychological and physical. The psychological effect is that the victim is led to believe that he or she is being executed. This reinforces the interrogator’s control and makes the victim experience mortal fear. The physical effects are extreme pain and damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation and sometimes broken bones because of the restraints on the struggling victim. A similar technique was applied to punish scolds and detect supposed witches. In a trial by ordeal called “dunking” or “ducking,” supposed witches were immersed into a vat of water or pond, and taken out after some time, when the victim was given the opportunity to confess. If she confessed, she was killed; if she did not confess, she was submerged again. This process was usually repeated until the victim either drowned or submitted herself to execution in another way (hanging or, rarely, burning). Current uses of waterboarding The current practice of waterboarding was known previously as “the water cure.” It involves tying the victim to a board with the head lower than the feet so that he or she is unable to move. A piece of cloth is held tightly over the face, and water is poured onto the cloth. Breathing is extremely difficult and the victim will be in fear of imminent death by asphyxiation. However, it is relatively difficult to aspirate a large amount of water since the lungs are higher than the mouth, and the victim is unlikely [but quite possible] actually to die if this is done by skilled practitioners. [No definition of skilled practitioners provided by Wikipedia, but it should probably be found in close proximity to executioner or bully. Required qualities for such a practitioner would be a rather low self esteem and a desire to see others suffer. These qualities are regularly found in armed services or guards]. Waterboarding may be used by captors who wish to impose anguish without leaving marks on their victims as evidence. This is a technique demonstrated on U.S. military personnel by other U.S. military personnel when they are being taught to resist enemy interrogations in the event of capture (see SERE below). On Nov. 18, 2005, Brian Ross and Richard Esposito described the CIA’s “waterboarding” technique as follows in an article posted on the ABC News web site: “The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt. According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda’s toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess. ‘The person believes they [sic] are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law,’ said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.” [1] Dr. Allen Keller, the director of the Bellevue/N.Y.U. Program for Survivors of Torture, has treated “a number of people” who had been subjected to forms of near-asphyxiation, including “water-boarding,” in which a suspect is bound and immersed in water until he nearly drowns. An interview for the New Yorker states: He argued that it was indeed torture. Some victims were still traumatized years later, he said. One patient couldn’t take showers, and panicked when it rained. “The fear of being killed is a terrifying experience,” he said. [2]

Once an Honorable Marine, and the SECNAV, now nothing more than just another politician…yet another disappointment to vets.

These are the letters I just sent to Webb and Warner

Some backstory here first.  If the Senate goes into Recess (i.e. adjourn for a bit) they are not in session. When that is so, the law gives the President, Whom I do not like, a reasonable option to fill vacancies, especially those that are vitally needed, and/or which might find resistance from the legislature branch, had the person been submitted formally for the post.  Now, recess appointments are nothing new. Neither side likes to admit it, but they have both taken advantage of it. 

Now we have the democraps engaging in parlimentary legalist proceduralistic ‘tricks’ to say they are NOT in recess, they are THERE. Well lets’ see how and who was actually there, shall well?

With Webb wielding gavel, Senate meets for 9 seconds

By LAURIE KELLMAN

Washington, DC - The House was quiet as a mouse the day after Christmas. But across the Capitol, the Senate was operating in an unusually efficient manner in its ongoing power struggle with President Bush.A nine-second session gaveled in and out by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va he , prevented Bush from appointing as an assistant attorney general a nominee roundly rejected by majority Democrats. Without the pro forma session, the Senate would be technically adjourned, allowing the president to install officials without Senate confirmation.The business of blocking Bush’s recess appointments was serious. It represents an institutional standoff between Congress and the president that could repeat itself during Congress’ vacations for the remainder of Bush’s presidency.

In such situations, pro forma sessions also could give Bush some political cover on popular legislation he doesn’t want to sign. When Congress is holding pro forma sessions and is not formally adjourned, a bill sent to a president automatically becomes law in 10 days unless he vetoes it.

That could be the fate of two bills Congress passed last week. One growing out of the Virginia Tech massacre makes it harder for people with mental illness records to buy guns. The other makes it easier for journalists and others to obtain government documents through the Freedom of Information Act.

In practice, Wednesday’s pro forma process was almost comical.

“Good morning!” Webb, sporting a respectful tie and jacket, called to the floor staff assembled just for the occasion in an otherwise sleepy and chilly Capitol. One clerk congratulated Webb on being 30 seconds early, thrice the amount of time it would take to complete the Senate’s work for the day.

Climbing to the president’s chair, Webb took the gavel and banged it.

“The Senate will come to order,” he intoned, reading from a two-line script to a floor empty of other senators but witnessed from the gallery by one reporter and about a half dozen staffers. “Under the previous order, the Senate stands in recess until Friday, December 28th, 2007 at 10 a.m.”

His work done, Webb left. The floor staff reported to those in the gallery overhead that the session had lasted nine seconds.

“I didn’t appoint myself ambassador to a tropical nation,” Webb, a former Navy secretary, novelist and TV journalist, quipped to a reporter afterwards.

Before Congress left last week, Democrats scheduled 11 pro forma sessions to fill the void until the Senate returns to regular session on Jan. 22. The purpose was to stop Bush from using the constitutional power presidents hold under the Constitution to bypass Senate confirmation and unilaterally install his nominees in office when Congress is adjourned.

Democrats wanted to block one such recess appointment in particular: Steven Bradbury, acting chief of the Justice Department’s Office of Legislative Counsel. Bush nominated Bradbury for the job and asked the Senate to remove the “acting” in his title.

Democrats would have none of it, complaining Bradbury had signed two secret memos in 2005 saying it was OK for the CIA to use harsh interrogation techniques _ some call it torture _ on terrorism detainees.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Bush refused to rule out appointing Bradbury to the job if the Senate formally adjourned. So, Reid decided to keep the Senate in session with pro forma meetings every two or three days.

http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news/vaapwire.apx.-content-articles-AP-2007-12-26-0039.html

Mr Warner
Below is a letter I just posted to Mr Webb. As his fellow Senator from Virginia, I wished to present my views on him, WRT the (To me at least) dishonorable event this 26th day of December. To wit, his gaveling in and out of a session in a mere nine seconds, to an empty chamber. Simply to prevent Bush from appointing a recess appointment.
Now my gripes about what he did are below.  My gripes with YOU and your fellow Republican Senators are as follows.  You did nothing.  No Republican Senator was there to protest, to attempt to force something, begin some attempt to force the whole senate to come to order. SOMETHING. You did NOTHING! What does that say about the Republican Party, that they just sit it out on vacation.  They allow the absurdity of the Majority party calling to order for NINE SECONDS! Were you, the Republican party, outwitted?  Couldn’t round up enough members to do SOMETHING rather than just acquiese to the event. Could the ‘vaunted republican party’ come up with NOTHING to do?  Have you all just GIVEN UP? If so, please do resign/retire immediately.  There needs to be room for us Libertarians to move in. We have much work to do, seeing as how NO ONE SEEMS TO BE DOING ANY OF THE WORK THAT THEY WERE ELECTED TO DO!
Mr Webb
I was once proud to serve under you, when you were SECNAV.  I was also proud to be a “Veteran for Webb” and even drove people to the polls because your campaign asked me to.  I was proud to stand up for you and to campaign for you and to give my support to you.  You said you represented something different.  You made us think that you weren’t like the rest of the politicians out there.  You were a vet and you had honor.  You were a Marine, and had principles.

Well, your recent performance on the senate floor gives the lie to all of the above.  I am ashamed to have ever supported you.  The parlimentary trick of calling the senate into ’session’ for nine seconds, just to get over on the President, was and is a dishonorable means to a questionable end.  It is just the sort of thing that a politician would do. 

Now, before you sideline/roundfile this as another neocon/republican/bushie democrat bashing, let me point out that a) I am a Libertarian, and mostly so due to the past 7 years
b) I do not support bush, nor most of his policies, and damn few of his appointments
c) I was and am against the war in Iraq, and was so when I was on active duty. I don’t think we can just pull out in one fell swoop. We made a mess over there, and it’s on us to clean it up.
d) I am a retired Navy Chief (1982-2005). I was in on the opening days of OIF (Red Sea Strike Force). I did my duty, and I think did it honorably. I respect those who serve and who have served, and grieve over the needless deaths in Iraq.  I knew the war was preordained in March of 2002.  We were told there would be 6 carriers in the Gulf in the Spring of 2003 by an admiral who would know.  As a former secnav, you would know the immense logistic challenges and the associated timelines to make that happen. So it was a con job to get the Iraq war going. So be it. We made the mess, we need to clean it up.

I put the above out there so that you can see I am NOT a Bush fan/supporter. I WAS a Webb supporter, up until the point at which you voluntarily participated in a political trick, which may have been ‘legal’ but was no way a Marine Officer might be expected to operate.  That was nothing more than we the people have learned to expect from those people in government.  End runs, parlimentary tricks, breaking faith with doing the right thing.  If you (the democratic party) were going to stay in session, couldn’t you all have at least done some actual WORK? Isn’t that what we the people PAY YOU FOR? To accomplish things? And not to engage in ‘mine is bigger’ with the president.

No longer a Webb Supporter
I remain
William Hunteman
Libertarian
The Party of PRINCIPLE

Run over to your window, open it, and yell as loud as you can “I am mad as hell and Im NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!”