Still GRIM

Each one of Kent Kanoy's votes was an affirmative vote for impeachment? I doubt that.

And even if they were, that's not even 1% of the registered voters in the 4th CD and only 6% of Democrats who voted in the primary.

A recent poll by Opinion Dynamics for FOX News showed only a plurality of Democrats (48-43%) favored opening an impeachment investigation if the Democrats regain the House, independents are 2-1 against it.

I'm not bringing this up to "dis" the impeachment investigation movement, merely to show that it is not supported by a majority of Democrats and Independents, as that 53% figure cited by Al appears to imply.

This discussion needs to take place in the Democratic causcus on or just after Jan. 3, 2007, that is, if the Democrats control the House and regain supeona power.

Until then, it is just background noise. We have an election to win first.

I think that Paul exemplifies what is wrong with the Democratic Party and why it has been impotent (or even collusionary) in the face of the corporate takeover of government and the rise to power of the neo-cons who openly use illegal tactics.

He is the "Platform" head of the local party, bandies about the word "progressive", yet supports right-wing Joe Lieberman (against a truly progressive candidate) as part of a yet unexplained strategy that involves electing members of the Democratic Party - the same people who stood by inactive while the country was looted and an illegal war was started - as an end in itself.

The Democratic Party has long been co-opted by corporate interests and the fact that this most criminal of presidents does not elicit a strong call for impeachment from them reveals the depth of their impotence and lack of authentic progressive vitality. I think we are in a period of political transition in which record numbers are party affiliated in name only. There is growing recognition that we have a one party system with two wings, one that would strangle their own grandmother for higher profits and one that would just ship her to a home far away for higher profits.

Mark M., what do you see as the difference(s) between a legal and illegal war?

Good question, Fred. A (large) part of me cringes at the thought of a "legal" war. I guess the little editor in me that tries to keep me in touch with mainstream arguments advocates using such nuanced language.

I guess a "legal" war would be one of self-defense. I think of villagers in the Iraqi countryside setting traps for U.S. soldiers who would come in and shoot them. Or Native Americans (sic) shooting back at the U.S. Calvary as they try to eradicate the "redskins". Etc.

I guess nobody needs me to waste our time on what constitutes an "illegal" war with the tragic Iraq scam still ongoing.

This is the resolution passed May 20 by the 4th District Democratic Party (Resolved clauses only, "Whereas" clauses run much longer, if someone wants them, I will email it to them. I don't know what was passed last year, but at this point, this is the official postion of the 4th District Democratic Party and will advanced to be adopted at the State Convention.

By the way, I voted for this resolution at the District Convention, which is the virtually the same version passed out of Orange Co. where I also supported it and offered the amendment at that level to include the final "Resolved" clause shown below.

RESOLVED that the Democratic Party of the Fourth Congressional District of North Carolina supports H. Res. 635 (creating a select committee on the grounds for impeachment) H Res 636 (censuring President Bush), and H. Res 637 (censuring Vice President Cheney) and calls upon Rep. David Price to co-sponsor them; and be it further

RESOLVED that Rep. Price should sponsor or co-sponsor legislation to create an independent commission or special counsel to investigate these and other offenses and report to Congress on the merit of these charges, if H. Res 635 is not passed or does not result in a full and independent investigation of these charges; and be it further

RESOLVED that the Democratic Party of the Fourth Congressional District of North Carolina supports S. 398, Resolution to Censure the President, introduced by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI).

Thoughtful answer, Mark M. My problem with this being called an "illegal" war is it makes criminals out of all of those who obey the orders of the leadership, including those from our own community who serve in our nation's military.

Enlisted men and women take an oath to obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of the state (in the case of the NG) and the orders of the officers appointed over them, according to law and regulations. Officers take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and also to well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office they enter.

I cannot call all of these people criminals.

I believe in individual responsibility. I hold those people responsible for their actions. I am sympathetic to why they made the decisions that they did, but they still made a bad decision and put themselves in position to murder or aid murder and destruction and thus making themselves agents of evil. I feel sorry for them and their victims. The whole psychology of war makes me sick. However, at some point, individuals must be held responsible for their actions. That is why I don't support the troops. I support the poor misguided people who made bad decisions to become troops, but I don't support the troops.

Mark,

On behalf of all the military men and women who have served honorably for 230 years to secure the right for you to pity and despise them, I humbly say "You're welcome".

Well, it's kind of complicated. I don't despise soldiers. And all soldiers certainly weren't fighting for my rights - United Fruit's or Exxon's maybe. I have a hard time with the "hero" syndrome whereby lots of down on their luck kids get suckered into the military, sent off to fight for nothing related to freedom and our rights (Spanish-American War, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq), and then they are deemed "heroes" and we are all supposed to keep alive the mythological warrior connection to them when the reality is that they were used. So I don't despise soldiers. As individuals I can give them whatever respect or sympathy or understanding they may individually deserve and that needs to be done on a complex individual basis. But I'm not playing that bait and switch game of supporting the troops. And I don't approach any military people with prejudice. I know lots and I take them as they are, like anybody else.

Mark,

I propose that the "suckered into the military" concept is more overblown than the "soldier as hero" myth. Regardless of why they enlisted, the military men and women of this country know what is expected of them and the dangers intrinsic to their line of work; they understand the personal risks they face. They also know that some people have chosen to marginalize their sacrifice.

If you ask them why they do what they do, they'll tell you it's for the college money, or to get ahead in life, or to escape a bad situation. Is it true? Yes. But like most things in life, the broader truth is always much more complicated. Fact is, most military folks are not into flag waving for the sake of flag waving. Generally, they leave that to others. I know that it may be hard for you to believe this after all the media attention centered on a few malcontents in uniform and breathless flat-footed, agenda-driven punditry and yes, even some genuine war crimes, but many, many good people enlist because they see it as something honorable they can do with their lives. Most do it for patriotic reasons, as silly as that might seem to you.

You might not think it's honorable and heroic. But I think that it is the very definition of honor and heroism to wake up in a war zone day after day, scared out of your freaking mind, to put on a battle dress uniform, helmet and personal protective armor, and patrol the streets of Baghdad in search of insurgents who are neither Iraqi nor welcomed by Iraqis. I have been witness to heros who have medically treated the enemy at their own peril, who have built schools and mosques, who care a great deal about the future of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. These are not people in the minority. They are ordinary Americans performing extraordinary duties.

Mark, I hate when politicians politicize the service of our young men and women. I don't like it any less when you do it.

I don't hate it any less when you do it.

That's a tragic situation when the committed young people in the war zone care a great deal about the future of Iraq & Afghanistan while the leaders who sent them there don't give a rat's ass beyond their geopolitical schemes and corporate interests.

I certainly applaud all the individual efforts made by those people in those situations. It's just that there is no unbroken line of integrity that leads back to the men on top. It's as if the spritual supply line is over-extended (as well as running backwards). Although it's no surprise that the heart and soul of most countries, societies, armies, etc. resides in the individuals out doing the actual work and not the "leaders' in high places.

Very tragic, indeed, Mark.

The spiritual supply line is fragmented; things fall apart; the centre cannot hold.

We need new leadership.

David,
This is not my area of expertise, but I think this statement "patrol the streets of Baghdad in search of insurgents who are neither Iraqi nor welcomed by Iraqis" is incorrect.
From a Washington Post story:

"Both Iraqis and coalition people often exaggerate the role of foreign infiltrators and downplay the role of Iraqi resentment in the insurgency," said Anthony H. Cordesman, a former Pentagon official now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, who is writing a book about the Iraqi insurgency.

"It makes the government's counterinsurgency efforts seem more legitimate, and it links what's going on in Iraq to the war on terrorism," he continued. "When people go out into battle, they often characterize enemies in the most negative way possible. Obviously there are all kinds of interacting political prejudices they can bring out by blaming outsiders."

The report also says:

The relative importance of the foreign component of Iraq's two-year-old insurgency, estimated at between 4 and 10 percent of all guerrillas, has been a matter of growing debate in military and intelligence circles, U.S. and Iraqi officials and American commanders said.

Robert,

The only evidence I have is anecdotal. As you can understand, the last thing I would want to do is spend my time researching a topic that brings back unpleasant memories.

As a medic, I treated many kinds of patients: coalition troops, Iraqi military, Iraqi police, civilians, as well as captured insurgents. One of first things we do when we pick up a patient is to make sure he doesn't have any weapons or booby traps on him and to collect any ID he might be carrying. Often, the IDs the captured insurgents carried would identify them as Iraqis but our translator would tell us that the person was not Iraqi. (Apparently, Iraq is having immigration problems of their own and the related rash of falsified documents.)

(One translator was particularly helpful in identifying foreign insurgents because he had crossed overland for the Hajj and was familiar with regional dialects. I remember that he was able to identify one insurgent as coming from a specific town on the border of Iraq and Saudi Arabia, but on the Saudi side--and based on the astonishment of the insurgent, apparently this was true!)

I am sure that there are some Iraqis, especially from Sadam's hometown of Tikrit, who have gone on the offensive. But from the conversations I had with translators, these people have been made unwelcome by residents into which neighborhoods they would come in to fight Americans.

I think the longer we maintain occupation of Iraq, the more frequent we'll see ordinary Iraqis joining the fray.

And then, of course, there is the Arab/Arab violence, particularly the Shia and Sunni animosity that had been contained before by Sadam's heavy hand.

I have often said, I don't really have any solutions to Iraq's many problems.

http://mentevidebor.blogspot.com/2005/10/answer-to-jeff-vankes-questions...

It's a Gordian Knot that cannot be cut or unraveled. Every time there seems to be headway, something happens to upset it.

We should not have gone in, but no one listened to me when I said it was a bad idea. Just like thousands like me, my country said 'Go!' and I went.

But I think that just getting up and leaving would be the same as opening a hole in a dike, saying it shouldn't have been done, and then finding the solution in leaving. We have a moral responsibility to address the problems created by our aggression.

It's likely that the proportion of foreign troops in the insurgency varies over time and from one location to another. Neither anecdotal evidence from a single viewpoint nor single-time-slice statistics are likely to give an accurate picture of such a complex problem. Something like the truth will probably only be known many years after the fact.

I suspect you're right, Colin.

Here is a true hero:

http://www.thankyoult.org./

To whom? If you think he is a hero, fine, but please don't assume everyone does. Having the right to express different opinions is what makes this country great. It appears Lt. Ehren Watada's web site is down for the moment, but the bottom line is that he says he will not go to Iraq if ordered to do so because he objects specifically to this war. Watada could be court martialed if he refuses to serve as ordered. His stated reasons fo his refusal do not qualify him as a Conscious Objector (The DoD defines conscientious objection as a "firm, fixed and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or the bearing of arms, because of religious training and belief.")

The Army doesn't recognize those who claim political, philosophical or sociological objections. As this is a volunteer force, know that Watada enlisted in the Army in 2003 after graduating from Hawaii Pacific University. He reported for boot camp in June of that year and began officer candidate school two months later. Watada's commission required that he serve as an active-duty Army officer for a three-year term ending Dec. 3, 2006. His Ft. Lewis, WA unit is deploying begining this month.

My heroes are made of sterner stuff. And except for those in some movies, I know of no one who likes to be in a war. But fortunately, we are blessed with men and women who are willing to serve their country.

I want us to leave Iraq now. Follow Murtha's plan and start getting out tomorrow, with the safety and security of our troops the only concern. Pull back to Kuwait and then send them home.

But if you sign up for the military, you know you may have to fight in an unjust, illegal war; in fact, given our country's history, you can almost bank on it. If you don't want that, don't sign on the dotted line.

So I agree with Fred in this case.

Paul,

Sounds like signing on to the Mafia. At least you are realistic.