On the Verge of a Military Revolt

Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Richard Holbrooke, makes explicit what has only been hinted at thus far in the criticisms of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: the United States Military is on the verge of a revolt against the Bush administration!

In his monthly column at the Washington Post, Holbrooke lays out the situation as plainly as is possible:

The calls by a growing number of recently retired generals for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have created the most serious public confrontation between the military and an administration since President Harry S. Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur in 1951. In that epic drama, Truman was unquestionably correct -- MacArthur, the commanding general in Korea and a towering World War II hero, publicly challenged Truman's authority and had to be removed. Most Americans rightly revere the principle that was at stake: civilian control over the military. But this situation is quite different.

First, it is clear that the retired generals -- six so far, with more likely to come -- surely are speaking for many of their former colleagues, friends and subordinates who are still inside. In the tight world of senior active and retired generals, there is constant private dialogue. Recent retirees stay in close touch with old friends, who were often their subordinates; they help each other, they know what is going on and a conventional wisdom is formed. Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, who was director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the planning period for the war in Iraq, made this clear in an extraordinary, at times emotional, article in Time magazine this past week when he said he was writing "with the encouragement of some still in positions of military leadership." He went on to "challenge those still in uniform . . . to give voice to those who can't -- or don't have the opportunity to -- speak."

"Challenge those still in uniform to give voice to those who can't -- or don't have the opportunity -- to speak." Calling on those still in service to speak out against the Secretary of Defense!

It goes further than that:

Second, it is also clear that the target is not just Rumsfeld. Newbold hints at this; others are more explicit in private. But the only two people in the government higher than the secretary of defense are the president and vice president. They cannot be fired, of course, and the unspoken military code normally precludes direct public attacks on the commander in chief when troops are under fire. (There are exceptions to this rule, of course: In addition to MacArthur, there was Gen. George McClellan vs. Lincoln; and on a lesser note, Maj. Gen. John Singlaub, who was fired for attacking President Jimmy Carter over Korea policy. But such challenges are rare enough to be memorable, and none of these solo rebellions metastasized into a group, a movement that can fairly be described as a revolt.)

This has put President Bush and his administration in a hellish position at a time when security in Iraq and Afghanistan seems to be deteriorating. If Bush yields to the generals' revolt, he will appear to have caved in to pressure from what Rumsfeld disingenuously describes as "two or three retired generals out of thousands." But if he keeps Rumsfeld, he risks more resignations -- perhaps soon -- from generals who heed Newbold's stunning call that as officers they took an oath to the Constitution and should now speak out on behalf of the troops in harm's way and to save the institution that he feels is in danger of falling back into the disarray of the post-Vietnam era.

So, the retired generals are calling on those still in active duty to respond to what they see as a higher calling of loyalty to the Constitution rather than their careers!

The Bush/Cheney/NeoCon adventure in Iraq, combined with the apparent preference for a military 'solution' in connection with Iran has brought the U.S. Military to the point of near insurrection.

Since late last year, there have been stories circulating about how the military (particularly the Army) risked collapse if things did not radically improve in Iraq. The Bush administration and their sycophants would even dignify the predictions with a reaction. But, as events have continued to slide in Iraq and the administration appears intent on launching yet another ill-timed, poorly thought out war against Iran, the military officer corps (retired and, Holbrooke predicts, active duty) has begun to put country before career and gone public with their concerns. Soon, the question could be not "who lost Iraq," but "who lost the Army?"

Now, if only members of Congress had such principles and courage!

Garry Wills: "Christ Among the Partisans"

Garry Wills is one of my favorite authors. I was first introduced to him via his book "Nixon Agonistes" while a student at the University of New Orleans back in the 1970s. An essential part of Wills' argument about Nixon was that Nixon was actually "the last liberal" when it came to foreign policy. He used "liberal" in the classical, Wilsonian sense of an interventionist America willing to use its military to right what it perceived to be the world's wrongs.

Using that framework, one could argue (accurately, I believe) that George W. Bush is also a liberal, despite all his posturing. In fact, many conservatives are actually coming to see this Bush administration as liberal (or at least the antithesis of conservatism) in the way it has launched foreign wars, grown the size of government, as well as the reach of government into the lives of the citizenry.

Wills has a great op-ed piece in the Sunday edition of the New York Times in which he argues that Jesus is beyond the reach of the politics, despite the persistent attempt of the political parties (particularly Republicans) to pose as the party of the religious.

Kevin Phillips, in his new book, "American Theocracy" argues that the Republican Party has become the first religious party in American history. I agree. But, Wills distinguishes between the "institutional Jesus" and the Jesus of the New Testament whom, Wills points out, "is called a devil, the devil's agent, irreligious, unclean, a mocker of Jewish law, a drunkard, a glutton, a promoter of immorality."

What I love about Wills the writer is his how his research and knowledge enables readers to gain new insights and understanding of even "familiar" figures like Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, St. Augustine, or, in his most recent book, Jesus.

Wills' body of work is worthy of the attention of any serious thinker.

Vermont Democrats call for Bush Impeachment

Hey! There are Democrats with some backbone -- it's just that most of them are not in Washington!

Reuters is reporting that the Democratic Party in Vermont has passed a resolution calling on Congress to impeach President George W. Bush.

Here's the big ideas in the story:

In an elementary school cafeteria strewn with American flags and copies of the U.S. Constitution, some 100 state party officials agreed to make the request to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Ah, the Constitution! That quaint document that once (prior to 9/11/01) was the document upon which our government was based. As we all know, the President, his Attorney General, and the rest of the administration, believe that the Constitution is no longer operable when Congress authorizes the use of force (no need to even declare war).

So, Democrats displaying copies of the Constitution in a call for impeachment are so pre-9/11/01 (that would make them/us Constitutionalists). Copies of The Federalist Papers would have been appropriate, too. You know, the series of documents that explained our system of government and the thinking behind it to the founding generation back in the late 18th Century?

Can anyone who backs this administration actually call for the appointment of "strict constructionists" to the federal courts any more, particularly in light of the monarchical view of the presidency being propagated by this administration? This administration is inventing constitutional law every day. The notion that their theories are somehow rooted in the fundamental doctrines of the founders is a bold-faced lie!

The Vermont Democrats are pretty clear that this Bush administration is acting far enough outside Constitutional parameters as to warrant House impeachment actions.

The measure asks the Republican-controlled House to pass articles of impeachment against Bush for misleading the nation on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and engaging in illegal wiretapping, among other charges.

Democratic state committees in Wisconsin, New Mexico, Nevada and North Carolina have taken similar steps.

Impeachment, for those of you keeping score, is the Constitutional equivalent of an indictment. The House Judiciary Committee and the House itself act as something of a grand jury. If a "true bill" is returned against a federal official, the process then moves to the Senate, which acts as the jury in the case.

The kind of extra-constitutional activities in which the Bush administration has engaged and even gloried in are precisely the kind of questions that the impeachment process was intended to resolve (not questions of determining if a president lied about a blow job).

If the Congress cannot bring itself to commence a thorough and genuine investigation of the actions of the Bush administration, then this Congress is not worthy of offices they collectively they hold because they do not have in them the moral force to carry out the duties of their oaths of office (which call on them to defend the Constitution and laws of the country).

If, by November, this Congress has not launched a legitimate investigation into the actions of this administration (as outlined by the Vermont Democrats and others), then that inaction becomes the basis for citizens to demand a change in the leadership of the Congress.

If, after a change in leadership, there is no investigation, then our form of government is dead.

This is the real deal. A Constitutional crisis of the highest order. If this administration can't be reined in, then we are a republic in name only.

38 Years Ago

Tuesday was the 38th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I was a 16 year-old sophomore in high school in Eunice, Louisiana. Five years earlier, President John F. Kennedy had been shot in Dallas, Texas. The South had been racked by the Civil Rights Movement as an old order tried desperately to cling to a past that was dead to everyone but themselves. American cities, north and south, burned as the result of riots by blacks and others who demanded freedom rather than more rhetoric about freedom some day.

Protests against the Vietnam War had also begun to spread across the country, as people came to believe that their government had engaged in a long series of lies in order to bog the country down in a war for unclear objectives in a country thousands of miles away.

But, in Memphis, Tennessee, in the late afternoon of April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr., was shot as he stood on the balcony of the Lorraine Hotel.

In those inflamed times, Dr. King's murder had the effect of throwing gasoline on a fire.

That same evening, in Indianapolis, Indiana, Senator Robert Kennedy spoke to a crowd who had not yet learned the news of Dr. King's assassination. He spoke these words:

Ladies And Gentlemen,

I have bad news for you, for all of our fellow citizens, and people who love peace all over the world, and that is that Martin Luther King was shot and killed tonight.

Martin Luther King dedicated his life to love and to justice for his fellow human beings, and he died because of that effort.

In this difficult day, in this difficult time for the United States, it is perhaps well to ask what kind of a nation we are and what direction we want to move in. For those of you who are black--considering the evidence there evidently is that there were white people who were responsible--you can be filled with bitterness, with hatred, and a desire for revenge. We can move in that direction as a country, in great polarization--black people amongst black, white people amongst white, filled with hatred toward one another.

Or we can make an effort, as Martin Luther King did, to understand and to comprehend, and to replace that violence, that stain of bloodshed that has spread across our land, with an effort to understand with compassion and love.

For those of you who are black and are tempted to be filled with hatred and distrust at the injustice of such an act, against all white people, I can only say that I feel in my own heart the same kind of feeling. I had a member of my family killed, but he was killed by a white man. But we have to make an effort in the United States, we have to make an effort to understand, to go beyond these rather difficult times.

My favorite poet was Aeschylus. He wrote: "In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God."

What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence or lawlessness; but love and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or they be black.

So I shall ask you tonight to return home, to say a prayer for the family of Martin Luther King, that's true, but more importantly to say a prayer for our own country, which all of us love--a prayer for understanding and that compassion of which I spoke.

We can do well in this country. We will have difficult times; we've had difficult times in the past; we will have difficult times in the future. It is not the end of violence; it is not the end of lawlessness; it is not the end of disorder.

But the vast majority of white people and the vast majority of black people in this country want to live together, want to improve the quality of our life, and want justice for all human beings who abide in our land.

Let us dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world.

Let us dedicate ourselves to that, and say a prayer for our country and for our people.

Contrast those words to what we've heard from our elected leaders in Lafayette in recent months as the debate over naming a major street for Dr. King in Lafayette has been kicked around by the Lafayette Parish Council.

What is most striking is the complete and utter failure of leadership among all parties in this travesty that more resembles 'professional' wrestling than it does a political debate -- all preening, posing and posturing, with little of real substance ever occurring.

If we do, indeed, get the government we deserve, then we are in a hell of a fix here in Lafayette.

DeLay Departure CYA Plot

The Washington Post reveals the real reason Tom DeLay clung to his seat after he was stripped of his party leadership.

Was it principle? In a way. Here's what the Post reports Republicans saying was the real reason DeLay held out until now:

An additional impetus for putting off the resignation until now was suggested by John Feehery, a former aide to DeLay and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). "He needed to raise money for the defense fund. That was the bottom line," Feehery said. "He wanted to make sure he could take care of himself in the court of law." Under federal campaign rules, any reelection money a lawmaker raises can be used to pay legal fees stemming from official duties.

Yeah, it was all about DeLay standing up for the time-honored principle of white collar criminals — CYA (Cover Your Ass). He did it to bolster his legal defense fund!

No doubt, the former Texas roach killer will defend himself in the courts with the same tenacity with which he hung onto his seat. Which means that he'll be copping a plea within six months (or just before the Congressional elections).

What a patriot! What a leader! What a rallying cry for so-called conservatives every where to follow: "When the going gets tough, the tough pad the legal defense fund!"

QUITTER!!! Boustany Patron DeLay Won't Seek Re-election

The Washington Post is reporting that Charles Boustany's early patron, former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, has decided not to seek re-election.

Could it have something to do with the corruption that has surrounded delays reign as leader of the House Republicans? You decide:

The decision came just three days after his former deputy chief of staff, Tony C. Rudy, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and corruption charges, telling federal prosecutors of a criminal enterprise being run out of delays leadership offices. Rut's plea agreement did not implicate DeLay in any illegal activities, but by placing the influence-buying efforts of disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff directly in delays operation, the former aide may have made an already difficult reelection bid all but out of reach.

DeLay was the head of his party's money operation in the Congress. People like Charles Boustany made their way into the money train thanks to nods, winks and nudges from DeLay, his cronies, and circle of 'contributors.'

Boustany and others can try to spin this any way they want, but the facts remain that they rode to office on a path paved by corrupt money (DeLay's money has, for Boustany, been replaced by money from the new Majority Leader Boehner).

Think about that the next time Charles Boustany tries to say he is not part of the old, corrupt politics of the past. No, he's part of the new corrupt politics of the present that has brought this country to the verge of fiscal bankruptcy while putting the U.S. Military on the verge of collapse in Iraq.

DeLay and his legacies like Boustany have done, in the words of their leader Bush, "a heck of a job!"

Those Aren't Conservatives; they're drunken sailors!

Let me first apologize to all of our drunken sailor readers if the above quote comparing the Republican leadership in Washington to them is considered an insult. I was merely trying to put things in perspective by using a bit of humor.

USAToday reports on one of the fundamental lies about the current crop of Republicans: they call themselves conservatives, but they are anything but that. In fact, the federal budget has rocketed out of control during the combined one-party rule the Bush White House and the Frist/DeLay/Hastert/Boehner Republican Congress.

Here are a few pertinent quotes from the front page story:

WASHINGTON — Federal spending is outstripping economic growth at a rate unseen in more than half a century, provoking some conservatives to complain that government under Republican control has gotten too big.

The federal government is currently spending 20.8 cents of every $1 the economy generates, up from 18.5 cents in 2001, White House budget documents show. That's the most rapid growth during one administration since Franklin Roosevelt.

Think that's stunning? Continue on:

There are no signs that the trend is about to turn around. The House Budget Committee last week rejected a proposal that would require spending hikes to be offset by cuts in other spending or by tax increases.

This week, the House is scheduled to debate the $2.8 trillion budget for 2007, which projects an additional $3 trillion of debt in the next five years.

Naturally, since it's USAToday, there are some keen graphics that drive home the point that these Republicans are not conservative at all. When it comes to the size of government, they've increased it. When it comes to spending, it's out of control. When it comes to accountability, they want none of it.

Keep those thoughts in mind this summer and fall when, as sure as summer's going to bring mosquitoes, Republicans will be running for election and re-election to the Congress as conservatives.

Drunken sailors? Hypocrites? You make the call! All we know for certain is, these folks are NOT conservatives.