Editorial from the Minneapolis Star Tribune

May 30, 2005

Nothing young Americans can do in life is more honorable than offering themselves for the defense of their nation. It requires great selflessness and sacrifice, and quite possibly the forfeiture of life itself. On Memorial Day 2005, we gather to remember all those who gave us that ultimate gift. Because they are so fresh in our minds, those who have died in Iraq make a special claim on our thoughts and our prayers.

In exchange for our uniformed young people's willingness to offer the gift of their lives, civilian Americans owe them something important: It is our duty to ensure that they never are called to make that sacrifice unless it is truly necessary for the security of the country. In the case of Iraq, the American public has failed them; we did not prevent the Bush administration from spending their blood in an unnecessary war based on contrived concerns about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. President Bush and those around him lied, and the rest of us let them. Harsh? Yes. True? Also yes. Perhaps it happened because Americans, understandably, don't expect untruths from those in power. But that works better as an explanation than as an excuse.

The "smoking gun," as some call it, surfaced on May 1 in the London Times. It is a highly classified document containing the minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting at 10 Downing Street in which Sir Richard Dearlove, head of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service, reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair on talks he'd just held in Washington. His mission was to determine the Bush administration's intentions toward Iraq.

At a time when the White House was saying it had "no plans" for an invasion, the British document says Dearlove reported that there had been "a perceptible shift in attitude" in Washington. "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The (National Security Council) had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

It turns out that former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill were right. Both have been pilloried for writing that by summer 2002 Bush had already decided to invade.

Walter Pincus, writing in the Washington Post on May 22, provides further evidence that the administration did, indeed, fix the intelligence on Iraq to fit a policy it had already embraced: invasion and regime change. Just four days before Bush's State of the Union address in January 2003, Pincus writes, the National Security Council staff "put out a call for new intelligence to bolster claims" about Saddam Hussein's WMD programs. The call went out because the NSC staff believed the case was weak. Moreover, Pincus says, "as the war approached, many U.S. intelligence analysts were internally questioning almost every major piece of prewar intelligence about Hussein's alleged weapons programs." But no one at high ranks in the administration would listen to them.

On the day before Bush's speech, the CIA's Berlin station chief warned that the source for some of what Bush would say was untrustworthy. Bush said it anyway. He based part of his most important annual speech to the American people on a single, dubious, unnamed source. The source was later found to have fabricated his information.

Also comes word, from the May 19 New York Times, that senior U.S. military leaders are not encouraged about prospects in Iraq. Yes, they think the United States can prevail, but as one said, it may take "many years."

As this bloody month of car bombs and American deaths -- the most since January -- comes to a close, as we gather in groups small and large to honor our war dead, let us all sing of their bravery and sacrifice. But let us also ask their forgiveness for sending them to a war that should never have happened. In the 1960s it was Vietnam. Today it is Iraq. Let us resolve to never, ever make this mistake again. Our young people are simply too precious.

http://www.startribune.com/dynamic/story.php?template=print_a&story=5427823

Staggering Statistics

Military officials said Thursday substantial progress has been made in armoring United States military vehicles in Iraq — but given the increasing number and sophistication of those enemy roadside bombs, that is clearly not good enough.

It's a staggering new statistic. The Pentagon announced Thursday that 70 percent of American soldiers and Marines killed in Iraq today are victims of improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

At a House Armed Services committee hearing Thursday angry lawmakers were demanding to know why the Pentagon has not done more to protect U.S. forces in Iraq.

"And I come to this hearing with a sense of outrage,” said Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa. “I can’t tell you the number of homes I've sat in with soldier's families who've come home in body bags."

The rest of the story can be linked here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7752483/

With that said, as of today the deaths of 1116 American soldiers could have been prevented in Iraq. I wonder how many devestating injuries could have been prevented. If the statistics hold true, the numbers could be astounding. But then, war was never about ending human suffering.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/24/2476

Voting To Support Our Troops??

Last Thursday, the Senate agreed to an amendment to change the Emergency Supplemental to provide an additional $213 million in funding to produce armored Humvees. This armor has been found to help save lives in the event of an IED attack which have been responsible for the death and maiming of our soldiers. I find the list of Nay votes very telling. I guess it is OK to pick a fight, if it doesn’t mean paying for it with your life. How many of these senators that voted NAY do you imagine would be caught in an unarmored vehicle in Iraq? Here's the vote break down:


YEAs ---61

Akaka (D-HI) Alexander (R-TN) Allen (R-VA) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Burns (R-MT) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Carper (D-DE) Chafee (R-RI) Clinton (D-NY) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Harkin (D-IA) Hutchison (R-TX) Jeffords (I-VT) Johnson (D-SD) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Obama (D-IL) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Santorum (R-PA) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stabenow (D-MI) Talent (R-MO) Thune (R-SD) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---39

Allard (R-CO) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Frist (R-TN) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Inhofe (R-OK) Inouye (D-HI) Isakson (R-GA) Kyl (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK) Roberts (R-KS) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Thomas (R-WY) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)

There is still a serious shortage of up-armored Humvees in Iraq -- and Army commanders have requested more armor five times this year. Did your senators vote to protect the troops? If they did, be sure to drop them a note thanking them for putting their money where their mouth is in supporting the troops.

Thanks to the OP Truth blog (linked on the side of this site) for reporting this story…and for pointing out which Senators feel that providing our troops with adequate materials is a priority.

War is Always A Defeat for Humanity

"NO TO WAR!" War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity. International law, honest dialogue, solidarity between States, the noble exercise of diplomacy: these are methods worthy of individuals and nations in resolving their differences. I say this as I think of those who still place their trust in nuclear weapons and of the all-too-numerous conflicts which continue to hold hostage our brothers and sisters in humanity. Pope John Paul II, January 2003

Yesterday a great voice for Peace on Earth fell silent. Pope John Paul II left this earth telling his followers "I am happy."

John Paul II embraced a culture of life that taught believers that all people are children of God. He spoke truth to the people of his native Poland which ultimately lead to the demise of communist dictatorships all over Eastern Europe...without war.

John Paul II was the most well traveled Pope in history. And in his travels, he demonstrated the powerful tools of forgiveness and reconciliation. In his historic trip to the Holy Land, he begged the Jewish people for forgiveness for the years of oppression that were perpetrated or ignored by the Church of Rome. He honored the Muslim faith by joining in prayer in a Syrian mosque, demonstrating what was common and powerful amongst the three major faiths of the world: one God who loves His people..

And so yesterday the people of the world lost an inspired, outspoken servant of God and the heavens welcomed bright new "superstar." Catholic..or not, Christian..or not, John Paul embraced all people of the world with the message of Christ that admonished us to "Love one another." He will be sorely missed.


Blessed are the Peacemakers for they shall be called the Children of God. Matthew 5-9