Politics can be very nasty.  But all in all, I'll hold my nose some times, because I know that I'd rather have a Democrat as my elected official than a Republican.

But I understand where you are disappointed.

So: End the Iraq War 8 months to 16 months earlier than would have happened otherwise.  And save $56 billion to $120 billion in front loaded costs (and another $25 billion to $60 billion on the back end costs)--not to mention the irreplaceable human cost, in exchange for $350 million or so "pork" projects. 

Oh that's right, if we leave, "they" will swim across the ocean and fight us on the streets of the U.S.

How many bridges in Brooklyn do you own Detcord?

"They" already managed to kill 3,000 Americans without swimming.  "They" will do it again if given a base of operations to plan and coordinate from and another state sponsor.  If you don't believe that (which is your right and i respect it), you clearly own a few bridges yourself.

Even so I'm able to keep things in perspective.  The odds of being killed in a car crash remain exponentially higher than the any potential risk posed by a future terrorist attack.  Even the feared "dirty bomb" is likely to create more injuries than fatalities--odds are we're looking at hundreds killed not thousands.

As far as "them" coming here--that's a reality that we have to live with.  If we had a dictatorship we would be immune to outside threats, but a dictatorship would pose an even greater threat.  One lesson that we should have taken from the 20th century is that governments are much more efficient killing machines of their people than any potential outside threat.

As far as Iraq goes, the probability of an attack doesn't change if we leave--at least according to the Paul Pillar who was the CIA's Middle East chief until 2005.  The risk posed by a reinvigorated Al Qaeda in Pakistan's tribal regions is likely to remain the most likely future launching pad of an attack.  In Iraq there are at most 3,000 foreign fighters--and odds are that they will return to their home countries first--in North Africa, and other Middle Eastern nation's to create mischief, before they even consider setting their eyes across the Atlantic.  Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan poses a very real threat to a nation that DOES have a nuclear weapon, and logistically it poses greater challenges than those of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.  That's were our focus needs to be.

To President Bush, they are "pork-barrel projects completely unrelated to the war," items in the House and Senate war-spending bills such as peanut storage facilities and aid to spinach farmers that insult the seriousness of the conflict and exist only to buy votes.

But such spending has been part of Iraq funding bills since the war began, sometimes inserted by the president himself, sometimes added by lawmakers with bipartisan aplomb...

[...]

The president's own request last year for emergency war spending included $20 billion for Gulf Coast hurricane recovery, $2.3 billion for bird flu preparations, and $2 billion to fortify the border with Mexico and pay for his effort to send National Guardsmen to the southern frontier.

The Republican-controlled Senate tried to load the 2006 bill with $4 billion for agricultural subsidies, $1.1 billion for the Gulf Coast fishing industry, $594 million for highway projects unrelated to Hurricane Katrina, and $700 million for rerouting a rail line in Mississippi.

Finally, here's Brian Riedl from the conservative Heritage Foundation:

These war supplemental bills have always had wasteful domestic spending added....The difference is only in magnitude.

Now, can we get back to the REAL issue here, which is whether or not we set timetables to get out of Iraq, and whether President Bush vetoes a bill which FUNDS OUR TROOPS?!?

But we both know that a bill WITHOUT the bribes in it and ONLY the deadline wouldn't get the votes so the discussion of the deadline issue is moot.  I hope I'm wrong and i hope this is resubmitted without the pork so we can see where everyone comes down on this without having to be bought and bribed.  The American people deserve that.

I look forward to this showdown as much as anyone because I believe it might be good politics but it's awful policy.  The Constitutional obligation of Congress is to provide the funding, not to meddle in foreign policy or become 535 little Commanders-in-Chief.  If they had any spine at all, they'd end the funding today!

As far as the useless French go, Patton said it best: "I would rather have a German Division in front of me than a French one beheind me."

Fun facts about the French:

1. To accomodate terrorism, the French have adopted a policy of preemptive surrender.

2. They actually have a military although no one knows precisely why.

3. The Eiffel Tower was constructed so they'd have something really tall to wave a white flag from in case of attack.

4. In ancient cave drawings, prehistoric French are shown surrendering to lightning.

5. Their language not being quite as effiminate as they'd like, they also wear berets.

6. They love to sell weapons to enemies of America.  But hey, what kind of pansie uses French weapons?

I could go on...too much fun.

...which many seem to ignore.

Actually, that is the real question: why do you want to waste more money on a proven failure such as Iraq?

So why has he all of a sudden discovered a conscience about fiscal responsibility?

He certainly didn't when he doubled the national debt from $4.6 trillion to $9 trillion plus over a 6 year period.

As Lowell stated this "pork" issue is "red herring". 

we are not going to give u any money. so bring em home. us friggen idiot

r u gonna hold your breath?

and enjoy crawford. u idiot.

President defunding the troops? What kind of spin is that? He got a garbage pork bill and wants a real spending bill that does not inhibit commanders on the ground. Democrats should stop trying to force feed a back door defundment. With $22 billion in bribe money they were barely able to pass this monster. They'd get no support for a straight defundment from Blue Dogs and Republicans, which would easily overwhelm them

Even if this President did not abuse his authority, this precedent would effectively allow future presidents to cover up bribery within his or her party with impunity and to fire a lot of good career professionals and high performers without any justification.  That's not doing the People's business in my view. 

On this issue, I don't care if the president is a Democrat or a Republican, there needs to be transparency on these kinds of issues.  The Congress is doing the people's business by treating this one with seriousness.

I agree with you on the fiscal conservatism.  As far as the Iraq War supplemental I'm not ecstatic about the pork that's been thrown into.  On the flip side, the pork is likely to cost a lot less in the long run than the "replaceable" costs of the war (the financial ones). 

This has nothing to do with the turnover that occurs when a new administration takes over.  Reno probably stopped returning phone calls, because she could point to the precedent of the wholesale U.S. attorney replacements in 1988 by George H.W. Bush and 1980 by Ronald Reagan.  The current Bush administration even exercised this authority when it came into office in 2001, which was entirely appropriate.

What's different here are the selective firings, and the possibility of extreme political interference (once the U.S. Attorneys are on the job the are expected to follow broad administration priorities, but the White House would be violating the law if it removed attorneys so that it could kill a public corruption scandal for example).

Why were these attorneys fired?

The White House hasn't given a straight answer yet, or provided documentation to support its claims.  (The DOJ 3,000 page document dump only provided reasons after the fact for why the firings MIGHT have been done.  But none of the documents state: We are firings these attorneys, because . . . .).

At least four of the attorneys were involved in public corruption scandals involving Republican officeholders (Chandler in Arizona, Bogden in Nevada, Cummins in Arkansas)--and one Carol Lam was working on one of the largest public corruption scandals in U.S. history which involved the #3 at the CIA (Dusty Foggo), and several congressmen.

So the Congress and the public have a legitimate interest in getting a no B.S. account from the White House with the appropriate documentation to support its position. 

One excellent summary of the issues at stake here can be found in this recent editorial in the Chicago Tribune.

http://www.chicagotr...

And when witnesses start invoking the 5th amendment, it begins to raise eyebrows.

If the administration's explanation is merely embarrassing and not illegal, it would be well served to come clean immediately with documentation to support its position. 

In reference to the Lam case everything right now is circumstantial, and it is conceivable that nothing illegal occurred.  However, given this administration's track record for truth-telling, I will have greater faith in what the paper trail says, then what it tells me I should believe. 

There's no compelling reason to "come clean" that I even care about since this is an irritating distraction and I'm bored with the whole thing and furious at Congress for wasting effort chasing shadows.

I remember the Clinton inquisitions too.  Right now we're about 4,000 documents a day off the pace, and about 400 subpoenas a year short of that particularly ignominious standard.

The White House Christmas list; Travelgate; Vince Foster; even the Lewinsky scandals don't quite measure up to breaking with over 200 years of tradition in reference to these unprecedented removals, or the removal of the "advice and consent" provision from last year's Patriot Act, which may be connected to this issue.

I appreciate that your trust in George W. Bush is absolute.  Personally, I think he's probably a pretty decent guy with his family and friends, and I think he's probably doing his best, and means well. 

But just because a guy is a decent family man, who means well, doesn't men that he's a good president, who is getting good advice; or that he's exercising good judgment putting 33 year olds with no prosecutorial experience in charge of evaluating professionals who've been in the business for longer than those kids have been alive.

I don't believe our political system was built on the premise that "men are angels" to be trusted purely on faith.  Even men who wrap themselves in the language of the Bible, speak in moral platitudes, and cite Jesus as their favorite philosopher.

That's all well and good.  But in this case, I want to see the documentation so that I can draw my own conclusions. 

People who've been around Washington for a while aren't talking about the Clinton years now, so much as about Nixon.  When push came to shove, the Clinton people showed up--even in the majority of case when they didn't so much as receive a courtesy call before being slapped with a subpoena.

When Bush and his people are saying that Congress has no oversight over them, it worries me a little bit.  I'm reminded more of Nixon's statement that "When the president does it, it's legal" than "what is the meaning of 'is'?".

In my view, this adminsitration has developed a bunker mentality because of the aggressive nature of the attacks, not because of any nefarious intent.  They're clearly too inept to be that deceitful.  That said, what an objective, middle-of-the-roader sees is a large segment of the population with so much visceral hate and contempt for the man that they actual believe he must be guilty of something so incessant witch hunts are justified.  This is not good for the country and I'm sure we'll both be glad when he's gone for that reason if nothing else.

How? Actually, through being deceitful in matters of importance. His administration lied about WMD in Iraq, lied about Abu Ghraib, lied about illegal prisons, lied about torture, lied about domestic spying, lied about the firing of federal prosecutors.

I agree with you that they are inept, even at being deceitful, but they have been deceitful all along.

There's not enough room to deal with this here.  I just don't see the "deceit" you're seeing nor can I understand any reasoning for it...unless you are suggesting the President of the United States (1) wanted to intentionally start a war, (2) personally ordered the use of torture, (3) and is covering up a Watergate-level scandal with the Attorney's which are all unfounded and unsubstantiated mush coming from the kook world of Bush-haters.  Surely that's not your source?  The real "criminals" at Abu Ghraib were imprisoned. I personally like the secret prisons for terrorists (So has every other President and CIA Director to date) idea so we'll never agree on that.  I don't have a clue what you think he "lied" about regarding the surveillance of foreign contacts. 

I won't attempt to change your mind on these because it's clear you lost your objectivity years ago.  Let's just leave it at that or we can address each one on a more civil, respectful playing field with less incendiary characterizations.

One sure sign of lying is when you provide multiple explanations for the same action. Do I have to remind you the ongoing shift in explanations for the war in Iraq? Let's see, WMD, to win the hearts and minds of the Middle East, to establish democracy in Iraq.

How about torture? First they denied it, then they claimed that it was only a few people, and now they defend the practice by changing the definition of what torture is. Oh, I almost forgot that Bush himself fought against an anti-torture bill. If he were not using torture as a policy, he wouldn't care one way or another. But he did.

The same thing happened with the illegal prisons. First they denied that they existed, then they down played it, and now they defend their existence. In fact, you are doing this yourself :).

How about illegal domestic spying? First denial, then downplayed, then they defended the practice arguing that Bush was in his right to sign a document where he gave himself permission to break the law.

The prosecutor firing? First they denied that they were political dismissals, and now they are defending it by claiming that Bush was within his power. I believe that my source for this was the aid to Gonzalez, who said so under oath. But we shouldn't put believe him. You know how Republican lawyers working for Alberto Gonzalez can be such kooks, don't you?

Now, any child can see that there is a pattern here:

First the Bush administration denies X, then they down play it, and then they come back defending that they are in their right to do X as much as they want.

Any one can see that coming to the defense of a practice after denying it means that they lied when they first claimed that these events didn't happen.

Let me making even simpler: if you first say you didn't, and then you say it was okay that you did, you lied about doing it in the first place.

Don't you agree?

To be fair, Robert Ray determined that there was no credible evidence of any criminal activity. Ray's report further stated "there was no substantial and credible evidence that any senior White House official, or First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, was involved" in seeking the files.

Which goes to my original post.  I'm still trying to figure out why they were there at all.  Getting the truth out of any White House is never going to happen (as is so frequently pointed out here).

At least the Clinton's never ran away from a special prosecutor, or taking responsibility when it mattered (with the possible exception of the Rich pardon--which I would grant you ticked me off at the time--nothing compared to attorneygate).

Not too much mystery about what happened during Watergate or Iran Contra.  There's a difference between getting truth from White House spokesman, and getting truth period.  Most White Houses' spin--and the Clinton White House set a new standard on that front, I'll grant you.

But this Bush White House doesn't even bother to spin.  They just lie and lie and lie.  They aren't even putting the "good foot" forward (which is what spin is).  Bush wasn't lying when he joked in 2001 that you "can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the people who you want to focus on".

The U.S. Attorneys are listed as "at will" employees (i.e. people who can be fired "at will").  However, courts have traditionally qualified this "at will" authority in cases where the appointee has gone through the nomination process.

I'm guessing that the majority opinion in Myers vs. The United States (1926) is probably what the scholar was referring too.  However, other decisions e.g. Parsons vs. the United States (1897); and the Great debate of 1789 in the House of Representatives suggest that this authority is extremely broad, but still qualified.

The dissenting opinions in Myers v. U.S. absolutely eviscerate the majority opinion in my view (dissenting opinions written by legal heavy weights Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes; the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Taft, who was merely a heavy weight). 

Later courts did not seem to recognize the Myers opinion as "settled law".

The president clearly has broad authorities to fire subordinates; however, if the president, or one of his subordinates were to fire a U.S. Attorney with the express purpose of obstructing justice, this would seem to be a gross violation of his obligation to "faithfully execute" the laws and uphold the Constitution.

This seems like one obvious case where the "firing" authority is limited.

An interesting article related to this issue is at:

http://www.legalaffa...

http://michaeldorf.o...

I cannot say who is right in this.  However, bush-cheney have 0 credibility to me so I certainly wouldn't bet on them.

I don't have a problem with people having different opinions, and I don't have a problem when Democrats can't all get on the same page and collect enough votes to pass this bill or that bill.  At least they are thinking for themselves.  What I have a problem with is when almost every single republican votes to 'stay the course' when the majority of American people want to change course.  Exactly whom are these guys representing when they ignore their constituents and vote as they're told to vote by their party?  Do they ever form their own opinion on anything?

Americans are seeing zero return on investment.

While we nickel and dime common Americans, we have had unlimited spending for wars.

Bush and his Republican Congress can't stop talking about how much they support our troops, yet

* Our troops can't get good supplies
* Our troops couldn't get good body armor
* Our troops couldn't get armored vehicles
* Our troops couldn't have access to drinkable water
* Our veterans can't get proper medical treatment
* Our veterans were housed in rat infested, moldy rooms

So the money is not going to make the conditions of our troops any better. Where is it going then? Well, I heard that military contractors have done very well recently.

Where is the fiscal outrage on the war, then?

I don't disagree with you that we should reign pork, but let's target the biggest waste first: the failed Iraqi war.

Obviously the majority party disagrees or they simply could have voted to cut off the funding long ago.  Instead, they chose to add $21B in pork and graft to it.  Now who's "fiscally irresponsible"?

2. "Americans are seeing zero return on investment."

I'm pretty happy there've been no more 9/11's.  Pretty nice return on the investment as far as I'm concerned. 

3. "* Our troops can't get..."

Sorry, I work with these great kids at Quantico every day and none of them have voiced any of this.  I strongly suggest getting the real story from:
http://www.defendame...

4. "Our veterans..."

I thank you for your interest in us veterans but your implication that the Presidnet intentionally did any of this is absurd.  We real vets know that bad decisions were made relative to BRAC changes that put unaccountable people in charge of a facility that was ill-prepared for a larger influx of patients than expected.  We real vets know a "few" vets were "temporarily" housed in unacceptable quarters awaiting treatment.  We real vets appreciate the quick response of the administration to fix this. 

5. "So the money is not going to make the conditions of our troops any better."

I'm very familiar with what this supplemental funds and need to know what part of it (other than the Congressional bribery and pork) isn't going to help the military.  By the way, there's a great deal of R&D money ("emergency research"?--I don't think so!) in this supplemental I don't believe belongs in here so we may actually have some common ground for agreement if we can de-politicize the issue.

I fail to see how the war in Iraq is stopping terrorism. After all, Iraq didn't attack us. A government didn't attack us.

In fact, it was about 20 people who flew into the U.S. who carried out 9-11. And many were from Saudi Arabia.

So, since we are not fighting against Saudi Arabia, and a way in Iraq is not stopping Saudis from taking airplanes into the U.S. to carry out bombings, I believe that your statement is nonsensical. And it is up to you to prove otherwise.

I guess I hallucinated all the stories of bad body armor and bad water that I have been reading all of these years.  ;)

And I guess the buck doesn't stop with the president, who dragged his feet to visit the hospital. You can understand, it is all the way on the other side of the Washington, and traffic is terrible.

Now, let me ask you a question,

why do you want to continue a failed war?

Have we been attacked since?  Hussein was providing sanctuary to some terrorists displaced from Afghanistan like Zarqawi (got his wounded leg patched up for free in downtown Baghdad) and funding ($25,000 each) suicide bombers in Israel.  In short, bases and training camps were relocating there. By the way, looking at Spain, Britain, Phillipines, and elsewhere, this war hasn't "stopped" anything.  I strongly recommended you visit the following site regularly to see what we're up against. http://www.thereligi...

2. Your silly Saudi thing isn't worth responding to.  The Saudi's would have arrested them had they caught them as well.  Nationalities isn't the issue.  These animals are causing fits everywhere.  How about looking at this link to see what the Saudi's are up against:
http://en.wikipedia....

3. "I guess I hallucinated all the stories of bad body armor and bad water that I have been reading all of these years.  ;)"

Actually, yes.  Try expanding your reading list beyond the DailyKos...if you're serious about learning what's going from a soldier's perspective (which is highly unlikely) I'd recommend: http://www.defendame...

4. "...the president, who dragged his feet..."

Be honest.  Had he gone quicker, you'd have accused him of nothing but a photo op.  This is the President of the United States, not your local mayor.  He's a bit busy and I'm sure he got there when it fit in his schedule and the Secret Service could set it up.  He also gave the DoD a chance to get the facts straight and do their own internal investigation.  This President can't do anything right with you and that's clear from everything you've posted.  Try a little objectivity now and then.

5. "why do you want to continue a failed war?"

First, I don't accept the "failed" charaterization and secondly because I can look at what we're doing without interjecting pathetic petty politics into it.  Ooops!  I shouldn't have said that on a blog devoted to petty politics, should I?  Am I going to get banned?  Isn't it funny how those of you who scream "diversity" the loudest are the least tolerant among us when it comes to a diversity of opinion?  Funny, eh? 

You want to talk about terrorist bases relocating to Iraq?  Based on what?  There wouldn't have been much left to relocate if we hadn't abandoned the job in Afghanistan to take out Saddam, and even assuming for one moment (and not based on the manipulated data put out by this Administration) such bases were being built in Iraq, what would have stopped us from hitting them and disrupting their operations with air attacks and special forces raids?  Why shouldn't we have used a combination of carrot and stick diplomacy to get the surrounding countries to clamp down on them instead of taking over an entire country and creating thousands more terrorists?

Oh, and let's cry big, bitter tears for the poor old Saudis.  I remember shortly after 9/11 a reporter from the WaPo went to the Islamic Saudi Academy here in Northern Virginia, where he encountered kids who'd been taught by their extremist, freshly imported from Saudi Arabia Wahhabi teachers to hate our country.  One boy spoke of how ashamed he was that he was born in the United States, and said he hated the U.S. because it was against Islam.  Their books were full of the same vile anti-Semitic, anti-US, anti-Christian crap they're still pushing in SA. This school and dozens of others across the country were founded by the Saudi government using Saudi family money.  The same with the madrassas set up across Pakistan - set up with Saudi funding to train entire generations of Islamic extremists rather than teaching them anything about how to make a living or how to get along with the rest of humanity.  The number one college degree in SA, at least up until a year or two ago, was Islamic studies.  That's useful.  Now their chickens are coming home to roost and the Saudis, who as I recall used to hold telethons to collect money for the families of suicide bombers, suddenly realized they were no longer in control of their creation. 

I knew someone would poo-poo the web site.  How predictable is it that people are so quick to believe anti-American garbage and so quick to spit on our own soldiers calling them all liars.  If you want overblown horror stories and none of the good news then stick with the Treason Times. Personally, I'll trust the men and women in uniform I work with and served with over any other source no matter how much anyone denegrates them and trashes their honor and integrity. 

You completely missed the point about the Saudi's.  It was in response to a previous suggestion that we should have attacked SA because a bunch of the 9/11 nutcases were from there.  In other words, hold their government responsible.  I simply pointed out that these same people are attacking the House of Saud as well.  Yes, there's a segment with SA (and yemen, and Kuwait, and UAE, etc) that feed this.  Those "chickens" as you described them.  There's been a lot of cooperation in shutting some of it down but there's a long way to go.  I wouldn't pay much attention to college degrees in Saudi universities since anyone in power has gotten their education in Europe or here in the U.S. -- ironic, huh? 

...and click on the Afghan Update to get a quick news update from a soldier.

Your response that "people are so quick to believe anti-American garbage and so quick to spit on our own soldiers calling them all liars" is completely over the line, troll.  You're sounding more like Dubya every day and just as offensive.  I have NEVER called our soldiers liars and I sure as hell haven't spat on them either, so take it back!  I have had family over there.  I have another family member who will be there within a few months with the Marines.  I've had friends there, friends of my family there, etc.  I deal with people going to and returning from there all the time.  It's you calling our soldiers liars with your denial of problems with the armor, with your denial of problems with training, with supplies, with overstretched overworked resources, with the same people saying they're tired of being sent back into the meat grinder over and over for a cause amorphously called "victory" which has no discernible beginning or end.  You think the only soldiers worth listening to are the ones whose stories are featured on your favorite propaganda site?  Well, I think the stories of ALL the military should be listened to, and there are plenty of them wondering why they have to keep doing this and plenty who want it to end.  Same for their families who are being asked to make all the sacrifices while our president tells us to go shopping.

And you completely missed MY point about the Saudis.  They AND their government have always been in bed with the Wahhabis.  Read their schoolbooks.  Look at their news stories from a few years ago.  They did not turn on their homegrown terrorists until the terrorists came for them, and then they suddenly saw the light.  They paid out money to suicide bombers just as Saddam did. I still remember watching the story on CNN about the telethons collecting money for the suicide bombers.  You know no one holds a telethon in SA without the government's say-so. Even today their schoolbooks describe Jews as pig-dogs and promote sectarian hatred.  For a guy who claims to know so much you sound woefully naive about the extent of Saudi responsibility for and involvement in the development of extremist Islam. 

Check your facts skippy.  I never said there weren't logistics challenges over there and in fact posted somewhere about how the supplemental wasn't enough to cover the cost of repair & maintenance for the vehicles getting chewed up in the weather conditions over there.  What I DON'T do is blame everything on one man because of my obsessive, visceral hate for him.  There are about four levels of civilians and political appointees responsible for this in the Pentagon I'd like to kick long before i ever got to the White House.  You hate him so much you actually believe he is intentionally causing these problems which is bordering on looney.

I also DON'T politicized a soldier's desire to tell us how proud he to have built a school for a village that hasn't had one.  What kind of American treats his own military like they were merely little Goebbels propagandists?  Shouldn't you be proud of these great kids and the fantastic job they're doing?  What happened to the pride and respect for our soldiers we used to have?

OK, you don't like "dubya" - I got it.  But why does that have to translate into trashing everything the guys in uniform are doing?

We're talking past each other on the Saudi thing -- I agree with everything you wrote.  Nice job.

There's also a thing called "truth by anecdote".  If you draw a general principle from the 1 in 40,000 scenario, you're saying that the aberration is the rule, rather than an aberration. 

Anyone who wants a complete, all sides, uncensored picture of the war from the point of view of the military should go to the Doonesbury website, to the milblog called The Sandbox.  There you will find stories, poems, videos, and essays from all points of view.

Detcord, get off your high horse and take down that straw man you keep setting up.  It's perfectly possible to approve of the great work of our troops, to be proud of the good things they do, and still to oppose this war.  I'm proud of my friends and family who have served.  That doesn't mean I think it was a good thing to send them there.

I'm setting up no straw man and actually agree with every word you wrote in that wonderful last paragraph. No one hates war more than a warrior because they have the most to lose.  But when given a job to do, they do and do it wonderfully so let's keep the focus on what it takes to get them home rather than trying to play gotcha with the great job they're doing. Opposition to war is normal and healthy.  Lindbergh's America First party almost kept us out of World War II until the ugliness of what we were facing was finally revelaed to the nation.  I spent nearly 30 years in uniform protecting the right to dissent and love watching the debate.  But if oppossition to the war is based on nothing more than a personal, visceral hatred for a single person, it's in another category and one that is harmful to our nation. 

Again, you're writing as if Goebbel himself was the editor of this site calling into question the integrity and honor of these great kids in a difficult situation.  Do you honestly believe American military members sit around a newsroom thinking of ways to "validate" a war at the request of political masters?

About that soldier; yes watching anyone die (especially in war -- been there, done that) is not a nice thing to go through.  But it happens and you deal with it.  Even children become victims.  Just under 11 million children a year die from preventable things like pneumonia, malaria, diarrhea and malnutrition.  Where's the commensurate outrage at that?  Heck, just here in the US 2,000 a year die from child abuse, 2000 from fires, 6,500 in car accidents about 1,200 from drowning.  Where's the outrage at that?  Are we really talking about blaming America for the death that soldier witnessed? That's what this is really all about, isn't it.