READ THIS NOW!

Sobering......

How soon before the republicans call these brave soldiers "soft on terrorism?" How soon before the pentagon files charges against them?

What an article. I love each one of those guys and pray for their safety.

Those last two lines are devastating, in view of the mindless, brazen, and immoral cheerleading of cowardly weasels like William "Get My War Wood On" Kristol and the shameless propaganda that soft-headed and soft-handed shills like O'Hanlon repeat endlessly to mainstream media dupes like Tim Russert.

This is indeed accurate and courageous. Unfortunately, it will be gone and forgotten by Tuesday and no one will pay a whit more attention to it. Criminal, but in our short-attention-span, voyeuristic, sensationalism-addicted country, we simply can not sustain interest in the complexities involved in truly grasping and coming to terms with our occupation of Iraq, or our bungling of the "War on Terror(ists?)." The public will want Paris and Brittany. The press will drop the ball. Congress will let it lie. We will proceed happily along in our ignorance as more Americans and Iraqis perish. That's just the way it is. That's why we are where we are, 4+ years and tens of thousands of lives later.

Terrific piece. Thanks for pointing me to it, Joe.

But Andy had the same first thought I had -- it'll only be a matter of hours before the right-wing blogs turn all their hatred on these soldiers for daring to break with the party line.

Just like Beauchamp, Tillman, Lynch and others, as soon as the troops dare to offer their insight and puncture the neocon fantasy, the right will show just how much they support the troops.

Palooka Joe has Seriously found his inner backbone. Or something like that. It's several years overdue, but better late than never. If only you, and your cohorts, had displayed this kind of "courage" when it counted -- when Bush and the war weren't so unpopular. A) There's a possibility we would never have been stuck in Iraq in the first place; and B) You could actually claim to have been right all along, and be speaking demonstrable truth. As it is, you look like you're still just following the herd.

A sudden thought: if you keep writing stories like these, will you get invited back to Iraq to meet with Petraeus? Or have you calculated that, by the time it becomes expeditious for you to make another of your "fact finding trips," Petraeus will no longer be relevant? I swear, dealing with you people is like being an old-school Kremlinologist, always trying to read between the lines that might be between the lines.

But none of those guys has a paid seat at a Beltway foundation, a radio talk show, or a weekly column in the New York Times, so how can we consider them to be Very Serious People (VSP's)??? What would Little Tommy Friedman say???

An incredible piece. How sad that our soldiers are being forced not only to fight the war on the battlefield, but the war for truth back at home because our journalist corps have failed their duty. Fortunately men like these are capable and brave enough to do both. Along with the commenters above, I too worry about what the establishment will do to this piece and its authors; though I am interested to see how they will be able to do that and still make the case of being the "real" supporters of the troops while discrediting one who was shot in the head in service to his country.

"What would Little Tommy Friedman say???"

The same thing he always says -- it's too soon to make a decision on Iraq right now, but The Next Six Months Will Be Pivotal!

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Is it only the people inside the Beltway who consider Friedman worth listening to on foreign affairs? Or anything for that matter?

CentristDem-- yes, the press will drop the ball. Just in the past couple weeks, while they've been running alongside Rove cheering on his valedictory lap, here a just a couple things that the press never really paid any attention to--

1) The president was revealed to have been treated last year for a serious illness (Lyme Disease) which has all sorts of possible heart and neuro complications. The president seems to have escaped those, but who knows? The same press that darkly used John Kerry's desire to withhold his 30-year-old military medical records (which probably showed that he once got treated for what young sailors get treated for, big deal) decided that the serving president getting treated in secret for a serious disease and withholding that-- a president, btw, whose behavior grows ever more irrational-- isn't worth noting.

2) Jose Padilla, an American citizen held without trial and without even counsel for years, was finally convicted in a criminal court (and that trial was forced on the administration, who would have preferred to keep him in "sensory deprivation" and probably torturing him for another few years) for charges that bore little relationship to the original "terrorism" charges and will probably be overturned on appeal. (It's very hard to argue, as the prosecutors will have to argue, that Padilla's long, un-attorneyed imprisonment and probable torture constitute a "fair trial".) There were a few stories, most calling this a victory of sorts for the administration, when it was anything but, and not bothering to speculate what all this means about what Bush's group has done to the American system of justice.

So these brave soldiers have risked their careers by going public... and it will also fall into the maw of press apathy. Joe, you can actually -post- about this, summarize, analyze, punditicize-- tell us who these people are, what risks they're facing, how what they say contrasts with the party line, how credible they are, etc. Analyze what they say, don't just link to it. It's at least as important as something some candidate tosses off in a debate.

What I find most interesting is that despite the authors painting their mission as hopeless and fatally flawed, they will continue to "see this mission through."

To continue to follow a commander-in-chief and execute a mission you don't believe in...I don't know if that's blind stupidity or incredible bravery. Since they have no choice, I'd have to say the latter.

Thanks for linking to this. It is a spectacular and sobering article.

Lord knows we need more like this. I don't think that it's an exaggeration to say that people like Mike O'Hanlon are engaged in something altogether different than trying accurately to describe what's going on in Iraq.

Let's hope these guys all stay safe.

Whatever you think of Joe's judgment on Iraq, you've got to admit that he's generally a pretty reliable weatherwane when it comes to determining which way the Establishment Pundit Political Winds are blowing on any given issue.

Joe's increasing stridency in denouncing Iraq war cheerleading gives me some hope that the political climate may have changed enough in the past couple of months to prevent stay-the-course types from successfully using the White House's "Petreaus" report in September as political cover for more staying the course.

Today, Joe Klein writes that "shame is the appropriate word" to describe "all the Kristol, McCain, Lieberman, Pollack and O'Hanlon etc etc cheerleading of the past two months."

In real-time, Joe's tone was quite different in assessing Pollack and O'Hanlon's Iraq cheerleading. Back then it wasn't "shame on them" at all. Joe wrote:

"I agree with many, but not all, of the conclusions Ken Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon reach in this NY Times column, but you really can't write a piece about the wae [sic] in Iraq and devote only two sentences to the political situation, which is disastrous and, as Petraeus has said, will determine the success or failure of the overall effort."

I'm not complaining, though. Like I said, Joe's change in tone gives me some hope that the Establishment Conventional Wisdom on Iraq is changing.

Here's hoping that Joe will actually support Democratic attempts to force the administration to start withdrawing forces from Iraq come September, instead of rolling his eyes at Democratic "futility" and urging compliance with Republican efforts to provide stay-the-course types with political cover to continue staying the course.

Here's my speculation as to how the choice will present itself in September:

The White House "Petraeus" Report is going to argue that "progress" is being made, that there are serious problems and failures and mistakes that must be acknowledged, and that the solution to the problem is ultimately political not military. The Establishment Pundit Corps will go wild with approval at these candid, no-nonsense acknowledgment that all is not well in Iraq.

The policy recommendation from the White House -- dressed up as hard-nosed, independent advice from Military Saint David Petraeus -- will be stay-the-course, dressed up as a gradual troop withdrawal to compel the Iraqis to reach political compromise. The policy recommendation will be a very, very gradual reduction in force levels -- extremely gradual and subject to reversal at any time if "conditions on the ground" so require -- in order to force the Iraqis to "step up".

In practice, this route would allow the White House to keep the war going until the next president takes office, which appears to be the real Iraq policy.

In the real world, the political choice will be: A) take the bait and let the administration stay the course, which "moderate" Republicans, Blue Dog Democrats and the Cocktail Party Pundit Establishment will want to do, or B) reject the flim-flam as an obvious bait-and-switch and try to pass binding legislation mandating the beginning of a withdrawal from Iraq.

When the time comes, will Joe get behind option A and demand that the Democrats take the bait (again), or will he (finally) get behind attempts to compel the administration to begin withdrawing forces from Iraq?

If you'd asked me this question two weeks ago, I would have said it was a no-brainer: Joe would ultimately back stay-the-course, as he has at every significant juncture in the past, on the theory that withdrawal plans with teeth are inherently reckless and irresponsible (and futile anyway).

But now I'm not so sure. His rhetoric is increasingly inconsistent with staying the course, no matter how it's dressed up. Come September, can Joe stridently argue that the occupation is a hopeless failure but continue to oppose all actual plans to compel the administration to withdraw?

Yes, this is the single best piece I've seen. Sober, clear, focused on the real issues, and making very clear that what the US is doing in Iraq is not addressing any of the real issues.

Friedman has the misfortune of running on the facing page today. An excerpt:

"There’s only one thing at this stage that would truly impress me, and it is this: proof that there is an Iraq, proof that there is a coalition of Iraqi Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds who share our vision of a unified, multiparty, power-sharing, democratizing Iraq and who are willing to forge a social contract that will allow them to maintain such an Iraq — without U.S. troops.

Because if that is not the case, even if U.S. troops create more pockets of security via the surge, they will have no one to hand these pockets to who can maintain them without us. In other words, the only people who can prove that the surge is working are the Iraqis, and the way they prove that is by showing that violence is down in areas where there are no U.S. troops or where U.S. troops have come and gone."

The contrast between his blather and these soldiers' analysis is very striking.

The history of the administration and the 5 O'clock Follies [Rummy's Operation Information Control] makes these guys even more believable. Plus, I always think of the Gen. Eisenhower, "The Sergeant in the Army".

I was going to post this link to CNN's "This Week at War" featuring Michael O'Hanlon, Lt. Gen. Odom, Damon and Ware. Foreman introduces the program mentioning the segment, but the transcript is minus O'Hanlon's 'astute assessment' which most of us are totally familiar with. Odom's response to O'Hanlon is included, "I put it in the category too ridiculous to refute."

http://transcriptS.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0708/18/tww.01.html

A big Shout Out to these guys who are it putting on the line in Iraq and in the Press. I think it has been said before that leadership does not measure up to the troops.

Thx Joe for posting this.

[There is some interesting stuff on down about Afghanistan and then more raising the question of Russia/North Pole]

Ok, so the defeatists on the left have found eight soldiers out of 130000 who are serving so bravely in Iraq to defend us against the scourge of the twenty first century.

Before the cutters and runners start celebrating this as some sort of validation of their cowardice, they better pay attention to the 129992 of our courageous young men and women who are willing to sacrifice their lives for our most exalted dear leader.

Victory to our savior, George Walker Bush!

Elvis,

I really like your new blog. Your extended commentary is top notch. Time ought to hire you.

Here's hoping for a wide audience.

Good stuff: breaks my heart. OK forget the right wing mullahs and their blather. Let us do something practical. Find out where Sgt Murphy will be hospitalised here and have those nearby visit him and be supportive of the family. These guys must be helped, and any effort by the army to make life difficult for them should be publicised. IOW: let us keep an eye on things by actually getting involved. I am out of the country but will gladly contribute funds to help the Murphy family cope with hospital visits. They must know we will be there to publicise their problems if they come against the Army bureaucracy. So if some one can set up a fund which must be managed scrupulously I am in.

This is an exquisitely written piece: no false bravado, no self pity, no defeatism: just a realistic assessment.

Now any ideas on practical help?

Before the cutters and runners start celebrating this as some sort of validation of their cowardice, they better pay attention to the 129992 of our courageous young men and women who are willing to sacrifice their lives for our most exalted dear leader

You do realize that one of the writers was shot in the head, don't you? Shot. In. The. Head.

Please spare us your cut and paste lecture on courage.

Vietnam redux. Because of our military superiority, we win every battle...while losing a war that can't be won..

What the neocons were thinking all along was that this was going to be a "good old fasioned war."
w w w dot youtube dot com/watch?v=Z9ktamP2Dp8

In honor of those who face death every day and a warning (that will obviously go unheeded) to the ball-less war-criminals who sacrifice brave men/women for their personal enrichment this is Bob Dylan singing "John Brown"

w w w dot youtube dot com/watch?v=Z9ktamP2Dp8

John Brown went off to war to fight on a foreign shore.
His mama sure was proud of him!
He stood straight and tall in his uniform and all.
His mama's face broke out all in a grin.

"Oh son, you look so fine, I'm glad you're a son of mine,
You make me proud to know you hold a gun.
Do what the captain says, lots of medals you will get,
And we'll put them on the wall when you come home."

As that old train pulled out, John's ma began to shout,
Tellin' ev'ryone in the neighborhood:
"That's my son that's about to go, he's a soldier now, you know."
She made well sure her neighbors understood.

She got a letter once in a while and her face broke into a smile
As she showed them to the people from next door.
And she bragged about her son with his uniform and gun,
And these things you called a good old-fashioned war.

Oh! Good old-fashioned war!

Then the letters ceased to come, for a long time they did not come.
They ceased to come for about ten months or more.
Then a letter finally came saying, "Go down and meet the train.
Your son's a-coming home from the war."

She smiled and went right down, she looked everywhere around
But she could not see her soldier son in sight.
But as all the people passed, she saw her son at last,
When she did she could hardly believe her eyes.

Oh his face was all shot up and his hand was all blown off
And he wore a metal brace around his waist.
He whispered kind of slow, in a voice she did not know,
While she couldn't even recognize his face!

Oh! Lord! Not even recognize his face.

"Oh tell me, my darling son, pray tell me what they done.
How is it you come to be this way?"
He tried his best to talk but his mouth could hardly move
And the mother had to turn her face away.

"Don't you remember, Ma, when I went off to war
You thought it was the best thing I could do?
I was on the battleground, you were home . . . acting proud.
You wasn't there standing in my shoes."

"Oh, and I thought when I was there, God, what am I doing here?
I'm a-tryin' to kill somebody or die tryin'.
But the thing that scared me most was when my enemy came close
And I saw that his face looked just like mine."

Oh! Lord! Just like mine!

"And I couldn't help but think, through the thunder rolling and stink,
That I was just a puppet in a play.
And through the roar and smoke, this string is finally broke,
And a cannon ball blew my eyes away."

As he turned away to walk, his Ma was still in shock
At seein' the metal brace that helped him stand.
But as he turned to go, he called his mother close
And he dropped his medals down into her hand.

I think that guy Gregor was being ironic... if not, scary!

Anyway, I agree with Joe, incredible courage to write this piece. I expected to follow the link to an anonymously written tome, but there are their names and ranks, at the beginning and end of the piece. What a contrast to the "senior administration officials" that currently serve as the primary sources for most of our pundits today.

Field Marshall Joe Klein declares that this "account" by a whopping seven (7 out of about 160,000!) soldiers is "the most accurate and courageous ... account of the war in Iraq that I have seen."
"[A]ccurate"? "[C]ourageous"? Translation: If someone agrees with the fantasies of Joe Klein, then that person is not only "accurate" but "courageous" as well. ROTFLMAO! BTW, to which unit do these "courageous" soldiers belong? More importantly, what are the jobs of these "courageous" soldiers? Infantry or do they make coffee for JAG officers? The New York Times conveniently left out that important detail.

Quoting Tom: "What are the jobs of these 'courageous' soldiers? Infantry or do they make coffee for JAG officers."

From the article: "In the course of writing this article ... one of us, Staff Sergeant Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a 'time-sensitive target acquisition mission' on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive and is being flown to a military hospital in the United States.)"

I don't need your apology, Tom, but Staff Sergeant Murphy certainly deserves it.

For the folks like Tom who have limited reading skills, one of the writers of the piece, Staff Sergeant Jeremy Murphy, an "Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader" was just days ago shot in the head while on patrol.

Oh, I forgot, guys like Tom don't have to actually know how to read to have an uninformed opinion.

Tom:

Good point. We need knowledgeable guys like you to point out that when you make weak coffee for a JAG--you get shot in the head. Thanks for the reality check. Now go read the article.

At least these soldiers are not criticizing our dear leader's sense of fashion. That's a very good sign that they still respect him, as every American citizen is dutybound to do, or else the President has every power to order the government officials to engage in intelligence activities that ameliorate the unfortunate circumstance into which such misguided citizens may have befallen.

Oh, Gregor, Gregor, Gregor are you who Nicholas Murray Butler was referring to when he said, "America is the best half-educated country in the world."?

First of all, math 'r hard. US troop numbers in Iraq are currently at 162,000 with an expected increase to 170,000.

'exalted dear leader'...'savior'...My, my how that sounds like you are a N. Korean referring to Kim Jong Ill. I know that 'I trust God speaks through me' is a quote attributed to Pres. GW Bush along with the statement about the Constitution being a goddamn piece of paper. An attitude that seems to have been verified with Gonzales saying the the Constitution is an outdated document. [two folks who have sworn an oath to be care takers of the that very document and take their powers of office from it] But, just because the 'Decider' says it, it does not follow that it is true.

Just a reminder that the military takes an oath to first defend the Constitutions and to follow 'lawful' orders which these guys seemed to have covered by the statement of completing the mission.

Prayers and thoughts to Mrs. Murphy and family and her very fine son, Sgt. Murphy. May we work to ensure that he not become another forgotten, invisible veteran.

Twice these guys have put it on the line. Once to serve and now to sign their names to this op-ed. Which reminds me about Lt. Col. Yingling. How is he doing?

"Oh, Gregor, Gregor, Gregor are you who Nicholas Murray Butler was referring to when he said, "America is the best half-educated country in the world."?"

-----------------------

I think he's being sarcastic, Linda.

- Scott

In a world in which Hanlon and Pollack are called 'war critics' by the MSM, how is this gonna make a diff?

Can help but notice Joe hasn't written any of his super secret info driven posts lately. Remember, Joe turned on John Kerry after he wouldn't heed his advice re health care. Payback for not getting his super secret info fix? It's a good post, but I have to wonder what Joe's personal motivation is for it because....well, because he's Joe.

Thanks a ton, James, for your encouragement.

I better update it now to get that offensive headline off of the top of the screen...

No I'm fully educated enough to know we are winning this war, I should know...I've been fighting it from home. No, you don't have to enlist to fight this war, there are lots of ways to fight it. Like posting to libtard web sites and calling in to the Rush Limbaugh show and thats what people like me and Tom do.

Scott: Thx, I got the 'colbertism' after the second post. Sunday dead head here.

How are you and your family doing? Thinking of your loss. Glad you are back commenting.

The previous post by 'gregor' was not the person who wrote the previous ones which I am sad to say were lost on many.

"The White House "Petraeus" Report is going to argue that "progress" is being made, that there are serious problems and failures and mistakes that must be acknowledged, and that the solution to the problem is ultimately political not military. The Establishment Pundit Corps will go wild with approval at these candid, no-nonsense acknowledgment that all is not well in Iraq."

Ultimately, this post by Joe might just be the same thing, namely, a prerequisite post in which Joe shares his concerns w/ us so that at a later date, Joe can make a tough and serious decision that yes, we should continue the surge strategy despite its flaws.

"Scott: Thx, I got the 'colbertism' after the second post. Sunday dead head here.

How are you and your family doing? Thinking of your loss. Glad you are back commenting."

----------------------------------------

My family is doing well. I was close with my cousin, because he was more or less my best friend for the first 25 years of my life.

He was a big believer of the initial invasion of Iraq - I was not. He signed up for the military in 2003, while the U.S. was still in the initial invasion phase.

I had actually warned and pleaded with him, forseeing some of the problems we have today were coming. That is why his death hit home so badly with me. By the time he finally was deployed to Iraq, he knew the reality of the war - it was a politically sustained meat grinder

But not to ramble, his body has been buried, and we are all trying to move forward. It's just really tough losing someone you knew and loved so dearly.

- Scott

Should the comments of these soldiers gain any steam on the conservative pundit airwaves and pages, we should expect no less than the following reaction:

1. Leave it to a liberal outlet like the NY Times to trumpet the few opinions of a small band of defeatists amidst an army of brave and determined soldiers.
2. A "Swift Boat Campaign" to undermine the authors' credibility.
3. Counter opinions from higher ranking soldiers condescendingly placing the authors' opinions in the context of those not fully informed of the bigger picture of success that we all seem to be missing.
4. A chorus of frustration by others bravely serving in the military wondering out loud why our liberal media absolutely refuses to publish any positive reports on Iraq but makes daily headlines with negative reports.

Several of my Republican friends with relatives serving in Iraq as well neighbors who have served on more than one tour often raise this last point the loudest. I'm told that many of our brave soldiers seethe about the media's refusal to make positive material known to the the general public. Gains in infrastructure, development of schools, and health care systems, all go ignored I'm told. With conservative outlets like Fox News, O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, and an administration desperate to report anything upbeat to rally support for our continued efforts in Iraq, I'm at a loss to understand how any positive events could go unreported. When I mentioned this thought to one neighbor whose husband is serving his second tour as a helicopter safety officer, she replied that we cannot reveal the specifics of new schools and hospitals for fear that they might become immediate bombing targets...

What say you, Joe Klein, leader of the vast left-wing media conspiracy?

Quoting Andy from Maine: "How soon before the republicans call these brave soldiers "soft on terrorism?" How soon before the pentagon files charges against them?"

Quoting Rob: "..it'll only be a matter of hours before the right-wing blogs turn all their hatred on these soldiers for daring to break with the party line. Just like Beauchamp, Tillman, Lynch and others, as soon as the troops dare to offer their insight and puncture the neocon fantasy, the right will show just how much they support the troops."

WELL GUYS IT DIDN'T TAKE LONG DID IT? A Few Posts Later, There It Was, in the Form of "Tom."

Quoting Tom: "What are the jobs of these 'courageous' soldiers? Infantry or do they make coffee for JAG officers."

Thank you, Hoplite, for calling Joe on his late entry into the DFH (read, "correct in every prediction") camp.

Yay!
Illegal war for illegalities!
Condemn all the war criminals.
This will be the way to do it!

Sounds like we need to pull out and glass the place and be done with it.

Bell County Democrat: It's good news that we are winning. Now what does victory look like? What will the last battle look like? In fact, take us back to what our war aims are. Are the war aims 5% accomplished or 95%? How would anyone know?

Kudos for calling attention to this story, with urgency, Joe.

Am I the only one who has noticed Joe's posts in the past week or so have been pretty good?

- Scott

It's a shame we don't have this kind of candor and clear-headedness from the people who actually run this freaking country, or from the people on my TV, or the editorial pages of the Washington Post, or from most other supposedly "very serious" publications... In short, from anyone who obviously should know better.

Scottoest, Mr. Klein's efforts are indeed getting better, but they could be better still. As September approaches, Mr. Klein has yet to take a position on the actual policy question, or, rather, he is defined by the policy positions that he has taken, including: (1) supporting the supplemental appropriation in May while ridiculing Democrats for opposing it, thus granting at least 6 months more space for the Bush occupation policy; and (2) supporting the "mushy toothless" Salazar approach to the defense authorization bill while ridiculing Democrats for supporting the Levin-Reed and Webb, amendments which would have actually required meaningful policy changes.

The NYTimes op-ed by the troops is indeed well-written, but Mr. Klein didn't write it. That he linked to it is a positive sign, but he still has miles to go before he sleeps. Mr. Klein needs to actually oppose the semi-permanent occupation of Iraq and he needs to support concrete efforts to change the policy. He needs to stop ridiculing war opponents constantly and start ridiculing the Kristols and O'Hanlons consistently.

Is Klein changing? Not near enough as yet to suit me. Meanwhile, we're losing 75+ U.S. troops per month and spending $2 and 1/2 billion per week.

"That he linked to it is a positive sign, but he still has miles to go before he sleeps. Mr. Klein needs to actually oppose the semi-permanent occupation of Iraq and he needs to support concrete efforts to change the policy. He needs to stop ridiculing war opponents constantly and start ridiculing the Kristols and O'Hanlons consistently"

-------------------------------------

In all fairness, all I think Joe needs to do is honestly report the facts. It should not be the job of a reporter to take an activist stance either way - you then open yourself up to claims of bias, no matter how unwarranted.

I do agree that there is a long road ahead of him. I was just pointing out things have gotten a lot better in the past week. It was good of him to try and point this story out - it is something people need to read.

- Scott

Posted by Scottoest
August 19, 2007

In all fairness, all I think Joe needs to do is honestly report the facts. It should not be the job of a reporter to take an activist stance either way - you then open yourself up to claims of bias, no matter how unwarranted.

--------------------

Klein seldom "works" as a reporter these days; usually he's just sharing his infinite wisdom in his role as a pundit. There's nothing wrong with being an activist as a pundit, and PJ actually does it fairly often. It's just that the stands he chooses to take and avoid have been predictable and safe, and you get the feeling he spends most of his (these days limited) mental energy trying to figure out what the proper thing to say is, rather than what the proper *thing*, according to his professed values, is. I agree that he, and some of the other yardbirds here are getting better, but it doesn't make up for the past, and it doesn't mean they won't slip back into the tank as soon as they think it suits them. And the system itself is still stacked, with crazed conservatives all over the pages of major publications (like Time) and the TV screens, while equally crazed liberals are nowhere to be found, except on something like Counterpunch.

Read this now. Damn Right. At the risk of some harmless personal criticism, someone should take this article and stuff it down Kristol's throat. Then they should find Fred "the beatle" Barnes and shove.......

Thanks Joe.

The Dems should use this op-ed like the right used Hanlon's crap.

Then attack the hell out of the wingnuts if they try to smear them for not supporting the troops.

These brave troops are putting their careers and their lives on the line, so the left better have their backs.

Hey Joe, this sure doesn't sound anything like the crap you've been spewing about the war does it.

First, I don't know why people like Joe Klein still have a job after how wrong they've been on just about everything for the past 4 years concerning Iraq, yet cheerleading the effort endlessly. It is only now, when the public is demanding our exit that SOME pundits, like SOME Republican Congressmen (and women), are changing their tune. I guess it helps them sleep at night for cheerleading the hundreds of thousands who are dead because they had no spine to actually stand up years ago. If the liberal billionaires would actually buy out these media outlets and can the cheerleaders, we could get back to real journalism.

Second, kudo's to the person who correctly called that it wouldn't take long for the Republican blog hit-squad to defame the soldiers. It is their MO - use the military when it suits them, attack when it doesn't. So much for supporting the troops.

Third, and lastly, when more adults like these NCO's stand up, MAYBE we can get out of Iraq. Until then, BOTH Parties will continue to play political games with their lives.

Sorry Say Joe, nothing new here, including the limp major media's attempts to slap our troops by pitting the NCO's against the officers (where are the CSM's on this topic? Warrant Officers?), not unlike Hillary's pitting the Guard & Reserves against the regulars.

And 5 (five) exhausted guys tired of their ground situation (comes through loud and clear, indeed -- like in EVERY OTHER WAR, not just this one) does not a tactical policy make -- or an excuse for GIVING UP the truth about progress in Iraq (REAL), our resolve to win (REAL), and our disdain for media sycophant malcontents lacking the big picture while sipping lattes at the NY Timid.

Yes, Iraq is a very tough and un-American place, like a family dog that's been kicked over and over and over into trembling submission (to anyone), and 30 years of Stalinism and Wilsonian neglect will not be fixed soon.

Yes, the stakes there are very real, to our troops, their kin, their communities.

Yes, the Iraqis lacking some Articles of Confederation as reference points not provided by the MisState Department has been poor performance again from the pandering McGovernite careerist pinheads of Foggy Bottoms. Please don't mention DC's lifer civilian (liberal mole) hamstringing our dispensing of DIRECT AID to Iraqis, as that common knowledge would not sit too well with the old lefty agenda (America's defeat, at home and abroad) either.

That does not mean this fight is without great merit, purpose, direction, or hope.

And if you Kos Klowns think a quick retreat will increase our safety or world peace or diminish terrorism, think again: That IS exactly what the Iranian thugs pulling the EFP strings wish, and any such removal of our power in the region in the short run would be patently, undeniably irresponsible.

Nancy Pelosi doesn't want her grandkids to go to Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Sudan to re-fight the terror scum in 10 years?

Then support the ultimatum to IRAN, now, while the fire is in the frying pan -- and we have the air power armada deployed to make it stick.

Unless you flaming Rangel Rangers have completed your NTC days, and iGore III's finished tanker school, and the Kennedy Klan has re-upped with the 82nd Airborne...

Lead, follow, or go back to Baltimore.

PS: When you see James Earline Crater next, ask him if he remembers anything older than 15 minutes about modern Iranian world leadership.

"They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal."

???

Time to call the JAG about these defeatist, Mother Jones munching dolts.

Thanks Joe. But I wonder where you have been the last couple of years. Where is your courage to do real reporting? Or would that lead to you not having memebership in the "cool kids" club.

These troops are indeed brave, and probably have ruined any career in the military they thought of having.

If the U.S. had not entered Iraq (again) after 9-11, and Saddam had taken possession of his latest shipment of SCUDs from North Korea (they were en route BEFORE we intervened, again), and Saddam had managed to unleash another dozen or so SCUDs filled with sarin or anthrax on say Beirut's Christian population, or Tel Aviv, or the Arabian oil ports next door, or the Kurds (again), or Kuwait (again)...

WHAT would the world response have been to THAT lack of action (where Clinton's inability to see anything beyond his bent prick doomed us to Khobar, USS Cole, African embassies, and a thousand other not small cuts before Ground Zero Day)?

You leftist twerps think a President Gore would have let Saddam alone, after 9-11?

Iraq has the opportunity, at great costs on all sides, to finally right their ship of state and move into a peaceful future. Whether Iran, or Syria, or Pakistan, or Turkey, or the New York Times will agree with that should be beyond the point, at this late date.

The idiots that signed their names to this stupid, short-sighted, and historically void "news opinion" need to spend a few hours chatting with John McCain, or the Boat People survivors, or maybe they can wiccan up the ghosts of the Killing Fields or re-education camps, before they assume the cause lost and the war pointless (unless they want their kids to do it all over again, lacking success this go-round).

BTW, New York Timers: When you print something like this without noting the specific positions of the alleged writers (are they armor? logistics? mess tent?) you do yourselves and your readers little actual good -- and in fact harm the reputations of the vast majority of our professional, volunteer, and successful troops (that did NOT sign off on this crap, nor Abu Ghraib, nor your make-believe "abuses" at Gitmo, or any of the other repeated media fraggings of our armed forces). Cowardly, and no other word.

Scott, I understand your point, but it isn't a matter of "fairness" - rather, it is a matter of one of the biggest boneheaded strategic blunders the U.S. has ever made combined with Mr. Klein's advocacy of it thrown in with his relentless ridicule, belittling and demeaning of Democrats who opposed the supplemental in May and attempted to add meaningful substantive amendments to the defense authorization in early August. You say he is just supposed to "report facts." That isn't what he has been doing - just this year, he penned a wildly inappropriate derogatory jeremiad against Paul Krugman, he's name-called Kerry repeatedly and he hasn't hesitated to express his dubious opinions on quite a few subjects.

But it is now crunch time. If Bush is ever to be stopped or even mildly hindered prior ro 1/20/09, it will or will not happen in the next few weeks. Will Mr. Klein ever advocate withdrawal? Will Mr. Klein ever support any meaningful substantive effort to oppose Bush in our legislature? Will he ever add his (considerable) voice to our efforts?

Right now, Klein is in roughly the same political posture as the "moderate sensible" Republicans. He says he's against the war, but he won't support anything that would actually alter policy. Despite repeated historical usages of date-setting, timelines and triggers for political accomodation, ranging from Ireland, to Hong Kong, to the Philippines, to Somalia, to Vietnam to the many, many arguably successful examples of date setting in iraq itself, Mr. Klein has heretofore ridiculed anyone who supports a withdrawal date, or even a date upon which withdrawal would commence.

He says his next column will be important - we'll see. History will render its judgment.

I just faxed my DC delegation, and asked that these "troops" (bottle washers) be investigated, for aiding & abetting the enemy.

Unconscionable smearing of our leadership, and our actual professional military.

Too bad the nation has lost the nerve to prosecute the sorry likes of the Times and Time too.

Thanks, Joe.

I wouldn't have read this otherwise.

The Times' Op-Ed is so worthless, that I rarely find it less than aggravating to look at.

This was something I needed to read.

Well done, I appreciate it.

"What say you, Joe Klein, leader of the vast left-wing media conspiracy?"

He doesn't say anything.

He just repeats whatever Joe Biden copied out of Maddie Halfbright's latest paid speech at Howard Dean U.

"Scott, I understand your point, but it isn't a matter of "fairness" - rather, it is a matter of one of the biggest boneheaded strategic blunders the U.S. has ever made combined with Mr. Klein's advocacy of it thrown in with his relentless ridicule, belittling and demeaning of Democrats who opposed the supplemental in May and attempted to add meaningful substantive amendments to the defense authorization in early August. You say he is just supposed to "report facts." That isn't what he has been doing - just this year, he penned a wildly inappropriate derogatory jeremiad against Paul Krugman, he's name-called Kerry repeatedly and he hasn't hesitated to express his dubious opinions on quite a few subjects."

--------------------------------------

That is exactly my point, and this can be my retort to Hoplite too. I wasn't arguing that Joe was actually doing his JOB. I was just stating what I think a reporters job should be.

If reporters do their jobs, then there is no need for one to ever take an activist stance - the facts will always speak for themselves. They have no bias, and they do not lie. You don't need a bunch of meandering rhetoric to dishonestly steer people in one direction or the other.

The vast majority of reporters are currently NOT doing their jobs. They cherry pick information, and coalesce around other people who share their views, and subsequently write articles to serve a certain viewpoint. "Pundits" are one of the worst things to happen to democracy, because they get to say whatever they want while still commanding almost the same amount of integrity and reverence that a journalist would.

As an example, a lot of the Rebpulican trolling in the comments here is no different than your typical Limbaugh punditry - a lot of creative namecalling and "gut feelings", with little substance or un-biased fact to support it all.

In a roundabout way, we all kind of agree that journalists are not doing their job, and certainly are not being as critical of the information they are fed, as they well should be.

I simply disagree with the notion that journalists should be spread into camps, and pushing certain viewpoints. When that happens, the truth gets lost somewhere in between.

- Scott

I see that the shock troops from the 101st Fighting Keyboarders' Cognitive Dissonance & Intellectual Paucity Company have arrived on schedule, armed with their usual combat loadout of insults for troops who don't agree with them and their idealogies.

Well done, lads. Now back down to the Mom's Basement. BF2142 and Combat Glory awaits.

Anyone seen my gerbil?

the "real arch stanton" or whoever you are...

I kidnapped your gerbil and will waterboard him if you do not recant your support for illegal immigration.

A US official said recent US military intelligence reports sent to the White House had concluded that Britain had "lost" Basra and that Pentagon war games were predicting a virtual civil war in the south once British troops left.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/british-military-sparks-us-fears-of-losing-basra/2007/08/19/1187462088134.html?page=2

We could never 'win' in Iraq. We were dishonest and dishonorable in our invastion. That sealed our fate.

Depends on what you define what win is.

If win is deposing Saddam and demonstrating that there is no WMD threat from Iraq then ok, we did it, now let's go.

Let them have their civil war. The iraqis need to figure it out for themselves. If a regime arises that is hostile or if we find evidence of terrorist activities then next time we glass the area in question.

Of course for a liberal there can be no winning of the white house if there is any win in iraq.

I realize it's nearly impossible to conduct an intelligent discussion in a blog, with extremists at both end of the political spectrum trolling, sucking up any semblance reason, and resorting to juvenile insults and name-calling.

I would like to point out, however, that the Klein bashing (I am not a particular fan, either, but time and place, people!) is diverting attention from the important issues these men risked their careers, and perhaps their personal safety, to bring forth. I kind of think we owe it to them to stay on topic and keep the issues they raised in the forefront. The Klein thing is shallow, petty, and inconsequential in comparison, and helps accomplish the burial of the issue in a mountain of distracting trivia. I wish we wouldn't do that. I believe it's an insult to these brave men to allow ourselves to become side-tracked.

It's bad enough we have people from the Bush/Cheney camp burying the story here and elsewhere with their usual incoherent ranting; we don't have to help them along with their trivialization by resorting to it ourselves.

"In all fairness, all I think Joe needs to do is honestly report the facts. It should not be the job of a reporter to take an activist stance either way - you then open yourself up to claims of bias, no matter how unwarranted."

"I wasn't arguing that Joe was actually doing his JOB. I was just stating what I think a reporters job should be."

Scott, Joe is TIME's political columnist. He isn't supposed to mask his biases or refrain from stating his opinions. That's actually not a fair criticism of Joe's work.

I agree with Patroclus -- it's nice that Joe is linking to good articles and that he seems to have changed his tone on Iraq cheerleading. But he comes to this with a track record of consistently opposing legislative attempts to compel the administration to begin withdrawing from Iraq.

These are brave men, unlike the pundits of the right. I spend a lot of time on Red State, LGF, as well as Crooks & Liars and TPM and, guess what, no mention of this on Red State or LGF, yet, chicken-hawks!

So the fighting keyboardists have to come here . . . with statements that if the situation were reversed, would get them kicked out of Red State or LGF.

Welcome to the land of the free, guys. I hope you'll allow the same freedoms to these five brave guys.

For those of you who still haven't figured out who these guys are and what they do I suggest rereading the very first paragraph: "As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division..." Your lack of the most basic understanding of this piece seriously calls into question anything else you might have included in your posts.

You can't win a war if the sergeants don't buy into it any longer.Unfortunately,the chickenhawks in the administration and the media are too dim to realize this fact.

If Joe Klein is finally turning against giving the NeoCons more Friedman (bloody) Units, we may soon see the light at the end of the Iraq tunnel.

To Question Hillary:

Regarding your comment,
...nothing new here, including the limp major media's attempts to slap our troops by pitting the NCO's against the officers....

Where in the piece did you read these officers' comments against other officers?

This should be required reading by everyone in this country and most especially all of our elected officials. Finally the truth in plain english. Don't twist their words just open your eyes to the truth. May they come home safe and soon.

THE TRUTH IS THAT THIS IS WAR CRIME AND IMPEACHMENT MUST BE DONE TO STOP IT NOW NOW NOW!

I respect these two people's opinions on how their experience in the Iraq conflict was. I want to thank these brave men for giving us the opportunity to live in a country as great as America.

This is an opinion piece called "The War as We Saw It." I have also heard many different assessments from other soldiers. I have also talked to a couple of soldiers just home. Their conversations paint a different view than these two. That they can't believe how the war is being portrayed that there is much more positives than people realize.

However I know that two people can look at something and see two totally different things. Its as obvious as reading the blogs here. People here for some reason think socialism and communism is a good thing so go figure.

I prefer to get a little better consensus. Maybe of more than the opinion of two soldiers to base my feelings on an entire war. I think it is good insite, but two peoples' account doesn't make it fact.

Actually, it's *seven* soldiers' account of what they saw, but who really cares anyway?

Judegment - shut up neocon! If you support this illegal war and won't listen to the soldiers who are over there illegally then you need to go to the enlistment office and go over there yourself and learn the truth that you fail and refuse to see.

"Suit accusing Rumsfeld of ignoring torture dropped" http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/27/iraq.torturesuit/index.html?iref=werecommend

Story Highlights• NEW: Government officials cannot be sued for actions while in office, judge says
• NEW: Prisoners: Rumsfeld and other military officials knew of alleged torture
• Detainees: Torture included being shocked, stripped naked and anally probed
• Charges were brought by human rights groups on behalf of nine detainees

I know this is old news ... but wern't all the Nazi war criminals "Government officials cannot (who were) be sued (and excicuted) for actions while in office." Just wondering.

"...Where in the piece did you read these officers' comments against other officers?"

Let me guess, you still work at Kinko's.

Anyone care to educate this tenured civy on order of rank?

I simply don't have the 3 extra hours today.

The Treatment of veterans that served the Nation is neither fair nor reasonable. Those that say they are trying to help Veterans are doing little but seen as doing a lot. The following is not addressed nor will they be unless America and the voters make them. None of them is on the forefront of the listed issues.

Some of the issues are as follows:

• The amount of time just to get a compensation and pension examination and putting the Veteran off hoping that they will go away.
• Having the compensation and pension examination done by a qualified doctor as outlined in the worksheet to get the compensation.
• The rating officer making a decision on the compensation and pension examination findings lowering or denying them based on a judgment without medical training or even seeing the veteran to save paying them. The veteran having to appeal the ruling to get it and the time require doing it.
• The way that Combined Ratings are figured, using percent efficient left to figure the added disabilities.
• The rate table used to pay veterans is not equitable jumping 40% between 90% disability and 100% disability if a veteran can get 100%.
• Payment of mileage to Veterans going to hospital has not changed since 1977 yet, fuel prices are at least three times what they were then.
• When there is a mistake at the hospital or training program the Veteran must file and 1151 and bring a tort in Federal Court compensated for even though the Veterans Administration knows what happened, the hope being that the Veteran dies and it does not need to pay.
• For a Veteran that can not work or get 100 percent disability his family must now make the money to run the house, after supporting the veteran in the Countries war.

Washington tells America that they are taking care of Veterans but they do just enough to quiet those that don’t know the real issues. What are those in office now doing to make things right, they could take action now but they just talk!

Gee, Joe, you were just telling us things are going well in Anbar province. And you are a real, serious reporter, with serious sources.

Are you suggesting that a bunch of noncoms with direct experience of Iraq know more than you do? What has come over you?

well, this thread shows you how much the wing nuts really love the troops. look at all the invective aimed at our soldiers. ah, chicken hawks, they love them some gi joe cartoons, but real soldiers,eh just read the thread.

Hilarious how klein could be duped by some people who wrote an op/ed article. Just goes to show that a democrat will believe any negative piece of news from any source, even if the source is questionable (at best).

Having friends on the ground in Iraq, unlike mr. klein, who's busy in his posh apartment in manhattan or some other liberal fantasy-land, I can tell you that things have improved dramatically.

I believe people who are actually there, not some paid democrat spokespeople.

Yeah, I heard there was some demolition work done in northern Iraq last week, ModerateAmerica. Maybe they'll build a WalMart there!

Some ealier comments suggested a willingness to help the authors, and particulary Jeremy Murphy, the soldier who was shot in the head just prior to publication of the op-ed. Sgt Murphy has been evacuated to a hospital in the DC/Bethesda area. The shot went clear through his head. His situation was critical for a time, with brain swelling, but appears to be stabilizing. It's unclear how severe the damage will be and what kind of rehabilitation will be necessary. To support the family with immediate and long-term costs of healthcare, friends and supporters have established the Jeremy Murphy Assistance Fund. If you would indeed like to help, that would be a good way. Checks payable to The Jeremy Murphy Assistance Fund can be mailed to The Jeremy Murphy Assistance Fund, Washington Mutual Bank, Snohomish WA 98290. Regardless, I (and the family) appreciate the wide-spread support the soldiers have received.

One additional comment for those who choose to disagree with the soldiers: While the soldiers expected disagreement, they have made a strong effort to express themselves in professional, respectful terms. At the same time, as Jeremy’s sacrifice attests, they have demonstrated their willingness to give 100 percent of themselves to the war—a daily willingness to sacrifice and, if necessary, die for duty and patriotism. For that reason, they have earned the right of respect, however you may feel about the war, and however you may feel about their opinions. For an example of thoughtful, constructive disagreement, see the response by Blackfive at http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/08/coin-on-the-war.html. Thanks.

I was very much struck by the extreme literacy of the NCOs' statement.

This is a sign that the Armed Forces are serving the role that they have performed back to Truman, as a route to upward mobility for the excellent who are held back in civilian life.

Slightly differently, for the past five or ten years the Service Academies have had entrance-level SAT cut-offs higher than those of the traditional leaders, MIT, SoCal, Harvard.

This may be because middle class incomes have declined under Bush, so that there is more pressure for even the best to take the free skool at the expense of a few years in the military.

The good side of this is that it means that our military leadership comes from the people, rather than from the draft dodgers of the Pay-To-Go-To-Yale oil-well social class.

I think it is important to give some meaning to the phrase "cut and run."

Staying the course, the opposite of cutting and running, would have consisted of putting in place an Occupation like that of General MacArthur in Japan or Paul Nitze and his cohorts in Germany in the period 1945~52 in Germany.

Now it's possible that Jay Garner -- who always looked a little bit puzzled to me -- or Paul Bremer, a man crippled by his inability to see anything bigger than the local Republican club on his mediocre campus, or Negroponte, a thug who apparently spends his time drinking at his downtown Washington club, appalled, like MacNamara before him, at the evil he has done during his career, might have been a MacArthur or a Nitze.

It's not, however, bloody likely.

This is because the neo-cons live in dreamland. (I predicted this beforehand, but now it's simply an empirical observation.) Bring on Mary Martin hanging from her wire across the stage: "Wishing makes it so."

The neo-con dream might have had a chance -- but from the outset it was subject to an elementary challenge: Why Saddam? Why not Mugabe?

This reminds me a little of Bertrand Russell's definition of a utilitarian. "A utilitarian is a person who, serving on a jury, asks not whether the accused is guilty but who is the best person to hang."

* * *

Enough.

Bush is a fool and a war criminal. Rumsfeld is a is mediocrity and a war criminal. Cheney, before his likely brain damage, was a very bright man, and since his brain went he is still a war criminal.

* * * *

The coda: I don't think that most of the world care about American deaths in Iraq, except perhaps to be sorry that none of them is named "Bush" or "Cheney" or some other chickenhawk name.

What all decent people care about is the Hell that Bush has brought to the Middle East. Every daily killing is the responsibility of George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Cheney, and their evil gang of criminal conspirators.

I hear in the news today that two of the authors of this Op-Ed have been given the Paul Wellstone treatment.

As someone remarked before, there were real consequences for these people speaking out ...

Fantastic ！！！Thanx，Joe
We got the best m4v converter to convert m4v
A good helper with your converting…..m4v to avi m4v to wmv
Ultra QuickTime m4v to mpeg Converter is a powerful tool to help you convert，from m4v to mp4 and to many other formats。

M4V Converter free download center- ALL M4V conversion tools which help you feel free to convert M4V to MP3, AVI, WMV, MPEG, FLV, 3GP, WMA. And useful Guide on How to Deal with M4V files.
m4v converter
convert m4v
Ultra Quicktime M4V converter currently is the best M4V converter which can convert Quicktime movie M4V to AVI, MPEG, MP4, MPG, WMV, ASF and Vob. As we know Quicktime movie usually has the video formats of M4V, MOV, QT, MP4, and M4V, With this M4V Converter, you can feel free to Convert them all with fast speed and high output quality.
m4v to avi
m4v to wmv
With the fast and powerful QuickTime video decoder inside, Ultra QuickTime M4V Converter supports almost all MOV, QT, MP4, M4V files, even QuickTime Player has not been installed. Integrated High-speed MPEG-2 encoder which let you convert M4V to DVD-Video files(VIDEO_TS, AUDIO_TS) and VCD/SVCD image(*.bin,*.cue), so you can burn VCD/SVCD/DVD disc easily from QuickTime files by using third-party buring tools. It is a software program for converting video formats at fast speeds and high quality. Very user-friendly interface and Quality Profiles.
m4v to mpeg
m4v to mp4