I hate this ad.

It's only 31 seconds long and has a simple message, but it makes me cry. It hurts, seeing political divisions hurt our country like this. It hurts because I should still be in the Army, but I left it. It hurts because while I'm too much of a chauvanist to want my daughter to serve, I'm hoping next February brings a son who will serve- and I don't want his service (or his life, for that matter) to be wasted. Especially not in the same war that my service was wasted in. I was in OIF2 and the last thing I want to see is my son sweating out OIF26. And OIF28. And OIF30 and OIF32, and as many more as stop-loss brings him to, which will probably be several. If we stay the course too much longer, civilians who happen to walk past recruiting offices are going to get stop-lossed.

This ad covers a lot of ground, with just a few simple, loving words.

The Senators wake up.

It's been painfully obvious since the Abu Ghraib 2003 yearbook came out that the idiots in the pictures weren't working alone. Yes, their behavior was disgraceful and wrong, but it pales in comparison to the behavior of their superiors- commissioned, appointed and elected. Even the early news stories about it in 2004 mentioned General Miller and his input, but it's taken another four years for anyone to notice- and that asshole is collecting a pension.

Well, it turns out the Senate Armed Services Committee decided to show up for work today. La-di-fucking-da. This hearing is more than four years too late, and directing any intelligent thought at all to Iraq comes six years too late. Where I come from, AWOL becomes desertion after 30 days.

It's easy to point out that the Democrats weren't in control back then, but that's irrelevant. This issue isn't about what party you belong to, it's about being an American. The complete lack of legislative oversight here is simply disgusting and they were all complicit in what was done, party or no party. The nicest thing I can say about the Republicans is that they're all a bunch of spineless yes men, and the nicest thing I can say about the Democrats is that they're all a bunch of ball-less whiners. We've got an Army that's falling apart, we've got men and women dying (not to mention all the Iraqi deaths on our hands), and Congress is more concerned with Robert's Rules of Order than anything else. They voted for the war and they've been falling all over themselves to borrow Chinese money to fund it, but they've never bothered to look at what we're actually doing.

So- our Executive branch elected types need to be impeached and our Executive branch appointed types need to go to jail. Our General Officers need to be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and discharged. The retired ones need to be recalled to active duty for the same treatment. Our Legislative branch types need to be replaced. We ditched a bunch of them in 2006, but they haven't exactly been doing a stellar job since then- making meaningless statements and then folding to avoid being accused of "not supporting our troops." The Legislative [edit- Judicial] hasn't been doing too badly this month- barely, by a slim 5-4 margin. I'll be looking at that after I've finished reading their opinions.

What's lost in this is that abuse and torture is now recognized as being official United States government policy. The United States, if I recall correctly, was founded on the belief "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," and "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted..." The founding of the country is one thing, but the government itself is based on principles like "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial... and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense" and "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

I maintain that when the leaders of the government deliberately and systematically refuse to obey the rules that constitute that government, then they are not acting as government officials, but as criminals operating under the color of authority.

I would like to end with more of the document that established the United States:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation.

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit...

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury.

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences.

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies.

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments.

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown...

British Crown? I was expecting it to say "Bush administration." We've got to do something about these people. It's sad that the Democratic Party is the closest thing we have to an answer.

Dick Cheney truly understood Iraq. Seriously.

People have called Dick Cheney a lot of things, but he is not a stupid man. In fact, he has shown more true insight into the U.S. military involvement with Iraq than any other member of the Bush administration. I'm serious. Unfortunately, it was during the other Bush administration.

On the invading of Iraq:

"Should we, perhaps, have gone in to Baghdad? Should we have gotten involved to a greater extent then we did? Did we leave the job in some respects unfinished? I think the answer is a resounding "no." One of the reasons we were successful from a military perspective was because we had very clear-cut military objectives. The President gave us an assignment that could be achieved by the application of military force. He said, "Liberate Kuwait." He said, "Destroy Saddam Hussein's offensive capability," his capacity to threaten his neighbors -- both definable military objectives. You give me that kind of an assignment, I can go put together, as the Chiefs, General Powell, and General Schwarzkopf masterfully did, a battle plan to do exactly that. And as soon as we had achieved those objectives, we stopped hostilities, on the grounds that we had in fact fulfilled our objective.

I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place.

What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?

I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq."

Man, those were the days, weren't they? Back when Dick Cheney recognized that the military could handle military missions, i.e. breaking stuff, and not much else. That was back when Dick Cheney understood that Iraq was "inherently unstable" and that the strongman would have to be replaced by one of the factions and we would have to be that "weakman's" muscle to make him strong enough to hold power. That was back when he understood that we would have to take casualties to keep the puppet regime in power and that that regime wouldn't be secure after we left. That was before he ran Halliburton and later decided to tell America that "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."

He even addressed the nuts and bolts of invading Iraq:

"I am personally persuaded that there are thousands of Americans home with their families today, and more on the way home who would not be coming home at all, if it hadn't been for the President's decision to double the force when he did last November to make certain that we could prevail in the shortest possible time and at the lowest possible cost.

One of the lessons that comes out of all of this is we should not ask our military personnel to engage "a little bit" in a war. If you are going to go to war, let's send the whole group; let's make certain that we've got a force of sufficient size, as we did when we went into Kuwait, so that we do not suffer any more casualties than are absolutely necessary."

Here, Cheney is showing that Donald Rumsfeld was woefully incapable of filling his shoes as Secretary of Defense. Cheney in 1990 knew that an overwhelming force was worth building up because it would insure success while minimizing losses. Rumsfeld wasn't as astute, with his "Surely 125,000 would suffice."

Dick Cheney's 1991 assessment of our military operations against Iraq appear especially ironic when looked at after our 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 operations against Iraq, which he himself sold to the country as a war that would last "weeks rather than months."

In light of the disastrous war and occupation that he helped sell the country, in light of the breakdown of recruiting and retention that the military is suffering, Cheney's closing remarks are especially telling:

"I think the friends of the United States, not only in the Middle East but around the world, can look to the United States with renewed confidence that we have not only the capacity to protect our friends and observe our commitments, but we have the will to protect our friends and keep our commitments. And that, too, is a very significant development."