First I would like to congradulate Mr. Ritter as a true American hero.

I think that we do need some type of national service to draw us all together and to keep us out of further wars.

But I disagree with his analysis of Cindy Sheehan. We need all the people we can to get out there and tell the truth (just like you did), yes most of them will go by the wayside, but sooner or later somebody(s) is going to figure out how to grab the short hairs of the American people and lead us away from the darkening cloud of facsism, I doubt it will be CIndy Sheehan, but we need more people talking and screaming, not less.

I have been stating for some time that Sheehan is becoming a negative for the anti-war movement...

WHAT ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT? Sheehan pretty much IS the anti-war movement. The rest are sleeping, or in the case of Ritter, sabotaging it.

I fully agree with national service (if a non-military servide option is provided), and sure, everyone should read the constitution - why aren't the schools teaching it?

But, what the hell does this have to do with stopping the US from the current and future murderous wars for big business? Neither of these measures will prevent the mass mass media machine from banging the war drums - the populace stepping smartly into line - next time.

And with regard to his confusing "fireman benchmark" remark, most firemen - notably the small-town volunteer fire companies Ritter seems to be referring to, are pretty jingoistic and fully support the war.

Great essay Mr. Ritter. I have been stating for some time that Sheehan is becoming a negative for the anti-war movement. I'm suprised to read so many negative comments about your article. The idea of a 2 year civic service obligation is a good starting point in that debate. I like better the idea of having US citizens by birth take a test on the US Constitution.....imagine half the dittoeheads commenting here would flunk it. Keep up the good work Scott.

I am against the idea of mandatory national service, especially in the format that Mr. Ritter laid out. The first step is BOOT CAMP, a.k.a., shaving our kids heads and calling them maggots for two months. As others have pointed out, "...compulsory military basic training, in which the draftee would be imbued with discipline and the necessity of adhering to a chain of command..." is the kind of brainwashing that is hurting our country (what percentage of the troops believe that the Iraq was tied to 9/11...60+%).

Beyond the brainwashing, what more are we going to throw onto the youth of the US? Being a thirty-something, I am beginning comprehend the selling out of my generation by the "baby boomers". Today, the US will admit to approximately 9 trillion dollars of debt. This does not account for the roughly 50+ trillion dollars in unfunded mandates!! Nor does it account for the aging infrastructure and abysmal health care system.

Beyond the debt, education is more expensive (essentially their first mortgage), middle class pay is stagnant (thank you globalization), and most professional jobs are being outsourced to the lowest bidder (thanks again globalization). If those weren't enough hurdles, let's add another 2-3 years of national service to their load!

And please don't kid yourselves by believing that the upper crust would not find a way for their spawn of getting out of the mandatory national service program. So forget the mandatory part.

If it were truly mandatory, it would a broader age range. Starting on JANUARY 1 2009, ALL UNITED STATES CITIZENS BETWEEN THE AGES OF 18 AND 65 ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE 2 YEARS OF MANDATORY NATIONAL SERVICE BY 2019. FAILURE TO COMPLY WOULD LEAD TO ONES EXPULSION OF THESE UNITED STATES.

All of the problems in these United States cannot be put onto the shoulders of our youth. These are OUR problems and WE should be the ones to fix them.

Jamkin, states:

"our understandng that unfettered capitalism and corporate control of the US's political institutions has sharpened,"

What is fettered capitalism?

Why do we continue to discuss half of the problem. The subjective political side.

The political always supports the economic. This seems to be the problem.

An economic systems that puts making maximum profit over peoples needs, can't be reformed by changing people on the local school boards, or the congress.

Several potentially very powerful American advocacy groups have been derelict of their civic responsibility to organize, practice non-violent resistance and point the way to a better direction for this nation throughout the Bush-Cheney degeneracy. These include center and left-of-center churches, temples and spiritual leaders who, by now, should have been ONE broad coalition calling together massive protest events numbering in the millions; artists and musicians who have embarrassingly failed to learn from the rich artistic example set in the 1960s of how to stimulate public reflection upon the increasingly militarist nature of the country and the world they inhabit in a way that is effective and culturally permeating; and the deans of our universities' journalism schools who have let big money donations from corporate news celebrity alums trump any real academic commitment to promote professional journalistic standards and ethics outside academe in the robber baron world of corporatist McJournalism (almost Halliburtalism these daze).

Still, real change seldom comes to the U.S. unless enough of its middle- and professional classes get their teeth kicked in by cold hard economics or by dint of having their progeny drafted into wars, a la The Great Depression & World War II. A similar cycle is gathering up its storm intensity even as I type. "United States of Amnesia," quoth Gore Vidal. Studs Terkel says it's more like a "United States of Alzheimers."

Take a good hard look at our economy. There has been no true economic middle-class growth engine since the double whammy of the NAFTA/WTO regime and the end of the dot.com boom over 7 years ago. The largest housing equity bubble in history is rapidly imploding. Congressional pimps are out touting more "free trade" treaties to further export our middle-class. Our only big ticket industrial manufacturing export item is WEAPONS SYSTEMS.

Hence the recent breathless announcement--right in the middle of all the carnage from Pakistan to Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and Somalia that already threatens a regional war dragging in Iran, Syria and Turkey--of a $50 Billion dollar weapons deal for the allegedly "moderate Sunni oil sheikdoms" and Israel.

Fuel for a calculated wider conflagration--what early neo-con Bernard Lewis referred to as the "Lebanonization of the Middle East"? Divide, conquer, manipulate the sheiks, mullahs and dictators to control all their oil? Or just desperate Bush-Cheney (TM) despotism because the domestic American economy has no other growth engine to forestall an increasingly costly foreign oil-dependent but industrially (in terms of civilian industries) under-productive economic collapse of the middle-class?

Our neo-conservatized ruling class & their media arm can't see the complex political, economic, tribal and sectarian nuances of a regional Oil/Terror War for all the geo-petrol dollar signs. They've repeatedly proven their incompetence regarding any realistic political & economic reconstruction component to their stunted vision, and only know how to topple weak regimes into armed, religiously extremist chaos. The blowback is coming and there is no good resolution to the failed States we've created and/or worsened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia and, soon enough, Pakistan--coming from the dumbed-down, lazy "Amurkan" Right, Center, Left or Far Left.

Those Muslim sects over there are over 600 years old and their tribes are thousands of years old. They practice vendetta for tribal reasons and jihad for religious ones. Even the British Empire, which was far better at real empire than we'll ever be, failed three times to take and hold Afghanistan alone. Amurkan oil and natural gas pipelines through that region from Central Asia to Lebanon are insecure and will only get more insecure because of the strategic and tactical incompetence of our political, military and corporatist media classes.

Thus, if Congressional Democrats outside the DLC, most liberal progressives, and the micro-issue wonders and LGBT one-issue navel gazers of the teeny-tiny Far Left had their heads screwed on even just a little bit, then they'd all be pounding on the doors of Congress demanding a 5-to-8 year, nationally prioritized, energy transition policy away from dependence on foreign oil or resurgent nuclear power such as the "Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy" plan, a link for which can be found at:
http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0730-05.htm

Ritter's firefighting analogy suffers only from its smallness. It's called taking out flood insurance when the climatologists and weathermen are predicting increased storm intensity and flooding and New Orleans gets destroyed by Katrina as an object lesson. The same thing applies to our don't-think-about-it-as-we-punch-the-gas-pedal over-dependence on foreign oil and our drooling mouth-breather over-tolerance for Team Bush's depredations upon ALL our most basic freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Our unsustainable economic model and our Patriot Act/Executive Re-Ordered civil liberties are a couple of major hits on our overseas oil supply away from being Katrina-sized in a way that will cause a hell of a lot more domestic carnage and upheaval than Katrina.

Mexico is becoming an unstable oil supplier rife with growing internal resistance movements and Chavez in Venezuela is moving toward a new model of looking after his own people's needs as his top priority--for as long as his oil holds out. Our "free trade" self-induced oil competitors in India and China (especially) are cutting separate deals for shares of the world oil pie over which we briefly had post-Soviet dominance. In short, our deregulatory globalist robber barons and Amurkans' thoughtless appetites for oil coupled to our abnegation of our civic duty to participate meaningfully in our own governance have boxed Amurka into a corner. [The perfect time to export a Simpsons movie to the world to show what a collective fart in a trance with itself Bush's Amurka has truly become.]

If the Middle East and/or Central Asia goes up in the flames of a regional war, ignited by Bush's Oil Terror Wars and fed by our colossal weapons deals that will arm both Israel and Israel's enemies, and this regional war shuts down just enough of our foreign oil supply for long enough, it's game over. All the Amurkans who sat on their asses these last 7 years will be off their asses desperately trying to survive and organize (as a distant second thought) whether they want to or not. All the intellectual chit-chat over which anti-war ideology is most crunk will truly be evolutionary roadkill. Our national strategic oil reserve can only protect us for a couple of years or less--at best.

Barring no comprehensive national energy transition policy as I have indicated above, it will be those with land on the rural side, their own well for water, the ability to grow or barter for their own food and generate their own active & passive solar energy, their own wind energy or their own geo-thermal energy (which Bush II already has powering HIS ranch) who stand a chance of surviving. Amurka's overteeming cities will become harsh nightmares overnight.

Ritter and Sheehan are both right about one thing. It's time to get serious about what form of government under which we shall struggle to survive.

Marxist analysis, Marx is the best antidote, cure, medicine for US problems. We need to merge Marxism with US constitution. What Chavez did in Venezuela. He Mixed Venezuela's constitution ideals + marxism, this cured Venezuela's fascist oligarchic problems. The same needs to be done to USA, the best cure for USA and the world is to mix local culture, patriotism, constitutionalism with Marxism. Marx was/is international and could be applied in every country

National service is at the top of my list of useful reforms. We would not be in Iraq still if the military included conscripts. Can't think of anything better to focus public interest on foreign policy then kith & kin on the front lines. That notion, as much as or more than my fear of the new, professional, praetorian guard, makes me yearn for he good ol' days of the draft. Today's anti-war movement would be incomparably enhanced by protests against, what else? -the draft! Its an institution we can usefully love to hate.

I enlisted in '68 because I believed strongly in serving my country, objected to the selective opt out of my student deferment, but just as strongly opposed the war. As an active duty activist in the GI movement, I got the best of both worlds (and an abrupt national security discharge for my good works). The officers expediting my separation from the service with the urgency of expelling a leper found my idea of serving the country perverse, but it seemed to me the better part of valor.

Having no beef with the necessity of having a military or with military life as such, I was powerfully impressed by the integrative experience of being thrown together with people of diverse backgrounds and experiences. Wastrels like myself learned, if nothing else, how to get up, show up, and get along. Priceless.

As fundamentalist preachers know well (unfortunate but useful analogy), nothing binds people to institutions like sharing the toil of making them work. Democracy is strengthened by participation at all levels. Young people spending a year or three serving their country -in uniform or otherwise- will forever after know they have an investment in their society. Like a mandatory savings account of civic virtue.

Our consumer society and that idiot in the White House are more than happy to make shopping the only merit badge anyone needs to earn. Freedom ain't free and it's debased by being put on sale. The alternative to bread and circuses is works and services.

PJD,

I suppose I could have worded my response differently. My intention was to convey the notion that we must accept that the audience has those perspectives and that bad data, not that we must adopt them. And so progressives must fashion their arguments given the perspectives and data of the audience. Otherwise, we are just preaching to the choir.

I live in a conservative area and I sometimes have success in convincing conservatives that the US should pull out because the "war" is unwinnable. I do not tell them I believe the invasion was immoral and unjustifiable from the beginning as I know that argument will not work, given their perspectives and beliefs.

I do not accept most of what Ritter wrote either, except I do like the part about democracy being a game of numbers.

"one has to understand and accept the various perspectives and interests of the audience, as well as the bad data that they may have been provided"

But if I accept these perspectives and bad data; than the invasion, occupation, and all of Bush's foreign policy are fully justified and I have no choice but to change my mind and support Bush and his war!

We are not looking for "irrefutable truths" - that is a red herring. I never used the word "truth". And I'm not being black-or-white or Manichean. But Ritter is asking us to argue against Bush's conduct and foreign policy, while accepting the popular mythology that fully justify that policy. How do you argue against something while accepting the premises supporting the thing you are arguing against?

...And, I just realized why i find Ritters piece so maddening and insulting - because he is trying to do just exactly the above, and looking like a fool doing it!

Mr Ritter,

I have enjoyed reading your material from time to time and attended your lecture in Olympia. Thanks for sharing your thoughts again.

John Conyers wrote a book on the need for impeaching Cheney and Bush. Why shouldn't Sheehan give him grief for saying impeachment is now off the table?

Further, Conyers' response to Sheehan was there aren't the votes to pass this so the bill won't leave his committee to be discussed on the floor. That is like saying you won't play if you know you can't win.

It was through sit-ins, arrests, and Kent State style conflagrations that prompted groundswell popular unrest – enough people asking why the Casey Sheehan's were dying -- that brought about both the end to the Vietnam war and the resignation of Nixon. The mere threat of impeachment was enough, then. Those rag-tag malcontents!

Regarding the numbers game: Never mind the number of ballots we now know were incorrectly counted that incorrectly put B&C in office. We know that a significant number of cities, townships, counties, and states are crafting their own "official" statements and messages demanding that Congress move on the impeachment process. We are dealing with significantly larger numbers than the rag-tag Sheehan misfits in Conyers' office. Polls show this, too.

When 60-80 percent of the population thought we should go to war, all but one in congress voted to grant the president the use of military force. Currently, about 50 percent of the population favor impeachment. Why is it ok for you that the issue can't even be discussed (even if it is defeated) on the House floor? Impeachment proceedings allow We the People to see how well our representatives represent us. ("You are either with us or against us.") Even if Bush and Cheney aren't removed from office, the process has value. An impeachment bill stuck in committee only engenders still more atrocities and outrage.

That Clinton lied to Congress about his personal life was sufficiently egregious to the Constitution to warrant impeachment proceedings. The President Does Not Lie To Congress. As you say, Bush has done as much. That Congress is complicit or not is beside the point. Impeachment is the Constitution's tool appropriate for this situation. Now. Not your national service program some time in the future.

Pelosi, Reid, and other naysayers claim that impeachment is a distraction from all the "real" work they are trying to accomplish and besides the process would take too long (2 months for Clinton, 3 for Nixon, 6 years not doing it with Bush and Cheney.) Suddenly, Congress is very concerned about health care, education reform, and such. As if all those important issues are suddenly more important than the ONLY thing our Congress folk are sworn to do: Defend the Constitution.

PS

I do, in fact, love your idea of a national service. Unfortunately, it will never materialize because there simply aren't the votes to pass it. Please, stop bothering the Senators and Representatives with it.

PJD,

In the hard sciences, one can run rigorous experiments to verify or discard hypotheses and theories. In the soft sciences and all other areas of inquiry, such experimentation is not possible and one is left with evidence, of various sorts and reliability, and refutable argument (a hypothesis). Determining an irrefutable truth in such domains is beyond reach. And democracy is about convincing a majority that an argument, based on a hypothesis based on an interpretation or set of interpretations of what is claimed as evidence, is more persuasive than others.

And to get a majority to adopt an argument, or hypothesis, one has to understand and accept the various perspectives and interests of the audience, as well as the bad data that they may have been provided. As many have said before, politics is more an art than a science.

Hello all: I am christian, but a real christian, not the evil christians out there. The real problem of US and the world is 'ownership', that's right, all world problems are caused by 'ownership'. Ok let me explain why i say ownership is the problem. Right now US's 500 Biggest Multionational Corporations are owned by a couple of families, we are almost in a monarchy, not even a plutocracy, but a monarchy where a king and friends own every thing. The most rational solution is to pass that ownership from those families to workers. Only 'workers ownership' system of production would democratize this nation, would prevent concentrated power in a few, and would stop all wars, corruption, and fetishism going on in the US concentrated power circles like Pentagon, CIA, Wall Street, etc. But we won't be able to get rid of the evil CIA, Pentagon, White House, Wall Street as long as those 500 MC (Multinational Corporations) are owned by a couple of people

Well, I am also an agnostic, and a scientist, and there is a correct theory that is predictive and useful, and there are ideas that just lead us down the wrong path - i.e superstition. If a scientist just picked ideas that would pass a popular vote, we'd still be in the stone age. No original idea is popular in the beginning.

Also, original ideas are by necessity, comprehensive. For example, it is impossible to argue against the occupation of Iraq if we acknowlege the very popular, official narrative that the US occupation is a stabilizing force fighting "bad guys" in the region, rather than the specific cause of the instability. It also requires that we shatter the whole popular myth that the US foreign policy is guided by compassionate and humanitarian motives. If I try to take a middle ground, the whole line of argument becomes nonsensical and my only recourse would be to accept the alternate hypothesis forwarded by the the supporters of the occupation and so-called "war on terror".

The one point Mr. Ritter made here that I found valuable was that "American democracy is a game of numbers." Exactly! It is not a game of finding that pure perfect philosophy that all enlightened ones can agree on (as a lifelong agnostic, I find such ideas to be disturbingly religious, as the model of reality I work with represents the world as messy and full of bad data, different interests, and different perspectives). I would hope that more progressives would take Mr. Ritter's point under advisement.

"Ritter has been trying to make this point for a quite a long time now, but people seem to busy with being right or even worse, being more right than others, to hear that."

Project much? On the contrary, I think that it's Ritter who is to [sic] busy with being more right than others. Didn't you notice him either dismissing or castigating those who don't submit to his tidy authoritarian schemes as essentially loose-cannon want-wits lacking analytical ability and discipline?

The fireworks about impeachment, Sheehan, draft etc. diverts from the essence that you can be right, but being right without the numbers to back it up is not much more than an exercise in vanity.

Ritter has been trying to make this point for a quite a long time now, but people seem to busy with being right or even worse, being more right than others, to hear that.

metal: Hi, are u really descendant of US founding fathers? or are you joking? well if you are, you are a great man (an ubermensch), and your duty is to engage in waking up people, like Neo of The Matrix, like Che Guevara, Luther King or like Chavez. We need to wake up people from their slumber, and teach and propagate democratic ideals to counter the fascistic, oligarchic, plutocratic corporate neoliberalism that has wrecked this country and the world

Um, I think it's just "Metal", not METAL AUGUST; August is the date.

That said, I agree that the post is generally worthy. But I don't get the gratuitous backhand to the "rag-tag" pro-impeachment contingent. I don't doubt that many who support impeachment may have a short-sighted mob mentality that begins and ends with getting the Current Occupant (as Garrison Keillor calls him) out ASAP. But it hardly follows that those calling for impeachment are ignorant or indifferent to the surrounding issues Metal cites.

Metal seems to be deploring the prospect of a "one-off hyperbolic political hissy fit" as if impeachment/anti-war supporters are superficially fixated on removing President Unitard as if they were popping a truly nasty zit, without considering that the zit is the symptom of a deeper and more pervasive disorder. Granted, the opposition to the present criminal regime is chaotic-- but I don't see that it deserves anywhere near the pox, or house, that impeachment opponents deserve.

It comes across to me as the same faux even-handedness routinely employed by the corporate media.

Otherwise, points taken.

Hello everybody !! Good article by Scott Ritter !! He said:

"It has also led to the realization that there are many out there who simply don't get America, either because they are ignorant of the Constitution of the United States."

Well that's because most people americans and non-americans, take USA to be some kind of cake or pie where most people americans and non-americans would like to get a bigger slice of pie of it. This is not just a USA thing, but all countries with a capitalist system, have this problem. What there needs to be done is to change the system from capitalism to socialism, a socialist morality based on both the ideals of the US constitution, and a socialist ideals, based on collective thinking instead of narcissist-egocentric thinking which leads to an immoral nation, an egocentric nation which is not rational at all, it leads to total chaos. This is why i say that Ayn Rand's philosophy is totally wrong

With all due respect Mr. Ritter this is the first time I've heard of your "Citizen Commission of Inquiry". Ms. Sheehan may not have all the i's dotted and t's crossed but she sure is making a lot of noise. Good noise or bad noise remains to be seen.

You or your commision will never achieve it's goal because it seeks to play by the rules when the other side disregards them at every turn.

Justice will only be served when as you define the "Anti-war crowd" is no longer seen as "radical" but truly representative of the people.

Bush and Cheney deserved to be impeached for the California energy scandal alone which was a crime defined as "Grand Theft" to the tune of billions. The constitution clearly states that this is an impeachable offense. To this day nobody in the Bush Administration has been held accountable for that crime.

"Yes, thoughtfully composed. And presented with great dignity and sincerity"

As someone engaged in the antiwar and impeachment movement, I wouldn't even characterize it as that! There is nothing dignified or thoughtful about dismissing our principles, hard work, and open-minded analysis as being motivated by just so much "narcissism" and "radicalism". (we are "radical - meaning "getting to the roots" but he really meant something more like "lunatic fringe")

This was a very un-thoughtfully done article, with much power to divide. I know I will never think of Ritter the same again. This fall, Sheehan will join Dorothy Day, Howard Zinn, Daniel Berrigan, and Kathy Kelly and others as the recipient of the Thomas Merton Award. but I sure hope no one suggests Ritter for next year's award.

You have my respect, Mr. Ritter, but you are missing the point.

Impeachment will bring the issues and explanations about our constitution into every home. Therefore, accomplishing some of the goals you espouse.

Jeff Moehring: Hi how are you? The thing is that Scott Ritter is not doing any thing by himself, because of the fact that nobody can change any thing in this world individually. All changes come collectively. The best possible, and most rational solution for USA is to preach a democratic ideology, a constitutional, Jeffersonian, marxist ideology to the US soldiers. The US revolution would have to come from the US military, and not from the US political parties which are all mafia cartels. A US Coronel who would unite the sentiment of most people in this country and would overthrow this fascist system

Comment to Metal:

Excellently presented, and your last paragraph, especially, was perfectly framed.

All readers take note and read Metal's post, carefully. Although we've all said it before, many times and many ways, Metal has defined and articulated the current circumstances, and with a final question that should reverberate through the halls of Congress.

Thank you for your post. May the patriotism of the Mason lineage inspire a new era of democracy and justice.

EXCELLENT POINTS Robert Baldwin, Tractor Guy and METAL AUGUST. Just as authoritarian "types" appear to be born, and being born into strict, fundamentalist or military families exceedingly progresses that typing; independent, liberal thinkers are also born to insure that EVERY society has its thinkers! The contrast between those that believe external authority has the answers and must limit (through rules) what citizens are allowed to do and those that believe in progressive values will always exist. Military is incompatible with freedom; so when a military man advocates for "service" he is also advocating for loyalty to the big honchos, i.e. the authority figures and this is dangerous. It's all the more dangerous for reasons cited by METAL AUGUST. In this 21st century totalitarianism can be profoundly aided by weapons as well as the new respect for "the surveillance state." When privacy breaks down, when government trespasses against the nation's laws and uses secrecy to mask its intent and agenda, when citizens (who are intelligent enough to see through the cracks) are targeted as dissidents, when war bankrupts the treasury and the resulting economy sees workers competing for the crumbs... these and more insidious "developments" challenge what America is and is heading towards. Scott Ritter is too programmed to see through his own paradigm, but I'm glad he was honest about WMD and the government cover up. I think he mostly shared this as an efficient military man who realized waste more than immoral policy and where it's driving this country.

As a descendant of the founding father who wrote the impeachment clause and battled with the federalists to compel them to attach a Bill of Rights after ratification of the Constitution (as a compromise to allow ratification to proceed through Virginia), I have some insight into Constitutional issues. And I say a house on both your poxes.

Mr. Ritter can't see the immediate obligation to reassert the primacy of the Constitution inherent in his own argument-- despite his worthy desire to build a long-term, broadly inclusive, cultural anti-war base.

The current rag-tag "impeachment movement" can't see that it will be a one-off hyperbolic political hissy fit whose short-term minded reactionaries will face ongoing war crises with new experimental presidential abuses of power every four years (at this rate) unless there is a dedicated, long-term and effective commitment to reverse the last 60-plus years of creeping militarism. This ruling class economic and political mindset has come out into the open under Bush II as a hardened national policy goal to replace the Welfare State with a permanent Warfare State--the core economic engine of which is dependent to its LARGEST extent upon the fulmination, ignition and prolongation of war(s).

Where Mr. Ritter is dead wrong is in his failure to understand that unless both the Vice President and the President are Constitutionally checked--and their neo-fascist experiments in criminal Executive misconduct severely punished and broadly understood to be repudiated--by the now urgently needed and overdue instrument of impeachment, then their now characteristic model for misgovernance will go down in history as a template for future maladministrations of any political Party to abuse.

Dangerous cunning and lengthy judicial delays are built into the Bush-Cheney regime's tactics: The "Unitary Theory of Executive Power" that allows rule by secret dictates using secret criterion coupled to overarching manipulation of information classifications on a whim--by the president (and the vice president who considers himself a fourth branch of government unaccountable to the other three); the gross abuse of presidential signing statements that allow Bush's Party members to stage PR and run campaigns claiming one agenda--knowing with a wink to the president that he will scuttle any implementation of what they publicly claim they stand for as "Republicans" so they can keep their true agenda as secret as possible; the broad-based and deliberate censoring of tax-payer financed scientific research and conclusions that are in the short, medium and long-term health interests of the public; premeditated and unprovoked military aggression against other nations--the foundational war crime from which all other war crimes (including torture) flow dating back to the Nuremberg Tribunals, let alone the UN Charter and Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions both of which the U.S. was a founding signatory.

No other president since its enactment has ever claimed that he could redefine on a whim the torture provisions of Common Article 3--until our current Unitary Executive. And the list of high crimes and misdemeanors goes on and on...

As a proud descendant of George Mason I ask: If the maladministration of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney do not demand the immediate remedy of impeachment in the House and trial in the Senate of the United States, then what administration ever has or ever will execute crimes of such moral repugnance, such cowardice and belligerence on such a scale and plenitude to warrant such remedy?

Ritter is a Marine whose programming went slightly wonky for a few months, but he has been to the robodoc and is now properly functioning once again and is thinking Good Upstanding American Thoughts.

Conservatives always regard anyone who can see the USA in the context of general historical movement as intellectually deficient. For them, the US is always a prime number, the summit of human history before which there was nothing except lessons provided for the morally dazzling Anglo-Saxon rulers of humanity to learn in order to properly govern the rest.

.......the ideals and values this country aspires to embrace. That was enough for me---no need to read the rest of it.

I wonder Scott-do you drink bottled tap water or just tap tap water. Ever wonder how the US got to be in the deep shit it is in now? You like globalization and privatization Scott? You for the 'ownership' society? These jackasses have let the genie out Scott and it'll be a long time, if ever, it goes back in.

Sorry Scott this bunch needs to go down hard and fast and NOW. Congress needs to do it's f.....g job--before they give themselves a raise.

Although I too would like to see the war ended immediately, this feeling arises from the fact that it was wrong from the beginning. (I was going to say it was a mistake but it was no mistake, it was exactly what the neocons wanted) Ritter makes some excellent points for proceeding in a precise, constitutional manner.

When you attempt something according to an established process rather than in an ad hoc manner, failure can be used as reason to alter the process itself. When you're winging it, it's difficult to pinpoint the causes of success or failure.

Like Bill above, I admire Cindy Sheehan for her sacrifice in becoming a focal point for ending the war. But I also don't agree with many of her methods. After the third or fourth arrest, they begin to lose impact and actually serve as ammunition for her detractors.

Although I too would like to see the war ended immediately, this feeling arises from the fact that it was wrong from the beginning. (I was going to say it was a mistake but it was no mistake, it was exactly what the neocons wanted) Ritter make some excellent points for proceeding in a constitutionally legal manner.

When you attempt something according to an established process rather than in an ad hoc manner, failure can be used as reason to alter the process itself. When you're winging it, it's difficult to pinpoint the causes of success or failure.

Like Bill above, I admire Cindy Sheehan for her sacrifice in becoming a focal point for ending the war. But I, too, don't agree with many of her methods. After the third or fourth arrest, they begin to lose impact and actually serve as ammunition for her detractors.

Yes, thoughtfully composed. And presented with great dignity and sincerity. But the whole of it seems so completely wrong-headed, and that in a period of great crisis. To get an idea of where we're headed, or, at least, where this criminal cabal is trying to take us, spend a day listening to AM talk radio, preferably in a predominately democratic county like my own. These flip-flop stations flip from rabid right wing democrat bashing and war mongering to sports and back again. All day long, every day. A progressive or democratic point of view? Nowhere found on the dial. And this in a county that votes seventy percent democratic! Then spend some time with Fox News and The Weekly Standard. William Shirer, the WWII radio commentator from Paris and Berlin began his day by reading the popular French right-wing papers to better get a sense of the crisis that was brooding over there with the growth of fascism. Anyone who writes as Scott Ritter has written does not perceive the crisis that so many of us feel is consuming our country, our way of life, our constitution, and the urgency of addressing it immediately with the remedy of impeachment. I hope he's right. That it is just a problem that enlightened leadership and sober citizen participation can rectify. I don't think so. Nor does Ray McGovern. Or Ralph Nader. Or John Dean. Or Bill Moyers. Nope, I think it's a coup. And I'm with Cindy.

I think Ritter's idea of mandatory national service for all is a real winner, in that it would promote a real understanding of, and involvement in, our social responsibility in belonging to a participatory democracy. Now, Americans have shown signs that, by and large, they don't give a damn about anything but their TeeVees, trips to the Mall, Video Games, and gas availability for the SUVs, and compulsory service would certainly change that scenario. But with others here, I cannot agree with his criticism of Cindy Sheehan, even while agreeing to disagree with some of the tactics she has used along her path. She fights for what she believes, and she has paid her dues in terms of trying to mobilize people to action against the forces of evil. It is not for any of us to dis any person for trying to move the country in a certain way, unless these attempts only revolve around an attempt at self-aggrandizement in terms of wealth, power, or social status, the open aim of the likes of Falwell, Robertson and their ilk. I see some on the left, but can't think of anybody on the right, who presently is making such sacrifices toward actually causing some change in our system. The strong point of Ritter's piece is his exhortation to get off our fat butts and bloody DO something, rather than complain about the Status Quo. I personally think that we must try to get out impeachment against Bush and Cheney, because otherwise they will never cooperate with Congress, will continue to act as though the rest of the universe doesn't exist, and likely start up yet another ill-conceived war (Where? Iran? Turkey? Pakistan? Syria? Egypt? Saudi Arabia? Countries of the earth are to these guys like the bare necks of young women to vampires, especially those with "assets," aka resources.)

Until the US populace gets the courage to take to the streets and follow the example of Gandhi's non-violent marches and demonstrations nothing will change. The people have got to WANT the Constitution restored enough to ACT accordingly. If there is no such desire, there will will be no more US Constitution (except in name only).

What a shame to let cowardice bring down such a noble experiment of human governance!!

Ouch. One would have thought a weapons expert would have known better than to shoot himself in the foot. If Mr. Ritter thinks there is a disconnect between Sheehan's current campaign and public opinion, I think he's at least out of touch with the current poll numbers in support of impeachment--even before any hearings have been held at all. And he should compare that to what popular support there would be for his proposal of compulsory universal military training with no deferments (nevermind that the odds our ruling classes would ever implement such a scheme without exempting themselves is somewhere south of zero out to five decimal places).
Conversely, what Sheehan is doing is 1) realistic and quite achievable 2) entirely voluntary and fully within the best of our democratic traditions, and 3) brilliant in that her chances of unseating Pelosi are inversely proportional to the degree Pelosi satisfies the will of the people.

Mr. Ritter's solution, on the other hand, is not to conform government to the will of the people, but to train the entire citizenry to be obedient within an undemocratic hierarchy of military command. If Mr. Ritter thinks the best way to protect the Constitution is to turn the U.S. into a nation of soldier drones, this sounds to me like a recipe for saving a piece of paper by utterly destroying everything it stands for. We don't need more obedience training. We need more independence, skepticism, and critical thinking, along with some personal integrity, humanity, courage, and action (qualities both Mr. Ritter and Cindy Sheehan have amply displayed, even though I think Ritter has fallen down on critical thought in this instance).

For any of the problems we face, military solutions should be our very last recourse. Not our first.

"The Cindy Sheehan who gracefully and effectively challenged George Bush in Crawford during the summer of 2005 had mainstream appeal."

And look how effective that was! Things are so much better now than then! Graceful kicks ass, baby! Maybe if we all said "pretty please" a little more often we would garner even more "mainstream" appeal. Wait - let's distribute knee pads and hold a "beg in" at the White House! But remember - there will be no yelling, no anger, no percolating frustration, and definitely no confronting of so-called Representatives!

"The Art of War" is winning without fighting. However, because Master Sun Tzu understood that such a thing was rare, he laid out a Plan B for winning WITH fighting. We are way, way into, as they say in the movies, TIME FOR PLAN B.

Maybe the only thing really bugging Mr. Ritter is that he lost his job, wrote a book and sales could be better, and that Cindy Sheehan not only gets more publicity than him, but is actually doing more to end the war.

Ritter is concerned that the President didn't listen to him about WMDs, and we see that Ritter was right. But he doesn't seem to care about giving a voice to other people who are right, and standing up for peace and justice.

You can be an asshole and be right, and you can be an asshole and be wrong, but in either case you are an asshole.

so it goes

I wrote most of this elsewhere when Cindy Sheehan stepped back in May. Glad I saved a copy. (Haven't read the comments yet, FWIW.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cindy Sheehan had celebrity thrust upon her, and she has more character and virtue in her fingernail parings than all of the warmongers and hapless-warmonger-enablers compacted together.

To the extent that she was not, and did not aspire to become, an "inside politics" or "inside media" or "inside social activism" public figure, she was screwed from the get-go. I have no doubt that she's been sniped at and scorned and hassled as much by ostensibly anti-war or anti-Bush citizens as by wingnut Yahoos.

I recall even Scott Ritter, whom I respect, casually ripping Sheehan in a scathing survey of the chaotic, fragmented "anti-war movement". Military man that he is, the ultimate "inside" career man, he scorned Cindy for walking point by meandering around without an agenda or goals. This reversion to pure jarhead battlefield exasperation, a testosterone-saturated growl of displeasure at some ditsy dame getting in the way, was more of a comment on his narrow focus than a telling criticism of Sheehan.

It's always been obvious to me, Ritter's harsh attitude notwithstanding, that Cindy's public career was indeed improvisational and haphazard and unscripted, i.e. human. We're not allowed to have amateurs in our culture any more; everybody must keep up by being professional or aspiring to be professional-- or at least acknowledging that important matters of any kind are best trusted to professionals, so that the only sane course of action is to submit to professional authority and discipline instead of flying by the seat of one's pants, using one's own brains and heart and spirit and conscience as instruments.

Well, I think it's safe to surmise that Cindy didn't cipher and calculate her plans and intentions as finely as the Scott Ritters et al of the world would wish, and frankly had more pressing concerns that to give a damn about how they judged her.

I like the idea of national service but with a few modifications of the program espoused by Mr. Ritter.

1. No mandatory basic training/brainwashing adolescents to "adhere to a chain of command." How about mandatory lessons in the Constitution and how to think critically about politics in general.

2. How about another placement option: the Peace Corps. Working for impoverished people overseas helps us be less insular and nationalistic and puts a face on the otherwise nameless people that we may someday murder in an illegal war. It is hard to support a war on people that you have met. Perhaps placements should be made in "Axis of Evil" countries first.

3. The government must give our children something in return. Most college students graduate with tens of thousands of dollars of debt. How about 2 free years of college and interest free loans for the remainder in return for the service?

Scott Ritter has openly confided that he voted for Bush in 2000.

Through his actions, he has also had the courage and personal integrity to defy the Bush Administration by speaking out against the manipulation of intelligence which led us into this erroneous 'war', both prior to the Iraq Occupation/Oppression and afterwards.

It appears that he upholds his oath to the Constitution to defend the U.S. from all enemies, both foreign and DOMESTIC, as his highest Duty.

He deserves our honor and gratitude.

From my reading of his article today, he's distanced himself from Cindy Sheehan's 'Impeach Now' movement for two reasons:

1. Apparently, that movement has extended its reach to include "Global Environment, Global Health (AIDS and Reproductive Rights) and Hurricane Katrina" as valid reasons for impeachment.

2. Ritter appears to have felt ashamed for Sheehan's criticism of Rep. John Conyers after she and her group had presented their million signature petition asking Conyers to begin impeachment proceedings. (I have to admit that when I first read of Sheehan's criticism of Conyers, I felt a little ashamed myself.)

Essentially, Ritter has stated his own position, offered criticisms, and suggested solutions.

As readers, we don't know what motivated him to write this article. Perhaps something went on behind the scenes between he and Sheehan that challenged his integrity such that he felt compelled to respond?

Given some of the opinions on this thread that might serve to alienate Scott Ritter, am I out of line in asking, when it comes to blind loyalty (to Sheehan, e.g.), if progressives/Democrats/leftists are any better than their conservative/Republican/right-wing counterparts?

If anyone has stood for Principle through this long ordeal, Scott Ritter has.

He hasn't allowed partisanship to affect his understanding of the truth.

As painful as it may be to some, his criticisms are justified.

scott Ritter wrote:

"Hence my position that repudiation of the systemic failings of our entire system of governance, including the executive and legislative branches, but also the bedrock of American democracy, namely "We the People." We have all failed to perform within either the intent or structures set forth by the founding fathers when they wrote the Constitution.

So, you finish your praise of the sacred US constituton, then say there were "systemic failings of the entire system of governance" - considering that the constitution is the manual for said failed system, didn't you just condradict yourself just a bit?

And, not to sound like one of your "narcissists' but in the run-up to the invasion, I wrote my Senators, congressman (no very useful as he opposed the war too), the president, exhorted my co-workers, picketed, marched enhorted co-workers, picked and marched some more, and can within a hair of losing my job for my activities (and certainly wound have been fired if I worked for private industry). So, I surely didn't fail my duty, and to be sure, in your attempts to get the truth out about the so-called WMD's, you did you duty too.

Also, wouldn't a respect and strict reading of the constitution make impeachment mandatory? I'm no lawyer, but surely, deliberate contempt of the constitution that the president swore to uphold (per Art. II Sec 1), and lying to Congress to advance a war for personal gain which he very well knew had nothing to do with national security, would constitute at very least perjury if not high crimes plus misdimeanors - so only thing listed in Art II Sec 4, that the president maybe didn't do was "bribery" - and I'm sure that could be dug up as well.

Like I wrote, Mr. Ritter you once were was making a lot of sense, but this piece is incoherent nonsense. You are only insulting us.

The Nation magazine, and the lot of "progressives" who jumped on Michael Lerners bandwagon complaining that ANSWER was antisemitic in editorials written in the Wall St Journal did much more to sabotage tha antiwar movement than anyone is willing to face. I won't ever forget that.

Right on Vern. Right On.

And as for Scotty, eh, we though we knew ye. But you are just another establishmentarian American wanting to bring back an idealized America that never was and never can be under our current economic system. Everyone play nice in the big Democratic-Republican sandbox and behave yourselves.

Having spent most of an adult lifetime trying to work for change within the system, I have come to realize I was wasting my time. Its a fool's errand because this 'system' is bought, paid for and closed up tight by corporate America and its media minions. Now we need brave people on the barricades like Cindy Sheehan who has far more cajones than Mr. Ritter does right now and will go a lot farther in saving what's left of our society. And in case anyone wonders, I lost jobs in talk radio and mainstream print journalism for speaking truth to power, so I do know how it is out in the real world, where people DO lose jobs for speaking out.

And one more think - shove 'nationalist service.' Just because one happens to be born here they no more this any country or government unpaid labor than any other country demands of theirs. And I'm sure any future President in some future 'national emergency' would love to have the fealty of this large pool of conscripted labor at his/her disposal.

If my four sons were all still in Junior and Senior High school I would prefer that they be taught the TRUTH about the history of the United States.

To Mr. Ritter: Perhaps replace all the lying textbooks and Stepford teachers with "A People's History of the United States" and lots of Howard Zinn's to 'splain it all to them.

Then perhaps some mandatory courses to teach our children "HOW" to think....for themselves.

And I think it would be grand to offer them the opportunity to work in the Peace Corp (pick your country) or stay in the United States and work for, oh, let's say about $40,000/year plus full medical/dental. Let's say if they do their 3 years then, like the members of Congress, they will have full medical/dental for life!!! And a great pension too! That should get them interested!

But it would be purely voluntary. Never mandatory. It would disgusting to force an individual to pick up a gun and learn to "kill" in your 3 month mandatory basic training for all 18 year old American's.

Just as bad as you forcing me to put a piece of dead animal tissue in my mouth, chew it and swallow it after 40 years of having no meat in my body. It is wrong, and immoral to FORCE people to do things they feel is abhorrent to them spiritually, psychically or physically.

When you had the guts to speak out on this website about the power of AIPAC and it's influence on the US Congress and the Executive, going so far as to say we might just as well raise the Israeli flag here and call it a day, I thought with your intelligence in other areas, and your anti-war stance that you might be an honorable candidate for a third party run for President.

Now that I know that you think it's okay that Bush defined the Constitution as "JUST A GODDAMNED PIECE OF PAPER!", (among all the other impeachable offenses), I withdraw my support of you.

I applaud Cindy Sheehan for what she has done and is doing and I feel your ideas of using FORCE (mandatory service) is a clear indication of the kind of man you are.

No thanks. BTW...Do you support the impeachment of Gonzalez or do you think it's okay for the nation's attorney to be a liar?

Suggestion: **Listen to KPFA out of Berkeley at 1pm Pacific/4pm Eastern this afternoon. "Guns and Butter" today with Webster Tarpley and Bonnie Faulkner. Here's the link:

http://kpfa.org/

Anyone who thinks the Bush Administration did not commit impeachable offenses during Katrina please remember that Max Mayfield, head of the National Hurricaine Center at that time, reported in an interview that he spoke to Bush personally 2-3 days before Katrina and warned him of the dire situation the people of New Orleans faced. Also, please watch Big Easy to Big Empty, a video by Greg Palast. It is shown periodically on Link Tv. Or, google Bill Quigley and Katrina and read any of his articles. He is a lawyer who lives in New Orleans. He and his wife, a nurse, were trapped in one of the hospitals that were not evacuated for days, trying to care for the patients. If this stuff ain't "high crimes and/or misdemeanors" then the constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Couldn't agree more about Michael Lerner. Tikkun caved in to the zionist!

tj August: Sometimes, before it reaches critical mass, there are those most rightly on the "fringe" (not meant in a disparinging tone as Ritter echoes the negative conotation)who act like the voice in wilderness. It is important to keep up that refrain until the message seeps through. It can be a lonely and unappreciated undertaking but it matters most in the end.

i've respected Ritter in the past, but I don't even know where to begin with this insulting article. Just a few salent items:

1. National service is a great idea (I'd give a non-military option though, to those consciensiously object to using firearms in anger) But what the hell does it have to do with the matter at hand?

2. Spare me this reverent fawning over the constitution, aside from the bill of rights, the rest is just a dryly written operations manual that is in need of some updating.

3. spare me this "small-town virtues" crap. What small towns? You mean those places with boarded up main streets where no one goes - the only pillars of the communities being out on the 4-lane by-pass - Wal-Mart corporation, Mcdonalds Corporation, and (if he town really hits the big time) Applebees corporation.

4. But, the real personal affront and insult, is his characterization of our movement as "hate filled", "radical", and especially "narcissistic".
Yeah, that's right - just a bunch of commie-pinko, un-american, faggots - taht's us! And, we've given up the pastimes we used to love to spend our precious nonworking hours at marches and street corner pickets because of some kind of self-love. SURE!

Go to hell, Scott!

fat,lazy,arrogant narcissists- Need to get off their but and take a hike. Hope never to see them on a fire crew as a weak link; not good. But, it's what they need!

IMPEACH! Can't think of why not!

The truth needs to be told, and I think Scott believes that without public support, impeachment will be sabotaged.

The support base sits on the couch watching TV!

You know, Scott, everybody does their bit.
Do what you do well and quit elbowing the efforts of others out of the way. It is an uphill climb as it is--and you, moreso than others know what it is like to be up there alone when others attempt to smear you.

The Nation magazine, and the lot of "progressives" who jumped on Michael Lerners bandwagon complaining that ANSWER was antisemitic in editorials written in the Wall St Journal did much more to sabotage tha antiwar movement than anyone is willing to face. I won't ever forget that.

Mr. Ritter, let me comment on the following sentence from your article:--indeed the most immediately relevant given some posts on this board.

"I single out the "impeach now" crowd in this category, and in particular Cindy Sheehan and the chaotic "Summer of Love 2007″ fiasco which has done more harm to the antiwar movement than many realize."

I couldn't agree with you anymore on this one. I admire your courage to bring up uncomfortable facts. Given your clarity and experience related to knowledge of WMDs, etc, the American public and certainly the progressive community might want to afford you as much praise and significance as anyone.

This isn't to say one should consider only those they disagree with the most. I offer this only to validate your points in an increasingly dissentless forum--as much as I love Common Dreams, etc.

Good work.

The days of republican scum who wish to undemocratically (and it isn't and never will be democracy unless it is ONLY voluntary - unless the 16 year olds themselves, and only the sixteen year olds who face such pathetic, disgusting slavery vote on it themselves. Not old, stupid, right-wing facist child-hating scum) enslave young people are severely numbered. You will be out of office, out of home, out of time.

Where is my post? I guess the rantings of this senile sycophant espousing slavery for young people is more appropriate than what I have to say in response. If you want a movement against national slavery/assinine punishment of the youth/fascist shit that targets you personally, then you'll get one, anti-democratic scum.

As an internationalist, I would rather die than be a slave to any pathetic state, especially a rogue aristocratic, homophobic, racist one like america.

I have been reading CD for two years and this is the first time I have felt motivated to respond to an article. Scott Ritter is absolutely right in his believe that mandatory public service would instill good citizenship in the population. Countries as diverse as Switzerland and Israel have some variation of this and they are stronger for it.
However, to play Devil's Advocate, there is no way a country full of fat,lazy,arrogant narcissists is ever going to go for it.

Canuck: Right on!

IMPEACH NOW!!! Dick first. Support HR333 and get this ball rolling. It is our only hope as a nation and as a democracy.

American History reeks of enslaved blood from around the globe and Scott Ritter dreams about an America that never was. Scott, you are just another elitist pundit who thinks the level of debate must be raised while courageous people are taking real chances and making real mistakes. Thank God that Cindy Sheehan has greater intestinal fortitude than you.

Scott, You are an American politician's greatest dream: Someone who believes in the lie of what the USA is so completely that you will kill and die defending it and call all others into the service of a corrupt empire. Your denial is hard-wired into who and what you are: You have no escape, you cannot and willfully will not recognize that you and your kind are a perfect tool for those in power: A True Believer. A True Believer who places the services of his heart and mind into service of the criminally corrupt by attempting to defuse our moral outrage.

You can disconnect any potential guilt about your fealty to the corrupt from the examples of your own experience. In your service to a truly non-existent country you have the ready evidence to prove your moral stature above the criminal government of the USA and many of the citizens of the nation. What a shame that you cannot see the fool you have been played for and how full of your own brand of BS you have become. Your elegant BS makes YOU more dangerous than Cindy Sheehan and those like her because you use your BS to attempt to defuse the moral outrage that one naturally has in reaction to the Bush/Cheney juggernaut.

People seldom are able to smell their own BS, so let me make this perfectly clear: YOU ARE FULL OF GOVERNMENT APPROVED GRADE TRIPLE A PLUS BS! The kind of BS used to smother the fires of revolutionary spirit before they have the chance to ignite the ghost of a dream of freedom in the masses.

We as a nation are fragmented and atomized because of BS peddlers like Mr. Ritter. Nothing dies as hard as our own illusions. Scott, do yourself the greatest favor you ever could and kill the great dragon of BS in your own head. Considering the levels of defensive BS you have available to defend what you know is patently wrong I highly doubt that you have the moral, intellectual, or spiritual courage to kill your own illusions and join us out here in reality where governments kill for the sake of their corporate masters.

Our system has been hijacked by a "few tireless and irate men who wish to keep the brushfires of fear burning in our hearts." (Para: Sam Adams) If my house is on fire I am not calling the fire department until after I have risked my life in saving those that I love. I don't need an "expert" to do that for me. I have enough sense to do what I must.

I love freedom more than my illusions, and I know that the only place I am truly free is in the wilderness within. I love freedom enough to ask you Scott, and all people everywhere to kill your illusions and fears.

I must say that I feel terribly sorry for Scott Ritter in the fact that his self-delusion, denial, and BS is so complete as to include his vision of a better world so appealing to his values and worldview that he cannot see the dangers posed by the corrupt and morally bankrupt US government.

Peace be with you Scott: I pray that you wake up. I pray that even the worst among us may be freed from their fears so we may all be free.

Scott Ritter has learned nothing at all from being subjected to the imperial propaganda machine -- not a thing.

The American revolutionaries never had the numbers behind them, and would never have acted had they waited for the numbers to be there.

The revolutionary promise went unfulfilled in the Constitution because, in order to secure votes, the states had to approve the continuation of slavery and to grant the slave-owners greater political representation.

We remain mired with a schizophrenic charter which has largely functioned as a shield for the few against the people, while claiming sovereignty resides with the people.

An executive counter-revolution against the two branches of governement and against the people has already taken place. The people are already prepared to remove & punish the criminals, but the leaders and would-be leaders are hiding behind procedure and excuses from the more and more dangerous facts. The longer they Hamletically dawdle, the more catastrophic the resolution will be.

Is "vacuous, rambling opinions" an unreasonable assessment? I think Ritter could use help defining his thesis. I'm hardly an intellectual. I just think he could separate his remarks and form two opinion pieces. Rather than a tightly crafted message with a solution, he relies on tricks like generalizations and marginalizing to try and tie his two main points together.

First he has his argument with Sheehan's camp of "intellectually simplistic" and his irritation with the tactics of a poorly trained and executed offense. Then his love of the US Constitution and law, which ties in well with his general call to service and his personal opinion conscription is the sole solution to "strengthen the fabric of America" or some other platitude. I wonder who defines the "average American"? Ritter seems to argue that he has a firm grasp of the definition, and that we would be best served by following his decree.

Anyway, I just want to make sure I put my summary down correctly. According to Ritter, the best way for me to implement the antiwar message is through basic military training and adhering to chain of command. Afterward, i can elect to become a forest technician, perhaps an EMT, a teacher assistants, or an airborne ranger.

For an interesting argument, one would do well to challenge Ritter's ideas of instilling the virtues of the American way of life -and everything good for which this social system stands- by first tracking the current generation of post-military volunteers, and perhaps, post AmeriCorps/Vista volunteers. Perhaps after an analysis of the post-service population is constructed, then one could determine if in fact serving in the US armed forces and Americorps has bettered the individual's appreciation for the constitution and one's "sense of ownership". In turn, one could determine the level of "various" national processes the volunteer is a part.

key phrases:
intellectually simplistic
sense of ownership
average American
chain of command
white male
WASPs

Mr. Ritter writes, "...compulsory military basic training, in which the draftee would be imbued with discipline and the necessity of adhering to a chain of command."

That is already being done by the masses who are blindly following the Commander in Chief. And that is the problem.

This shows his 'conservative' approach which got us into this, and many other wars. Following authority blindy without any critical thinking.

And he doesn't address his the issue of 'impeachment' being taken off the table. To use his fireman theory, that would be like telling fireman to go fight a fire, but they can't use the one tool that would be effective- WATER.

I agree that all avenues though be explored (congressional, media, corporate), but his attack an Cindy Sheehan, without reflecting on the failure of his own process, seems misplaced. Maybe he should consider that his thinking is what allows these injustices to occur generation after generation.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." — John F. Kennedy

Impreachment must be on the table.

www.NotOneMore.US

Ritters' military bias is showing, and he its trying to sell a new book, and a little controversy always sells books

However, he is a weapons expert, not a constitional expert.

The constitution says the house MUST impeach for high crimes and misdemenors, not just if you have an assured chance to win a conviction in the senate. the truth must come out.

Intentionally Lying the public into a war is a high crime
Violating the geneva convention (illegal war) is a high crime
Torture is a high crime
Illegal search and seizure is a high crime (wiretapping without FISA approval)

DO YOUR DUTY..IMPEACH

Throwing stones at Cindy while sitting on your butt... Talk about bad tactics. Maybe you should read your own book Scott.

I love Scott, but the Founding Fathers gave us the ability to impeach for a reason, if the abuses of power of this administration don't call for impeachment proceedings then I really don't know what does.

It appears that many of us view the fate and role of the United States may be a left vs right issue. It shouldn't be. These are polarizing and no unified country can be all left or all right. I hate these labels and I don't respect the people who clutch to extreme ideologies.

We should make decisions based on the facts and compelling arguements. The fact for many people on the so-called left or right leaning ideology is that the United States of America is doing something awfully wrong at home and in the world and it is doing so for misplaced ideology and the greed that takes advantage and uses this ideology to rape the world.

We need to take our country back NOW since we certainly have allowed the misuse of our power and wealth to go on for far too long.

Mr. Ritter's approach is correct, but not now. His ideas will be better served when we have decent citizens in charge. I would no more want myself or my children to serve this nation in any manner under the current administration and congress which is clearly self-serving and whoring out their integrity for money and power.

I read every single comment and the overwhelming majority, in my view, point out that Ritter's logic is based on the existence of an elected government of intelligent leaders with integrity. This is simply not the case.

To simplify what Ritter says:

1) We are all corrupt (president, congress, American people), so impeachment can only come after we all devote ourselves to a purification process of national service.

2) Cindy Sheehan is not articulating mainstream, 'safe' anti-war rhetoric and therefore doing no good.

I, too, have found Ritter's arguments generally compelling when he addresses the illegality of the war launched against Iraq.

However this article is frail in terms of an argument for how proceed toward impeachment. Perhaps the system is too corrupt to begin impeachment proceedings? But certainly, the grounds for impeachment are solid and have been well-articulated elsewhere. It is the responsibility of Congress to impeach; they may have been 'complicit'--but they can also claim they were 'lied to' with trumped up 'evidence' of WMD.

Nowhere does the massive corruption of our media factor into Ritter's analysis. Nevertheless, it is the media that has ALSO said, in so many ways, that impeachment is off the table.

It's up to people to SHOW UP in numbers to upset the apple cart here. In a sense, Sheehan and others did just that in presenting ONE MILLION signatures for impeachment!

How many public signatures were submitted to begin the impeachment process against Clinton? NONE.

Are we getting the picture? This is NOT a level playing field here Mr. Ritter. This is not a war as you imagine it, but is more of a guerrilla war; it is not clear any more what is effective battling this monster of the media-military-industrial complex.

I'm with Cindy!

http://www.awakeninthedream.com

The national service idea is a really good one. The two weeks of military basic training should include war prevention strategies and nonviolent tactics as well. This is so important - war has cost our country so much. This would be a prime work for a cabinet-level Department of Peace. I remember Scott Ritter saying before the Iraq invasion that he was trying to prevent a war by what he was coming out with because he knew that wars are always dirty business.

I find this piece both profoundly disturbing and hopeful at the same time.

One of the things that mosts disturbs me is the generalization that Ritter makes about the Cindy Sheehan and the "impeach now crowd."

Generalizations are just that, and to simply write Sheehan off as a narcissist or the lump everybody who supports impeachment into a category of intellectual laziness and/or political hubris and stupidity is nothing less than a smear, something which you seldom see in Ritter's carefully crafted, thoughtful and usually spot-on writings.

Not to mention the generally arrogant voice that permeates this piece projects (narcissism is a mirror, Mr. Ritter). Others mention the nationalism and militarism that accompany most of Ritter's writings, but he has never pretended to be anything other than he is: a Republican and proud military veteran. But arrogance is always disturbing and never useful.

It also profoundly disturbs me to the marrow of my bones that Ritter is essentially correct, maybe absolutely correct, in his critique of the "left" and our on-going inability to connect with the US public in any significant ways (other than, in my opinion, offering accurate critiques of US history, society and politics).

As an activist and organizer, this most fundamental failure enrages and confuses me every day of my life. We haven't developed (or learned) a colloquial language (and I am talking about a language of thought, feeling and ACTION here) that captures the imaginations of our fellow citizens, neighbors and families. And so we are left in roles (which are useful, but extremely limited)of being critics or martyrs throwing ourselves at the barricades and achieving few positive results.

Which brings up two more points: It is my belief that Cindy Sheehan's challenge to Nancy Pelosi and the actions of the "impeach now crowd" are exactly what Ritter calls for when he stands on the foundations of constitutionalism and the rule of law.

Whether Sheehan can actually defeat Pelosi (and I think it is possible, though not probable), whether the Cheney/Bush gang can ever be brought to justice (highly improbable), the ACTS of mounting an election campaign and impeachment campaign educate both activists and the general public like nothing else can. Ritter somehow seems to miss this.

I am certainly not anti-intellectual, but it seems to me that the training needed to create and effect power comes both through study and action together. Since very few people in the US study much of anything, as Ritter points out in attempting to use sports metaphors, we must start with ACTION and work to express action in an idiom that connects through the heart, mind and body.

Finally, Ritter's call for universal national service is an absolutely important issue that is seldom discussed. The program he lays out and the rationales for it are exactly correct and would contribute greatly to teaching people in the US how to equally bear burdens, and work responsibly together to make this piece of ground that we mis-call the United States a place worth living in.

To my mind, it is an extremely socialistic (from each according to his/her ability) program. It's OK that it comes from a Republican :-]

The part of Mr. Ritter's article I think progressive activists need to take home with them is the idea that we have to work on ways to get our anti-war messages and our leftist analyses of the world into the 'mainstream,' the not-involved folks who live down the street from us.

But this isn't news: this has been a major problem with the US left for my entire activist life, starting with the draft resistance in the 60s. As our laundry list of must-address interconnected issues has grown and our understandng that unfettered capitalism and corporate control of the US's political institutions has sharpened, we've left a trail of bodies behind us -- our uncomprehending neighbors. The US population as a whole has been taught to leave policy to the experts, stay out of trouble, give the benefit of the doubt to politicians (with the small proviso that they're all crooks and always, everywhere have been), and generally not think too much.

So we need to go back to basics: If we focused more on local actions (forums, demos, teach-ins) and local door-to-door involvement techniques, and explaining to local kids how selling your body to the state as a weapon of war in return for three-squares-a-day or college tuition, the left would be able to build the kind of national/international force we need to throw the elite out and save the planet.

Byt the way, when Cindy Sheehan spoke at a forum we had on Cape Cod, she helped advance understanding at a local level and put a human face on the costs of the Iraq war. And she continues to do what she thinks best; for that, I have to applaud her.

Another two cents:

If Clinton was not impeached for war crimes in Yugoslavia, what gives us the right to ask for Bush's impeachment? ... gotta start somewhere I guess... and why not with a Republican?? sounds like party politics, but maybe not.

Impeachment is a "within the system" approach, and if you are already limiting yourself by such factors, you may as well limit yourself to the obtainable. The culpability is much more clear for: war of aggression, torture, use of chemical weapons, targeting of civilians, collective punishment than it is for their other more numerous crimes. Tacking on the other stuff makes a "difficult to sell"* approach even harder to sell. (*to the currently elected politicians, anyway)

Paul Bramscher:

Good luck. In principle, you're right: the party is a democratic institution that can be taken over from below.

BUT: I've been hearing this talk since the Viet Nam War. Much more intensively in the last six years. Do you see the slightest result? What I see, from this Democratic Congress, is a giant thumb in the eye of the left. Twisted, for good measure. They're a little subtle about it, they keep talking the talk, but they're very careful to fail. It's deliberate, it's obviously deliberate, and it's a message:

Not. A. Chance.

I don't know how they do it, since I'm not an insider; it's probably mostly the money. They've been bought, and they like it that way.

You have a better chance if you jump ship right away. AFTER Hilary is nominated is much too late. Put all that energy into building a real alternative. Especially considering what a wild political year 2008 is going to be. It's the year third parties have a shot, so we might as well take it. At the very least, we can return the Democrats' message with interest.

To be specific: there is only one national peace party. It is also the only one promoting single-payer health care, real sustainability, and all those other progressive issues. I mean the Green Party. With the kind of energy you're talking about putting into a lost cause, we would have a real chance. We certainly need your help.

GPUS.org.

Dear Mr. Ritter, Your arguments are very well framed and quite logical; however, I think you have missed the point. As the politicians politic, and the greedy corrupt, and the insane become more psychotic, good people are dying and more will die if something isn't done soon.

Our government has become shamelessly corrupt.
Our "leaders" little more than whacky ideologues with no apparent appreciation for the value of human life.

Now is the time for change. No amount of education can make a person smart. I think Cindy, use "use native intelligence" if you must, has just as much right to run as anyone else.

In our name an insane and morally corrupt regime has murdered hundreds of thousands of people and they show every sign of continuing with their perverted wars against freedom and justice.

Please apply your admirable intellect to bringing a halt to this disaster.

Why is Cindy Sheehan going after Conyers? Because she understands the Constitution and the way Congress operates. Any legal move toward impeachment has to start in the committee Conyers chairs. In fact, in the past he was a chief advocate for starting that process, and he is just the expert, ruthless investigator we would want running it. Yet now he is blocking impeachment, as his party leadership has called on him to do. He is personally responsible for Congress's dereliction of duty, as described by Scott Ritter, and is therefore a proper target for demonstrations.

Something went badly wrong with the constitutional machinery Ritter respects so much, but he doesn't seem to have noticed. In fact, we're seeing evidence of the utter corruption of the Democratic Party. They've made a decision not to impeach this president, no matter how bad he is. That isn't just dereliction of duty; it's a positive policy, and we need to ask what the reasons could be.

I see two: First, their corporate sponsors aren't through looting the country, and they need the Bushies in charge to do that. That also takes some of the blame off the Democrats, although they have increasingly bought Bush's war and are paying the price in the polls. (14% - lower than Bush!) It's important to remember that the Dems run on essentially the same money the Republicans do. It's mostly corporate, and it's dictating their actions.

Second, they figure that if Bush is still in office and the war is still going in 2008, they will have a free ride in the elections. That is unspeakably immoral, since thousands of people will die for their political advantage, but it is probably correct. Republicans will be essentially unelectable in 2008. I'm not sure why anyone is running for the Republican presidential nomination.

(Contradiction? I don't think so. The parties collude to serve the big money and keep their stranglehold on politics, but they compete for the money and jobs that come with it.)

There is a price to be paid, of course. There are those poll numbers, which reflect total non-performance. Plus, A free ride for the Dems is a free ride for alternative parties, especially when they've put themselves in the toilet along with the Republicans. Next year, there won't BE any spoilers, because there will be so many contenders and the Republicans will be way down there.

It's the Year of the Third Party. It's a nasty situation for the country, but if you're political it's going to be a lot of fun.

Because of Mr. Ritter's proven integrity, I have to read this one over a few times and let the ideas sink in. He always has something worthwhile to consider. My first reaction is negative. How can he attack Cindy Sheehan? But, a diverse movement is a strong movement. Unfortunately, in a narrow sense, we don't operate as much like the right, and we tend to question authority more often. So, our unity suffers. But, if better tactics can save more GI lives (and Iraqi lives!) it is necessary to consider what Mr. Ritter says.

My first thought has to do with Mr. Ritter's first line of the article. "I have always had an immense appreciation for my country and the ideals and values it aspires to embrace." I too share this sentiment. Sadly, presidential prerogatives over our entire history are too contrary to those ideals for me to let it slide. To quote a Brit with experience in international military operations, T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) when being interviewed by an American in 1919 at the Paris Peace Conference after WWI... "There was no scandal, was there, over your Indian policy?... "And you never ceased to think that what you did was right? You have conquered part of Mexico, you have occupied Hawaii, taken the Philippines and Puerto Rico by force of arms from Spain; freed Cuba and kept a mortgage on it; and you have put your Marines ashore in Central America and forgotten them . . . And yet . . . you are still for self-determination for small nations. You are a small empire, and you have warned us in your Monroe Doctrine that you are going, when you get ready, to be a great empire. And yet you are anti-imperialists..." To quote another former Marine and one of only 19 two-time Medal of Honor winners, Gen. Smedley Butler in 1935 said, "...I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism. I suspected I was just part of a racket all the time. Now I am sure of it." U.S. Army Col. David Hackworth, who sadly passed away recently and was one of America's most highly-decorated soldiers said once in 1994, "War and Preparing for War is a Racket."
This has been going on for a long time. One has to ask whether the Constitution is flawed to begin with if our ideals are manipulated so disastrously from the start (Chomsky names John Quincy Adams as the trendsetter). Remember, if it's human-derived, it's flawed. Or were the "founding fathers" writing a long-lost chapter for the Bible? Then, one has to ask, "Are normal avenues for redress sufficient?" Can one criticize Cindy Sheehan so harshly given the options available to the citizen?
As far as the case for impeachment, I am not an expert, but Elizabeth Holtzmann, who played a major role in Richard Nixon's impeachment, makes a thorough case for impeachment. John Dean has called the bush administration "Worse than Watergate."

While I do not object to public service, I think what might be more productive concerning Ritter's criticisms of the peace movement would be worksops in constitutional application. It is vital that we work within the system and know how do do so effectively. It is just as vital that we work outside of the system in ways that educate and create a movement for change.

What Ritter calls "radical fringe ideology" is sanity compared to the insanity of the mainstream ideology that runs this country. Where I agree with him is that we have to be able to present what we believe in a way that "mainstream" Americans can hear. This requires us to listen to and be able to communicate effectively with others including relatively conservative and non-politicised folks who've bought what the embedded media has fed them. Therein lies our real challenge.

Scott Ritter possesses the ability to critique the unconstitutional state of affairs pursued by the Bush administration but is unable to divorce himself from the political system itself that generates immoral wars. He has built for himself a fantasy of a virtuous America which once stood for law, justice, equality, freedom and liberty. This fantasy does not exist, and people like Cindy Sheehan and other anti war "radicals" of low intellectual ability, as he puts it, are unable to grasp the greatness contained in his fantasy world.

Mr. Ritter, when was the USA such a benevolent and virtuous nation state? Was it during the Vietnam era? Was it in the support of Suharto in Indonesia and the blessed support for the massacre in East Timor? Was it during the dirty wars of the 70s- and 80s in Latin America? Maybe it was when the CIA was engineering its many coups in nation states that would not bow to American power (i.e. Iran, Chile, Guatemala, Panama,Congo, etc).

In short Mr Ritter, the "anti-intellectual" impeach now crowd wants the structure of this system to change. We do not accept liberal interventionists who use war to make peace. This is all fallacy, as I am sure you realize by the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis made possible through the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq as you searched out WMD sites in the 1990s. A good soldier does not question the system he/she takes oaths to protect, even if this means limiting ones cognitive ability to perceive the injustices perpetuated by the very system the soldier defends.

More conservative nationalist trash.

We need to galvanize the movement into the system. Progressives should be flooding the precinct caucuses of both the DP and RP parties in their districts, getting elected as state delegates, running for office, and changing the makeup of the corporate parties. If they achieve a legitimate, procedural, and mainstream numerical majority in either of the DP or RP, they can effectively boot the mob out of the RP, and the DLC out of the DP. Only deep public engagement before Nov. 4, 2008, can make it happen. We cannot let the corporate media and PAC's pick the front-runners of the corporate parties. The country can't afford another 4 or 8 years of that.

We've got enough focus groups, blogs, professional protesters, etc. What we really need to do is simple: rally as many progressives and ordinary Americans as possible to attend their caucuses -- rather than the of head-banging of protests, statement-making, martyrdom, etc.

And if this fails, and we must compromise with a Hillary-Lieberman ticket in the DP or the most corrupt pairing imaginable in the RP, then they should either vote third party or not vote at all. We have every reason to get engaged, and no reason to sell out.

I have nothing but respect for Scott Ritter.
He is a true hero to me.
But I think he is wrong on this one. Here's why:

1) He ain't doing anything himself.
2) We ain't got time for his solution.
3) Cindy Sheehan IS doing something.

all the best

Mr. Ritter,

I can appreciate what you are saying and agree with you. At the risk of sounding intellectually shallow, the solution you are offering at this time seems distant, or you apparently have a lot more faith in our politicians than we do. Aside from seeking the real reason why her son had to die in this senseless war, Cindy Sheehan is proactive because we need a solution to stop this war NOW, not five years down the road to let the system correct itself, as you seem to suggest. The problem with your recommendation, if I am understanding it, is that we have to wait and watch more Iraqi civilians die, and more of our troops get killed until the war ends, if it ever does. To me, this is a serious flaw in your article: you have no sense of urgency or time. Do you have any suggestions for trying to stop this war now?

Mr. Ritter's veneration of the constitution ought to have led him to just the opposite conclusion regarding impeachment.

Fact: Impeachment is the constitutionally sanctioned remedy for "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Fact: In launching a war against Iraq without just cause as recognized by international law, the Bush administration committed a crime against the peace -- a clearly developed act that was held at Nuremberg to be the cause of all the other war crimes considered there.

Fact: The Constitution clearly notes that international laws and treaties are the law of the land.

Conclusion, there is a case for impeaching the president for having committed a crime against the peace (a severe and criminal violation of international law for which precedent exists). As such, there is a coherent argument to be made that says he has violated American law in a very serious manner and should stand trial in the Senate (and possibly the Hague).