I am not "anti-war"

I am "pro-peace"

Big difference.

I wish peace activists would stop using the phrase anti-war and start using pro-peace. It is more positive and life affirming.

The bulk of his comments were very loose and vague - it's fine with me if he criticizes the peace in iraq movement because let's face it - we have utterly FAILED in nearly five years to end this obscene, illegal, genocidal war.

How to prevent a war (if there's any hope at all):

be prepared to shut down the government the day the war starts. Shut-down demonstrations at every government office, general strike, stop shopping: we need public, noisy preparations for all of those, to be triggered automatically by any attack. That should at least give them pause.

Gen. Sheppard's theory that mere public disapproval can prevent it is lame: what about the Iraq war? Neither the Bushies nor the Dems in Congress care a hoot for public opinion, as they have both made quite clear. Apparently Bush is perfectly willing to take the Republican Party down with him. That's exactly what the Democrats are counting on: an immoral but probably effective strategy. That's why they want Bush in office and the war on until the elections next year.

To stop the war in Iraq? That's a hard one: the sheer futility of pressuring our "representatives" in Congress is a good reason to focus on preventing a new one.

The only thing they take seriously is the prospect of real difficulty in the next election. They're counting on a landslide. So if you want to stop the war, RUN AGAINST THEM. Or help someone else do it. I don't mean the primaries, unless you have a really good chance. I mean the general election, the one that matters. Join the Green Party (or start one if there's no local chapter) and seek their nomination. They are now looking for anti-war candidates in most states. If not where you are, give them a shout. It's the only action the Dems take seriously. You can't shut off those big corporate (Murdoch!) bucks flowing into their coffers.

To contact us: www.GPUS.org.

what was Sheppards voice before the invasion and occupation of Iraq? We know that Ritter warned us and told us that there were no WMD and that the war war was preplanned long before 911. He was right then and my guess is that he's right now. However, I appreciate that the author chose to show opposing views. I remember when that was common in journalism.

"Too often the peace movement isn't ready for obvious attacks and gets defined by its own fringe political tendencies."

Bzzzt! Wrong. It's the combining of strategic and tactical smarts, combined with the willingness to be on the so-called fringe (which is more often than not the suppressed majority) that pushes things forward. King, Ghandi, Malcolm X, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...

Perhaps Mr. Ritter thinks letter writing campaigns will stop the juggernaut that ignored 15+ million people on 2.15.2003, but I don't.

' "As distasteful as it sounds, we have to put Iraq on the back burner for now," Ritter said.'

Yeah right. The plan is to bomb all Iran's nuclear installations, with nuclear weapons. Chernobyl was equivalent to four thousand Hirishimas, it seems. Now we are to blow up many, many Chernobyls - with a clean bill of heath from the IKAEA.

The US Administration my not give a toss for the people of the region, in their shameful wickedness, but how do the parents of the US soldiers in Iraq, Turkey, Kuwait etc.,feel about them being fried by their own government.

Anyway, if they do this,it is Armageddon. WAKE UP FOLKS, NOT TERRITORY, NOT OIL, JUST 'THE DAY AFTER', THIS IS FOR REAL IF THE CRAZIES GO FOR IT. ENDTIMES.

As for Ritter's 'Iraq on the back burner', the slaughter, the holocaust we have brought. He appears to think it is a throw away country. If one cut through the ice, would one find a heart in Mr Ritter, I wonder?

J.

The unpleasant truth is you can't fight every battle nor win every war. Strategy is about picking the fights you can win and then winning them. The US has done a lousy job of fighting its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq-Nam largely because they never considered reaching objectives by relying on available resources.

Sadly, the war-prevention movement isn't a whole lot better. I'm certainly not smart enough to come up with a solution to it, but the problem is as plain as the fat around my middle. We have a bunch of people in the US who don't want another damn war, and certainly not with Iran. We also have a crowd of evil bastards who seem intent on starting such a war, and it's these guys who hold the levers of power to move the troops into Persia.

The resources we have are the millions who know a war in Iran will be a disaster for everyone involved. The objective is to ensure the war-mongers don't move the troops. There is an election that could remove the crazies but not for 15 months. We don't have time. Is it already to late?

to Jassim:

i dont think mister Ritter was implying that we forget about Iraq, i believe what he meant is instead of focusing "all" efforts on stopping th eIraq war which is already being fought, we should at least try to stop the Next war before it starts.

to Jassim:

i dont think mister Ritter was implying that we forget about Iraq, i believe what he meant is instead of focusing "all" efforts on stopping th eIraq war which is already being fought, we should at least try to stop the Next war before it starts. Actually we should start with afghanistan first we dont hear much about them anymore but NATO has been on a civilian killing spree there lately too, why do they alsways call in air strikes no matter what anyway?

Mr Ritter, with all due respect for his courage, may not be the best "war prevention" advisor. Some of his own choices of words and phraseology don't seem to exhibit a lot of political acumen.

Putting Iraq "on the back burner", for example, most certainly is "as distasteful as it sounds" in more ways than one. Surely the emphasis should be a positive one -- i.e., putting the potential for an attack on Iran in the forefront.

It seems to me that the two issues are complementary and, in any case, they're certainly not mutually exclusive. I don't know what kind of "stove" Mr Ritter uses, but mine has more than one "front burner."

This is a good thread, but I wonder what percentage of the population is listening, maybe 1% or 3% at the most. What I mean is enlightened souls, genuinely intent on sorting through the MSM propaganda storm. I was watching glimpses of David Letterman, and honestly the majority of Americans are as stupid, as stupid gets. This silent majority of lemmings have no idea Armageddon is close enough you could spit on it.

One shonky move from 'decider [dunderhead] in chief' and 'darth vader cheney' and the Middle East is toast. Back on Letterman and the pure brainwashing and stupefying power of MSM oozes bullshit galore.. Noam Chomsky was dead right [pardon the sardonic pun] about the 'Manufacturing of Consent'...

SCOTT RITTER=FREEDOM FIGHTER !!

I too was a lifelong-conservative-Republican- turned-anti-war activist...and a military man. Redemption is possible.

Demonstratons won't help. National strikes will.

People keep talking like an attack on Iran is the trigger point. It won't change anything.
Afghanistan was attacked and hardly anyone marched.
Iraq was attacked and hardly anyone marched.
All I hear is "Ok NEXT time we'll really put it them!" or the various IF/THEN statement. The truth is, the administration will attack Iran and there won't be any change in the demonstrations.
There is no NEXT time. It's happening RIGHT NOW! An attack on Iran is simply a continuation, it isn't a new event.

Continual, unrelenting EDUCATION directed at the gullible or the foolish is what is needed to stop this conflict and save our country. You can't say "NEXT time I'll build an Ark." The flood is upon you.

Ritter is right -- as usual. War-prevention makes far more sense than "bring the troops home." Bring them home for what? So they can rest up for the next war?

To TheLorax: "Iraq was attacked and hardly anyone marched." I beg your pardon, there were anti-war protests BEFORE the Iraq war started all over the world! We in the United States weren't the only ones who KNEW this was a BAD idea.

Plus Mr. Ritter is world renown. An international presence. A respected figure. Me. I just live in my house, try to interact in my community, and type on the keyboard. Like a bunch of us here as best i can tell. There is a difference between someone like myself and someon like Mr. Ritter who is "famous".

I have been posting here for months about my sentiment. I have been sending e-mails to my family and friends for years that is consistent with this sentiment as far as i know.

If there is someone in america who thinks we need to attack Iran then i want them to explain how it helps me and my family. I can't think of one good reason.

Iran on the other hand is sitting there. A huge monstrous military presence just at their doorstep. This presence could literally wipe out the country by some barbaric act if some insane individual made such a horrendous choice. Think about it. What would you do. So far it seems to me that the Middle Eastern Countries have shown patience and deliberation. For example, the situation with the Israeli planes flying into Syria??? Syria just reported what happened from their perspective but apparently did not retailiate. Well i'd like to know some other perspectives.

Plus, i'm sick and damn tired of folks from the US of A being in the middle east. Why are they there. We have been fed a bunch of lies from the get go. Who wants to keep listening to the spew. Not i.

If you want to get in a fight, come over to my house and we will have a boxing match fair and square. If that ain't how you play, then you ought to look in the mirror, and think about the kind of person you are.

Enough said.

Later,
Ken Hausle

Ok I take that part back. There were some marches. The point is that they didn't do any good.
I'm trying to state that we cannot wait "for something to happen" before taking action. It's already happened and is continually happening. All our time and energy needs to be spent waking people up. The demonstrations are a failure. The only way is talking face to face to persuade 1 person at a time.

The problem is the Public. The U.S. public is proud of it's ignorance. The U.S. public is a group of anti-intellectuals. They are intellectually lazy therefor are suspicious and contemptuous of anyone that sound a bit intellectual as in uses two syllable more than once in a conversation. The public like children must be entertained. The war in Iraq or Iran is like a game on playstation I, II and III- never ending and no one really gets hurt-it's fun.
Until our public becomes responsible adults they will continue to believe the spin-it's more exciting. They will make the Presidential race a popularity contest-who the hell cares what they say, we don't understand it or the consequences of what they say.
Turn the TV on when you get up in the morning and leave it on all day, put your kid in front of it to watch a few adds. let's have constant noise, turn up that Ipod so you don't have to think

"Scott Ritter, ... argued that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction."

Yep, well he was kinda one of the only ones (of a very few) qualified to give that opinion at the time, but it was lost amongst the media hype and the ratings grabs because peace, it turns out, is less profitable.

That's pretty sad, really. But what you gotta do is, you gotta get mad.

"Grrr... Hulk smash!!!"

"Public opinion wants us out of the war we are in and doesn't want to start another one," Sheppard said. "The American people are not going to support another war of choice in that part of the world."

Unless a false flag operation is performed to convince Americans they're being attacked (again). See http://www.oregontruthalliance.org/

Iraq-nam is perfect moniker on this mess.

...

Ritter is suggesting preventing a bigger catastrophuck??

Sure, you should. Everybody should.

Push for the draft. With a draft in the USA - a war would either not be fought - or an armed revolution will take place in America (how else do fascists get expunged - not by a vote)

When dunce America thinks they may be flown to Iran to die (a draft) and the nakedness of the murder for greed creed is exposed - either fear or shame will make even the most ardent right winger think.

Probably a lot are OK with murder for profit but if they had to be at personal risk (no blackwater) no war would ever occur.

it is time once again,,the mercenaries are all over afganistan and prepare for another'cleansing'do something,now,please,no more blood !!

A war with Iran will make Iraq look like a snowball fight. Why do you think we didn't invade them when they stormed our embassy during the Carter Administration? Even though Iran and Iraq hate each other, theres an old saying in the Arab world "...me an my brother fight our cousin. but me and my brother and our cousin fight the enemy." We are their enemy.

Bush wants to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran, but didn't he ever stop to think that within a few days the nuclear fallout drift would make its way over to Iraq where 150,000 American soldiers and those dear boys, the Blackwater mercenaries are stationed?

This makes no more sense than before Bush invaded Iraq - he put forth comments that our bombs are designed to only blow up buildings and not kill people.

What planet is he on? I heard Bush started drinking again when Laura had cancer surgery on her leg in January. Also heard Bush started drinking again when his disapproval rating reached 70%. I think he's gone off his nut.

So Bush's plan to nuke Iran is actually reminiscent of Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler killing his own people!

Drunken Cowboy drives nation into ditch.

The Cure for Mad Cowboy Disease is IMPEACHMENT.

Impeach Bush/Cheney and Jail to the Chief!

Have not read this whole thread, so if someone else has already made this point, I apologize, but it appears that the Bushies need only about 30 % of the public to fall behind a war or invasion for it to take action. I expect that the 30% or so who normally fall behind Bush will do so in this case as well. Of course, 100% of us will get to pay for it in reduced respect around the world, lowered moral authority and in lost program money for all kinds of infrastructure improvement. We ALL lose! But hey! Our P-resident wants it, so what else can we do?

OK Ritter - you say 80-100% for an attack on Iran. I laugh at that. Iran might attack US, but we sure as hell ain't going to attack them, but ok, i suppose, i could be wrong.

Even so, all i can say about these odds is BS = BS double BS; and quadruple plus quintuple and some sextuplet neptupet also. Understand that.

Tell US how you arrived at your odds?????

Honestly, People.

Peace,
Ken Hausle

I mean i see a bunch of issues pushing towards attack, but i don't see how you arrived at the odds?

This is a fair question.

Ken Hausle
Charlotte, NC

And let me make my final post. There ain't no way the odds are 100%. You do not know all that you think you do.

When i placed my odds a while ago, i still left out a chance....

Peace,
Ken Hausle

"The American people are not going to support another war of choice in that part of the world."

thewy dont support the one they are in now..what difference does that make?

""The American public is being imprinted to accept at face value that Iran poses a threat."

Much like training sheep to eat grass....

Wow, I was a bit concerned after reading Scott Ritter's remarks about the possibility of the U.S. starting a war with Iran. Thankfuully, Ken Hausle has straightened it all out and obviously there is little if anything to worry about that scenerio.

The odds of a war with Iran are next to nothing according to Hausle, Ritter's data is all BS, since he stated the odds of us starting a war with Iran at from 80 to 100%. How does Ritter figure his odds Ken asks? Let's see perhaps he figured ___ if a pig looks like a pig, oinks like a pig, smells like a pig and tastes like pork, the odds are from 80 to 100%, ____ it's a pig.

Sure glad we have other experts besides Scott Ritter to listen to here at CD. Of course I do see where Ron Hausle may be waffling a bit, he had to clarify his opinion twice with in a five minute time frame. Hmmmmmm, who to believe?

Wisdom sometimes appears on earth as a vulture, alerted by strong whiffs of carrion (Nietzsche)

Metaphor Development:

America's political brain is dead in the head.

What moves its body politic now is only a re-animated dead brain. In sum, a monster controlled by behind the scenes Frankensteins.

The vultures can now only appear as Other nations' wisdom, come to consume America's dead brain and put the full monster to rest.

Pretty ghoulish metaphor for a Federalist, huh?

(Actually, I'm hoping for a better outcome, but it's not a very believable hope at this point)

I forgot to mention, Ken Hausle stated ___ Iran might attack the United States, but the U.S. sure as hell would NOT attack Iran.

Wow, now that is something to worry about, wonder if they will attack by land, air, and sea all at once. Since Iran so far has NOT managed to en-rich uranium to the point where they can even use it for a nuclear power plant, I guess we don't have to worry about their attacking us with atomic bombs. It must be their navy and air force that is their strength. Or is it some secret death ray Iran has Ken? ____ Please do enlighten us with your wisdom.

I agree with ricco - we need a draft, and the sooner the better. It's the only thing that will make the average 'merican sit up and take notice.

The peace movement should be united in one single body and in one place join peacesource.net
book office space in our transnational offices. Flood your local politicians and candidates and local media stations with emails and demands.
Ask teh International Criminal Court to arrest Cheyney and Bush
http://peacesource.net
have a look particularly at projection and demonization and lying and disinformation.

I apolozize being longwinded.
Scott Ritter and many others who know the facts are all saying that the war with Iraq compared to war with Iran would be like a Sunday picnic. However nobody explains in detail why;
Here are a just a few facts to only scratch the surface;
-Iran has 4 times the size and 3 times the population of Iraq;
-Geographic makeup of Iran is quite different compared to Iraq, where the US armed forces have gathered their experience in fighting in the ME
-Despite all propaganda to the contrary, Iran has a homogenous people and almost 90% are shiites. Iranians have defended their country against the invaders since Alexander, followed by the Arabs and The Monguls. Although each time the country has come to the verge of annihilation, it still exists on the map.
-There is nothing more effective in uniting Iranians than a foreign attack. The Iran-Iraq war 1980-1988 being the most recent example.
-Iranian government structure is a polycentric one. Therefore "Shock and Awe " attacks would not be effective even if a number of the heads are taken out.
-Iranians have fresh experience and know how of fighting a war for 8 years with Iraq despite international sanctions
-Iran has been declared a member of the Axis of Evil since 2002, giving them a foolish 5 long years of warning
-Iranians have been in Iraq and watched the US fighting machine closely. They know a thing or two on how to fight
them.
-Having 5 years of forewarning Iranians have filled all their mountains and deserts with caches of weapons and explosives, awaiting the attacks.
-Iran occupies all the northern border of both Persian Gulf and Gulf of Omman. The coastline is a mixture of desert and rugged hills. Unless the US navy and Air Force has the possibility and the power to annihilate a long and difficult close to 1000 miles long coastline, even a few remaining surface to ship missiles supplied by Russia and China may play havoc on the US Fleet at sea. The closure of the Straits of Hurmoz is beside the point.
-Iran has a long border with Russia and lately Russins have not shown any tendency to act as our buddies. On the other hand Iranians have been a very generous client of Russian arms and other toys
All these facts that are not hidden from the US military strategists. They know that any troop movements into the Iranian territority is foolhardy and not practical.
The only probable solution to the Iranian problem, coveted by the Air orce, is thought to be the use of nuclear bombs with its known and clear consequences.
In my view it would be the height of political desparation and require total geopolitical ignorance to even think of undertaking such an action.
However I see nothing past the present adminstration especially with Mr. Cheney and the Israelites such as Mr. Liberman calling the shots.

You all can give me all the hell you want to. All i did was ask where the numbers (or the range if you prefer) came from. That is a fair question. Back it up. That is a fair request.

Mr. Ritter seems to be an outstanding individual. I just think if numbers like that are going to be thrown out there they need to be substantiated. Is that asking too much.

Peace,
Ken Hausle

Sinbaad lays out some differences between Iraq and Iran quite well and clearly illustrates the challenges of the neo-fools' next crusade. A couple of important issues he did not touch on should be considered. That Iran actually has an army, complete with military strategists and cohesiveness, national unity and pride, unlike the completely unorganized yet increasingly effective "civilians" in Iraq, could prove problematic for an inept military such as our own. Secondly, China and Russia have as much economically at stake as the US does. The two countries are already engaged in cooperative military excercises, and would almost certainly assist Iran in ANOTHER unprovoked, illegal attack. Also, our military personnel are already way over taxed. Recruiters are lowering standards just to maintain troop levels, where will the manpower come from?

But to me the issue is still about killing for profit. That we should "put Iraq on the back burner" and focus on Iran is paramount to saying, that some killing for profit is ok, as long as it doesn't hurt the Good ol US of A. Apparently, much of the citizenry in this once good country already think a little sport killing is good for the economy, and quite entertaining. But to read on a progressive site that it's either morally or strategically adviseable to ignore the criminal activity going on in Iraq because it would be in our own best interest to focus on the next catastrophe, implies that the concern lies with US only. To me this is about killing and maiming innocent Iraqis. Not because we are totally incompetent and unable to win what we seem proud to call a war, but because it is slaughter, not war, and innocent people are being splattered about as if it didn't matter.

A draft would certainly curtail some of the enthusiasm with which our elected idiots rush headlong into international mass murder, but it will never come to pass. It was put to a vote in the run up to Iraq and failed. Yes it was a political maneuver to produce the desired result, but it was voted down nonethless. How could mercenary companies like Blackwater profit if there was a draft? Exactly.

Demonstrations do not work. Elections don't either. If we have an election in 2008, the chances of all votes being counted accurately are, let's see, I put the odds between 1% and 2%. I have no facts to back up those numbers, they are used to make my point. Much like Ritter's 80-100% which Ken Hausle points out are mathematically unsound. But surely we progressives don't expect the Diebold machines to function properly come November do we?

So in short, it's back to the same old principle. The only way thinking or caring people will make any difference in the current or the upcoming disaster, is by withholding OUR money. It's the only way to effect any change in this corporate-right-neonut-armaggeddon-passing-through-the-eye-of-a-needle-camel-hating-idiocracy.

whirlled peas

For those who are doubting Ritter's assessment, he has already written extensively on his reasons why war with Iran is likely. One good article is here:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/27/4134/

Also, I would like to throw out the idea of tax resistance. WE are the ones paying for the war. If there were major tax resistance, then we wouldn't have to wait for congress to do something for us. We take the matter into our own hands. We keep our taxes and pay for community programs that we run ourselves (tutoring, community gardens, whatever). Of course, we risk eventually being put in jail... unless there are thousands and thousands doing it.

Are there other people besides me who are willing to do this en masse? What if we start a petition to get an idea of numbers of people who will do this?

The numb nuts decider and his coterie of idiots had better hear Sindbaad- I believe from the syntax that Farsi is his first language---- having spent some time in that part of the world, I believe that he speaks truth. These folks were civilized long before our forebears stopped painting themselves blue. They have a long history of taking a serious toll on invaders and a long memory, as in fact does most of the rest of the world. We (the United States are on thin ice with the rest of the world. A nuclear attack will certainly break that ice.

How to prevent a war?

First of all don't wait for it too begin by our administration conducting an attack, or authorizing, or assisting, or giving "the nod to Israel" to initiate attacks against Iran's infrastructure and people. Let Iran know that we hate our president and are struggling with our Congress to make them accountable to make the Administration accountable.

We, the people of the United States, need to choose a date that is closer than the primaries to hold a GENERAL STRIKE, this is to be a "pre-emptive" GENERAL STRIKE. We can not wait for the asshole in chief to get a brain transfer, or the republican party to get a heart transfer.

I choose the DAY of the DEAD, Nov. first, a Thursday, to be the first day of the US general strike against our administrations constant and increasing efforets to destablilize the middle east.

I will not work on on Nov. 1st.

Also the strike must last at least a week in order for the reality to ripple through the country. Close all offices: county, state, and Federal. Shut down the country. There are many people who want the war to stop but they don't want to be beat up by the police for nothing, they don't want to be imprisoned for demonstrating, etc. Well, not going to work will not draw prison terms or police brutality. There are many people willing to face off the gestapo if there is committment from the rest of their community.

Sisyphus

I agree with Ricco and others about the draft, but it's not going to happen.

The current trend is toward all outsourcing of the military services. This solves alot of long-term problems .. These guys get paid lots (heck, it's dangerous!) but come home to no VA or any kind of guaranteed public medical care. And there is no military accountability for their actions, which means that they can more effectively carry out the death wishes of their masters.

Who would need a draft given this trend?

Is there a way to counteract this trend of mercenarization of our armed services? It surely must be illegal in some way. How do we stop it?

Isnt it time we look at Sheppard as the analyst who promoted this war. He is just like every other talking head selling his career and soul. Ritter has been accurate and correct from the beginning.

Note: Ritter did not write this article. His comments above were chosen by the author and are not the only things he said. I saw him in Phoenix on Friday and he said that based on a full analysis of the situation (applying the methodology of an intelligence officer which he used to be) he figured there was an 80 - 100% chance that we will attack Iran. He does not believe the WH is bluffing on this.

His prescription includes putting lots of pressure on Congress for continued investigations, hearings, and oversight to make them produce the actual evidence for this and other issues so that impeachment will become impossible to deny (build the body of evidence through subpoenas, etc.) I am not saying that this will work -- just telling you what I heard him say (but I didn't record it, so it is my recollection).

I think our biggest hope is that the military will stand down on this if we can create enough "doubt" as to the legality of this action. Therefore, we must not just let it slide that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. We need to give the commanders and soldiers a leg to stand on by getting some authoritative body to declare all this invasion stuff illegal.

The marines are trying to get their units out of iraq and get them transferred into Afghanistan. Apparently there are no marines units in Afghanistan.
Are marine leaders trying to save the lives of their men from a lost cause..the war in iraq? Are the people who are the leaders in this war and intelligent beginning to wonder how to save the lives of their men? Lives that might be lost because of incompetence in the White House?

Also why is the US Congress now condemning the slaughter of Armenians in Turkey around the time of WWI? Is it to lose the support of Turkey and try to end the war by unraveling the tenuous support of Turkey? Turkey then would take over northern Iraq? Or is this just another instance of stupidity by our government...Why irritate Turkey now?

Intelligent people in positions of power must see what is going on. They must know that American lives will be lost and that the chances of any kind of good solution is unlikely because of the incompetence of the people in the White House. Some of them must be acting behind the scenes.

There are just so many unknowns in all of this...and the news is so biased and unreliable.

Isn't it unusual for a marine commandant Gen to suggest that forces be moved form one war zone to another without first clearing it with the defense secretary?

This seems odd to me.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hcWJu9bbzrJZ7uNHjvMn0BuTGqHQD8S9RVCO0

"Conway's comments come amid discussion at the Pentagon that the Marines pull its forces from Iraq and send them instead to Afghanistan to take the lead combat role there.

On Monday, Conway declined to comment because he said he had not yet briefed Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Gates recently told reporters that he was aware of the suggestion, but had not seen a plan.

"My understanding is that it's, at this point, extremely preliminary thinking on the part of perhaps the staff in the Marine Corps," Gates said. "But I don't think at this point it has any stature.""

"Too often the peace movement isn't ready for obvious attacks and gets defined by its own fringe political tendencies."

Whoever pointed out that Ritter didn't say that, the above author quoting him did - thanks. My ire stands intact, but more accurately directed now.

1. I agree that the Dems haven't done all they can. And it is true they can't break a filibuster. We need to elect enough, probably 9 and 10 for sure next election. And for sure a Dem Prez no matter who. The Supreme court is on the verge and one more conservative on it can undo everything that is still intact. And that will last for another 20 years. I don't contend this is more important than lives being lost isn't the most pressing issue, but it is important to realize that one more wingnut judge and they will overturn not just Roe v. Wade, but Social security, medicare, most large social programs. Remember Social Security only survived by a 5 to 4 vote in the 30s despite a court that at that time was liberal. Think of the damage that could be done, millions of seniors in poverty, no healthcare for them. Medicaid, Schip. If you don't think that the right wingers won't push for all of this as they become more and more emboldened, you are wrong. If you listen to right wing talk, their overall objective is to totally overturn the new deal of FDR, the new society of the 60s and 70s of the war on poverty, medicare, etc.
The electorate in the last 7 years has made the Dems extremely gun shy and the constant lies from prez and repugnets do echo across the land and it is unfortunate that this still resonates in the red states. I live in Georgia and hear the wingnuts exicited that this can occur in our lifetime; Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia are licking their chops for just one more wingnut Supreme court judge and we can begin. Justice Breyer, liberal is 87, Ginsberg, Stevens, and Souter in their 70s DANGER! DANGER! DANGER! Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, just licking their chops for one more wingnut
We must support the Dems and nurse them along no matter what!!! Don't vote for any 3rd party candidates, don't sign any petitions to get other candidates on the ballot in any state. THIS COMING ELECTION IS THAT IMPORTANT.
REMEMBER DIVIDE US AND THEY WIN!!!!!!.

War with Iran not only will destroy the Republican Party but also their enablers, the Democrats. Nationwide demonstrations will cripple the country, and Bush will impose martial law. Eventually, the military that's already tired of Bush/Cheney regime will step in and arrest the top Administration people___a regime change here in the US.