I am of a different generation. It was assumed in mine that all young men would serve in the armed forces. The question was whether you waited to be drafted, volunteered or joined ROTC. Pete Seeger sang our song:

"What did you learn in school today,

Dear little boy of mine?

I learned that war is not so bad. I learned about the great ones we have had.

We fought in Germany and in France.

And someday I might get my chance.

That's what I learned in school today.

That's what I learned in school."

It was our duty to defend our country and we trusted our leaders. Richard Clarke reminds us of that sentiment in his blockbuster book, "Against All Enemies." He writes: "As Americans, it is up to us to be well informed and thoughtful, to help our country make the right decisions in this time of testing. We all need to recommit ourselves to that ancient pledge 'to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, against all enemies.' "

Good advice. We must be "well informed" and to that end, the survivors of 9/11, along with Sen. John McCain, forced the Bush administration to establish a commission to examine all the facts of 9/11. What did the government know and when did it know it? The commission is an attempt to expand from 30-second, political made-for-TV spots to a thoughtful discussion. While my expectations of the Bush-selected panel were low, it has become apparent that the commissioners are taking their job seriously.

Who is interested? How about the families of National Guard members, who were never told they would take the place of regular Army troops for an indeterminate period. Their dreams are on hold because the president won't face the fact that to fight a war and maintain an invasion force and be ready to fight another would require a draft of young men and women. To avoid that truth, the National Guard is misused.

Before the hearings began we knew the sad truth that Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld lied to justify their obsession to invade Iraq.

We knew a lot before the Clarke testimony but his comments altered the entire debate. Now we know that Rumsfeld ran out of sexy targets to bomb in Afghanistan and so Iraq moved up on his list. Imagine the reaction of servicemen and women to that report.

Clarke confirmed former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's statement that invading Iraq was the obsession of the Bush team long before 9/11. Place yourself in Baghdad with our troops when that news reaches them.

Clarke reported that he was shoved aside because counterterrorism was not high on the Bush agenda.

Clarke confirmed that there was no connection between the al-Qaida terrorists and Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. After thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths, 650 of our soldiers killed and thousands more injured for life, what, may we ask, was this all about?

Bush acts as if the invasion were a fraternity prank gone bad. He jokes about looking for WMDs in his office.

After listening to Clarke, the inescapable conclusion is that the invasion of Iraq was one of the most irresponsible acts in this country's history.

So how are our soldiers taking all this? The Washington Post reports that an Army survey found 52 percent say their morale is low and 70 percent believe the morale of their fellow soldiers is bad. Seventy-five percent think their leaders "showed a lack of concern for their soldiers." Twenty-three soldiers have committed suicide in Iraq.

In some respects the most troubling revelation is the refusal of the Bush team to explain what happened. The effrontery of national security adviser Condoleezza Rice appearing on seven cable and network shows trying to explain why she won't testify under oath in public before the 9/11 commission while all the while attacking Clarke is remarkable. If she can answer Ed Bradley, why can't she appear before the commission?

It is clear that she can't be serious about executive privilege when President Ford himself testified before Congress on the Nixon pardon. National security adviser Rice doesn't want to be under oath. It is that simple. How will that impact the morale of the troops? Are they in Iraq for military or political purposes?

C-SPAN ran the 1971 testimony of John Kerry before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. A 27-year-old Purple Heart and Silver Star winner, he gave one of the most articulate speeches ever seen. He took on the war and the administration while George W. Bush was dilly-dallying in Alabama supposedly with the Air National Guard. Compare these two men and their war records. There is no record of Bush showing up in Alabama and no record of a pass. That, by any other definition, is being absent without leave while Kerry was getting shot up in Vietnam.

Bush, without the courage to face the families of the 9/11 victims, now calls Kerry, the war hero, weak on defense. John McCain quickly came to Kerry's defense.

The attacks on the Twin Towers should be above political advantage. No president should send our troops to death and injury unless we have a national purpose. And no president should allow his national security adviser to hide behind a self-created "policy" to avoid telling the truth. Clarke said it best. "We must be well informed and thoughtful." Our troops and their families deserve no less.

Ed Garvey, the Democratic nominee for governor in 1998, is a Madison lawyer and the editor of the fightingbob.com Web site.

Copyright 2003 The Capital Times

###