What you did not hear on Brownwood Talk Radio Airwaves this morning !

The Sunday Times - World

The Sunday Times
April 16, 2006

Generals advance on Rumsfeld
Sarah Baxter

REPUBLICANS are divided over the future of Donald Rumsfeld, America’s embattled defence secretary, as a generals’ revolt against his conduct of the Iraq war gathers force.
Senator John Warner, chairman of the influential armed services committee, declined to rally behind Rumsfeld this weekend. “Senator Warner believes that the decision on whether to keep the secretary is up to the president,” his spokesman said.
President George W Bush interrupted his Easter holiday at Camp David to express support for Rumsfeld’s “strong and steady leadership” but has failed to halt the rising criticism.

Major-General Charles Swannack, commander of the 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq until 2004, warned that Rumsfeld could cost America the war: “His arrogance is what will cause us to fail in future.”

Pat Buchanan, a former Republican presidential candidate and critic of the Iraq war, said: “There is an unstated message of the generals’ revolt. If Iraq collapses in chaos and sectarian war, and is perceived as another US defeat, they are saying, ‘We are not going to carry the can’. The first volley in a ‘who lost Iraq?’ war of recriminations has been fired.”
Bowing to pressure from generals to sack Rumsfeld could undermine the civilian leadership’s authority over the military, one of the cornerstones of American democracy. But Bush is mindful of criticism from his own party, as he showed when he dropped Harriet Miers, the White House counsel, as his Supreme Court nominee after she ran into a hail of conservative opposition.
Republican politicians, particularly those facing congressional elections this autumn, have become increasingly critical of the invasion, although only a handful of senior Republicans, such as Senator John McCain and Senator Chuck Hagel, have openly called for Rumsfeld’s resignation.
Newt Gingrich, a former Republican speaker of the House of Representatives who hopes to run for president in 2008, said last week that the occupation of Iraq was a “big mistake” and that America should pull out most of its troops, leaving only a small force.
He may have been reflecting the private thoughts of Rumsfeld, no admirer of nation-building, who has been criticised by the generals for failing to commit enough troops to Iraq.
Gingrich is close to Rumsfeld and serves as an adviser on his hand-picked Defence Policy Board. “Gingrich is an interesting bellwether,” said Jack Shaw, a former Pentagon official. “He would not have come out with his statement unless Rumsfeld wanted him to do it.”
Shaw said the 73-year-old Rumsfeld was afraid of becoming “McNamara Two” — a reference to Robert McNamara, defence secretary at the time of Vietnam, who later admitted to private reservations about the war and went on to oppose it in public.
William Kristol, editor of the neoconservative Weekly Standard magazine and a supporter of the Iraq war, said Rumsfeld’s resignation was long overdue. The generals were “acting out of patriotism”, Kristol said.
“This is not fun for them. They are reluctant to step forward in this way and for good reason. But I believe they are doing it because they believe that Rumsfeld is endangering the course of foreign policy.”
Other neoconservatives said that the generals’ revolt was as much to do with bureaucratic infighting as Iraq. “Look, he’s trying to change an institution that is very set in its ways and that’s not easy,” said Richard Perle, a former chairman of the Defence Policy Board. “You’ve got some disgruntled former officers. It’s no big deal.”
The generals’ criticism is appearing increasingly co- ordinated. In recent days six generals have attacked Rumsfeld, including Lieutenant- General Gregory Newbold, director of operations for the joint chiefs of staff before the war, who said that the “cost of flawed leadership continues to be paid in blood”.
Anthony Zinni, a retired general and former commander of US Central Command, which oversees the war, accused Rumsfeld of throwing out years of contingency planning for the invasion and urged him to go.
Senator John Reed, a Democrat member of the armed services committee, said he expected more retired officers to speak out against Rumsfeld this week.
The first demands for Rumsfeld’s sacking emerged in 2004 at the time of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. He offered Bush his resignation twice but was refused.
Rumsfeld has previously said he will leave office at the “pleasure of the president”. There is no sign yet that Bush has given up on his defence secretary, but with support for the war plummeting he may come to accept the need for a fresh start.

source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2136300,00.html
----------------
April 17, 2006

Recipe for Holy War: Add two nut jobs and stir

All right. I'm now officially scared.
Having just read Seymour Hersh's article about Bush's Iran plan, it appears that we no longer have a case of the good guys versus the bad guys.
What we have here is the bad guy versus the bad guy - two madmen playing an international game of chicken, ratcheting up the rhetoric to appeal to their fundamentalist followers.
There's no doubt that Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is mad in the head. In fact, it might help you remember his name if you pronounce it "Ah'm mad in ee head."
He's got a uranium enrichment program going on so he can build nuclear power plants. But since he's crazy, there's a lot of worldwide concern that he's going to build a nuclear bomb while he's at it.
The U.N. atomic watchdog agency, which paid him a little visit last week, says there's no evidence that he's working on weapons. Even so, the world is feeling a little squirmy about letting Ah'm Mad In Ee Head carry on with his nuclear program. Everyone keeps asking him to quit it, but he's dug in his heels.
So that's one madman on the loose.
The other one - our very own nut job in the White House - is licking his chops over what he perceives as a stubborn challenge from Iran's president.
In last week's New Yorker magazine, Hersh provided a detailed look at Bush's response to Ah'm Mad In Ee Head. According to Hersh's sources, Bush wants Ah'm Mad In Ee Head to defy U.N. demands to quit playing with uranium.
You know why? Because our own madman wants to trot out one of our own nukes and bomb Iran's madman out of business - along with a few hundred thousand other Iranians, of course.
As one congressman told Hersh, "The most worrisome thing is that Bush has a messianic vision." Bush is waging a holy war. He's on a crusade. And so is Ah'm Mad In Ee Head.
One nut-job fundamentalist Christian plus one nut-job fundamentalist Muslim equals one nut-job Holy War.
The administration's talking heads deny this, of course. They say Hersh is in "fantasyland." That's funny. It's exactly what they said about Hersh when he broke the story about U.S. soldiers torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib.
And so the rest of the world's people are as scared of George Bush as they are of Ah'm Mad In Ee Head. This unelected president of ours has systematically been dehumanizing Arabs. He's imprisoned them without charges. He's tortured them. He's killed them. And now he wants to nuke them.
He's like a child with a serious case of ADHD. He's lost interest in Iraq and is looking for a new toy to break. Iraq, after all, has turned out badly, so he's doing what he always does when he makes a mess of something - he's turning his attention elsewhere and starting a whole new mess.
The rest of the world prefers diplomacy, and for a good reason.
If Bush attacks Iran, he will unleash Hezbollah - Iran's strong, well organized terrorist organization. And who do you think Hezbollah's first target will be? The sitting ducks right next door in Iraq - American troops. Then Europe and Israel will go up in flames.
So now I'm officially scared. On their own, Bush and Ah'm Mad In Ee Head are frightening enough. Working together, these two could create the Perfect Storm.
Let's have a drink
There are 1,009 days 'til Inauguration 2009 - if we live that long. That means we'll break 1,000 next week. Let's drink a toast to Day 999 on Friday. At 7 p.m. on April 28 I'll be in the downstairs bar at Catherine's Restaurant, 153 West Main St., Goshen. If you plan to stop in, let me know so I can tell Steve at the restaurant what kind of crowd to expect.
Beth's column appears on Monday. Talk to her at 346-3147 or at bquinn@th-record.com.

source: http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2006/04/17/news-bethcolapril17-04-17.html