Truth is the First Casualty of War

Back on May 31st, George W. Bush held a press conference in which he explained to us the meaning of "disassembling." "That means not telling the truth!" he harumphed indignantly. Of course he was wrong.
But: a) We knew what he meant, and b) we should be used to his mangling of the English language by now, anyway. Coincidentally, the word he was looking for was "disembling." That means not telling the truth, accomplished by careful word selection. Disassembling means the act of deconstructing, tearing down. Isn't that what is happening to troop morale, and to the Iraqi infrastructure?

I watched the speech, and listened carefully. After he began to speak, there was no applause, save one brief round, near the end, and it was apparently started by a white-house staffer, according to all the networks in the post analysis. He started off by immediately invoking September 11, 2001. He started the conflating of issues early, and he did it often. In fact he chose to open and close with a comingling of the two discreet issues. The following is excerpted from the speech, about 30 seconds or so in:

"I made a commitment to the American people: This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy. Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war."

It has been clearly established, repeatedly that Iraq had no connection to 9.11. Iraq under Saddam was a secular state, and we were attacked by fundamentalist religious zealots. Under Saddam, the borders were controlled and the fundamentalists in the country were kept in check. It could be argued that that fact by itself would have been a good reason to leave well enough alone. Neither of these statements are true any longer. The streets of Baghdad are awash in home-grown insurgents and imported terrorists, who have come from Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen...They are entering the country through a porous border and blowing up Americans with munitions most likely taken from the unsecured Al Quaqa. (Remember Al Quaqa?) I am not defending a murderous thug, I am simply stating facts, as uncomfortable as they may be. It is a fact that with the U.S.-led invasion, these facts changed.

I TiVo'd the speech, and rewatched it, and I read it (a few times) as well. I count four mentions of September 11th. I count two mentions and one quote attributed to Osama bin Laden. I count four mentions of insurgents. The words "terror" "terrorism" or "terrorist(s)" - I lose track at around 25 every time.

As a former resident of New York City, I resent the conflation of issues between September 11 and the war in Iraq. As a first responder, and a trauma/ER professional who has had a LOT of additional training since 9.11, I will be one of those who will be on the front lines of civil defense the next time it happens, no matter where it happens, and because of that I resent the swaggering stance that we are taking. As a military wife, daughter, and aunt I am bothered by the "hoo-ah" culture that is permeating our military. Jingoism scares the hell out of me, and I see it and so do the older officers and NCO's who are nearing the end of their careers and they shake their heads. I am concerned that we will hemmorhage academy-trained officers as committments are fulfilled, starting with the class of 2001 in one year. I am afraid we will see the biggest exodus of seasoned officers since the class of 1969 left in droves in 1974. If the U.S. military truly needs to redefine it's mission to be an effective defensive force for the United States in a changing world, we will need these men and women in a way we can not yet appreciate. Good officers are the foundation of the Honor Code, and the Honor Code is all that stands between a military and tyrrany. I worry that in the climate that is being fostered today, the wrong ones will choose to stay, and the right ones will choose to go.

I will admit freely that one of my problems with George Bush is that I just don't like the guy. I know too many assholes just like him, smarmy, smirking, strutting frat boys who never suffered a consequence in their entire lives. It isn't resentment on my part; it is that pricks like him don't have the capacity to appreciate what they have, let alone empathize with someone in dire straits. I can't get the image of him mocking Karla Faye Tucker on her way to the execution chamber out of my head. (Anyone who has read any of my early posts, ranting about the governor of Missouri, Matt Blunt will recognize this as being the same problem I have with him.)

I went to a private college. On scholarship, Pell grants, Social Security Survivors Benefits, and student loans. I knew a lot of jokers like him. I didn't resent them. I still don't. But I don't like them. I deal with doctors every professional day of my life. Doctors are bad on the insufferable prick-scale, but at least they work for a living. And doctors have seen bullet wounds so they would send us to war much more reluctantly. I would rather have a president who can identify with the working class because he has worked at a real job, who has written a check to the department of ed to make a student loan payment. Who has worried that that check would bounce. I would rather have those qualities that I can identify with than a president who can identify with Paris Hilton, and whose daughters most likely do.

The people like him that I have known are just so out of touch with reality that it scares me one of them is in power. If I had my way, we would have sent as many troops to Afghanistan as they sent to Iraq and done the job correctly there. I wish they were paying more attention to North Korea. I wish they would fully fund the VA healthcare system. I shake with fury every time a young guy transfers from Walter Reed to one of the VA hospitals where I pull shifts. I wish we had never gone into Iraq and that the survivors of 1742 troops, who grieve for their lost children and spouses and parents and friends and relatives did not feel an aching void in their lives, exacerbated by the dishonesty of the whole mess. We might have a comparable number dead in Afghanistan, but it would have been for the real reason, not a lie that changed several times as political ground was to be protected.

I have a lot of problems with the way this war has been prosecuted, and the way the just war has been neglected. I have problems with the administration not listening to the generals before they charged in hell bent for leather. I wish we had some troops to commit to Darfur to stop the genocide there.

I worry that the civil war in Iraq is not merely inevitable, but that it is already underway. I worry that for every insurgent we capture or kill we create three to take his place.

I know what I would do if they rolled into Kansas City. I would make roadside bombs, I would make gunpowder from bat guano and reload ammo if necessary. (I've known how to reload ammo since I was eight.) I would shoot at their soldiers from a high vantage point with a deer rifle, and I'm a decent shot. Last fall I dropped a buck at about 250 yards with a .270. I would find it fitting to snipe from atop the Liberty Memorial. I would fight, and willingly die, to protect my home. And home is more than a structure. I would kill without hesitation to protect my family and my friends and my values. I would take up arms, I would raise up an army, I would use whatever means necessary and struggle until victory and never surrender.

I would not rest until the last breath left my body, or the last invader left my soil, and there quite simply would be no compromise position.