Frank Buckles: The Long March of the Last Doughboy Ends
Rest easy, sleep well my brothers.
Know the line has held, your job is done.
Rest easy, sleep well.
Others have taken up where you fell, the line has held.
Peace, peace, and farewell...
Read the article CNN/Last U.S. World War 1 veteran dies
<>
An ambulance driver in the Great War was in constant contact with the front, and I can only imagine the horrors that this man witnessed in terms of wounds and coming under fire himself.
Schrapnel from artillery shells bursting above the troops was responsible for almost 70% of casualites. The best part of 20 million died, about 10 million of them soldiers. He witnessed the last century from start to finish.
And all it gets is a byline at the end of a list. It should be Page 1 news, with a photo and an article that reminds people what those soldiers did. But an 11-second time span could not cope with that. The ipod generation isn't listening. Great man, God bless. My best to his family
Read the article CNN/Last U.S. World War 1 veteran dies
<>
The Liberty Memorial in Kansas City, MO is the nations largest WWI memorial, but has not been designated as a national memorial. Why it hasn't been made a national memorial is beyond me (it's 85 years old, not sure what they're waiting for).
It really is a beautiful landmark and contains the recently added and excellently designed National WWI museum. Anyone interested in WWI history and the commemoration of our veterans should take time to visit, and let your public representatives know that we should have a national WWI memorial
Read the article CNN/Last U.S. World War 1 veteran dies
While reading this story about Mr. Buckles and his fascinating life, I remembered an old man who used to walk the streets of the small northern Alabama town where I grew up.
Every day, he would walk endlessly, shaking and mumbling as he made his journey to nowhere.
One summer day, I was sitting in the front porch swing with my Grandfather when I saw this man come down the street.
I asked my Grandfather about him and with a sigh he answered,"He was gassed by the Germans in the First World War."
Almost fifty years later, I can still picture him wandering the streets and I have often wondered what horrors were in his mind on those long walks. Sadly, I never knew his name. I hope Corporal Buckles and the unknown walker of Piedmont are both resting in peace.
Read the article CNN/Last U.S. World War 1 veteran dies
<>
Building great rememberance monuments is fine but if we're just remembering for remembrance sake then we haven't learned anything. What is the point of remembering when we forget as soon as an opportunity to wage war arises? WW1 was called the war to end all wars because nobody thought such obscenity could ever be repeated.
How wrong they were. If anything, our propensity for war has increased. We now talk about preemptive war, threaten to use nuclear weapons on non-nuclear states, and even invent false pretexts to attack countries that haven't attacked us.
The only way to truly honor the sacrifices of those who fell is for humanity to reject war for ever .
Read the article CNN/Last U.S. World War 1 veteran dies
DONALD RUMSFELD, THE KNOWN AND THE UNKNOWN
I read all of the back and forth lib and con comments from earlier today and I am puzzled.
The Rumsfeld criticism represents a schism of ideology on the center to right, between more traditional Diplomacy and Military experts and those aggressively go on the offense. The more traditional view was to promote State relations and conduct overt and covert intelligence. This camp was represented by Armitage, Powell, Clarke.
Rumsfeld's folly (as promoted by the Cheney camp) was to try to convert our military to a largely outsourced entity. In the end, the effort was less successful and just as costly as a fully govt sponsored activity because of the usual grift, graft, and sweetheart lobbied deals. It had the added detraction of not being able to control behavior of contractors (let alone our own troops).
Rumsfeld was arrogant and , perhaps in following instructions from above, tried to cheap the wars. The extreme gaming of the system to sell the Iraq war and to portray all enemies as animals, led to confusion of leadership and Abu Ghraib.
George W. Bush became aware of Rumsfeld and Cheney's delusions, but acted too late. Rumsfeld should really have been fired directly after Abu Ghraib.
The cost of the wars only started to be counted after a new administration was in place here. And the Iraq war was far from the "pays for itself" snow job that Rumsfeld put on.
Read the article CBS?Rumsfeld criticizes Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, George H.W. Bush
<>
If you live your life as an uncompromising hammer, then all you will ever see in life are nails needing to be hit. That is how I describe Donald Rumsfeld as a person and as his tenure as the US Secretary of Defense. Between the dry-drunk decision making of George W. Bush, the retroactive conservative agenda of Dick Cheney, and Rumsfeld...they are all stubborn men who drove this country into a ditch.
The lesson of the last 10 years is...It DOES MATTER who you elect as president. I hope this country learned it lesson because the US has lost too much blood, treasure, and respect in the world because of the actions of these 3 men. It will be years, if not decades, for the US to recover from the 8 years of George W. Bush as president.
Read the article LOS ANGELES TIMES/ Book review: "Known and Unknown," by Donald Rumsfeld
<>
Rumsfeld did serve in the Navy. He never was in combat. I read his biography. His main problem is he always had to win regardless,he is not a team player, does not listen to opposing views and thinks he is smarter than anyone else. That is the conclusion I got got from the book.
As for him being a liar and dishonest? I will leave that for others to decide. . He can blame anybody he wants too but the bottom line is he was the sec of defense and he made a lot of the policy decisions regarding the Iraq Invasion and most were the wrong decisions . At least the wrong ones for America. I have never liked the man, he is arrogant,overbearing and egotistical.
Read the article LOS ANGELES TIMES/ Book review: "Known and Unknown," by Donald Rumsfeld
Rumsfeld is not a war criminal.
If you will remember, The United States got involved with Iraq following UN Security Council Resolutions: Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, Resolution 1189, Resolution 1284 and unanimously passed UNSC Resolution 1441... To name just a few (there are many more that Saddam thumbed his nose at)
President Bush stated "What good are these resolutions if they are not enforced?"
The only one of 26 provisions that weren't fulfilled by the invasion was "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (an Issue raised by Bill Clinton to justify bombing Iraq in "Operation: Desert Fox" in his 1998 State of the Union Address.) though 819 tons of military grade explosives were destroyed by US forces.
China wanted to veto use of force in reciprocity to the US criticizing China's human rights violations.
Russia wanted to veto because the US was encroaching into it's realm of traditional influence and several high ranking officials held interests in Iraq's oil fields.
Rummy was not involved with Abu Ghraib or waterboarding prisoners. Believe it or not, he was actually very upset over those incidents (I was too). It gave our enemies a reason to start killing people.
The "Atrocities" committed by American's do go punished. There are many American's serving life sentences or facing death for their crimes of war.
We exact our own punishment - rather than going to the world courts. The world courts are just for those who face no trial for their crimes.
I could go on and on about how Secretary Rumsfeld is completely innocent of any crimes - but you really have to be more specific in your accusations.
We can't exactly humiliate the United States and execute him on international television just because you might be a virulent hater of Republicans.
I am a Democrat, by the way, but not a hater.
Read the article FOREIGN POLICY/Donald Rumsfeld's 'Known and Unknown.'
<>
He is not guilty of any crime.....other than being the greatest failure of a defense secretary since McNamara.
Read "Cobra II", and tell me he's a brilliant strategist. And that's not a political polemic - its the most detailed account of how every decision he made regarding Iraq was the absolute worst one possible.
And he blames Bremer when Bremer was HIS guy. He shortchanged and then evicted garner, guaranteeing from the outset that there would be never be any working State Dept people on the ground... first he delayed anyone working on 'post-iraq'; then when a team was put together he isolated them and provided no budget or resources; then when they got on the ground, he immediately changed his staff and kicked them out.
If that wasnt an INTENTIONAL desire to have no capable individuals involved in post-iraq management, it doesn't even matter = the results of his meddling ensured that everything was going to go to hell. He screwed the whole thing up before it even started, and compounded his errors over and over after it had begun. Anyone defending his record is either ignorant, or consciously misrepresenting history.
Rumsfeld was a failure. And on top of his failure is the total lack of any sense of responsibility for his failures. Macnamara spent decades issuing mea culpas for his mistakes. Rumsfeld will go to his grave blaming everyone else for things he simultaneously claims weren't really mistakes anyway. That's basically his twisted rhetoric: "Nothing went wrong and it wasn't my fault anyway".
Read the article FOREIGN POLICY/Donald Rumsfeld's 'Known and Unknown.'
<>
Rumsfeld only liked people who told him what he wanted to hear. And he and Cheney liked what Tenent had to tell them. They encouraged him, and Tenent figured out what they wanted to hear and so that's what he told them.
They were all talking to their belly buttons, and ignoring anything to the contrary.
Our intelligence areas were drastically wrong about the Soviet Union and wrong about Saddam. Part of the military-industrial complex...and it does exist.
Why does America spend as much on defense as the rest of the world. Why do we have approximately 800 post, camps and stations outside of the US? Why can't Europe and Japan defend themselves, or at least take the lead on defending themselves. Last time I checked, we had no European military bases on US territory, yet we continue to have bases in England, Spain, Italy, and Germany.
We need to redefine what we want our defense establishment to be. We have virtually been in a constant state of war ever since WWII.
Having a large defense establishment is too much like having a nice big hammer...you start looking for nails to pound. Its a big temptation to use...
Read the article WASHINGTON POST/Gwen Ifill reviews Donald rumsfeld's "Known and Unknown"
JULIAN ASSANGE -- THE 60 MINUTES INTERVIEW
60 Minutes Interview
Both the 60 Minutes report and the NY Times piece on Mr. Assange were enlightening. He is clearly a personality enjoying his fame. Even though he reminds me of 'Max Headroom.' he is subordinate to what WikiLeaks has accomplished.
I was gratified to hear Mr. Kroft express his affinity and acceptance of Assange in the 'Overtime' piece. This should have been included in the broadcast.
I have been frustrated by the silence of mainstream media in regard to the smear campaign waged by our government and the attempts to silence WikiLeaks by intimidation, isolation and by pressuring financial institutions to cut off sources of operating income for WikiLeaks.
This report was a chance to see old established media forced to confront a paradigm shift in the media in a thoughtful manner
Read the article CBS 60 MINUTES/Julian Assange: the 60 Minutes interview
<>
I regret that this interview, and most coverage of Wikileaks, seems to have become a celebrity-focused affair. The media seems to produce People-magazine -worthy profiles of Julian Assange, while the U.S. press and government seem to continually glance over the real issues at hand.
When faced with evidence of tens of thousands of civilian casualties, torture and human rights violations, and widespread diplomatic corruption perpetrated in the name of the US, the only response of our elected officials ( from Sarah Palin to Hillary Clinton) has been 'how do we stop this information from getting out' and even 'let's assassinate this guy'.
Our government currently seems to be on a totalitarian campaign of censorship and repression of information. Congress and the Justice Department are on a witch hunt trying to suppress further information from getting out and looking to manufacture charges against Wikileaks/Assange.
It's unfortunate that Mr. Assange seems to have become the center of this story, and even more unfortunate that he seems to be swept up in his own celebrity to the point where even his own people are abandoning him. The horrifying actions revealed in the leaks seem are glanced over in this story in favor of a celebrity biography.
When will the real issues at hand be addressed? Our image on the world stage has never been lower, and I wonder what have we become?
Read the article CBS 60 MINUTES/Julian Assange: the 60 Minutes interview
<>
This is complex and interesting. Let's look at it from two perspectives:
Legality - on the one hand, If someone gives wikileaks classified information that they had access to because of their own security clearance, then that disclosing person is clearly committing a crime, and they will pay dearly if they are caught (as the Army Private has...). However, once wikileaks gained the information, they have made no agreement with the U.S. government or anyone else to protect it. Therefore, I believe they have the legal right to publish it per the First Amendment. Example: When Woodward and Bernstein exposed Watergate, some of what they learned had been classified as "Secret" by the Nixon White House. But they and the Washington Post had made no agreement to protect the classified information, so they could not be punished by the U.S. government for publishing it.
Morality - At issue here is the ability for people or institutions in power to classify information simply to protect their own self interest. This is contrary to the legitimate purposes of government secrecy, which is intended to protect information that would damage the American people if it were disclosed. Example: In World War II, the Allies broke both the German and Japanese encryption codes. This fact was kept secret throughout the war, and helped the Allies prevail. Had that information ever been made public, the damage to the Allies would have been enormous. It could have changed history and cost hundreds of thousands of lives. That is an example of a legitimate secret.
However, what Mr. Assange is saying here is that many government secrets aren't legitimate, and the only means of ensuring legitimacy, is to provide a means for people inside government to anonymously disclose illegitimate secrets to the the public. To "Whistle Blow". It's a powerful argument, and the ability of such a system to put a check on power is profound.
However, this system also carries with it huge responsibilities. It disturbs me that Wikileaks disclosed the names of enemy informants. That has likely already cost some of those people -- people who were informing against somebody they felt was morally wrong -- their lives.
Mr. Assange is playing with fire, and I'm not sure he fully understands the consequences. However, I believe his "play" will fuel a debate that will ultimately be good for all of us.
.Mr. Assange has taken no oath to protect the secrets of any government, including the U.S., so it is difficult to see how he has broken any laws.
Read the article CBS 60 MINUTES/Julian Assange: the 60 Minutes interview
<>
If the USA can't withstand the release of the truths found within it, then they don't deserve to. We are a strong nation with freedom and liberty as our basic foundation. What we can't survive is the lack of transparency and living in fear and we have past examples.
Senator Joe McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover were able to do horrible things based on secrecy and threats --- that is, they put themselves above the law and the public fell for it ... for awhile ... and our nation suffered. But when the truth came out we regained our strengths. What Assange is doing represents a favor to us -- for we must know the truth in order to be free. It's no loss that a bunch of bureaucrats have to suffer embarrassment and run for cover ... not when it comes to liberty and freedom.
Remember, Assange is only publishing information that exists within our government, of which we were unaware. Keep your eyes on the ones who complain the loudest, for they are the ones with much to hide and live in fear of exposure.
A big batch of info was exposed in November 2010 -- we haven't shown any signs of collapse yet (but we sure did a few years ago thru actions of big banks in this country!) And that brings up the fear our big banks are showing with the possibility of Assange releasing some inside info from said banks. I'll bet it isn't good -- for the banks. And I'll bet we'll be a lot better off for knowing it.
Read the article CBS 60 MINUTES/Julian Assange: the 60 Minutes interview
<>
"Except when he publishes documents that potentially put people such as our solders, peace keepers and diplomats in danger that is, right?"
I'm an ex-military officer, and as far as I can tell nothing that wikileaks has published has put people in danger. Holding politicians to account is one of the most important duties of the press. Doing this during a period of war is even more important. Especially when that war is as asymmetric as current ones.
Think about this. During a very symmetric war (one where each side is almost equally powerful) some of the extremes are avoided because of fear that the other side will reciprocate. It is largely believed that chemical and biological weapons were avoided in the second world war because of fear that the other side would reciprocate.
Reciprocity kept the nuclear weapon genie in the bottle for the entire cold war. In an asymmetric war, there is very little to prevent excess. America has got away with illegal detention and torture largely because there is very little risk of that happening to their troops. The only way the illegal detention and torture got scaled back is because the press heard about it and published.
Wikileaks is a key part of that press function in the modern digital age.
Read the article THE REGISTER/Assange relishes U.S. banks 'squirming" over megaleak
<>
As someone that was born and raised surrounded by technology and as someone that truly values what the Internet has brought to us in terms of convenience and access to information, I have to say that I am Assange's side all the way. Whistle-blowing is a right we should stand for and make sure is kept. The internet is our tool, not the US government tool.
He is the only man in history that had a been accused of rape and was investigated by the Interpol. That shows how low governments have gone in order to eliminate any opposition to their status quo. If the US, Swiss, UK and Swedish governments are concerned with this man, there is a good chance he is doing something good (as he is not a terrorist).
Assange is the man of the decade in my opinion.
Read the article THE REGISTER/Assange relishes U.S. banks 'squirming" over megaleak
<>
"If you have nothing to hide..." yah-de-yah.
Then you won't mind if I just trawl your email, bank statements, household bills etc. Or why stop there? Lets have a rummage through your office drawers...or how about your bedroom...? How trawling through your kids homework? Maybe I'll post on Facebook all the juicy stuff? What - you're overdrawn and the credit card is maxed out, and the wife didn't know? Aw, shame that...but afterall - you have nothing to hide.
See where that stupid and dangerous statement can lead?
Be aware - 'personal' privacy is a right *I* will be retaining until they pull it from my cold, dead fingers. You - the public - (or the government) do not need to know *everything* about me.
Personally, I'd be pretty bloody pissed if someone started publishing my bank statements online, which is tantamount to what Assange is doing. A lot of people here are getting confused as to what information he intends to publish.
Publishing the shady operations of the banks is fair game; but when he starts publishing what the mega-rich spend their money on, or how much money they have, he's crossed a privacy line IMO. Rich or not - they're entitled to the same personal privacy we are.
Assange would do well to highlight any shady dealings the banks get up to...and kudos to him for doing so. But he should know to draw the line at publishing actual account information. Or it'll be your information next.
Please...don't start *any* privacy comment with "If you have nothing to hide..." ever again.
Read the article THE REGISTER/Assange relishes U.S. banks 'squirming" over megaleak
READ MORE BEST COMMENTS: JANUARY 2011
