Bob Woodruff at Michigan Commencement

Here are some excerpts from Bob Woodruff's commencement address to graduates of the University of Michigan:

SOME OF YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH MY STORY. BASICALLY, I WAS BLOWN UP AND THEN SURVIVED. THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO AROUND HERE TO BE INVITED TO GIVE THE GRADUATION SPEECH AT MY ALMA MATER.

WHILE COVERING THE WAR OUTSIDE OF BAGHDAD FOR ABC NEWS, I WAS HIT BY AN IED, AS SO MANY OF OUR SERVICE MEMBERS ARE INJURED EVERY DAY IN THIS WAR.

IN FACT A RECENT REPORT BY THE RAND CORPORATION FOUND THAT MORE THAN 300,000 AMERICAN SOLDIERS HAVE SOME FORM OF A BRAIN INJURY. THAT INCLUDES PHYSICAL INJURIES OR MENTAL STRESS FROM COMBAT. SOME OF THEM HAVE OBVIOUS WOUNDS…OTHERS ARE MORE HIDDEN.

IN YOUR DAY-TO-DAY LIFE AT COLLEGE, YOU PROBABLY DON’T THINK A HECK OF A LOT ABOUT THESE SERVICE MEMBERS, WHO ARE, MOST OF THEM, JUST YOUR AGE. THEY WAKE UP EVERY DAY WONDERING IF THIS IS GOING TO BE THE DAY THEY STUMBLE ON AN IED BURIED IN A PILE OF TRASH, OR ROLL DOWN A ROAD WITH A BOMB DUG INTO THE DIRT.

YOU WILL INHERIT THIS NEXT GENERATION OF WOUNDED AND IT WILL BE UP TO YOU, FOR THE MOST PART, TO HELP THEM AS THEY ASSIMILATE BACK INTO SOCIETY AND TO EXPRESS GRATITUDE AS A SOCIETY FOR THE FACT THAT THEY RAISED THEIR HANDS TO GO TO IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN—SO THAT YOU WOULD NOT HAVE TO.

WHETHER YOU ARE FOR OR AGAINST THIS WAR, I BELIEVE THAT THE VETERANS MUST BE TREATED WITH DIGNITY WHEN THEY RETURN HOME. THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL ISSUE. IT IS SIMPLY THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

...

THERE HAVE BEEN SO MANY AMAZING MOMENTS IN MY LIFE. I HAD A GREAT CHILDHOOD, AMAZING PARENTS AND BROTHERS. I MARRIED A GREAT WOMAN AND PUT HER THROUGH HELL. I HAVE FOUR WONDERFUL KIDS WHO ARE MY LIFE AND I'VE BEEN BLESSED WITH A CAREER THAT LET ME TRAVEL THE WORLD.

BUT I FACED PERHAPS MY GREATEST CHALLENGE WHEN HUNDREDS OF ROCKS AND METAL HIT THE LEFT SIDE OF MY HEAD, WITH THE FORCE OF A BLAST. A 155 MM ROADSIDE BOMB HAD EXPLODED 20 FEET FROM WHERE MY CAMERAMAN AND I WERE STANDING PARTIALLY OUT OF THE TANK.

WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT, MY SHATTERED SKULL, A COMA FOR 36 DAYS AND THEN, AS SO MANY OF OUR WOUNDED SERVICE MEMBERS AND THEIR FAMILIES ARE FACING EVERY DAY IN THIS COUNTRY—THE LONG ROAD TO RECOVERY TO REGAIN MYSELF AFTER A BRAIN INJURY.

I LEARNED RECENTLY FROM ONE OF THE SURGEONS WHO HAD BEEN IN THE BATTLEFIELD HOSPITAL—THAT, WRITTEN NEXT TO MY NAME ON MY MEDICAL CHART WAS THE WORD "EXPECTED"—THAT MEANT, "EXPECTED TO DIE."

AND WHEN I DID WAKE UP—IN A DRAMATIC AND HUMOROUS WAY—WHICH YOU CAN READ ABOUT IN OUR BOOK—IN AN INSTANT—JUST OUT IN PAPERBACK—I DIDN'T KNOW THE NAMES OF MY KIDS, IN FACT I HAD FORGOTTEN THAT I HAD TWINS AT ALL.

I CALLED ALL OF MY BROTHERS DAVE, AND I WAS MISSING MANY, MANY WORDS. I LIVED FOR FOUR MONTHS WITH PART OF MY SKULL MISSING AND I BATTLED FATIGUE AND PAIN CONSTANTLY.

WITH THE HELP OF MY FAMILY, FRIENDS, OUR COMMUNITY IN NEW YORK AND IN MY HOME TOWN OF BIRMINGHAM AND A HUGE SUPPORT FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN COMMUNITY, I WAS ABLE TO COME BACK AND CONTINUE AS A FATHER, HUSBAND, AND NOW AS JOURNALIST.

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT—FOR THOSE PRAYERS AND THOUGHTS AND GOOD WILL. IF YOU EVER FOLLOWED OUR STORY—YOU HAVE HELPED ME TO RETURN TO WHAT I LOVE TO DO.

AND SO MY LAST LITTLE NUGGET TODAY IS TO TELL YOU THAT YOU SHOULD NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT. HUMAN BEINGS ARE INCREDIBLY RESILIENT. THE BODY AND THE MIND CAN DO AMAZING THINGS. PEOPLE CAN FIGHT BACK AGAINST GREAT ODDS AND TRIUMPH. AND WHEN YOU HIT THAT ROUGH PATCH IN YOUR LIFE, AND AT SOME POINT YOU WILL, YOU WILL NEED TO DRAW UPON ALL OF YOUR ARTILLERY.

FAITH, LOVE, FAMILY, FRIENDS, DETERMINATION, MOTIVATION, SHEER DOGGEDNESS—THESE WERE SOME OF THE TOOLS I HAD AT MY DISPOSAL. I WAS LUCKY—AND I WAS ALSO BLESSED.

FAMILY AND FRIENDS ARE THE GREATEST GIFTS IN LIFE. I FOUND THAT OUT WHEN I WAS INJURED AND YOU, MOST LIKELY, WILL ENCOUNTER A TIME WHEN YOU WILL NEED TO LEAN ON OTHERS TO HELP YOU GET BY. IT IS NOT A STRAIGHT LINE. THE FRIENDS YOU MADE HERE AT MICHIGAN WILL MOST LIKELY BE FRIENDS FOR LIFE.

BISHOP DESMOND TUTU HAS A QUOTE THAT SPEAKS TO ME, AND SO I SHARE IT WITH YOU TODAY. HE SAYS, "I AM SORRY TO SAY THAT SUFFERING IS PART AND PARCEL PART OF THE HUMAN EXPERIENCE. AND SO WE CAN CHOOSE TO HAVE IT EMBITTER US—OR ENNOBLE US."

I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANYONE AMONG US WHO WANTS TO BE A BITTER OLD PERSON. I KNOW I DON'T. AND SO I URGE YOU TO TAKE THOSE CHALLENGES AND RISE TO THEM.

More Iran Saber Rattling

The Jerusalem Post and Los Angeles Times write about Mullen's saber rattling over Iran.

He says they have evidence that Iran is helping militias, but that he will have to wait until next week to reveal it.

Mullen said he has reserve capabilities in the Navy and the Air Force for any needed military action.

So, they are busy faking the evidence; he won't say which 'militias', so it must be our allies in the Badr Corps; no Army or Marines, so all we can do is bomb.

A new explanation for all this crap about Iran just occurred to me. Iran's closest ally in Iraq is also our closest ally; why would it bother us that they support our ally? Juan Cole (I think) has suggested that it is another manifestion of the Rice-Bush-Cheney Axis of Gargantuan Incompetence.

But what if the Axis of Gargantuan Incompetence fears that a strong relationship between Iran and Iraqi government will break up our alliance with Maliki et. al.? Maybe they are afraid that Maliki will align with Iran, ditch us, and leave us with only the Kurds as allies in Iraq. It is more about trying to make sure Maliki doesn't bail like Tony Blair, Bush's last poodle.

Rice lies about Carter-Hamas meeting

Dang it, can't get through a week with another Condi bash.

She said that her State Dept. explicitly warned Carter not to meet with Hamas.

Carter says it ain't so.

Given Rice's track record of dissembling, I believe Carter. She might as well be vomiting slugs.

Bad Fiction With A Drunken Slur

It's been a few months since a good Condi-bashing post, and just in time, Juan Cole comes along with another example of Madam Secretary's staggering incompetence:

Secretary of State Condi Rice wants the Arab states to shield Iraq from Iran's "nefarious influence." Rice seems unaware that she has installed in Baghdad parties like the Islamic Mission Party (al-Da'wa) and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) that are very close to Tehran, and that Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia advised her not invade Iraq because this would happen. And Sunnis, Salafis and Wahhabis would dissuade Iraq's Shiite majority from good relations with their Iranian Shiite neighbors . . . how? Whenever I hear Bush administration officials say something about the Middle East, it is as though I am listening to bad fiction read with a drunken slur. Opinion polling does not find that the Arab publics are afraid of or worried about Iran in any numbers, and in fact Israel's attack on largely defenseless little Lebanon in 2006 made Iran and Hizbullah more popular in the region.

What exactly is Iran's nefarious influence? They helped broker a ceasefire in Basra.

General Odom's 2008 Testimony

I quoted Odom last year on the Iraq war. I quote him again, via Truthout, from his recent testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Odom shreds some fallacies that I find irritating whenever they are repeated by the pro-war crowd. My response to the chaos theory is a little different: the 'chaos' argument has been made for years, we have stayed, and still there has been chaos. The burden should be on the people who want to stay to show how staying (again!) will prevent chaos, despite its failure to do so previously. But Odom's argument is a good one.

The most important excerpt from General Odom's testimony:

A number of reasons are given for not withdrawing soon and completely. I have refuted them repeatedly before but they have more lives than a cat. Let try again me explain why they don't make sense.

First, it is insisted that we must leave behind military training element with no combat forces to secure them. This makes no sense at all. The idea that US military trainers left alone in Iraq can be safe and effective is flatly rejected by several NCOs and junior officers I have heard describe their personal experiences. Moreover, training foreign forces before they have a consolidated political authority to command their loyalty is a windmill tilt. Finally, Iraq is not short on military skills.

Second, it is insisted that chaos will follow our withdrawal. We heard that argument as the "domino theory" in Vietnam. Even so, the path to political stability will be bloody regardless of whether we withdraw or not. The idea that the United States has a moral responsibility to prevent this ignores that reality. We are certainly to blame for it, but we do not have the physical means to prevent it. American leaders who insist that it is in our power to do so are misleading both the public and themselves if they believe it. The real moral question is whether to risk the lives of more Americans. Unlike preventing chaos, we have the physical means to stop sending more troops where many will be killed or wounded. That is the moral responsibility to our country which no American leaders seems willing to assume.

Third, nay sayers insist that our withdrawal will create regional instability. This confuses cause with effect. Our forces in Iraq and our threat to change Iran's regime are making the region unstable. Those who link instability with a US withdrawal have it exactly backwards. Our ostrich strategy of keeping our heads buried in the sands of Iraq has done nothing but advance our enemies' interest.

I implore you to reject these fallacious excuses for prolonging the commitment of US forces to war in Iraq.

Obama: Not so bad, after all

I just read David Mendell's biography of Obama. I still think that there is some merit to my Obama SOS post, but I think that Obama may have a few more sympathies for progressive positions than he is letting on.

The biography presents many positive aspects of Obama's character. While he is an idealist, he is also very pragmatic. He is a consensus builder. Just as Bill Clinton, he prefers a small victory to a glorious defeat. Unlike BC, he will not go for a bad deal just to feed his ego. He may not be proposing a single payer plan in his platform, but I doubt he would veto one if it crossed his desk.

Some of the Amazon reviewers have criticized the book as unfair. Personally, I think Obama comes off pretty good in the book. No one expects perfection from anybody, and nobody expects people who run for president to have an ego deficiency. Still, the book makes a very good case that Obama ended up in politics as a result of his desire to do good. An Obama presidency would likely see a great improvement in policies to help the poor.

Let's not forget the big mess that Bush has left his successor. He has alienated just about the whole world. The next president will have to repair these relationships, or see U.S. power, prestige, and wealth drop even more than they have under Bush. Who we elect will have a big impact on world opinion of this country.

If we choose to send Barack Obama to restore our relationships, other countries will be receptive to his message.

If we send John McCain....?

Condi Rice, Corruption, Stupidity, and Incompetence

I tuned in 60 Minute tonite, and I saw another staggeringly obscene Condi Rice moment. I do not know whether this was incompetence or just outrageous stonewalling, but it doesn't matter.

Kroft interviewed former State Department officer James Mattil, who reported seeing a memo from Maliki that his permission was required for all anti-corruption investigations. Mattil said that there was no reaction when he showed the memo to others at the State Dept.

At a congressional hearing, Henry Waxman asked Condi if she was aware of this. She replied:

"Well Mr. Chairman, I will have to get back to you. I don’t know precisely what you are referring to,"

Arrgh. She doesnt' appear to know much of anything.

Daniel Gross on Economic Culture

Daniel Gross hoists the wealthy snobs with their own petard.

On first read, the article seemed incendiary, probably due to the shifting of my perspective by the establishment pages of Newsweek. Some quotes:

In the overclass, twice-married, middle-aged Wall Street daddies don't own up to the consequences of their insane financial miscues.
...
The pernicious culture of affluence merits further study. When self-proclaimed rogue sociologist Sudhir Venkatesh sought to learn about the culture of poverty, he hung out in Chicago's notorious Robert Taylor Homes and befriended drug dealers. The tale is chronicled in his fascinating book "Gang Leader for a Day."

If he really wants to understand the workings of the dysfunctional class that's threatening American values and taxing national resources, Venkatesh, who teaches at Columbia, should move into a co-op on the Upper East Side and get a job on Morgan Stanley's trading desk. He can call it "Hedge-Fund Manager for a Day."

The main criticism of the overclass in the article is by indirect analogies with 'blame the victim' poverty studies. More direct criticism is levied at government regulators for bailing out the Wall Street failures. He points out that anti-underclass polemics have been common for decades, but does not point out that corporate bailouts are nothing new. Still, look at this article about the Chrysler bailout nearly thirty years ago: The dollar amount of the bailout was somewhat less than $1billion.

The Reagan-Bush I financial sleaze prototype, the Savings and Loan bailout, was more expensive, according to Wikipedia:

The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around USD$160.1 billion, about $124.6 billion of which was directly paid for by the U.S. government -- that is, the U.S. taxpayer

I hope that Gross writes more on this subject. There is a lot more to say.

Who lost the war?

So we hear from the brownshirts that us liberals are responsible for the U.S. losing the war in Iraq. How is that? They have gotten everything they have asked for. Maybe they didn't ask for 500,000 troops, because they knew they wouldn't get them. Newsflash: it wasn't just liberals who wouldn't have gone for that. No one would have.

Bush had his invasion, his surge, his 'Let's pick our ass for six months before going back to Fallujah so I can win reelection' strategy, his criminal attack on Fallujah after the election, his torture chambers in Gitmo, Bagram, Abu Ghraib, and Eastern Europe, his 'mission accomplished' party, his plastic turkey dinner, his lovey dovey 'Iraq is sovereign' note from Condi, his $40 billion profits for his oil company friends, his 'Plan for Victory', his 'Stand Up Stand Down' strategy. He wants to scoot out of town with the U.S. still in Iraq so that the blame and embarrassment go to his successor, hence the 'pause'.

Dave Lindorff points out that when the tactics shift from paying enemies to actual fighting, the result are not so good for the American and Iraqi armies:

The battle of Basra ended-at least for now--with Moqtada al-Sadr stronger than ever, his fighters still armed and in control of the city, and of their stronghold in the slums of Sadr City, Baghdad. It concluded with a cease-fire agreement-negotiated by Iraqi governmet offials who, embarrassingly, had to go hat in hand to meet al-Sadr in his headquarters in Iran--under which the Iraqi army and police must stop attacking al-Sadr's forces, as they have been doing for months, and must release members of his forces currently being held captive.

As a "defining moment," this battle, in which US forces played a significant role in directing Iraqi military actions, provided air support, and injected special forces, was the definition of a defeat.

Paying enemies to not fight seems like a good idea in comparison. The name "Awakening Councils" for the former enemies on the dole seems backwards, though; we are paying them to sleep. And why do you need 30000 extra troops for this policy? To carry the bundles of cash? This is an operation worthy of Lt. Milo Minderbinder.

Make no mistake about it, Bush is the individual responsible for this war and its losing, with copious assistance from Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gates, Powell, Rice, Lott, and Hastert, and significant aid from congressional enablers such as Joe Lieberman, John Edwards, and Mrs. Clinton. As one who opposed the war from the start and the continuing occupation without exception, I do not feel any pleasure in seeing the bad policy unfold in disaster. I feel like the Siamese Twin of Monty Python's Black Knight. But neither I nor any of the opponents of the war are responsible in anyway for causing the disaster. We only failed to stop it.