Re: An Open Letter on Iraq

I'm proud and grateful we have soldiers like Pippin volunteering to fight our wars, no matter how misguided those wars may be. I'm also glad we don't ask him and the rest of the U.S. military to choose which wars to fight.

If George W. Bush agrees with Pippin and Darryl Worley (whoever that is) that our freedom and the very United States of America are at stake in Iraq (and I presume in Afghanistan, too, although Pippin makes no mention of it), then Bush has drastically underused our national resources, and has neglected to do what's necessary to win this "war" no matter what it takes, no matter what the cost. If Bush really believes the stakes are that high -- our freedom and the very existence of our country -- then he ought to be out there on the bully pulpit every day urging Americans and Congress to sacrifice as if their lives depended on it.

But Bush isn't doing that. Because he knows that our freedom and our existence aren't at stake in Iraq. Some measure of our national pride may be at stake, and access to some measure of oil may be at stake, and the regional influence of Iran may be affected, but our freedom and our lives are secure no matter what the outcome is in Iraq.

And I daresay most conservatives in their heart of hearts know this to be true, too.

If I, a liberal Democrat, thought my freedom and my country were on the line, I'd be tearing my hair out trying to warn my fellow Americans, trying to muster their resolve, urging them to do whatever they could to win this "war:" send more tax dollars to the Pentagon; send themselves and their children to the Armed Forces recruiting office; or at least cut back on gasoline consumption to lessen the influence of Arab-Muslim states.

If I believed what this soldier wrote about the "war" we're in and what's at stake, I would turn to this soldier and reply that my "backing his mission" in my thoughts or with my votes wouldn't nearly be enough. If I believed the stakes were "higher than... in both World Wars combined," I guess I would have to sign up myself, or else I'd be a hypocritical coward.

Millions of American men volunteered to fight in WWI and WWII. Where the hell are all the real Americans this time around when we need them most?

Just my thoughts.

On 10/13/07, wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Date: Oct 9, 2007 9:47 PM
Subject: An Open Letter
To: Undisclosed-Recipient

Reported by Michael Yon. Thank God we still have such men....

An Open Letter Home
by CSM James Pippin

A Georgia redneck, a Florida redneck and a Texan were sitting around a
small catfish pond and noticed some catfish. They felt it would be a
good idea to have a fish fry, but they didn't have a fishing pole or
net. They started to ponder techniques to catch some fish for the fish
fry, when the Georgia boy dove in the water and tried to catch one. He
dove in, splashed around and after 5 minutes of no luck he got out,
frustrated and sat back down. The Florida boy then got up, went to his
truck and got a shotgun. He began shooting at the catfish. He expended
over 30 rounds and he too was unsuccessful. Frustrated, he sat back
down. The Texas boy sat for a bit, finished his beer, and cut the top
of the beer can off with his pocket knife. Then he calmly stood up and
walked over to the small pond and dipped his empty beer can in the
water and filled it up. Then he walked to the top of the dam and
poured the water on the ground on the back side of the dam. He walked
back to the pond and got another can full of water and as he walked by
the 2 other rednecks, he stated with a drawl, "You boys better git
comfortable, this may take awhile."

This story relates to this war on terror. We may not realize many
tangible results from this war, especially not if we have a timeline
based on a news cycle or an election. But it's worth every can full of
water every day we fight over here. I am resolved to fight these
bastards for however long it takes, every day until my retirement.

I am stationed in Mosul, Iraq and things are busy. We have about 15 -
20 incidents a day. An "incident" is an IED attack, enemy ambush,
rocket attack against our vehicles, or a mortar attack against our FOB
(Forward Operating Base aka where we live). We win every time whenever
they stay and fight. But mostly, they hit us, then run away and blend
into the crowd. We're winning a day at a time. And we are taking the
fight to them.

I would rather fight them where they live as opposed to quit the fight
here only to have it come back to my home. I also realize we may very
well get attacked on our own soil while we fight here. That, I believe
is imminent. But as long as we continue to stay engaged with
terrorists in their home countries, we remain proactive instead of
totally reactive.

Most Americans say, "I support the troops." "Supporting the troops" is
far more than sending a care package, or shaking a service member's
hand, or tying a ribbon on their lapel. Supporting the troops should
also be backing our mission.

People back home may not realize how effective this enemy is using the
media as a weapon. Every time some talking head gets on the TV and
shouts anything negative about this war, it motivates our enemy, who
interprets dissent as weakness and who uses our free press against us.
That is exactly how "the terrorists" win. For the Terrorist does not
have to defeat us, he just has to outlast us.

I am disappointed in the way the American people in general seem to
have lost their resolve since 9-11. When I hear that over half of
America's citizens believe this war is a lost cause, I think that is a
tragedy. Less than 2/100ths of 1 percent of our own citizens have ever
served in the armed forces, which means most Americans don't have a
clue about our military.

The media does not tell all the good things happening in Iraq. They
rarely, if ever, report the successes of our Armed Forces. This causes
our citizens, most of whom will never cross an ocean in their life,
let alone fight in this or any war, to think we are losing and to
believe we can't win. This war is much like the 3 rednecks in the
story above. It will take time. We CAN win, and we WILL win, but I
worry that the American people have lost their patience and their
support will dry up before we get the job done.

I hear the concern about America's sons and daughters being killed and
I know the media drum rolls the daily death toll. There have been more
than 3,000 service members who have died fighting this war. And every
one of those deaths is a tragedy. I, myself have lost a close friend.
Contrary to the media reports, this war should be gauged by what is at
stake if we lose. I believe the stakes of this war are even higher than those we faced together in both World Wars combined . In the words
of Darryl Worley, "I say there are some things worth fighting for. Our freedom and the piece of ground we call The United States of America."
Don't think for a second that terrorists will stop attacking Americans
and our way of life just because we pull out of Iraq.

Prior to 9-11, The United States had tolerated terrorists' attacks and
threats far too many times. We launched a token missile here or we
talked tough there. It took a terrorist's attack on our own soil
before we became decisively engaged. And it was about time. I remember
the outrage and the resolve of a nation to fight for our country right
after 9-11. If we stop now, we will most assuredly open ourselves to
future attacks at home and abroad.

I am not so naïve to think that we will ever eradicate terrorism.
However, we can, and we will win this fight, but we have to remain
proactive. Proactive means hunting down terrorists, those who support
terrorists, and those who tolerate terrorists and killing them.
Fighting in Iraq means fighting an Insurgency, but it means fighting
terrorists as well. Believe me, there are plenty in Iraq who meet the
criteria noted above. If we back away from Iraq, the terrorist will
have won.

When I remember the scenes we all saw on September 11th, 2001, I am
reminded that I am still one pissed off American and Texan. This war
is just, and I stand steadfast behind it and our President. And I will
remain in the Army fighting this war until our President tells me to
stop, or I get too old to continue. We need our nation's support and
prayers, not criticism, second guessing, and Monday morning
quarterbacking.

The American Armed Forces has an empty beer can and the war in Iraq is
like that small catfish pond. If the American people will be patient
and supportive, we'll have that fish fry.

Just my thoughts.

Re: SILENCE IN SYRIA, PANIC IN IRAN

This man's glee at the thought of a U.S. war with Iran epitomizes everything that's currently wrong with your party, which has been hijacked by chickenhawk neocons.

His glee and smug self-assurance reveal a dangerous naivety reminiscent of the neocons' bluster and utopian predictions prior to invading Iraq.

Remember all those Katiusha rockets that rained down on Israel from Hizbollah-controlled Lebanon, while the Israelis could do nothing to stop the attacks besides blow up civilian's homes? There are more of Katiushas left -- thousands more. And that would be just the beginning.

If Iran really is the world's #1 exporter of terror, imagine what would happen if Iran decided its only option, faced with a U.S.-Israeli attack, was to increase its "exports"? Do you really think we could stop all or even most of those attacks? Do you think that even regime change in Iran would stop Iranian-sponsored and -inspired terror attacks worldwide? Has Iraq taught us nothing? Saddam is dead and in the ground; but his preparations prior to our invasion, which we announced far in advance, created the "insurgency" we're still fighting there today.

Iran has had much more time to prepare for the invasion; it has more resources; it has more allies and sympathetic countries; and it has learned all the right lessons from Iraq about how to kill Americans.

God help us -- and Israel, and Europe -- if Bush hauls off and attacks Iran. It better be OUR backs against the wall that makes him do such a dangerous, risky thing.

On 10/13/07, wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Date: Oct 12, 2007 11:28 PM
Subject: SILENCE IN SYRIA, PANIC IN IRAN
To:

If the following story is true, this is definitely good news.
P


> SILENCE IN SYRIA, PANIC IN IRAN

> Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler Wednesday, 19 September 2007
>
> One of India's top ranking generals assigned to liaise with the
Iranian military recently returned to New Delhi from several days in
Tehran in a state of complete amazement. "Everyone in the government
and military can only talk of one thing,"
he reports. "No matter who I talked to, all they could do was ask me,
over and over again, 'Do you think the Americans will attack us?'
'When will the Americans attack us?' 'Will the Americans attack us in
a joint operation with the Israelis?' How massive will the attack be?'
on and on,
endlessly. The Iranians are in a state of total panic." And that
was before September 6. Since then, it's panic-squared in Tehran. The
mullahs are freaking out in fear. Why? Because of the silence in
Syria.
>
> On September 6, Israeli Air Force F-15 and F-16s conducted a
devastating attack on targets deep inside Syria near the city of Dayr az-Zawr.
Israel's military censors have muzzled the Israeli media, enforcing an
extraordinary silence about the identity of the targets. Massive
speculation in the
world press has followed, such as Brett Stephens' Osirak II? in
yesterday's (9/18) Wall St. Journal.
>
> Stephens and most everyone else have missed the real story. It is
not Israel's silence that "speaks volumes" as he claims, but Syria's.
Why would the Syrian government be so tight-lipped about an act of war
perpetrated on their soil?
>
> The first half of the answer lies in this story that appeared in the
Israeli media last month (8/13): Syria's Antiaircraft System Most
Advanced In World.Syria has gone on a profligate buying spree,
spending vast sums on Russian systems, "considered the cutting edge in
aircraft interception technology." Syria now "possesses the most
crowded antiaircraft system in the world," with "more than 200
antiaircraft batteries of different types," some
of which are so new that they have been installed in Syria "before
being introduced into Russian operation service."
>
> While you're digesting that, take a look at a map of Syria. Notice
how far away Dayr az-Zawr is from Israel. An F15/16 attack there is
not a tiptoe across the border, but a deep, deep penetration of Syrian
airspace. And guess what happened with the Russian
super-hyper-sophisticated cutting
edge antiaircraft missile batteries when that penetration took place
on September6th. Nothing.
El blanko. Silence. The systems didn't even light up, gave no
indication whatever of any detection of enemy aircraft invading Syrian
airspace, zip, zero, nada. The Israelis (with a little techie
assistance from us) blinded the Russkie antiaircraft systems so
completely the Syrians didn't even know they were blinded. Now you
see why the Syrians have been scared speechless. They thought they
were protected - at enormous expense - only to discover they are
defenseless. As in naked.
>
> Thus the Great Iranian Freak-Out - for this means Iran is just as
nakedly defenseless as Syria. I can tell you that there are a lot of folks in
the Kirya (IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv) and the Pentagon right now who
are really enjoying the mullahs' predicament. Let's face it: scaring the
terror masters in Tehranout of their wits is fun. It's so much fun,
in fact, that an attack destroying Iran's nuclear facilities and the
Revolutionary Guard command/control centers has
been delayed, so that France (under new management) can get in on the fun
too. On Sunday (9/16), Sarkozy's foreign minister Bernard Kouchner
announced that "France should prepare for the possibility of war over
Iran's nuclear program."
>
> All of this has caused Tehran to respond with maniacal threats. On
Monday (9/17), a government website proclaimed that "600 Shihab-3 missiles"
will be fired at targets in Israel in response to an attack upon Iran
by the US/Israel. This was followed by Iranian deputy air force chief
Gen. Mohammad Alavi announcing today (9/19) that "we will attack their
(Israeli) territory with our fighter bombers as a response to any
attack." A sure sign of panic is to make a threat that everyone knows
is a bluff.

So our and Tel Aviv's response to Iranian bluster is a
thank-you-for-sharing yawn and a laugh. Few things rattle the mullahs'
cages more than a yawn and a laugh. Yet no matter how much fun this
sport with the mullahs is, it is also deadly serious. The pressure
build-up on Iran is getting enormous. Something is going to blow and
soon. The hope is that the blow-up will be internal,
that the regime will implode from within. But make no mistake: an
all-out full regime take-out air assault upon Iran is coming if that
hope doesn't materialize within the next 60 to 90 days. The Sept. 6
attack on Syria was the shot across Iran's bow.
>
> So - what was attacked near Dayr az-Zawr? It's possible it was
North Korean "nuclear material" recently shipped to Syria, i.e., stuff
to make radioactively "dirty" warheads, but nothing to make a real
nuke with as the Norks don't have real nukes (see Why North Korea's
Nuke Test Is Such
Good News, October 2006).
>
> Another possibility is it was to take out a stockpile of long-range
Zilzal surface-to-surface missiles recently shipped from Iran for an attack
on Israel.
>
> A third is it was a hit on the stockpile of Saddam's chemical/bio
weapons snuck out of Iraq and into Syria for safekeeping before the US
invasion of April 2003. But the identity of the target is not the
story - for the primary point of the attack was not to destroy that
target. It was to shut down Syria's Russian air defense system during
the attack. Doing so made the attackan incredible success. Syria is
shamed and silent. Iran is freaking out in panic. Defenseless enemies
are fun.

MoDo: 'Fool me twice,' Hillary

Bomb, Bomb Iran
By MAUREEN DOWD

October 10, 2007 | The New York Times

Hillary seemed rattled.

Up until now, she has displayed remarkable imperturbability — gliding along with the help of good lighting, a hearty guffaw and a clever husband.

But on Sunday in New Hampton, Iowa, Hillary lost her cool at last. Sparring with a voter on Iran, she sounded defensive and paranoid.

A Democrat, Randall Rolph, asked Senator Clinton why he should back her when she did not learn her lesson after voting to authorize W. to use force in Iraq. He did not understand how she could have voted yea to urge W. to label Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, possibly setting the stage for more Cheney chicanery.

Hillary said that "labeling them a terrorist organization gives us the authority to impose sanctions on their leadership. ...I consider that part of a very robust diplomatic effort."

Fearful that her questioner was an enemy spy creeping into her perfect little world, she suggested that he had been put up to the question and did not have his information right.

"I take exception," Mr. Rolph insisted. "This is my own research. ... I'm offended that you would suggest that."

Hillary apologized and said that she had been asked "the very same question in three other places." She explained that she had signed on to a rewritten version of the amendment that did not, as he claimed, give a green light for combat.

In the original "sense of Senate on Iran" document, sponsored by Joe Lieberman and the Republican Jon Kyl last month, there was a paragraph that supported "the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence and military instruments, in support of the policy with respect to" Iran. That original draft, called "tantamount to a declaration of war" and "Dick Cheney's fondest pipe dream" by Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, was softened.

Even so, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd voted no, and Barack Obama would have voted no if he had voted.

If you know the dingbat vice president is agitating for a conflict with Iran, if you know that Condi is chasing after Cheney with a butterfly net on Iran and Syria, if you know you can't believe anything this administration says, why vote to give them more backing on their dysfunctional Middle East policy?

The schism in the administration is deepening in a way that should alarm Hillary. Mark Mazzetti and Helene Cooper report in today's Times that Cheney and his hawks are arguing that the Israeli intelligence about Syria's nascent nuclear capabilities that led to last month's Israeli strike on Syria was credible and should dictate a harsher policy toward Syria and North Korea, while Condi, Bob Gates and calmer heads "did not believe the intelligence presented so far merits any change in the American diplomatic approach."

Hillary's hawkish Iran vote was an ill-advised move, especially given her private view that Cheney is untrustworthy and given Sy Hersh's New Yorker report claiming that Cheney had pushed to devise a plan to attack the Revolutionary Guard facilities in Iran.

She made a course correction on Oct. 1, co-sponsoring legislation introduced by Mr. Webb to prohibit the use of funds for military operations against Iran without explicit Congressional authorization.

Her opponents have sounded the fool-me-once-shame-on-you, fool-me-twice-shame-on-me drumbeat. Obama chided Hillary for her willingness "to once again extend to the president the benefit of the doubt." John Edwards wondered if in "six months from now he goes to war in Iran, are we going to hear her once again say if only I had known then what I know now?"

When Hillary voted to let W. use force in Iraq, she didn't even read the intelligence estimate. She wasn't trying to do the right thing. She was trying to do the opportunistic thing. She felt she could not run for president, as a woman, if she played the peacenik.

By throwing in with Joe Lieberman and the conservative hawks on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard issue, she once more overcompensated in a cynical way. She'd like to paint Obama as the weak reed who wants to cozy up to dictators, while she's the one who will play tough. It was odd, given her success in the debates conveying the sense that she is the manliest candidate among the Democrats, that she felt the need to man-up on Iran.

But maybe she knows that Rudy will hurl thunderbolts at her, as he did in the debate yesterday, suggesting that she doesn't have the guts to use a military option to stop Iran from going nuclear.

Voters seem more concerned with Hillary's political expediency — which the vote underscored — than with her ability to be manly.

Her camp seems to think her vote was a safe one because W. and Cheney do not have the time or support to bomb Iran, and that Bob Gates can stop it. But she may be underestimating W. and Cheney. She should be at least as paranoid about that pair as she was about an Iowa Democrat.

FOX: Summary of high school shoot-'em-ups

After the latest U.S. high school shooting rampage, the good folks at FOX have given us this handy-dandy summary of recent "major school shooting incidents," or as I like to call them, "The 2nd Amendment's Greatest Hits."

At a time like this, we can't let our emotions run wild -- or our thoughts, for that matter. In fact, try not to think or feel anything.

But if you must ponder this incident and many others like it, remember the words of a few wise guys: "You can't live free or die without breaking a few eggs to make an omelet." (No, that's not ketchup on your Freedom Omelet, it's blood. Just wipe it off, you wimp.)


FOX Facts: Major U.S. School Shootings
October 10, 2007 | FOXNews

The following are major school shooting incidents in the United States over the past 10 years:

— Huntersville, NC, April 18, 2007: A teenager shot and killed himself shortly after pointing a handgun at two other students in a high school parking lot.

— Greenville, TX. March 7, 2007. A 16-year-old male high school student fatally shot himself while in the band hallway area of the school. No other students were injured.

— Tacoma, WA. January 3, 2007. An 18-year-old male high school student was arrested for shooting and killing a 17-year-old male student at their school. The suspect allegedly shot the victim in the face and then stood over him, firing twice more.

— Springfield Township, PA. December 12, 2006. A 16-year-old male high school shot and killed himself with an AK-47 in the hallway of his high school. The student, reportedly despondent over his grades, had the gun concealed in a camouflage duffle bag and fired one round in the ceiling to warn other students to get out of the way before committing suicide.

— Katy, TX. October 17, 2006. A 16-year-old male high school sophomore committed suicide by shooting himself with a handgun in the school's cafeteria courtyard.

— Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania. October 2, 2006. A truck driver walked into a one-room Amish schoolhouse with two rifles, a semi-automatic handgun, and 600 rounds of ammunition, selected all the female students, and shot them execution-style, killing five and seriously wounding six. The man then shot himself, apparently having left suicide notes beforehand.

— Cazenovia, Wisconsin. September 29, 2006. A student walked into a rural school with a pistol and a rifle and shot the principal several times, critically injuring him.

— Bailey, Colorado. September 27, 2006. A lone gunman enters a high school and holds six female students hostage, sexually assaults them, kills one of them, and then himself after a four-hour standoff.

— Hillsborough, North Carolina. August 30, 2006. After shooting his father to death, a student open fires at his high school, injuring two students. Deputies found guns, ammunition, and homemade pipe bombs in the student's car. The student had emailed Columbine High's Principal, telling him that it was "time the world remembered" the shootings at Columbine.

— Essex, Vermont. August 24, 2006. A gunman shoots five people, killing two of them, in a rampage through two houses and an elementary school, before wounding himself.

— Jacksboro, TN. Nov. 8, 2005: a 14 year-old student fatally shot an assistant principal and wounds a principal and an assistant principal, when they questioned him about whether he brought a gun to Campbell County Comprehensive High School.

— Red Lake Indian Reservation, Minnesota. March 21, 2005. The worst school-related shooting incident since the Columbine shootings in April of 1999. Ten killed (shooter killed nine and then himself) and seven injured in rampage by high school student.

— Cumberland City, TN. March 2, 2005. School bus driver shot and killed while driving a school bus carrying approximately 20 students by a 14-year-old student who had been reported to administrators by the driver for chewing tobacco on the bus.

— Nine Mile Falls, Washington. December 10, 2004. A 16-year-old high school junior committed suicide at the high school's entryway. A canister holding fireworks, shotgun shells, and rifle cartridges was found in a backpack belonging to the student.

— Joyce, Washington. March 17, 2004. A 13-year-old student shot and killed himself in a school classroom where about 20 other students were present. The boy reportedly brought a .22-caliber rifle hidden in a guitar case and pulled it out during the 10 a.m. class.

— Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. February 11, 2004. A 10-year-old student was shot in the face and died after being shot outside a Philadelphia elementary school. A 56-year-old female school crossing guard was also shot in the foot as she tried to scurry children across the street as bullets were flying and children were on the playground.

— Washington, D.C. February 2, 2004. A 17-year-old male high school student died after being shot several times and another student was injured after shots were fired near the school's cafeteria.

— Henderson, Nevada. January 21, 2004. Gunman shoots and kills a hostage in his car on school campus. The gunman was allegedly looking for his ex-girlfriend as he searched the school full of children in an after-school program.

— Cold Spring, Minnesota. September 24, 2003. Two students shot and killed by a 15-year-old boy at Rocori High School.

— Red Lion, Pennsylvania. April 24, 2003. Principal of Red Lion Area Junior High is fatally shot in the chest by a 14-year-old student, who then committed suicide, as students gather in the cafeteria for breakfast.

— New Orleans, Louisiana. April 14, 2003. One 15-year-old killed and three students wounded at John McDonough High School by gunfire from four teenagers in a gang-related shooting.

— Bowie, Maryland. October 7, 2002. A 13-year-old by was shot and critically wounded by the DC-area sniper outside Benjamin Tasker Middle School.

— New York, New York. January 15, 2002. Two students at Martin Luther King Junior High School in Manhattan were seriously wounded when an 18-year-old opened fire in the school.

— Caro, Michigan. November 12, 2001. A 17-year-old student took two hostages and the Caro Learning Center before killing himself.

— Ennis, Texas. May 15, 2001. A 16-year-old sophomore upset over his relationship with a girl, took 17 hostages in English class, and shot and killed himself and the girl.

— Gary, Indiana. March 30, 2001. 17-year-old expelled from Lew Wallace High School kills classmate.

— Granite Hills, California. March 22, 2001. One teacher and three students wounded by a student at Granite Hills school.

— Willamsport, Pennsylvania. March 7, 2001. Classmate wounded by a 14-year-old girl, in the cafeteria of Bishop Neuman High School.

— Santee, California. March 5, 2001. A 15-year-old student killed two fellow students and wounded 13 others, while firing from a bathroom at Santana High School in San Diego County.

— Baltimore, Maryland. January 17, 2001. 17-year-old student shot and killed in front of Lake Clifton-Eastern High School.

— New Orleans, Louisiana. September 26, 2000. Two students wounded in a gun fight at Woodson Middle School.

— Lake Worth, Florida. May 26, 2000. A 13-year-old honor student killed his English teacher, Barry Grunow, on the last day of classes after the teacher refused to let him talk to two girls in his classroom.

— Mount Morris Township, Michigan. February 29, 2000. A 6-year-old boy shot and killed a 6-year-old girl at Buell Elementary School with a .32 caliber handgun.

— Fort Gibson, Oklahoma. December 6, 2000. A 13-year-old boy, armed with a handgun, opened fire outside Fort Gibson Middle school, wounding four classmates.

— Deming, New Mexico. November 19, 1999. 12-year-old boy came to school dressed in camouflage and shoots 13-year-old girl with a .22 caliber as students were returning from lunch.

— Conyers, Georgia. May 20, 1999. 15-year-old sophomore opens fire with a rifle and a handgun on Heritage High School students arriving for classes, injuring six.

— Littleton, Colorado. April 20, 1999. Students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 12 students and a teacher and wounded 23 before killing themselves at Columbine High School.

— Springfield, Oregon. May 21, 1998: Two teenagers were killed and more than 20 people hurt when a teenage boy opened fire at a high school after killing his parents. Kip Kinkel, 17, was sentenced to nearly 112 years in prison.

— Fayetteville, Tenn. May 19, 1998: Three days before his graduation, an honor student opened fire at a high school, killing a classmate who was dating his ex-girlfriend.

— Jonesboro, Arkansas. March 24, 1998: Two boys, ages 11 and 13, fired on their middle school from nearby woods, killing four girls and a teacher and wounding 10 others. Both boys were later convicted of murder and can be held until age 21.

— West Paducah; Kentucky. Dec. 1, 1997: Three students were killed and five wounded at a high school. Michael Carneal, then 14, later pleaded guilty but mentally ill to murder and is serving life in prison.

— Pearl, Miss. Oct. 1, 1997: Sixteen-year-old Luke Woodham fatally shot two students and wounded seven others after stabbing his mother to death.

The Quickest Way to End the War

Would you still support the war if you had to pay for it now, and not foist the debt onto your children and grandchildren to pay off later? I didn't think so.


The Quickest Way to End the War
October 5, 2007
By E.J. Dionne

WASHINGTON—Would conservatives and Republicans support the war in Iraq if they had to pay for it?

This is the immensely useful question that Rep. David Obey, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, put on the table this week by calling for a temporary war tax to cover President Bush's request for $145 billion in supplemental spending for Iraq.

The proposal is a magnificent way to test the seriousness of those who claim that the Iraq war is an essential part of the "global war on terror." If the war's backers believe in it so much, it should be easy for them to ask taxpayers to put up the money for such an important endeavor.

Obey makes the case pointedly. "Some people are being asked to pay with their lives or their faces or their hands or their arms or their legs," he said in an interview this week. "If you're going to ask for that, it doesn't seem too much to ask an average taxpayer to pay thirty bucks for the cost of the war so we don't have to shove it off on our kids."

Or as Obey said in a statement, "I'm tired of seeing that only military families are asked to sacrifice in this war."

Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership ran away from this idea as fast as you could say the words "Republican majority." That, of course, is what Democrats are afraid of. "Just as I have opposed the war from the outset," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, "I am opposed to a war surtax."

Obey doesn't hold this against his leadership. "They don't want to be demagogued by the White House when they have other fish to fry," he said.

But it's a shame that Democrats remain so defensive on the tax issue that they aren't willing to bring this proposal to the floor. What if the price for passing President Bush's supplemental appropriation were a tax to cover its costs? What if opponents of the war voted no because they are against Bush's policy, and Republicans voted no because they think low taxes are more important than national security, as they define it?

That's an aggressive way to frame anti-tax "no" votes, but it's also accurate. If a war appropriations bill with a tax included went down to overwhelming defeat, wouldn't that tell us something about the depth of commitment to this war?

The Obey surtax, co-sponsored by Reps. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., and John Murtha, D-Pa., envisions a sliding scale of roughly 2 percent on the taxes paid by lower-income Americans and up to 15 percent on upper-income Americans. Since wars are waged, in principle, on behalf of the entire country, this is the rare Democratic proposal that does not put the entire burden of taxation on the rich.

The plan does not ask for a tax to cover the $45 billion in Bush's supplemental request to pay for the war in Afghanistan. "There are legitimate expenditures on which we don't mind sharing the costs with future generations," Obey says, noting that there is a broad consensus that the fight in Afghanistan is in the long-term interest of the country. It might be less gimmicky to pay for both wars now, but some revenue is better than nothing.

Ah, you say, but this is just symbolic politics. I don't think so, but let's assume it is. This idea is far more serious than the utterly empty fight Bush is about to pick with Congress over a $21 billion to $23 billion difference in spending in a federal budget that totals $2.7 trillion.

Here is a president who signed one bloated spending bill after another—as long as they were passed by a Republican Congress—posing as a fiscal conservative now that Democrats hold the majority. He's so tough and determined that he's also drawn the line on ... children's health care.

Bush has often let it be known that he hates "small ball" politics. But there is nothing smaller or more trivial than a budget fight over a difference that any responsible president could easily resolve in negotiations with Congress. War spending aside, Obey says it would take no more than a week to reach a reasonable compromise on the overall budget if the White House would just engage.

And if the president believes in this war so much and doesn't want to raise taxes, let him propose the deep spending cuts it would take to cover the costs. Then Bush would show how much of a priority he believes this war is—and he wouldn't be playing small ball.

E.J. Dionne's e-mail address is postchat@aol.com.