Marines Sound Off About The Iraq War Options

[big sky brad]

Amy,

I am not saying that I have unquestioning loyalty...I am saying that, at the time, when I was in the military, I simply wanted to serve the United States.  I trusted democracy to work out the details of wars, elections and such.

You trusted democracy to work out the details of wars?

Tell me, who is this person, democracy, that you trusted?

Oh, you mean you trusted "the system", huh?

Well, the system was perverted for the Iraq War just like it was for the Vietnam War and if you had studied how we were sucked into that war, you'd have known better that to trust "the system".

I consider your right to engage in that public debate about the war as the reason I was prepared to fight for this country; likewise, I consider my right to be in favor of this war, the reason I was prepared to fight for this country.  One side should not be labeled as 'warmongers', "republicans, or "black sheep" although that' last one is kinda cute.

Labels are useful for putting into context those ideals held by those people who espouse those viewpoints that are identifiable by such labels.

However, one of the things that is disingenuous in your case, heart, is your assertion that "you were prepared to fight for this country", already knowing that you are female and too old to serve in a combat role in the Iraq War. So, "being prepared" and being asked to serve are mutually exclusive events, it'll never happen.

Might as well also make the same type of claim that you are now ready to take your place on the Chicago Cubs baseball team and help pull them out of the basement this year because that won't happen either.

So, all the over-the-top, "pull on the heartstrings" emotionalism that you display in your posts about the Iraq War is so unrealistic as to be comical.

This post has been edited by big sky brad: Jun 18 2005, 09:33 PM

[amy]

Amy,

I am not saying that I have unquestioning loyalty...I am saying that, at the time, when I was in the military, I simply wanted to serve the United States.  I trusted democracy to work out the details of wars, elections and such.

I consider your right to engage in that public debate about the war as the reason I was prepared to fight for this country; likewise, I consider my right to be in favor of this war, the reason I was prepared to fight for this country.  One side should not be labeled as 'warmongers', "republicans, or "black sheep" although that' last one is kinda cute.

The quesiton of liberty for all: It's a discussion I would love to have with you Amy.  I think if you go to the online cafe, there is a thread there called Port Huron 43 years ago...and in the Port Huron statement, from the SDS members, they outline what it means to be a "Liberal"...and this is part of the statement, the idea that all human beings everywhere are entitled to this freedom.  Then the war came along, and the Liberal values ran into irreconcilable differences in two key planks of the statement.  Is it more liberal to fight for freedom for the oppressed everywhere?  Or is it Liberal to oppose war, even if that means others live in bondage and oppression.  These
are issues never resolved in Liberal thought....at least not that I can see...and so I have chosen what I think is more important to me as best I can.

Heart,
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my posts! There are so many posters on this forum it is almost impossible to understand each and every posters thoughts and positions on all topics. So, before I go any further posting about this war, I want to make certain you understand my feelings about those who support this war and my feelings about those in the military fighting in this war. I do not believe

that supporters of this war are, necessarily because of their support: stupid, uninformed, war
mongers, misguided patriots, all republicans, all Bush lovers, black sheep or any color sheep, uneducated, sadists, or masochists. I support and respect anyone's decision to enlist in the military and I, as a citizen of the U.S., support all soldiers while they are engaged in combat whether or not I agree
with the reasons for them being engaged in a war. I hold these beliefs now as I did during the
Vietnam war. So, when I debate this war with you or any other poster I do so vigorously, but respectfully.
I find your deep appreciation of our American freedoms refreshing and inspiring. I respect and share your vision of all people having the freedoms we enjoy in our nation. We simply disagree about how to advance the freedoms of those oppressed.Heart, I have to tell you that I admire
your vast knowledge of the Mideast. Geez, I feel like I'm back in college when I read many of your posts- more fun though-no exams!

[Desron]

There isn't going to be much common ground found in this thread! Maybe it's just one of those issues where the division is so great and many are taking such a firm stand that even an agreement to accept other's opinions in a civil manner is an impossibility.

[heart]

You trusted democracy to work out the details of wars?

Tell me, who is this person, democracy, that you trusted?

Oh, you mean you trusted "the system", huh?

Well, the system was perverted for the Iraq War just like it was for the Vietnam War and if you had studied how we were sucked into that war, you'd have known better that to trust "the system".
Labels are useful for putting into context those ideals held by those people who espouse those viewpoints that are identifiable by such labels.

However, one of the things that is disingenuous in your case, heart, is your assertion that "you were prepared to fight for this country", already knowing that you are female and too old to serve in a combat role in the Iraq War. So, "being prepared" and being asked to serve are mutually exclusive events, it'll never happen.

Might as well also make the same type of claim that you are now ready to take your place on the Chicago Cubs baseball team and help pull them out of the basement this year because that won't happen either.

So, all the over-the-top, "pull on the heartstrings" emotionalism that you display in your posts about the Iraq War is so unrealistic as to be comical.

Oh...so you can type. Interesting!

Where is my cheshire cat grin, I could use it here. You make a fatal flaw in your argument. You did not read my post correctly. What I said was the US military would not "allow" me to take a combat role. All armed conflict is not under the pervue of the US military...that is why I phrased it precisely the way I did. And, contrary to what the US military advertises, it was made very clear to me the first week of Basic (at Ft. Dix by the way), by Vietnam Veterans that if I thought being a female would protect me from war I was crazy. One of my drill instructors was a female WAC Vietnam Vet who was quick to tell us about her combat experiences. I never believed the military would keep me from combat, or at least I never believed they would "protect" me, or put me out of harm's way. I just wasn't allowed to enlist in a combat "ROLE"...I could not go to Ranger School, but I could go to Airborne school...but I did not go....I had a very bad fever the day of the test and I could only do 57 push-ups and I think I needed to do 62. But I tried

Yes, I trusted "Democracy", as in, I trusted the system of checks and balances that we have in place at the time. Just for the record, there was no Diebold, but there was voter fraud. I still trust this system as the best there is in the world, even if it isn't perfect. I will still fight for this system, and for its checks and balances, and that's one reason I'm a Democrat!

"Labels are useful for putting into context those ideals held by those people who espouse those viewpoints that are identifiable by such labels."

My 15 year old son asked today "what is circular logic"? I just read him your sentence. He understood.

[heart]

Heart,
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my posts! There are so many posters on this forum it is almost impossible to understand each and every posters thoughts and positions on all topics. So, before I go any further posting about this war, I want to make certain you understand my feelings about those who support this war and my feelings about those in the military fighting in this war. I do not believe

that supporters of this war are, necessarily because of their support: stupid, uninformed, war
mongers, misguided patriots, all republicans, all Bush lovers, black sheep or any color sheep, uneducated, sadists, or masochists.  I support and respect anyone's decision to enlist in the military and I, as a citizen of the U.S., support all soldiers while they are engaged in combat whether or not I agree
with the reasons for them being engaged in a war. I hold these beliefs now as I did during the
Vietnam war. So, when I debate this war with you or any other poster I do so vigorously, but respectfully.
I find your deep appreciation of our American freedoms refreshing and inspiring. I respect and share your vision of all people having the freedoms we enjoy in our nation. We simply disagree about how to advance the freedoms of those oppressed.Heart, I have to tell you that I admire
your vast knowledge of the Mideast. Geez, I feel like I'm back in college when I read many of your posts- more fun though-no exams!

Thank you Amy. I find your posts to be respectful and I hope I can show you the same respect. I understand your position....there are other places that I think I would draw the same conclusions about, and fight for the US to withdraw from as soon as possible. Someplace like Madagascar I guess.

I think I hafe to thank Picadilly for a good part of my education in world affairs. I had to learn, or re-learn a lot just to keep up my end of the debate with the duck over the past year, even if I don't ever agree...at least I always learn something.

Picadilly wanted to know where the Alexander Haig reference came from....of course I'm busy looking that up! Why? I have no idea, but that duck has been getting me to look so many things up that it's become an ingrained habit. I stopped it though....I THINK it was from Kissinger's first book on Watergate...and I do not know if he is alive or dead, nor do I care (that SOB). He pulled some creepy nonsense when Reagan was shot too. I just don't remember exactly what! I know...Hey Duck....look it up

[Desron]

The number of wounded is astounding and there will be many, many combat vets come back only to find they no longer fit into this world.

Why do think the number is astounding? I think it's pretty low. If one looks at the Veitnam War for the year 1969, there was over 9k killed, over 50k wounded and about a hundred MIA. Even when one factors in the difference in the number of troops involved in the two conflicts, the casualty rate in the Iraq War is much lower then it was in Vietnam.

[heart]

[QUOTE]Evidently you don't understand that by talking like you're "tough enough" and "one shot, one kill" isn't all that is required by the people serving in the military today, so the rhetoric in your posts is just so much hot air. [/QUOTE]

That depends on your MOS I guess...in any event, you can digest my "talk" all you want to. Your not about to "put me in my place" by relagating my opinions, or my "shots" across your bow with any Idaho braggadocio either. Now that may be lucky for you, or lucky for me, because we will hopefully never know. Right now, it's just one person debating other people, and if you perceive the slings and arrows as coming your direction... it might be because they are.

[QUOTE]No, I didn't make any fatal flaw. You knew, as I did, that you would not be allowed to take a combat role and that is the reason I pointed out that all this emotional feel-good crap you post about the Iraq War and how "you would serve if only you could" is just that - crap![/QUOTE]

That's not the part of my precise wording you misunderstood, but since my life experiences are not your business, and since I really dont' have to explain to a person that refuses the most basic of explanations, you may decieve yourself a little more. I've called the recruiters, and maybe they will get around to taking my back for missions in Iraq...I've volunteered, but they aren't lacking in recruits enough yet I guess...in spite of your assurances to the contrary.

[QUOTE]I don't care how froggish you are girl, you can't jump; so quit acting like you are the toughest bullfrog in the pond, because you ain't.[/QUOTE]

That depends on who is doing the measuring doesn't it?

[QUOTE]That's all I was trying to say, heart, because last year during the campaign you had your chance to be the big, bad tough Army vet and you didn't make very damned many posts about the Iraq War last year.[/QUOTE]

Nope. You're right. I didn't have to did I? I was working on a different project. One that I aided more than you may ever know.

[QUOTE]It doesn't make much difference to me if you think you're gaining ground on the forum for your argument or not, reality has a different answer in store for you. It will have a definite affect on the perception that people have of the Iraq War and the worse it gets, the worse that perception is going to be, and what more people will think of Bush for starting the war, and what they think of the GOP about supporting Bush's war.[/QUOTE]

It sure seems to make you nervous for someone who isn't worried. What I write here is not likely to have an impact on more than a hundred people if that. Sounds like you're dreaming to me....dreams of people turning against the war may turn out to be right, or not, it depends...but it does not depend on what you or I do Brad.

[QUOTE]If things were going as well in Iraq as you have said, we'd have pulled out of there 6 months ago.[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily, and I'm not quite sure I understand where you got the impression that I think things are going wonderfully in Iraq? I know the places they ARE going wonderfully and so do you? The South is biding it's time and the Kurds are solidifying power, and building quite literally 24 hours a day, 7 days a week...they are building everything from parks, planting trees, opening soccer stadiums, improving dams, building bridges, houses, schools, websites and police stations. I have pictures and proof of that Brad.

[QUOTE]You can make more posts. But, you can't change reality.[/QUOTE]

REALLY! WATCH ME! I'VE DONE IT BEFORE! Hey Brad, listen, I honestly have never come to terms with the notion that reality is impossible to change and you would not be the first person to tell me "impossible" and have to watch me make it happen anyway. The idea that I cannot change anything I want to change is simply not in my make up as a human being.

[QUOTE]And the reality of the Iraq War is - it is a major clusterfu*k![/QUOTE]

I'm absolutely certain that all wars have looked like that before a corner was turned and victory was all but certain.

[QUOTE]The way Bush has run the Army, the Reserves are broken and the Guard is in danger of collapsing on itself.[/QUOTE]

Agreed! Someone PLEASE FIRE THAT MAN! AT LEAST FIRE RUMSFELD! HE'S A CRETIN! I am not sure though that the Guard and Reserves are "broken" but I agree they are certainly strained.

[QUOTE]The Iraq War is a drain on our economy, not just in terms of money, but in our men and women that have served over in Iraq.[/QUOTE]

Yes...and priceless is what I would call a victory there. We cannot know that Bush would do anything with the money saved in Iraq but give more rich people tax cuts, so the economic argument is not credible to me.

[QUOTE]The number of wounded is astounding and there will be many, many combat vets come back only to find they no longer fit into this world.[/QUOTE]

Objectively speaking, these are the kind of casualties that only the most sophisticated of wars ever see. I'm impressed every single day that there are so few. Yet, subjectively even one is too many. It's very difficult to tell Iraqis that "Americans feel that they are taking too many casualties"...it sounds stupid even getting it out of your mouth.

[QUOTE]The Iraq War hasn't stabilized the Middle East, it has only exacerbated the situation.[/QUOTE]

Can you back that statement up? Because I can show otherwise, in Egypt, Syria, Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon...how far out do you want to go on this limb?

[QUOTE]2 years later, and 1720 dead Americans, and you make posts in favor of the Iraq War just like the right-wingers did on a forum I posted on more than 2 years ago![/QUOTE]

I wasn't on your old forum, I can assure you of that. Are you trying to say that I'm a right-winger? Are you trying to say that I must, by definition be such a thing?

[QUOTE]No big deal.
Some day you'll wake up and smell the coffee.

Or not.[/QUOTE]

Yes, and hopefully it will be a creamy, thick, and sweet arabica...but I doubt it will be YOUR cup of coffee Brad, and that's really what is upsetting you isn't it? It's that you are so absolutely certain that you are correct that you think everyone must agree with you right? If anything challenges your assumptions, your way of thinking, your conclusions...then the more effective that challenge is, the more it upsets you it seems. Those who disagree with you are called names, mocked, belittled and told to "go elsewhere"...because you have decided that "moderates, progressives and democrats" must have a monolithic anti-war position...and you can't throw the "You voted for Bush" line at me...and you also know very well that I'm about as Liberal as they come, so you can't explain me away no matter how hard you try. I don't fit your pre-conceived notions, so you must find some way to tear me down, belittle my intent, put me in my "womenly" role in a patronistic attempt to, in essence, take away from my service...because that really annoys you...more ways that I just don't fit that mold you like to put other people in. Well don't expect me to oblige you anytime soon. Your opinions are your own, and I've never said they werent'...all I've asked is for you to refute opinions contrary to your own rather than attack the person offering the opinions. Perhaps your assumptions cannot take the challenge of factual discussion, but I assure you, mine can.

[flydangler]

There isn't going to be much common ground found in this thread!

Why should there be? Methinks 'tis meant to put out information 'bout what Marines are saying 'bout the Iraq war, nothing more and nothing less. That some folks want to turn it into somethin' antagonistic IMHO is unfortunate, but then 'tis not surprisin', is it?

And in that light here's an interesting transcript of testimony before a Congressional committee 'bout a really neat program the Corps developed to help those returning from the war in copin', eh? Hope it don't get anybody's knickers in a knot:

Statement of
Colonel Timothy E. Frank
United States Marine Corps
Marine Casualty Services
Marine Corps Liaison to the Office of Seamless Transition
Department of Veterans Affairs
May 19, 2005

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Strickland, and distinguished members of the

Subcommittee, I am grateful for this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss
my experience as the Officer in Charge of Marine Casualty Services at the National
Naval Medical Center (NNMC), and to present my perspective on how we can best
support our wounded Warriors and their families as they transition from military
hospitals to VA Medical Centers, and, in most cases, ultimately from active duty to
veterans status.
The U.S. Marine Corps continues to be highly focused on caring for our injured Marines and sailors and ensuring that their family members are provided for and comforted in the wake of their injury. Supporting injured Marines and their families is a complex task, as their specific needs vary from case to case. We do our best to tailor our support to fit their individual needs and those of their families, showing flexibility wherever and whenever possible. From notification of an injury, to bringing families to bedside, to providing amenities in hospital rooms, and assisting with their transition back to full duty or to veteran�s status, the Marine Corps continuously evaluates its processes and makes adjustments where necessary to see that the appropriate level of support is provided. While we have encountered problems, we are actively collecting lessons learned and incorporating needed changes.
I thank the committee for this opportunity to participate in this effort to create a seamless support system for wounded service members and their families as they transition to civilian life.
Establishment of Marine Casualty Services
As Marines, we take pride in taking care of our own. Based on lessons learned from
the treatment and processing of Marines and Sailors injured during Operation Enduring Freedom and the initial military action in Iraq, the decision was made to establish a Marine Casualty Services Branch at NNMC, under the leadership of a Senior Marine Officer. It became apparent early on that there were many pieces to the casualty care puzzle, and in order to maintain and guarantee visibility of our Marines and Sailors, we needed to improve our internal and external cross-functional coordination. To meet these emerging requirements, we established additional teams at Andrews Air Force Base to meet all incoming medevac flights, a team at Walter Reed to provide on site support for Marines receiving amputee rehabilitation, and personnel augmentation to the Joint Personnel Effects Division at Aberdeen. It was clear that we were going to have to remain actively involved with both day to day care, and time and staff permitting, do our best to continue to support and advocate for our Marines and families once they were transferred to a VA Medical Center in order to ensure that they received the high level of care and attention they did while hospitalized at NNMC.
Facing New Challenges
Outlined below are some of the reasons why the returning casualties were presenting a challenge to both the Military and VA treatment facilities. These factors not only lead to the expansion of Marine Casualty Services� role, but also to the implementation of new programs and initiatives by the Naval Hospital Commander intended to broaden coordination of care and family support.
� Multiple severe and complex injuries.
� Lengthy and intensive recovery and rehabilitation period.
� Comprehensive discharge planning requiring coordination and collaboration between numerous agencies.
� Need for extensive case management.
� High level of attention and support required by the family members.
� High profile patients (anxious families, media and National interest, VIP visitors, every patient with direct line to the Commander).
Marine and Family Support
Casualty care requires extensive planning and coordination. The Marines at Bethesda took pride in providing what I refer to as the �Lexus� level of assistance and support in keeping with our long standing tradition of taking care of own. Upon arrival, we immediately embraced the families, and recognized that their participation was essential to the morale and recovery of our injured Marines and Sailors. Our injured and their families knew that we were there for them 24 hours a day, and would do whatever it took to address any concerns, and reduce the emotional strain and uncertainty associated with the medical treatment process and unexpected traumatic injury.
In one particularly difficult case, a father who was so inspired by the efforts of the Marine Casualty Services Branch on his son�s behalf, asked if it was possible for a parent to become an honorary Marine. The important lesson that we learned from these experiences was that it was not a matter of being perfect and having the solution to every problem�it was simply a matter of being there. By maintaining a professional, yet caring and compassionate relationship with our injured and their families, we were able to uphold the special trust and confidence afforded us during a very confusing and vulnerable time, earning their admiration and elevating their expectations.
Preparing our Injured Marines and Sailors for Transfer to the VA
In an attempt to better prepare our injured Marines and their families for the next phase of their treatment and rehabilitation within the VA, and in order to gain a greater appreciation for some of the challenges they might face, we conducted a mutually beneficial site visit to the McGuire VA Medical Center in Richmond. The visit gave us insight into how we could better prepare them for a successful transition to the VA, by managing their expectations and helping them adapt to this new environment. Areas of discussion included VA procedures for receiving Marines to the medical center, management of psychosocial needs of the Marine and families, and the rehabilitation process. This meeting helped us to understand that the acute care provided at the MTF and the programmatic rehabilitation provided at the VA Medical Centers require different approaches. This meeting also helped the VA staff better understand the family expectations, as well as what the Marine Corps expected in the way of continued care and support for both our injured Marines and their families.
The injured are transferred to VA facilities because they require rehabilitation in a variety of areas. The Marine�s cognitive and motor skills must first be evaluated before a rehabilitation plan can be put in place. In order for the medical team to get a fair assessment of the Marine�s true condition, they typically reduce the level of narcotics to a tolerable point. Along with narcotics reduction, the staff was very clear about defining treatment and rehab expectations with the express purpose of getting that Marine to a level of functionality which would allow him or her to reintegrate into the community while remaining as independent as possible. It was disconcerting to the families to see their injured Marine in pain. Simple explanations from the doctors or therapists have helped to calm the families� fears.
The staff understood the importance of having the family present, but because the goals for treatment are different, the VA Medical Center must strictly adhere to the visitation policy. Additionally, after the first week of therapy, and keeping in line with their goal to make the Marine independent, family members are discouraged from visiting the Marine during therapy. This was upsetting to many family members because at NNMC they had round the clock access to their injured Marine, but VA is working to ensure that families understand the importance of protocols during this stage of recovery.
VA Addresses Family Needs
As a result of this meeting and previous experiences, the McGuire staff acknowledged that by addressing some of the many psychosocial needs of the family they could begin to establish a rapport that would prove beneficial to the Marine�s recovery. VA Medical Centers are continually making adjustments to better serve the families which include establishing support groups, initiating plans for Fisher Houses, and having doctors and staff more available to speak with the Marine and family. We have all found that increased communication, education, and comprehensive discharge planning between Marine Casualty Services, the MTF and VA staffs can ensure that our injured and their families experience a smoother transition into this next phase of their care.
Marine for Life � Injured Support
The Marine Corps has a long history of caring for its fallen and injured Marines. The many Marines and Sailors who have suffered extremely serious combat injuries would not have survived in previous wars. Due to magnificent medical care, they are fortunately still with us. Nevertheless, their trauma still has a potentially devastating impact on them, their families and their future.
Marine for Life � Injured Support is a formal program instituted by our Commandant to assist injured Marines, Sailors who served with Marines, and their families. The concept of Injured Support gives renewed meaning to �Once a Marine, Always a Marine� and assures all Marines that they never truly leave the Corps. The goal of this program is to bridge the difficult gap between military medical care and handoff to the Department of Veterans Affairs. The key is to ensure continuity of support through transition, provide assistance for however long it might take, and in combination with OSD�s Military Severely Injured Joint Support Operations Center, provide case management tracking for several years afterwards. As our injured Marines continue with their recovery, potential transfer from active to veteran status, and assimilation back into their communities, Injured Support will be their greatest supporter and advocate.
This program has been in operation since January of this year with features that include advocacy within both the Department of Defense and external agencies, assistance with military disability processing and physical evaluation boards, assistance with employment, and improved Department of Veterans Affairs handling of Marine/Sailor cases. Injured Support representatives interact with Marine Casualty Services on a weekly basis to provide program information and contact numbers to hospitalized Marines and family members. Marine for Life � Injured Support is living proof of our motto -- �Semper Fidelis.�
Importance of Case Management
Intensive case management is a key component for post discharge and follow-up care. Continued communication and coordination between the MTF Case Manager,
VHA /DoD Liaison, VA Medical Center OEF/OIF Case Manager, and the Military Service Representative (in the Marine Corps this would be Marine for Life � Injured Support), is absolutely crucial as our injured proceed through their recovery. Without it, there is a greater chance they will somehow get lost in the system.
DoD-VA Partnership

Both DoD and the VA have placed the highest priority on the care and services
being provided to injured service members. At NNMC, the onsite VA social worker
and benefits counselor are integral members of the multidisciplinary team. They
collaborate with the hospital staff, Marine Casualty Services personnel, family members,
and VA Medical Center staff on a daily basis in order to ensure a seamless transition of
care and services. The VA has recognized that our wounded Marines and Sailors differ
from their traditional rehabilitation patient in age and extent or complexity of injury. To
enhance continuity, clinical outcomes, and improve family support, the trauma team
doctors at NNMC conduct weekly teleconferences with primary VA transfer sites, such
as the VA Medical Centers in Richmond and Tampa. Additionally both NNMC and VA have conducted site visits within the last six months.
VA Poly-Trauma Conference
In February 2005, the VA Employee Education System in collaboration with the
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary for Health hosted a program �VHA Poly-Trauma
Lead Centers Conference� in Washington, DC. Over 30 senior health executives
from the four VA Poly-Trauma Centers participated in this conference, along with medical and non-medical personnel from Walter Reed Army Medical Center, National Naval Medical Center, and Marine Casualty Services. The purpose of this conference was to give VA personnel a better understanding of how the two major MTFs in the National Capital Region take care of the injured and their families, so that they could build and institute a better treatment and support plan for the numerous service men and women admitted to their facilities. Most of the concerns centered on communication, coordination of care, and family support. This conference proved very beneficial to all participants in providing a way ahead to better facilitate the transition from the MTF to the VA.
The Commandant Reaffirms Corps� Commitment to Injured Marines
Severe injury has a traumatic impact on our Marines and their families, in that not only are life and death at stake, but there are also significant disruptions to family systems for months and years to come. They will find themselves navigating new territory and facing possibly some of the greatest challenges of their lives. Without a doubt, taking care of our wounded Marines, Sailors and their families is one of the Commandant�s top priorities. He wants to make sure that our Marines can access their VA health care and benefits without complication and unnecessary delay. Additionally, his hope for our Marines is that they get the information, link to services and resources, and assistance they need to be self-sufficient, contributing members of their communities.
His level of dedication to these Marines is evidenced by the placement of a Senior Marine Officer as Marine Liaison in the Department of Veterans Affairs� Office of Seamless Transition.
Conclusion

On behalf of all the selfless, dedicated men and women who serve in our Armed Forces, I thank this Committee for your continued support during these demanding times. The Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, and all of the individual services are committed to keeping the treatment, recovery and transition of our injured as their highest priority. As challenges arise, they will be addressed and resolved, and best practices will be instituted as they are developed. We must continue to partner and communicate to ensure the transition process is a positive one, helping our veterans to face this next phase of their lives with optimism and confidence.
Again, I thank the committee for your unwavering support.

[piccadilly]

Picadilly wanted to know where the Alexander Haig reference came from....
...
I THINK it was from Kissinger's first book on Watergate...
...
I know...Hey Duck....look it up

Well, I spent most of the night on this with Queen's "25th Anniversary Crown Jewels first 8 Album CD remastered edition box" blasting away in the background and a bottle of cold and musky Gewurztraminer from Wiemer, until I noticed through the window the sky turning to some yukky greyish-blue (or is it blueish-grey ?), the beginning of a cloudy day, when I decided to hit the bunk.

First, I'll say that any statement attributed to Kissinger, aka the bavarian clone of Dracula, is ALWAYS double-, or triple- loaded, and should always be studied within the context in which that statement was made, as well as with the knowledge of those events immediately preceding or following that statement.

I flipped without success through Kissinger's "White House Years", "Years of Upheaval", "Kissinger: A Biography" and "Diplomacy" and then spent hours searching the net for such a quote by Haig. Nada.

Ok let's study context.

I then found some interesting details in "Years of Upheaval", better summarized in Webster G. Tarpley's & Anton Chaitkin's "George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography".

...
On August 5, 1974, the White House released the transcript of the celebrated "smoking gun" taped conversation of June 23, 1972 in which Nixon discussed ways to frustrate the investigation of the Watergate break-ins. Chairman George was one of the leading Nixon Administration figures consulting with Al Haig in the course of the morning. When Bush heard the news, he was very upset, undoubtedly concerned about all the very negative publicity that he himself was destined to receive in the blowback of Nixon's now imminent downfall. Then after a while he calmed down somewhat. One account describes Bush as "somewhat relieved" by the news that the coup de grace tape was going to be made public, "an act probably fatal," as Haig had said. "Finally there was some one thing the national chairman could see clearly. The ambiguities in the evidence had been tearing the party apart, Bush thought." [fn 50] At this point Bush became the most outspoken and militant organizer of Nixon's resignation, a Cassius of the Imperial Presidency.

A little later White House Congressional liaison William Timmons wanted to make sure that everyone had been fully briefed about the transcripts going out, and he turned to Nixon's political counselor Dean Burch. "Dean, does Bush know about the transcript yet?", Timmons asked. Burch replied, "Yes." "Well, what did he do?", Timmons asked.

"He broke out in assholes and "expletive deleted" himself to death," was Burch's answer. [fn 51]

But why, it may be asked, the dermal diahhrea? Why should Bush be so distraught over the release to the press of the transcript of the notorious White House meeting of June 23, 1972, whose exhcanges between Nixon and Haldeman were to prove the coup de grace to the agony of the Nixon regime? As we have seen, there is plenty of evidence that the final fall of Nixon was just the denouement that Bush wanted. The answer is that Bush was upset about the fabulous "smoking gun" tape because his friend Mosbacher, his business partner Bill Liedtke, and himself were referred to in the most sensitive passages. Yes, a generation of Americans has grown up recalling something about a "smoking gun" tape, but not many now recall that when Nixon referred to "the Texans," he meant George Bush. ("Das Bekannte ueberhaupt ist darum, weil es bekannt ist, nicht erkannt," as even old Hegel knew.)

The open secret of the much-cited but little analyzed "smoking gun" tape is that it refers to Nixon's desire to mobilize the CIA to halt the FBI investigation of the Watergate burglars on the grounds that money can be traced from donors in Texas and elsewhere to the coffers of the CREEP and thence to the pockets of Bernard Barker and the other Cubans arrested. The money referred to, of course, is part of Bill Liedtke's $700,000 discussed above.
...
Later on Nixon's last Monday, Bush joined White House Counsel J. Fred Buzhardt and Dean Burch on a visit to Congressman Rhodes, and showed him the transcript of the smoking gun tape. "This means that there's just no chance in the world that he's not going to be impeached," said Rhodes. "In fact, there's no chance in the world that I won't vote to impeach him." Bush must have heaved a sigh of relief, since this is what he had wanted Rhodes to tell Nixon to get him to quit. "Rhodes later let it be known that he was offended that Bush had been briefed before he was," but of course, Bush was a top official of the Nixon White House. [fn 54]

But Nixon still refused to quit, raising the prospect of a trial before the Senate that could be damaging to many besides Nixon. The next day, Tuesday, August 6, 1974 saw the last meeting of the Nixon cabinet, with Chairman George in attendance. This was the Cabinet meeting described as "unreal" by Bush later. Nixon's opening statement was: "I would like to discuss the most important issue confronting this nation, and confronting us internationally too--inflation." Nixon then argued adamantly for some minutes that he had examined the course of events over the recent past and that he had "not found an impeachable offense, and therefore resignation is not an acceptable course." Vice President Ford predicted that there would be certain impeachment by the House, but that the outcome in the Senate could not be predicted. Otherwise, said Ford, he was an interested party on the resignation issue and would make no further comment.

Nixon then wanted to talk about the budget again, and about an upcoming summit conference on the economy. Attorney General Saxbe interrupted him. "Mr. President, I don't think we ought to have a summit conference. We ought to make sure you have the ability to govern." Nixon quietly assured Saxbe that he had the ability to govern. Then Chairman George piped up, in support of Saxbe. The President's ability to govern was impaired, said George. The Republican Party was in a shambles, he went on, and the forthcoming Congressional election threatened to be a disaster. Watergate had to be brought to an end expeditiously, Bush argued. From his vantage point at Nixon's right elbow, Kissinger could see that Bush was advancing towards the conclusion that Nixon had to resign. "It was cruel. And it was necessary," thought Kissinger. "More than enough had been said," was the Secretary of State's impression. Kissinger was seeking to avoid backing Nixon into a corner where he would become more stubborn and more resistant to the idea of resignation, making that dreaded Senate trial more likely. And this was the likely consequence of Bush's line of argument.

"Mr. President, can't we just wait a week or two and see what happens?", asked Saxbe. Bush started to support Saxbe again, but now Nixon was getting more angry. Nixon glared at Bush and Saxbe, the open advocates of his resignation. "No," he snapped. "This is too important to wait."

Now the senior cabinet officer decided he had to take the floor to avoid a total confrontation that would leave Nixon besieged but still holding the Oval Office. Kissinger's guttural accents were heard in the cabinet room: "We are not here to offer excuses for what we cannot do. We are here to do the nation's business. This is a very difficult time for our country. Our duty is to show confidence. It is essential that we show it is not safe for any country to take a run at us. For the sake of foreign policy we must act with assurance and total unity. If we can do that, we can vindicate the structure of peace." The main purpose of this pompous tirade had been to bring the meeting to a rapid end, and it worked. "There was a moment of embarrassed silence around the table," recalls Nixon, and after a few more remarks on the economy, the meeting broke up.

Kissinger stayed behind with Nixon to urge him to resign, which Nixon now said he felt compelled to do. Bush sought out Al Haig to ponder how Nixon might be forced out. "What are we going to do?", asked Bush. Haig told Bush to calm down, explaining: "We get him up to the mountaintop, then he comes down again, then we get him up again." [fn 55] Kissinger walked back to his office in the West Wing and met Gen. Brent Scowcroft, the NSC Director. Kissinger told Scowcroft that "there was precious little support for the President. Kissinger, no mean hypocrite in his own right, thought that Saxbe had been "weak-livered." Bush and Saxbe had both been petty and insensitive, Kissinger thought. He compared Bush and Saxbe and the rest to a seventeenth- century royal court with the courtiers scurrying about, concerned with themselves rather than with their country.

During this cabinet meeting, Bush was already carrying a letter to Nixon that would soon become the unkindest cut of all for Chariman George's wretched patron. This letter was delivered to Nixon on August 7. It read as follows:

    * Dear Mr. President,

      It is my considered judgment that you should now resign. I expect in your lonely embattled position this would seem to you as an act of disloyalty from one you have supported and helped in so mnay ways. My own view is that I would now ill serve a President whose massive accomplishments I will always respect and whose family I love, if I did not now give you my judgment. Until this moment resignation has been no answer at all, but given the impact of the latest development, and it will be a lasting one, I now firmly feel resignation is best for the country, best for this President. I believe this view is held by most Republican leaders across the country. This letter is much more difficult because of the gratitude I will always have for you. If you do leave office history will properly record your achievements with a lasting respect. [fn 56]

During Bush's confirmation hearings for the post of CIA Director in December, 1976, when it became important to show how independent Bush had been, Senator Barry Goldwater volunteered that Bush had been "the first man to my knowledge to let the President know he should go." That presumably meant, the first among cabinet and White House officials.

The next day, August 8, 1974, Nixon delivered his resignation to Henry Kissinger. Kissinger could now look forward to exercising the powers of the presidency at least until January, 1977, and perhaps well beyond.
...
http://www.kmf.org/williams/bushbook/bush12.html

Then I picked up Steve Tally's Almost America which has a great outline of the events. Fortunately, the chapter that concerns us most is available on-line.

A few excerpts of a most interesting piece which describes The Impeachment of Richard Nixon...

...
On Friday evening, August 9, 1974, just after the nightly news broadcasts had gone off the air, Richard Nixon appeared in a live telecast to address the nation about the previous week's Supreme Court decision that ordered him to turn over the Oval Office tapes.
...
The next week the House began debating the three articles of impeachment. The representatives heard dozens of witnesses, and there was strong circumstantial evidence that the president himself had participated in the cover-up of the Watergate crimes. There was no "smoking pistol," as it was so often termed at the time-no direct evidence linking Nixon with the illegal activities. And without the White House tapes, there never would be.

Two weeks later, on Friday, August 23, the House voted on the three articles. Article One, the obstruction of justice charge, passed the House by a vote of 300 for impeachment and 135 opposed. Article Two, abuse of presidential power, passed 304 to 131. Article Three, defying subpoenas, passed 248 to 187. President Nixon became the second U.S. president to be impeached, joining the hapless Andrew Johnson in that small club.

At the White House, it was a somber day as the staff watched the House vote live on television. The Nixon family had gathered in their private quarters awaiting word of the inevitable outcome. Nixon had been fatalistic about the House vote. He knew that he didn't have enough time to counter the wave of anger that had washed through the chamber after his Checkmate speech. But now there was a new battle, the trial in the Senate, and this was a battle that Nixon thought that he had a chance to win. "Now it's a new ballgame," Nixon told his three closest advisors, Haig, Kissinger, and Buchanan, that evening. "Those liberal fascists think they can run us out of town. Well, those bastards don't understand presidential power. They don't know what a person in this position can do if it is necessary. Look at Lincoln and what he did during the Civil War. Look at FDR during the Depression. The president can use a different set of rules if there is a crisis, and gentlemen, I think anyone would consider this to be a crisis."
...
( http://home1.gte.net/swtally/almost%20america/nixon3.html )
...
In volume four of his autobiography, Years of Remembrance: Other Times I Saved the World, But Forgot to Mention, Henry Kissinger recalled that he had responded, "We must be very careful that we don't do anything that might alarm other nations or endanger the reputation of the presidency." But during a later investigation of the events of September, which came during the Carter administration, another taping system was discovered that revealed that Kissinger's actual response had been, "We must be very careful that we don't do anything to alarm the Soviets, but this is a situation that they will understand, and they will admire your courage in standing up to your opponents, Mr. President, as we all do."

Buchanan was ready to run to the ramparts to defend Nixon, armed with FBI files on several of the senators. "We've got the goods on those mother*******," Buchanan said. "Now it's time to hold their feet to the fire. And it's going to be a furnace."

But it was Haig, known for his impulsive temper, who became nervous at the direction Nixon was headed.
...
After two weeks of such discussions and votes on the rules of the impeachment trial, Chief Justice Warren Burger swore in the senators as jurors on September, 17, 1974. The senators had planned to call more than fifty witnesses in an attempt to make the expected guilty verdict appear "clear and convincing." But by the time the day's events were over, it was President Nixon, and not the U.S. Senate, who gave the conflict its clarity.

The day before, as Nixon was crossing an alley between the White House and the Executive Office Building, a crowd of protestors had begun screaming at him and shaking their fists. The crowd, which numbered more than a hundred, surged toward the president, and Nixon realized that the half-dozen Secret Service agents would be powerless to stop them if the crowd intended harm. The episode reminded Nixon of his visit to Caracas, Venezuela, when he was vice president. In a riot that occurred during his trip, the Venezuelan government had had to clear a corridor to the airport for the vice president, using tanks and tear gas. This time there were no tanks or tear gas to be had, Nixon knew.

That afternoon Nixon told Haig about what had grown in his mind into a riotous mob that had tried to attack him. "No president since Lincoln has faced this kind of hatred," Nixon said.

Haig agreed. "This wouldn't be a tough place to take by force," Haig said, looking around the Oval Office. "This place isn't a fort, after all. F****** cars drive right by on Pennsylvania Avenue. You could roll a truck full of . . ."

"What kind of help might be available, in a situation?" Nixon interrupted. Haig knew that Nixon already knew what troops were available; this was just Nixon's way of gauging Haig's reaction to calling troops to the White House.

"The quickest would be the marines at the honor guard barracks here in Washington. Then there's the officer training facility at Quantico, Virginia-that's about thirty miles away. After that, you would be talking about the Eighty-second Airborne in Fort Bragg, North Carolina."

"We wouldn't need to get James Schlesinger over here for that, right?" Nixon asked about the secretary of defense. It was a shame to see the man act like this, Haig thought. The old Nixon didn't need constant reassurance from his aides about his decisions. During the Vietnam War, Nixon hadn't bothered to consult Melvin Laird, the secretary of defense—he had simply given orders to the generals himself. Now he's second-guessing his every step, Haig thought.

"There's nothing that requires that. You could call the marine commandant, Cushman, yourself—after all, you're the commander in chief!" Haig knew that this was all familiar to Nixon already. Nixon and Robert Cushman had a long history together. Cushman had been Eisenhower's military aide while Nixon was vice president. When the Nixon White House had wanted the CIA to handle a few illegal investigations in 1971, it was Cushman, who was the deputy director of the agency, who had authorized Gordon Liddy and Howard Hunt to perform the chores. Nixon later appointed Cushman head of the Marine Corps. If Richard Nixon needed help from the military, Haig thought, he couldn't ask for a better friend than Robert Cushman. If Nixon is asking me about this now, Haig thought, he's already run it through his head a hundred times.

At the same time that the House managers (who serve as prosecutors in the Senate) were being introduced and making their opening statements, a mile down Pennsylvania Avenue Nixon had given an order that—for his own safety and security, he insisted—he was calling up marines from their barracks in Washington and from Quantico to protect the White House grounds. As word of his act reached Congress, Chief Justice Burger was forced to take a recess when he was unable to bring the senators to order.

After an evening dinner break, senators were rushed from cloakroom to cloakroom without regard to party to discuss the situation. Already the television networks had shown camouflaged marines standing behind the iron White House fence with M-16s at the ready. The Senate was about to begin an evening session that had been scheduled in prime time to accommodate the television networks, when Mansfield was given an urgent message from Al Haig. Mansfield asked Burger for a recess and left the Senate floor as the senators again tried to make sense of the day's events. Fifteen minutes later, Mansfield walked back into the Senate chamber, accompanied, to the great surprise of all the senators, by Vice President Gerald Ford. Mansfield was recognized by Burger, and then he turned and addressed the senators from his seat. "I have just received information that the president has mobilized the Eighty-second Airborne Division from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, with the apparent mission of . . ." Mansfield looked down at a piece of scrap paper in his palm, "of 'providing security to Washington and the federal government.' I have spoken with the president's chief of staff, Mr. Haig, and he has informed me that the president has instructed that no further information be given to anyone, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the soldiers' mission.

"Mr. Chief Justice, in light of these events, I move that after a ten-minute recess, we conduct a roll call vote on the guilt or innocence of Richard Nixon."
...
http://home1.gte.net/swtally/almost%20america/nixon4.html
...
During the recess, Mansfield and several other senators surrounded Ford to discuss what to do after he was sworn in as president. Ford insisted that the Joint Chiefs of Staff be standing by via telephone from the Pentagon. "I want that phone right there," Ford said, pointing to Mansfield's table at the front of the chamber. "As soon as I drop my arm I want to be on the phone with the Chiefs."

Several of the senators expressed concern about the nuclear "football," the briefcase containing the codes that would allow the president to launch a nuclear attack. Others wondered aloud if Nixon was acting spontaneously, or if this was just the beginning of some plot to seize control of the government that had been prepared months earlier. If that were the case, then he must have arranged for at least part of the military to support him even if Congress voted for his conviction and removal. Adding to the worry was the reality that there were no procedures put down on how exactly a convicted president would be removed if he did not willingly leave the White House. "It may be necessary for you to go down there, to the White House," Mansfield told Ford. "We need to see what other troops we have available in case he's able to surround the White House. We might need to go in there and remove them."

"God damn it, I'm not going to go down to Lafayette Park and climb on top of a tank and order Nixon to leave the White House," Ford said. "We have to get control of this some other way. The United States of America isn't going to be governed at the end of a gun!"

Out of nervousness, Chief Justice Burger began pounding his gavel to call the Senate jury to order a minute early, but the room quickly became silent. Burger ordered that the vote be taken, and as the clerk called out the names of the senators, all appeared to be voting for conviction. Earlier in the day Nixon could have counted on as many as two dozen of the one hundred senators to vote for acquittal, but now ninety-seven senators sharply called out guilty, and only three voted for acquittal. (The three senators who voted for acquittal all claimed later that they had done so because they could not vote to convict on rumor, but nonetheless, all three lost their seats when they next faced reelection.)

As soon as the vote was taken and Burger announced the verdict, Ford rose from a chair that had been placed at the side of the chamber, walked over to the chief justice, and was sworn in as president at 11:50 p.m. At that moment, the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, working under orders prearranged just moments before, issued new orders. The marines on the White House lawn were ordered to muster in Lafayette Park, across the street from the White House, and to await further orders. The soldiers from the Eighty-second Airborne were ordered to continue to Washington because of concerns that Nixon may have made some sort of arrangement with a rogue military commander. It was an unnecessary precaution. At half past midnight, the black presidential limousine passed through the White House gate headed for Andrews Air Force base. From there former president Nixon and his family were flown back to their home in San Clemente, California, in the middle of the night.

Ford did arrive at the White House at 2 a.m., but he did so only to reassure the staff there that the crisis was over. He declined to spend the night in the White House, but instead returned to his home. The next morning at 7:30 a.m., President Ford entered the Oval Office to begin his term as president.

Nixon released the White House tapes to the public on August 5, 1974, and resigned four days later. In that last week in the White House, Nixon had talked about several alternatives to resignation. The most frightening of these were discussions he held with a few people about mobilizing the Eighty-second Airborne. What Nixon had in mind will never be known, but several people were alarmed at the fact that he even mentioned such a possibility. When Haig told Kissinger that Nixon was considering mobilizing the Eighty-second Airborne to protect the White House, Kissinger said that this was "nonsense," telling Haig that a presidency could not be conducted within a circle of bayonets. "We were living in a surrealistic world," Kissinger said later. "Its victims had coexisted with a nightmare for so long that it had come to be the natural state of affairs. They had reduced their peril to a banality and therefore could not believe in its culmination."

Leon Jaworski, the special prosecutor, had suggested to the grand jury hearing the evidence against Nixon that it would be better to impeach the president than to indict him in a criminal court. " 'What happens if he surrounded the White House with his armed forces,' " a member of the jury recalled Jaworski saying. " 'Would the courts be able to act?' "
...
http://home1.gte.net/swtally/almost%20america/nixon5.html

And then we have Gary Allen's "The Rockefeller file" which has an interesting take on Haig:

...
We know that Henry Kissinger was deeply involved in wire tapping his own staff and several journalists. But the one member of the White House staff who apparently never had his remarks taped in the Oval Office was Herr Kissinger -who also, as it happens, was chief of all US intelligence gathering operations. And who also, we now know, was responsible for establishing the Plumbers in the first place!

But through all of this, Kissinger's loyalty was not with his President, it was with the Rockefellers! Kissinger had been through three losing campaigns with Nelson Rockefeller and openly spoke of despising Nixon. Biographer David Hanna quotes Kissinger as stating, after Nixon's nomination in 1968: "That man is unfit to be President. I would never work for that man. He is a disaster."Yet Kissinger was the first appointment made by Nixon.

Nixon did not know Kissinger well; in fact, he had only met the man once before in his life-at a cocktail party. And Kissinger was on record as standing 180 degrees to the left of Nixon's campaign utterances. Clearly,' Kissinger was put in the Nixon Administration by Rockefeller (who sent his protégé off to Washington with a tidy little gift of $50,000). In his Vice Presidential hearings, Nelson Rockefeller even acknowledged that Kissinger took the job because Rocky asked him to do so.*

(* So critical was the Kissinger appointment that Nixon waived the customary FBI security clearance for his nominee as Secretary of State. The reasons Kissinger could never pass accurate security procedures will be discussed in our follow-up book, The Kissinger File a result of military achievements -there were none. They were political. Haig was now a general in the Rockefeller Army, an army which tells other armies when to march.)

While it was Henry Kissinger who set Nixon's head on the chopping block, it was another Rockefeller agent, General Alexander Haig, who applied the axe. Haig was appointed -at Kissinger's suggestion-as an interim replacement for the hastily deposed Bob Haldeman.

Like Dwight Eisenhower and George Marshall, two generals whose careers had a bad case of the blahs until anointed by the House of Rockefeller, Haig's career took off like a Saturn rocket when he joined the Rockefeller team through the Council on Foreign Relations. In 1969, he was a colonel. Four years later he had miraculously become a four star general, having skipped the three star rank entirely. What happened to trigger this remarkable rise In 1969, Haig became an assistant to Kissinger; subsequently, he was catapulted over 240 general officers when Nixon raised him to four-star rank. Such a promotion should mark Haig as one of the great military leaders in our history. But, his promotions did not come as

Syndicated columnist Jerald TerHorst, who did a short stint as Ford's press secretary', tells us:

For most of the final Nixon year, as Haig himself would agree, he [Haig] was the acting president of the United States. With a troubled President drawing more and more within his shell, everyone in the government, with the possible exception of [Haig's sponsor] Kissinger, was working for Al Haig.

William Safire, a Nixon speech writer, says in the November 11, 1973 New York Times magazine:"Haig is far more powerful than Haldeman ever was; but he exercises it more gently ... Haig learned this technique from the past master, Henry Kissinger. . . .- In his new book, Before The Fall, Safire calls Haig -Kissinger's alter ego."Significantly, the Washington Post's Barry Sussman refers to Haig as " Butterfield's former colleague."

You see, it was Alexander Haig who had control of the vauIt where the Watergate tapes were kept. Two months after Haig became the keeper of the keys, his former colleague Butterfield tipped off the Watergate Committee about their existence. Since it is perfectly clear that the subpoenas for the tapes were written by persons already possessing a detailed familiarity with their contents, it is painfully obvious that Haig had already provided them with copies of the pertinent excerpts.

It was now time for the axe to fall. In the June 8, 1975 issue of Parade magazine, Lloyd Shearer tells us: "From May 1973 to August 1974, Haig was Nixon's chief of staff. It was he who adroitly engineered, orchestrated and choreographed Nixon's resignation from the Presidency.

According to Shearer, Nixon was determined not to resign. "Yet Haig knew that he must."The reason for Haig's insistence, according to Parade, was that if the President insisted on a trial and lost, he would lose his pension and other government benefits. You will pardon us for believing that Haig had much more compelling reasons for giving Nixon the final push.

How did he do it? Haig -orchestrated the resignation march," says Shearer, by taking the evidence against Nixon to Republican Congressmen, Presidential speech writers and others close to Nixon. "Haig saw to it that Senator Barry Goldwater, the conservative bulwark of the Republican Party, was provided with the damning tape transcripts of June 23,- Shearer reported. Get that? The President's chief assistant finds out the boss won't budge, so he takes copies of the most damning tapes to the few supporters Nixon had left! Why didn't Nixon fire Haig and burn the tapes? Again, the most obvious, most logical answer is that he did not because he could not.

Shearer continues:

And at the next and final Cabinet meeting, with at least half the members expecting him to resign, Nixon rambled on about inflation, declared his intention to stay on, ordered them to pass the word.

Haig and Kissinger exchanged glances. ! When the Cabinet meeting was over, Kissinger stayed behind. Gently he suggested that the President resign.

Later that same afternoon,"Haig played his final card."Republican Senate leaders Hugh Scott and Barry Goldwater, joined by House Minority Leader John Rhodes, visited Nixon and told him his support in the Senate had evaporated. "That night," reports Shearer, "after again talking to Kissinger and Haig, Richard Nixon decided to resign."
...
http://www.voxfux.com/features/rockefeller/ch12-epi.html

Sooooo.... what's my take ?

If Haig ever recommended or suggested this option to Nixon, it was certainly to power-charge the climate on the Hill. But, it appears with little doubt that Haig was definitely not working to keep, or grab power by force.

Hmmm, it's past 1pm, too late for breakfast, almost too late for lunch. Guess I'll just call the Greek restaurant round the corner and order some take away.

This post has been edited by picadilly: Jun 19 2005, 11:17 AM

[piccadilly]

Where the hell have you picked up the suicide bombers are not iraqis ?
How the hell can anyone tell those smoking body pieces belong to an iraqi, or an iranian or a syrian ?.

I have found this to be true from all sources involved...from Michael Moore, to Alexander Cockburn, to Counter-Terrorism studies and to Iraqis themselves.

Heart, while I do not deny there are foreign jihadists in iraq, I do contest that they represent any significant proportion of the resistance.

Reuters

U.S. launches 2nd Iraq operation; 50 rebels dead
Sat Jun 18, 2005 05:47 PM ET

By Peter Graff
...
General William Webster, the U.S. commander for Baghdad, and Brigadier General Jaleel Khalaf, commander of the first Iraqi army brigade given charge of its own section of the city, said a month-long sweep known as Operation Lightning had succeeded in halving the number of car bombings in the capital.

Some 1,200 suspects, of whom about 50 were foreigners, had been detained, they told a news conference.
...
http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopu...storyID=8829527

Obviously, if foreign fighters represent more than half of the resistance force, or at least a significant force, we can believe, or hope, US troops are particularly focused on putting them out of action.

Eventually, Gen Webster announces 50 foreigners out of 1200 suspects detained, so foreigners make up %4.1 of those suspects.

Seriously, if I were Gen Webster, I'd worry more about the +%95 who are ALL iraqis.

This post has been edited by picadilly: Jun 19 2005, 12:06 PM

[amy]

It's always been in vogue!...The trick is separating the politics from the troops.

Okay, a question for anyone who can answer it. Were Vietnam vets and are today's soldiers fighting in Iraq treated disrespectfully by those who were/are opposed to either of these wars? I've heard tales of this but I've no first hand knowledge.

[TheRestofUs]

Okay, a question for anyone who can answer it. Were Vietnam vets and are today's  soldiers fighting in Iraq treated disrespectfully by those who were/are opposed to either of these wars? I've heard tales of this but I've no first hand knowledge.

I've never treated any Vietnam Vet disrespectfully back in the 60's, or 70's even though I opposed the war. Many of them were/are freinds of mine. Some were Vietnam Vets against the War and some weren't. I went to many protests and only saw one incident of disrespect ; one guy set fire to an American flag. Before I could get there myself, he was jumped by people with longer hair than him, and got a couple of punches in the eye, and nose.

I haven't seen, read, or heard of any disrespect for our soldiers in Iraq.

[piccadilly]

Okay, a question for anyone who can answer it. Were Vietnam vets and are today's  soldiers fighting in Iraq treated disrespectfully by those who were/are opposed to either of these wars? I've heard tales of this but I've no first hand knowledge.

I remember seeing disabled or out of work vietnam vets left to rot in the streets all through the 70s.

I believe things got perhaps better for them in the 80s, seeing a lot less then.

And then sometime around 1996/1997, started seeing vets in the streets again, vietnam and iraq'90.

Shame on the Fools on the Hill.

[amy]

I remember seeing disabled or out of work vietnam vets left to rot in the streets all through the 70s.

I believe things got perhaps better for them in the 80s, seeing a lot less then.

And then sometime around 1996/1997, started seeing vets in the streets again, vietnam and iraq'90.

Shame on the Fools on the Hill.

So, when people make mention of Americans not being in support of Vietnam or Iraqi military, the reference is to the lack of supportive services offered by our federal government and not by lack of support by American citizens? I'm trying to understand why some posters suggest that people who were/are against the Vietnam war and this Iraq war are being unsupportive of our soldiers.

[TheRestofUs]

So, when people make mention of Americans not being in support of Vietnam or Iraqi military, the reference is to the lack of supportive services offered by our federal government and not by lack of support by American citizens? I'm trying to understand why some posters suggest that people who were/are against the Vietnam war and this Iraq war are being unsupportive of our soldiers.

Not exclusively. People were against the War itself (Vietnam). They were criticising our government for prosecuting, and escalating the War. Many wanted our soldiers out of there for their own safety. That was a big motivation for me because I had freinds there.

As to some posters claiming that the troops either in Vietnam, or in Iraq were/or are not being supported by those who oppose the War(s). Who knows why they are saying this? Perhaps some are Vietnam Vets who had experience of disrespect when they returned, or heard someone say something unsupportive.

I heard these claims back during Vietnam, I just never personally witnessed it nor did any of my freinds. I take that back, I remember standing on a street corner with a couple of freinds in 69 I think, and some guy walked by and said something derogatory to one of my freinds who was still in his dress uniform. The strange thing was the guy was clean cut , short haired, and dressed in a suit. We all looked at each other, and gave him the one finger salute (in harmony)!

[piccadilly]

So, when people make mention of Americans not being in support of Vietnam or Iraqi military, the reference is to the lack of supportive services offered by our federal government and not by lack of support by American citizens?

You mean you haven't noticed how most people dodge away when some vet in need in the street, even with canes or in a chair pulls up to them ?

People are always on the run, no time, no dime to spare.

Support ? Do people support our troops ? Sure they do. With opinions and yellow ribbons.

Compassion ? They fit it all in those 2 hours they go to church every week and when Bush promises he won't let any child behind, while he sends them up front in Iraq in open roof humvees.

Otherwise, it's business as usual.

[amy]

You mean you haven't noticed how most people dodge away when some vet in need in the street, even with canes or in a chair pulls up to them ?

People are always on the run, no time, no dime to spare.

Support ? Do people support our troops ? Sure they do. With opinions and yellow ribbons.

Compassion ? They fit it all in those 2 hours they go to church every week and when Bush promises he won't let any child behind, while he sends them up front in Iraq in open roof humvees.

Otherwise, it's business as usual.

The best way for Americans to support the troops is for them to support legislation that takes care of our veterans and the soldiers while they are on active duty. And of course, there are those of us who also support our troops by TRYING to ensure that wars are fought only as a last resort.

[Frenchy]

Okay, a question for anyone who can answer it. Were Vietnam vets and are today's  soldiers fighting in Iraq treated disrespectfully by those who were/are opposed to either of these wars? I've heard tales of this but I've no first hand knowledge.

I've related a couple of times what I and a few of my friends faced when we landed at Oakland International Airport in the late Summer of 68.

[flydangler]

I've related a couple of times what I and a few of my friends faced when we landed at Oakland International Airport in the late Summer of 68.

And methinks I'd previously mentioned how I was singled out as an easy target in the summer of 1969 while on crutches and in uniform at Chicago's Midway Airport, eh?

Just outa curiousity, can anyone explain what has all this got to do with "Marines Sound Off About The Iraq War"?

[amy]

Just outa curiousity, can anyone explain what has all this got to do with "Marines Sound Off About The Iraq War"?

"Not much to do with "Marines Sound off About the Iraq War"-definitely off topic-but I figured what better place to ask my question- a thread devoted to a branch of the military. My question has been satisfactorily answered and thanks to you who responded.
Geez flydangler,
You're like a "thread nanny" making sure everything is in order, neat and tidy-like!