I want to chime in on the "worst Democratic president ever" question, I say it's a toss up between James Buchanan or Andrew Johnson. Buchanan because he got to oversee the dissolution of the Union and the beginning of secession, Johnson because he botched the post-war period and left things such that we'd end up having Jim Crow...and in my mind, many of the social issues of the 21st century America has its roots in the civil war, and the reconstruction period that followed.

In the 20th century, all the Democrats who actually became president were better than all the scores of Republicans. I might give Eisenhower the nod over Woodrow Wilson, but that's iffy.

Anyone calling FDR the worst Democrat needs their head examined. Anyone disagreeing about Bush ranking anywhere other than just a tick better than Buchanan and Johnson as worst president of ANY party, also needs their head examined (or has some extra dirt on Harding that I hadn't heard yet).

If we end up descending into civil war in the next decade or two, Bush will have earned that bottom slot fair and square, though.

BTW, this was a pretty funny clip, wtf is up with the serious commentary? =)

>> ^jonny:
>> ^kronosposeidon:
So let me frame the larger debate this way: Who was the worst Democratic president? Carter? And what did he do wrong? Allow double-digit inflation and ask us to dial down our thermostats. Who's the worst Republican president? You might as well ask who's the worst president ever. Until Hitler or Stalin gets reincarnated, I think we all know the answer to that one.
wow - until now, I thought you were old enough to know better. I guess not. FDR might qualify as the worst Demo president, because he intentionally brought the US into a war which this country did not need to fight. As with Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, etc., we have been fighting that ever present ghost. That crazy notion that if we don't fight them there, they will come here and overrun us all with their godless atrocities. Wake up. This has been an imperial nation since Teddy and even before -- going back to Jefferson and Adams. The real question is when will the citizens of this country accept that fact? They never have - they keep inventing reasons why we need to invade place like the Philippines, New Orleans, Cuba, Eastern Europe, South Africa, Central Asia, etc.
And as far as the Marines are concerned, name a single day on which the Marines defended the shores of the United States, as opposed to invading the shores of another country, not counting the American revolution, which is debatable depending on which side of the Atlantic you live.

Dude, you been drinking again? FDR brought US into a war? Last I heard, we were attacked first. And don't start with some conspiracy shit about FDR knowing about the Pearl Harbor attack ahead of time.

I don't debate that we are an imperial nation, and that our military has often been an instrument of our imperial designs. That's why I only mentioned WWII, because we were fighting to defend ourselves. However virtually every nation on Earth, even the most peaceful ones like Switzerland, maintains a standing army. Why? To deter invasions, if nothing else. So even with our imperial government our armed forces, through their mere presence, have still done the noble job of defending our shores.

I didn't know the Marines invaded New Orleans either. You must be privy to some secret history that no one else knows about.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
So let me frame the larger debate this way: Who was the worst Democratic president? Carter? And what did he do wrong? Allow double-digit inflation and ask us to dial down our thermostats. Who's the worst Republican president? You might as well ask who's the worst president ever. Until Hitler or Stalin gets reincarnated, I think we all know the answer to that one.

wow - until now, I thought you were old enough to know better. I guess not. FDR might qualify as the worst Demo president, because he intentionally brought the US into a war which this country did not need to fight. As with Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, etc., we have been fighting that ever present ghost. That crazy notion that if we don't fight them there, they will come here and overrun us all with their godless atrocities. Wake up. This has been an imperial nation since Teddy and even before -- going back to Jefferson and Adams. The real question is when will the citizens of this country accept that fact? They never have - they keep inventing reasons why we need to invade place like the Philippines, New Orleans, Cuba, Eastern Europe, South Africa, Central Asia, etc.

And as far as the Marines are concerned, name a single day on which the Marines defended the shores of the United States, as opposed to invading the shores of another country, not counting the American revolution, which is debatable depending on which side of the Atlantic you live.

>> ^furrycloud:
I wish I was old enough to remember a time when the President of the United States was a respected position...


Clinton wasn't so bad. But if you're older than 8, that means you're not into Bush or Clinton. If you don't like Bush you probably don't like his dad or Reagan. Then maybe Jimmy Carter was the last respectable president? If he's not good enough for you, then you probably don't like Ford, Nixon, or LBJ. Kennedy was a big war hawk like Bush, with the bay of pigs fiasco and other attempts to set up puppet governments in foreign countries. And kennedy escalated the vietnam war. Eisenhower raped Iran and replaced its growing democracy with the Shah because of the red scare. Truman bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So.... Maybe you think FDR was the last respectable president?

I personally think Clinton was OK. At least his hawkish foreign policy worked and didn't get us into any long-term quagmires. He made some mistakes:
1. Failure to veto COPA
2. Failure to veto DoMA
3. Falure to veto DMCA
4. The welfare-to-work bill.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'president, Fitzgerald, police, state, Eisenhower, cesorship, dissent' to 'president, Fitzgerald, police, state, Eisenhower, censorship, dissent' - edited by Issykitty

I've just about had enough of these liberal weenie peaceniks going on and on about the so-called "military industrial complex"! What does this Eisenhower guy know about the military, anyway?

Oh... wait a minute... that Eisenhower?



Nevermind...

dupe?

http://www.videosift.com/video/Eisenhowers-Farewell-Address-to-the-American-People

http://www.videosift.com/video/Eisenhower-warns-of-the-military-industrial-complex

^ thx! and, regarding the label?
in this case, they'd also have to slap that label, on none other than WW2's General Of Everything, and the last Republican president i liked, Dwight David Eisenhower.

so, in this case, it'd be a label i'll happily wear. "Hello. My name is Fuckyou Warpigs."

ps.
Ike also boinked his secretary, while president, everyone!
i didn't give a shit about it in his, or Clinton's, case.
not really pertinent, i know. but i so rarely get a reason to discuss Eisenhower.
and i like to use the word 'boink'.

This is one of the reasons Patton, McArthur, Eisenhower were the last of a breed of true Patriots....The Bonus Army in 32'was put down by regular army in Washington....no doubt the same bastards who tried to orchestrate that to their advantage, tried to use similar tactics, a disgruntled soldier army to take the reigns.....not much has changed, cept' now, if a military coup went down, it would not take long to establish total control.(oh, wait, they succeeded, and monkeys did not have to die, well, a few....) For a lot of folks, the jury is out on whether or not 9/11 was a military coup of sorts. Bush is much worse ilk than most of y'all bush-bashers think.....

Not in America, huh??

since i was just looking for this again, for dft's attempt to sift it up?

regarding dag's mention (above) of what this phenomenon has already been known as, for a long time - the military industrial complex.

for anyone who may just be too young, perhaps, and didn't know it already?
that term was coined by none other than the guy in charge of the machine, at the time.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, on his very last day in office. Jan 17, 1961.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Eisenhower-warns-of-the-military-industrial-complex
http://www.videosift.com/video/Eisenhowers-Farewell-Address-to-the-American-People

ps. those aren't copies of eachother. they both use the original eisenhower address, as well as other footage.

I did some of that. After logging on, I got what looked like UNIX. I did LS, got two files. One was an application program, and one was notes. These are the notes:

1953 - Aperture Science begins operations as a manufacturer of shower curtains. Early product line provides a very low-tech portal between the inside and outside of your shower. Very little science is actually involved. The name is chosen to make the curtains appear more hygienic.

1956 - Eisenhower administratin awards Aperture a contract to provide shower curtains to all branches of the military except the Navy.

1957 - 1975 - Mostly shower curtains.

1978 - Aperture Founder and CEO, Cave Johnson, is exposed to mercury while secretly developing a dangerous mercury-injected rubber sheeting from which he plans to manufacture seven deadly shower curtains to be given as gifts to each member of the House Naval Appropriations committee.

[MORE]

qruel, I don't understand why you waste so much time and are concerned so much with the "legitimacy" of the LDS church. They believe and follow the teachings of the Bible and the teachings of Christ. In it's loosest term that is by definition a Christian. They are pretty harmless compared to the evangelicals. In fact I think that's is why Romney is talking like this...he is trying to appeal to the right-wing evangelical base. He's telling them...you may not like my religion...but at least I believe in the Bible and Jesus and one nation under God and in God we trust and God bless America and all that other stuff you want to hear from your President.

I wouldn't have a problem voting for a Mormon because I know first hand that they are good people.

JFK was Catholic...an unpopular religion with most of the countries Christians at the time. Hoover and Nixon were Quaker and Eisenhower was a Jehovah's Witness...neither that popular then or now. John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Millard Fillmore, and William Howard Taft were all Unitarians...my understanding is they believe in Jesus and follow his teachings etc... but that he was not God (via the trinity). To them Jesus was a prophet and they do not pray to Jesus but to God...sounds kind of like how the Muslim religion looks at Jesus.

There are plenty of good reasons not to vote for Romney...this latest speech is one of them

"I hope we can understand, my friends, that life is not 24 and Jack Bauer..."

Scott Horton and Andrew Sullivan comment...

"The moral clarity and vision of McCain’s answer was perfectly balanced by the bankruptcy of Romney’s. In the end, the former Massachusetts governor ducks by saying that he would turn to his ultimate guru for guidance: Cofer Black, the Vice Chair of Blackwater USA. Mr. Black is known for his bravado, including a pledge to the White House that he would send them Osama bin Laden’s head in a box packed with dry ice. But of course it was Mr. Black who failed in efforts to catch bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders as they disappeared into the caves and ravines of Tora Bora. He moved from that high accomplishment to Blackwater, which is now engulfed in a series of scandals reflecting questionable management practices. Moreover, CIA officers complain that Black’s move to Blackwater entailed the privatization of vital national security relationships for personal profit, another hallmark of abuse in the Bush Administration.

McCain is turning for guidance to American military tradition and ethics. Romey on the other hand draws on Hollywood cartoons and adventurists. It’s quite a difference. And at the moment, it looks like the Republican base will take Chuck Norris over George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower any day.

Among the other candidates in the Republican field, Huckabee is clearly in the process of transforming his position on the torture question. He’s drawing closer to John McCain’s view with each passing debate. I’ll go out on a limb and say we’ll soon see three Republican candidates taking a clear-cut anti-torture position: John McCain, Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. Not coincidentally, the first two are the Republican candidates who consistently draw the most support from the active-duty military. Huckabee is clearly intent on pitching more effectively to the same community."

- Scott Horton

"It's a defining issue and this was a defining moment. Romney's pathetic and despicable inability to say that he opposes waterboarding and that waterboarding is torture disqualifies him from the presidency, in my view. If we are going to recover from the profound moral disgrace of the Bush-Cheney torture regime, McCain and Paul are the only Republican candidates who should be considered for the job. I just wish McCain had taken on Giuliani as well. But God bless him. And God bless him for insisting that those who refuse to disown torture should actively support withdrawal from the Geneva Conventions. It's the only honest position to take. I saw the man defeated by Cheney and Addington in 2006 come back to fight again. God bless him."

- Andrew Sullivan

excellent post!
THE ARCHITECTS OF WAR: WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
http://thinkprogress.org/the-architects-where-are-they-now/

President Bush has not fired any of the architects of the Iraq war. In fact, a review of the key planners of the conflict reveals that they have been rewarded — not blamed — for their incompetence.

PAUL WOLFOWITZ

Role In Going To War: Wolfowitz said the U.S. would be greeted as liberators, that Iraqi oil money would pay for the reconstruction, and that Gen. Eric Shinseki’s estimate that several hundred thousand troops would be needed was “wildly off the mark.” [Washington Post, 12/8/05; Wolfowitz, 3/27/03]

Where He Is Now: Bush promoted Wolfowitz to head the World Bank in March 2005. Two years into his five-year term, Wolfowitz was rebuked by the World Bank investigative committee for engineering an unethical pay and promotion package for his girlfriend and, after repeated calls for his resignation, stepped down on May 17, 2007. Wolfowitz is now a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing think tank that “has the President’s ear” on national security issues. [Washington Post, 3/17/05, 5/18/07; Financial Times, 6/28/07]

Key Quote: “The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason [for going to war].” [USA Today, 5/30/03]

DOUGLAS FEITH

Role In Going To War: As Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Feith spearheaded two secretive groups at the Pentagon — the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans — that were instrumental in drawing up documents that explained the supposed ties between Saddam and al Qaeda. The groups were “created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true.” Colin Powell referred to Feith’s operation as the Gestapo. In Bob Woodward’s Plan of Attack, former CentCom Commander Gen. Tommy Franks called Feith the “f***ing stupidest guy on the face of the earth.” [LAT, 1/27/05; NYT, 4/28/04; New Yorker, 5/12/03; Plan of Attack, p.281]

Where He Is Now: Feith voluntarily resigned from the Defense Department shortly after Bush’s reelection. He is currently writing a memoir of his Pentagon work and teaching a course at Georgetown University “on the Bush Administration’s strategy behind the war on terrorism.” The Defense Department’s Inspector General found that Feith’s secretive groups at the Pentagon “developed, produced, and then disseminated” deceptive intelligence that contradicted “the consensus of the Intelligence Community.” These groups are still under investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee. [Washington Post, 1/27/05;Georgetown press release, 5/1/06; NYT, 2/9/07]

Key Quote: “I am not asserting to you that I know that the answer is — we did it right. What I am saying is it’s an extremely complex judgment to know whether the course that we chose with its pros and cons was more sensible.” [Washington Post, 7/13/05]

STEPHEN HADLEY

Role In Going To War: As then-Deputy National Security Advisor, Hadley disregarded memos from the CIA and a personal phone call from Director George Tenet warning that references to Iraq’s pursuit of uranium be dropped from Bush’s speeches. The false information ended up in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address. [Washington Post, 7/23/03]

Where He Is Now: On January 26, 2005, Stephen Hadley was promoted to National Security Advisor. [White House bio]

Key Quote: “I should have recalled at the time of the State of the Union speech that there was controversy associated with the uranium issue. … And it is now clear to me that I failed in that responsibility in connection with the inclusion of these 16 words in the speech that he gave on the 28th of January.” [Hadley, 7/22/03]

RICHARD PERLE

Role In Going To War: Richard Perle, the so-called “Prince of Darkness,” was the chairman of Defense Policy Board during the run-up to the Iraq war. He suggested Iraq had a hand in 9-11. In 1996, he authored “Clean Break,” a paper that was co-signed by Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, and others that argued for regime change in Iraq. Shortly after the war began, Perle resigned from the Board because he came under fire for having relationships with businesses that stood to profit from the war. [Guardian, 9/3/02, 3/28/03; AFP, 8/9/02]

Where He Is Now: Currently, Perle is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute where he specializes in national security and defense issues. He has been investigated for ethical violations concerning war profiteering and other conflicts of interest. [Washington Post, 9/1/04]

Key Quote: “And a year from now, I’ll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush. There is no doubt that, with the exception of a very small number of people close to a vicious regime, the people of Iraq have been liberated and they understand that they’ve been liberated. And it is getting easier every day for Iraqis to express that sense of liberation.” [Perle, 9/22/03]

ELLIOT ABRAMS

Role In Going To War: Abrams was one of the defendants in the Iran-Contra Affair, and he pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress. He was appointed Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs during Bush’s first term, where he served as Bush’s chief advisor on the Middle East. His name surfaced as part of the investigation into who leaked the name of a undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame. [Washington Post, 5/27/03, 2/3/05]

Where He Is Now: Abrams was promoted to deputy national security adviser in February of 2005. In that position, he has led a smear campaign to attack Speaker Nancy Pelosi for visiting Syria. [Slate, 2/17/05; IPS, 4/9/07; Washington Post, 2/15/07]

Key Quote: “We recognize that military action in Iraq, if necessary, will have adverse humanitarian consequences. We have been planning over the last several months, across all relevant agencies, to limit any such consequences and provide relief quickly.” [CNN, 2/25/03]

SCOOTER LIBBY

Role In Going To War: As Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Libby repeatedly pressured CIA analysts to report that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda. He also provided classified government information to New York Times reporter Judith Miller that formed the basis of a series of articles highlighting Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction that were later entirely discredited. Along with Hannah, Libby was a principal author of the discredited draft UN presentation. [Washington Post, 6/5/03; National Journal, 4/6/06; FAIR, 3/19/07; NYT, 10/30/05]

Where He Is Now: On June 5, 2007, Libby was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for perjury and obstruction of justice for his role in the CIA leak case. On July 2, 2007, Bush commuted Libby’s prison sentence, ensuring he would serve no time in jail. [NYT, 6/5/07; Bush, 7/2/07]

Key Quote: “I’m a great fan of the Vice President,” Libby told Larry King in 2002. “I think he’s one of the smartest, most honorable people I’ve ever met.” [Time, 10/28/05]

JOHN HANNAH

Role In Going To War: As deputy national security advisor to Vice President Cheney, Hannah served as the conduit between Ahmad Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress and the Bush administration, passing along false information about Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction that the administration relied upon to justify the invasion. Hannah was also a principal author of the draft speech making the administration’s case for war to the UN. Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA director George Tenet rejected most of the content of the speech as exaggerated and unwarranted. [Newsweek, 12/15/06; NYT, 10/30/05]

Where He Is Now: On October 31, 2005, Cheney promoted Hannah to national security advisor, replacing the role served previously by Scooter Libby. [CNN, 10/31/05]

Key Quote: Reprising his role in misleading the country to war with Iraq, Hannah has told a U.S. ambassador that 2007 is “the year of Iran” and that a U.S. attack is “a real possibility.” [Washington Post, 2/11/07]

DAVID WURMSER

Role In Going To War: At the time of the war, Wurmser was a special assistant to John Bolton in the State Department. Wurmser has long advocated the belief that both Syria and Iraq represented threats to the stability of the Middle East. In early 2001, Wurmser had issued a call for air strikes against Iraq and Syria. Along with Perle, he is considered a main author of “Clean Break.” [Asia Times, 4/17/03; Guardian, 9/3/02]

Where He Is Now: Wurmser was promoted to Principal Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs; he is in charge of coordinating Middle East strategy. His name has been associated with the Plame Affair and with an FBI investigation into the passing of classified information to Chalabi and AIPAC. [Raw Story, 10/19/05; Washington Post, 9/4/04]

Key Quote: “Syria, Iran, Iraq, the PLO and Sudan are playing a skillful game, but have consistently worked to undermine US interests and influence in the region for years, and certainly will continue to do so now, even if they momentarily, out of fear, seem more forthcoming.” [Washington Post, 9/24/01]

ANDREW NATSIOS

Role In Going To War: Shortly after the invasion of Iraq, Andrew Natsios, then the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, went on Nightline and claimed that the U.S. contribution to the rebuilding of Iraq would be just $1.7 billion. When it became quickly apparent that Natsios’ prediction would fall woefully short of reality, the government came under fire for scrubbing his comments from the USAID Web site. [Washington Post, 12/18/03; ABC News, 4/23/03]

Where He Is Now: Natsios stepped down as the head of USAID in January and was teaching at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh’s School of Foreign Service as a Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy and Advisor on International Development. In September 2006, Bush appointed him Special Envoy for Darfur. [AP, 2/20/06; Georgetown, 12/2/05; Washington Post, 9/19/06]

Key Quote: “[T]he American part of this will be $1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.” [Nightline, 4/23/03]

DAN BARTLETT

Role In Going To War: Dan Bartlett was the White House Communications Director at the time of the war and was a mouthpiece in hyping the Iraq threat. Bartlett was also a regular participant in the weekly meetings of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG). The main purpose of the group was the systematic coordination of the “marketing” of going to war with Iraq as well as selling the war here at home. [Washington Post, 8/10/03]

Where He Is Now: Bartlett announced his resignation on June 1, 2007 to pursue his “prospects in the private sector.” He was promoted to Counselor to the President on January 5, 2005, and was responsible for the formulation of policy and implementation of the President’s agenda. [Washington Post, 6/2/07]

Key Quote: “Most people would argue we are part of the solution in Iraq, not part of the problem.” [CNN, 10/23/06]

MITCH DANIELS

Role In Going To War: Mitch Daniels was the director of the Office of Management and Budget from January 2001 through June of 2003. In this capacity, he was responsible for releasing the initial budget estimates for the Iraq War which he pegged at $50 to $60 billion. The estimated cost of the war, including the full economic ramifications, is approaching $1 trillion. [MSNBC, 3/17/06]

Where He Is Now: In 2004, Daniels was elected Governor of Indiana. [USA Today, 11/3/04]

Key Quote: Mitch Daniels had said the war would be an “affordable endeavor” and rejected an estimate by the chief White House economic adviser that the war would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion as “very, very high.” [Christian Science Monitor, 1/10/06]

GEORGE TENET

Role In Going To War: As CIA Director, Tenet was responsible for gathering information on Iraq and the potential threat posted by Saddam Hussein. According to author Bob Woodward, Tenet told President Bush before the war that there was a “slam dunk case” that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. Tenet remained publicly silent while the Bush administration made pre-war statements on Iraq’s supposed nuclear program and ties to al Qaeda that were contrary to the CIA’s judgments. Tenet issued a statement in July 2003, drafted by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, taking responsibility for Bush’s false statements in his State of the Union address. [CNN, 4/19/04; NYT, 7/22/05]

Where He Is Now: Tenet voluntarily resigned from the administration on June 3, 2004. He was later awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom. He released a memoir in April 2007 critical of many in the Bush administration for their roles in the Iraq war and currently teaches at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh’s School of Foreign Service. [Washington Post, 6/3/04; CBS, 4/29/07]

Key Quote: “It’s a slam dunk case.” [CNN, 4/19/04]

COLIN POWELL

Role In Going To War: Despite stating in Feb. 2001 that Saddam had not developed “any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction,” Powell made the case in front of the United Nations for a United States-led invasion of Iraq, stating that, “There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction.” [Powell, 2/5/03; Powell, 2/24/01]

Where He Is Now: Shortly after Bush won reelection in 2004, Powell resigned from the administration. Powell now sits on numerous corporate boards. He succeeded Henry Kissinger in May 2006 as Chairman of the Eisenhower Fellowship Program at the City College of New York. In September 2005, Powell said of his U.N. speech that it was a “blot” on his record. He went on to say, “It will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It’s painful now.” [ABC News, 9/9/05]

Key Quote: “‘You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people,’ he told the president. ‘You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You’ll own it all.’ Privately, Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage called this the Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you own it.” [Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack]

DONALD RUMSFELD

Role In Going To War: Prior to the war, Rumsfeld repeatedly suggested the war in Iraq would be short and swift. He said, “The Gulf War in the 1990s lasted five days on the ground. I can’t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that.” He also said, “It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” [Rumsfeld, 11/14/02; USA Today, 4/1/03]

Where He Is Now: After repeated calls for his resignation, Donald Rumsfeld finally stepped down on November 8, 2006, one day after the 2006 midterm elections. Rumsfeld is now “working on setting up a new foundation…to promote continued U.S. engagement in world affairs in furtherance of U.S. security interests” so that he can “remain engaged in public policy issues.” He is also shopping a memoir, in the hopes of receiving “a large cash advance.” [AP, 11/8/06; Reuters, 3/19/06; Washington Times, 5/18/07; NY Sun, 6/27/07]

Key Quote: “You go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” [CNN, 12/9/04]

CONDOLEEZZA RICE

Role In Going To War: As National Security Adviser, Rice disregarded at least two CIA memos and a personal phone call from Director George Tenet stating that the evidence behind Iraq’s supposed uranium acquisition was weak. She urged the necessity of war because “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” [Washington Post, 7/27/03; CNN, 9/8/02]

Where She Is Now: In December of 2004, Condoleezza Rice was promoted to Secretary of State. [ABC News, 11/16/04]

Key Quote: “We did not know at the time — maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency — but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery. Of course it was information that was mistaken.” [Meet the Press, 6/8/03]

DICK CHENEY

Role In Going To War: Among a host of false pre-war statements, Cheney claimed that Iraq may have had a role in 9/11, stating that it was “pretty well confirmed” that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials. Cheney also claimed that Saddam was “in fact reconstituting his nuclear program” and that the U.S. would be “greeted as liberators.” [Meet the Press, 12/9/01, 3/16/03]

Where He Is Now: Cheney earned another four years in power when Bush won re-election in 2004. Despite some conservatives calling for him to be replaced, Cheney has said, “I’ve now been elected to a second term; I’ll serve out my term.” Cheney continues to advocate for preemptive military intervention, recently delivering threats toward Iran in a speech aboard an aircraft carrier off Iran’s coast. [CBS Face the Nation, 3/19/06; NYT, 5/11/07]

Key Quote: “I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.” [Larry King Live, 6/20/05]

GEORGE W. BUSH

Role In Going To War: Emphasizing Saddam Hussein’s supposed stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, supposed ties to al Qaeda, and supposed nuclear weapons program, Bush built public support for — and subsequently ordered — an invasion of Iraq. [State of the Union, 1/28/03]

Where He Is Now: In November 2004, Bush won re-election. Since that time, popular support for the war and the President have reached a low point — nearing the levels of Richard Nixon during Watergate. [Chicago Sun-Times, 6/19/07]

Key Quote: “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” [Bush, 10/7/02]

Important enough to publish in full:

The Bombs of August

Dispelling the Myth of Lives Saved by the Hiroshima Bomb

by Howard Zinn

The bombing of Hiroshima remains sacred to the American Establishment and to a very large part of the population in this country. I learned that when, in 1995, I spoke at the Chautauqua Institute about Hiroshima, it being the 50th anniversary of the atomic bombing. There were 2,000 people in that huge amphitheater and as I explained why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unforgivable atrocities, perpetrated on a Japan ready to surrender, the audience was silent. Well, not quite. A number of people shouted angrily at me from their seats.

Understandable. To question Hiroshima is to explode a precious myth - that America is different from the other imperial powers of the world, that other nations may commit unspeakable acts, but not ours.

Further, to see it as a wanton act of gargantuan cruelty rather than as an unavoidable necessity ("to end the war, to save lives") would be to raise disturbing questions about the essential goodness of the "good war."

What could be more horrible than the burning, mutilation, blinding, irradiation of hundreds of thousands of Japanese men, women, children? And yet it is absolutely essential for our political leaders to defend the bombing because if Americans can be induced to accept that, then they can accept any war, any means, so long as the warmakers can supply a reason. And there are always plausible reasons delivered from on high.

That is why the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is important, because if citizens can question that, if they can declare nuclear weapons an unacceptable means, even if it ends a war a month or two earlier, they may be led to a larger question - the means (involving forty million dead) used to defeat Fascism.

The principal justification for obliterating Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that it "saved lives" because otherwise a planned US invasion of Japan would have been necessary, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands. Truman at one point used the figure "a half million lives," and Churchill "a million lives," but these were figures pulled out of the air to calm troubled consciences; even official projections for the number of casualties in an invasion did not go beyond 46,000.

In fact, the bombs that fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not forestall an invasion of Japan because no invasion was necessary. The Japanese were on the verge of surrender, and American military leaders knew that. General Eisenhower, briefed by Secretary of War Henry Stimson on the imminent use of the bomb, told him that "Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary."

After the bombing, Admiral William D. Leary, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the atomic bomb "a barbarous weapon," also noting that: "The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."

The Japanese had begun to move to end the war after the US victory on Okinawa, in May of 1945, in the bloodiest battle of the Pacific War. After the middle of June, six members of the Japanese Supreme War Council authorized Foreign Minister Togo to approach the Soviet Union, which was not at war with Japan, to mediate an end to the war "if possible by September."