Saw a major installation of his work in Kew Gardens, London, several years ago with numerous pieces scattered throughout both the greenhouses and grounds.
The first day I went, his people were in the process of putting together many of the pieces which, of course, *forced* me to return on a later day to see how they looked completed.
When Senator Jim Webb arose on the Senate floor to introduce his amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act which would set limits on the amount of time troops could be separated from their families and guarantee sufficient respite for their recuperation, he included the following sentence:
We're trying to find a formula, the right kind of a formula that can undo what I and many others believe was a grave strategic error in going into Iraq in the first place. The whole speech can be found on his web site [1] under the heading, Floor Remarks of Senator Jim Webb on Bipartisan, Pro-Troop Amendment, a document that has to be downloaded.The relevant paragraphs, IMHO, are as follows:
That is about two-thirds of the time that we have been engaged since December 2001. This amendment is needed for another reason, and that is that it's become clear since the testimony of General Petreaus and Ambassador Crocker that the debate on our numbers in Iraq and our policy in Iraq is going to continue for sometime. We have divisions here in the Senate, we have divisions between the Administration and the Congress. We're trying to find a formula, the right kind of a formula that can undo what I and many others believe was a grave strategic error in going into Iraq in the first place. But we have to have this debate sensibly. In the meantime, because this debate is going to continue for sometime, we need to put a safety net under our troops who are being called upon to go to Iraq and Afghanistan. I noted with some irony on Monday, as I was presiding, when the Republican leader expressed his view that it would not be an unnatural occurrence for us to be in Iraq for the next 50 years. This comparison to Korea and Western Europe is being made again and again and again. I go back to five years ago this month when I wrote an editorial for "The Washington Post" six months before we invaded Iraq, and one of the comments that I made in this editorial, five years ago, was that there is no end point, there is no withdrawal plan from the people who have brought us to this war because they don't intend to withdraw. I said that five years ago. It's rather stunning to hear that ratified openly now by people in the Administration and by others who have supported this endeavor. We need to engage in that debate. We need to come to some sort of agreement about what our posture is going to be in the Middle East and as we have that debate, it's vitally important that we look after the well-being of the men and women who are being called upon again and again to serve. Well, I don't find it stunning, but I am glad the Senator brought it up. I was hoping it would be one of the Presidential candidates who would grab the bull by the horns and finally address that the real agenda behind the invasion and occupation (I appreciate that's what Webb calls it) of Iraq was to set up "enduring" bases for a semi-permanent U.S. military presence in the Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf region. Of course, since all the information having to do with the bases and the hundred thousand troops currently stationed there is classified, several of the presidential candidates are perhaps unaware of those deployments. Certainly, the press has been prevented from telling them, and us, what's going on there, as well as in the air war that's pulverizing the country just as surely as Dresden was pulverized during World War II. Not surprisingly, the Socialist Worker [2] takes a less forgiving stance:
Bowing to Bush's endless war September 21, 2007 | Page 2 GEORGE W. BUSH wants to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for decades--and none of the leading Democratic candidates for president disagree. And then provides a run-down of where the Democratic candidates stand:
THE TOP-tier Democratic presidential candidates jumped on Bush for dragging his feet on a troop withdrawal. But when they call for "withdrawal," you have to read the fine print. "The president would have us believe there are two choices: keep all our troops in Iraq or abandon these Iraqis. I reject this choice," said Barack Obama. His plan: withdraw "combat troops" but leave thousands in place to train Iraqi forces and guard U.S. personnel at the soon-to-open U.S. embassy, the world's biggest. It's unclear if Obama's definition of "combat troops" includes the U.S. warplanes based in remote areas of Iraq that are battering the country in a stepped-up air war. For her part, Hillary Clinton's Web site proclaims that she is against a permanent occupation of Iraq and touts her sponsorship of the proposed Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act of 2007. Read Clinton's proposed legislation, however, and you'll find numerous exceptions. The withdrawal could only take place when and if "the security forces of the government of Iraq are free of sectarian and militia influences." As with Obama's proposal, Clinton's proposed law would allow U.S. troops to remain in Iraq for "training Iraqi security forces"; "providing logistic support of Iraqi security forces"; "protecting United States personnel and infrastructure"; and "participating in targeted counter-terrorism activities." Plus, the president could obtain a waiver to deploy troops in Iraq whenever U.S. "security" is at stake--essentially, a blank check for more war. John Edwards has tried to position himself to the left of Obama and Clinton on Iraq. "Every single funding bill that goes to President Bush should have a timetable for withdrawal," he said September 16. "If he vetoes it, they should send another bill with a timetable for withdrawal." Edwards calls for an immediate pullout of 40,000 to 50,000 troops and withdrawing all "combat troops" in nine to 10 months. Like Obama and Clinton, he disclaims any intention of a permanent occupation of Iraq, but leaves the door open for "non-combat" troops to remain. On his Web site, Edwards makes it clear that he's not shrinking from maintaining the U.S. imperial role in the Middle East. "After withdrawal," he said, "we should retain sufficient forces in the region to contain the conflict and ensure that instability in Iraq does not spill over into other countries, creating a regional war, a terrorist haven or a genocide." Now, you may not find the Socialist Worker credible, but how do we explain an aircraft landing or taking off from Balad Airfield every five minutes, twenty-four hours a day as Charles J. Hanley [3] reported in July, before taking off on a speaking tour? Surely, 10,000 flights a month are not hunting IEDs and the world's largest embassy with 25 foot thick concrete walls isn't needed for a country that's been bombed back to the Stone Age. As Senator Webb says We need to engage in that debate. The only question is who's going to speak up. While it's safe for the Senators to discuss classified information on the floor, unless the whole nation is involved, it's unlikely the killing is going to stop. And, btw, I think Greenspan's blaming it all on oil is the last refuge of the scoundrel. He, of all people, should know that the real targets of the U.S. military assets in the Middle East are, as the Secretary of State puts it, "a re-emerging Russia" (her personal area of expertise) and "a rising China" (the bugagoo of the Bushes). M/H Links: ------ [1] http://www.webb.senate.gov/ [2] http://www.socialistworker.org/2007-2/645/645_02_Bowing.shtml [3] http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070714/D8QCHASG0.html
Saw a major installation of his work in Kew Gardens, London, several years ago with numerous pieces scattered throughout both the greenhouses and grounds.
ReplyDeleteThe first day I went, his people were in the process of putting together many of the pieces which, of course, *forced* me to return on a later day to see how they looked completed.
It was, quite literally, breathtaking!
When Senator Jim Webb arose on the Senate floor to introduce his
ReplyDeleteamendment to the Defense Appropriations Act which would set limits on
the amount of time troops could be separated from their families and
guarantee sufficient respite for their recuperation, he included the
following sentence:
We're trying to find a formula, the right kind of a formula that can
undo what I and many others believe was a grave strategic error in
going into Iraq in the first place.
The whole speech can be found on his web site [1] under the heading,
Floor Remarks of Senator Jim Webb on Bipartisan, Pro-Troop Amendment,
a document that has to be downloaded.The relevant paragraphs, IMHO,
are as follows:
That is about two-thirds of the time that we have been engaged since
December 2001. This amendment is needed for another reason, and that
is that it's become clear since the testimony of General Petreaus and
Ambassador Crocker that the debate on our numbers in Iraq and our
policy in Iraq is going to continue for sometime. We have divisions
here in the Senate, we have divisions between the Administration and
the Congress. We're trying to find a formula, the right kind of a
formula that can undo what I and many others believe was a grave
strategic error in going into Iraq in the first place. But we have to
have this debate sensibly. In the meantime, because this debate is
going to continue for sometime, we need to put a safety net under our
troops who are being called upon to go to Iraq and Afghanistan.
I noted with some irony on Monday, as I was presiding, when the
Republican leader expressed his view that it would not be an unnatural
occurrence for us to be in Iraq for the next 50 years. This comparison
to Korea and Western Europe is being made again and again and again. I
go back to five years ago this month when I wrote an editorial for
"The Washington Post" six months before we invaded Iraq, and one of
the comments that I made in this editorial, five years ago, was that
there is no end point, there is no withdrawal plan from the people who
have brought us to this war because they don't intend to withdraw. I
said that five years ago. It's rather stunning to hear that ratified
openly now by people in the Administration and by others who have
supported this endeavor. We need to engage in that debate. We need to
come to some sort of agreement about what our posture is going to be
in the Middle East and as we have that debate, it's vitally important
that we look after the well-being of the men and women who are being
called upon again and again to serve.
Well, I don't find it stunning, but I am glad the Senator brought it
up. I was hoping it would be one of the Presidential candidates who
would grab the bull by the horns and finally address that the real
agenda behind the invasion and occupation (I appreciate that's what
Webb calls it) of Iraq was to set up "enduring" bases for a
semi-permanent U.S. military presence in the Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf
region.
Of course, since all the information having to do with the bases and
the hundred thousand troops currently stationed there is classified,
several of the presidential candidates are perhaps unaware of those
deployments. Certainly, the press has been prevented from telling
them, and us, what's going on there, as well as in the air war that's
pulverizing the country just as surely as Dresden was pulverized
during World War II.
Not surprisingly, the Socialist Worker [2] takes a less forgiving
stance:
Bowing to Bush's endless war
September 21, 2007 | Page 2
GEORGE W. BUSH wants to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for decades--and none
of the leading Democratic candidates for president disagree.
And then provides a run-down of where the Democratic candidates stand:
THE TOP-tier Democratic presidential candidates jumped on Bush for
dragging his feet on a troop withdrawal. But when they call for
"withdrawal," you have to read the fine print.
"The president would have us believe there are two choices: keep all
our troops in Iraq or abandon these Iraqis. I reject this choice,"
said Barack Obama. His plan: withdraw "combat troops" but leave
thousands in place to train Iraqi forces and guard U.S. personnel at
the soon-to-open U.S. embassy, the world's biggest.
It's unclear if Obama's definition of "combat troops" includes the
U.S. warplanes based in remote areas of Iraq that are battering the
country in a stepped-up air war.
For her part, Hillary Clinton's Web site proclaims that she is against
a permanent occupation of Iraq and touts her sponsorship of the
proposed Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act of 2007.
Read Clinton's proposed legislation, however, and you'll find numerous
exceptions. The withdrawal could only take place when and if "the
security forces of the government of Iraq are free of sectarian and
militia influences."
As with Obama's proposal, Clinton's proposed law would allow U.S.
troops to remain in Iraq for "training Iraqi security forces";
"providing logistic support of Iraqi security forces"; "protecting
United States personnel and infrastructure"; and "participating in
targeted counter-terrorism activities." Plus, the president could
obtain a waiver to deploy troops in Iraq whenever U.S. "security" is
at stake--essentially, a blank check for more war.
John Edwards has tried to position himself to the left of Obama and
Clinton on Iraq. "Every single funding bill that goes to President
Bush should have a timetable for withdrawal," he said September 16.
"If he vetoes it, they should send another bill with a timetable for
withdrawal."
Edwards calls for an immediate pullout of 40,000 to 50,000 troops and
withdrawing all "combat troops" in nine to 10 months. Like Obama and
Clinton, he disclaims any intention of a permanent occupation of Iraq,
but leaves the door open for "non-combat" troops to remain.
On his Web site, Edwards makes it clear that he's not shrinking from
maintaining the U.S. imperial role in the Middle East. "After
withdrawal," he said, "we should retain sufficient forces in the
region to contain the conflict and ensure that instability in Iraq
does not spill over into other countries, creating a regional war, a
terrorist haven or a genocide."
Now, you may not find the Socialist Worker credible, but how do we
explain an aircraft landing or taking off from Balad Airfield every
five minutes, twenty-four hours a day as Charles J. Hanley [3]
reported in July, before taking off on a speaking tour? Surely,
10,000 flights a month are not hunting IEDs and the world's largest
embassy with 25 foot thick concrete walls isn't needed for a country
that's been bombed back to the Stone Age.
As Senator Webb says
We need to engage in that debate.
The only question is who's going to speak up. While it's safe for the
Senators to discuss classified information on the floor, unless the
whole nation is involved, it's unlikely the killing is going to stop.
And, btw, I think Greenspan's blaming it all on oil is the last refuge
of the scoundrel. He, of all people, should know that the real
targets of the U.S. military assets in the Middle East are, as the
Secretary of State puts it, "a re-emerging Russia" (her personal area
of expertise) and "a rising China" (the bugagoo of the Bushes).
M/H
Links:
------
[1] http://www.webb.senate.gov/
[2] http://www.socialistworker.org/2007-2/645/645_02_Bowing.shtml
[3] http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070714/D8QCHASG0.html