The Charlotte Observer - Aug. 21, 2010

Andrew J. Bacevich

Where Eisenhower most disappointed his admirers was in waiting until the eve of his departure from office before speaking the truth.

The Boston Globe

(Unless directly challenged) The Bush era will not end Jan. 20, 2009 ... The burden of identifying and confronting the Bush legacy necessarily falls on Obama ... The challenge facing Obama is clear: he must go beyond merely pointing out the folly of the Iraq war; he must demonstrate that Iraq represents the truest manifestation of an approach to national security that is fundamentally flawed, thereby helping Americans discern the correct lessons of that misbegotten conflict.

Col. Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University. His new book is "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism."

Let us talk today about a great misconception, or rather two misconceptions. One is the misconception of what is power and the other is the misconception of who has it.

A short talk given in celebration of the Legacy of Mary Lou Cook, Santa Fe, NM - by Craig S. Barnes

This war has lasted so long that Americans... have had the time to pass through all five of the Kübler-Ross stages of grief over its implosion. Though (some) dead-enders... may have only gone from denial to anger to bargaining, most others have moved on to depression and acceptance. Unable to even look at the fiasco anymore, the nation is now just waiting for someone to administer the last rites.

From Esquire Magazine, October 18, 2007

By John H. Richardson

(2003)  "Then came the moment that would lead to an extraordinary battle with the Bush administration. It was an average morning in April, about four weeks into the war. Mann picked up her daily folder and sat down at her desk, glancing at a fax cover page. The fax was from the Swiss ambassador to Iran, which wasn't unusual -- since the U.S. had no formal relationship with Iran, the Swiss ambassador represented American interests there and often faxed over updates on what he was doing. This time he'd met with Sa-deq Kharrazi, a well-connected Iranian who was the nephew of the foreign minister and son-in-law to the supreme leader. Amazingly, Kharrazi had presented the ambassador with a detailed proposal for peace in the Middle East, approved at the highest levels in Tehran. 

A two-page summary was attached. Scanning it, Mann was startled by one dramatic concession after another -- "decisive action" against all terrorists in Iran, an end of support for Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, a promise to cease its nuclear program, and also an agreement to recognize Israel. 

This was huge. Mann sat down and drafted a quick memo to her boss, Richard Haass. It was important to send a swift and positive response. 

Then she heard that the White House had already made up its mind -- it was going to ignore the offer. Its only response was to lodge a formal complaint with the Swiss government about their ambassador's meddling." 

In the June 5, 2007 New Hampshire debate, nine of ten candidates for the Republican presidential nomination explicitly or tacitly supported a US attack on Iran using nuclear weapons.  Only Congressman Ron Paul expressed opposition. 

What's more, in the US media there is little or no commentary about these endorsements of a nuclear first-strike against Iran. 

Where is the outrage?   Where is the shame?  Not in America! 

Concerning the Democrats, nearly all of the party’s presidential candidates are on record in support of escalating the US campaign of diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, and military saber-rattling against Iran - statements that prepare public opinion in the United States for a new and even more terrible slaughter in the Middle East.