The civilian command is the problem (Guest post by Noise)

If people are wondering, Republicans aren't putting on an act; they're really that delusional. Only delusional people would claim that the way to defend freedom and liberty is by not using it, or to surrender it all to a single branch of government. Only delusional people publicly admit that they aren't sure whether or not a President's war escalation plan is going to work, but that they'll vote for it 'cuz it seems like maybe they oughta. Only delusional people would rationalize sending people into a war to defend "freedom and liberty" and then attack and belittle anybody that actually tries using their freedom and liberty. No, that isn't an act that the Republicans are putting on; they're really that delusional. (1)

Over the past few years, there has been clear resistance from Pentagon brass to the Cheney-Bush (Rumsfeld) war plan. In short, many of the top military commanders have indicated that the ongoing White House war failure is detrimental to our troops and our national preparedness.

How the Republicans in Congress continue to support a regime that betrays our military should be something that shames them. But nothing appears to cause them embarrassment. Like the followers of Jim Jones, they will be loyal to failure as they drink the last drop of poisoned Kool-Aid.

The battle against terrorism has always been an argument about strategy, not about whether or not anybody supports "the enemy" – as the Fifth Column in the GOP likes to portray opponents of the sociopathological man in the White House and his Vice Presidential Rasputin.

Does anyone in the U.S. support terrorism?

Not that we know of. Survival is a basic human instinct, so Americans oppose terrorism.

But they want the effort to keep terrorism from killing Americans to be an effective one.

And all Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have done is create a giant gaper’s block of endless conflict with the wrong enemy in the wrong place at the wrong time – and they are losing the wrong wars while exhausting – according to Pentagon experts – our strategic military capabilities.

Republicans who champion rewarding people based on performance have swallowed hard to support a standard of failure and desperation that they would not tolerate as employers.

Yet, they prop up an administration and president that has strategically been a disaster. It has kicked out or silenced any critics within the intelligence community or Pentagon that have not gone along with its bankrupt policies that threaten American national security.

Can anyone in their right mind, anyone interested in the survival of this nation, please tell us what in George W. Bush’s professional or personal history has made him more capable of deciding military policy than the top Pentagon brass?

Can anyone in their right mind, anyone interested in the survival of this nation, please tell us what in Dick Cheney’s professional or personal history has made him more capable of interpreting classified intelligence than CIA experts? (2)