I do not think Hillary would make a good vice president because I really think congress was just as responsible for the Iraq war as Bush was, because congress not only gave Bush the authorization to use force, but they also voted against United Nations diplomacy (the Levin Ammendment) which gave Bush the authority to ignore the United Nations.  Having Hillary in particular support the war really mainstreamed it for the media and public, because here you have the most famous person in the senate, a woman who just spent 8 years in the white house and was expected to be the first woman president, and a woman who is quick to point out vast right-wing conspiracies, putting her faith in the president. This really gave other members congress, the media, and the American people guidance about their own views towards war, and really gave Democrats permission to support the war.  And as the senator from the state where 9/11 took place, and as a woman who just spent 8 years in the white house, Hillary had the authority to really shape the debate.  

While her votes themselves, and all the bipartisan legitimacy (not to mentiona actual authority) they gave Bush were her biggest mistakes, Hillary was also the person who really sold the case for war to the public and the media:  

More below:

"If you want peace, understand war."
B. H. Liddell Hart

Once a Marine always a Marine and Scott Ritter trained as a Marine.  Now he wants to apply that training to the peace movement.  He  is not content to write books and make speeches and then go home with a moral victory.  He wants to win.  He wants a real antiwar movement that can stop the Iraq War and prevent an Iran War from happening.

To do that, he believes the antiwar movement, the peace movement, the social justice movement must be organized, unified, and able to project political power from a core set of beliefs.  Ritter believes those beliefs should be the Constitution which he took an oath to uphold.  He would like to replace the flag lapel pin with a pocket copy of the Constitution and counter "Gods, Guns, and Gays" with "Freedom and Justice for All" plus the rest of the Bill of Rights.  He wants the people who march on Washington to go far beyond a Sunday demo and Monday lobbying.

Waging Peace:  The Art of War for the Antiwar Movement by Scott Ritter
NY:  Nation Books, 2007
ISBN-13:  978-1-56858-328-0

Americans are capable of building and leading a strategy to change the character of America’s public policy to one that successfully wages peace via pushing People’s Lobby’s citizen-initiated American World Service Corps (AWSC) Congressional Proposals.  For a nation founded on "We the people..." having citizen-initiated legislation change the world should not be considered too far "out of the box."

I have been waiting to write my first post until I had something to add that was meaningful and thought provoking.

Two of today’s posts-Dick Cheney glorifying Bush and Scott Ritter warning of a war with Iran-reminded me to re-read the transcript of a Scott Ritter interview on Fox News held on September 13th, 2002.

There's no 'after the jump' suspense here.  As a woman, I want to make it clear that it's not MY belief that women aren't good enough to hold office.  It's the belief of the Clinton camp, and apparently, the belief of a fair number of her supporters.  I can only believe that it's this practice of embracing the mindset of 'empowered masculinity' that led Hillary Clinton to brazenly and unabashedly support an immoral and unjust war and to be unapologetic about it. Forgiveness is for girls.  Apologies are for mama's boys.

It's this attitude that led her to attack her Democratic rival using Right Wing talking points.  It's this attitude that's led her to become the darling of the Right Wing talking heads.

Luckily for the Democratic Party, and for America, it's the same attitude that will end up costing Clinton the election.

Scott Ritter hasn't been wrong about too many things regarding U.S. intentions in the Middle East.  He was one of the few who called "bullsh*t" on Bushco's claims of WMD's in Iraq.  A former Marine and former Republican, he's not exactly a partisan player, he seems to be a guy who just doesn't like being lied to.  And now he's telling us there's a "virtual guarantee" of a strike against Iran:

Ritter: US will target Iran next

We take a look at the military buildup, we take a look at the rhetoric, we take a look at the diplomatic posturing, and I would say that it’s a virtual guarantee that there will be a limited aerial strike against Iran in the not-so-near future—or not-so-distant future, that focuses on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command. And if this situation spins further out of control, you would see these aerial strikes expanding to include Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and some significant command and control targets.

Here's my latest attempt to get some answers about CNN's role in General-gate. I have written Rick Davis, CNN's VP of Standards and Practices. Hopefully, I'll get a response this time.

I know that everyone here is all in a tizzy over election news and prognostications and analysis ad infinitum. I also know that clammyc has a fine diary up on the rec list about Iraq.

Scott Ritter, a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, also has a fine article over on Alternet.org. His views on the situation in Iraq, currently, in the near future, and in the long run, are alarming to say the least.

Hop in a barrel and follow me over the fa-a-a-a-a-alls.

"What did they know and when did they know it?"

Well, Dick Cheney knew about the report over a year ago.  That means he's known the truth about Iran and it's total lack of a weapons program for over a year.

How do we know this?  Because he he has spent this last year trying to get the report changed.  Yes, he's been fighting them for over a year to get that report to say what he wanted it to say.  The way he did back in 2002 when he got them to lie about Iraq.  

This time, he failed.  

And we are left wondering:  Did Iran ever have a nuclear weapons program at all?

Summary: Let's say the Bush Administration achieved its "victory" in Iraq (whatever that currently means) tomorrow.  In the long run, do you think such an event would lead to the majority of Americans forgiving the Administration for all the unpleasant aspects of the conflict?

Scott Ritter, in his October 22 Truthdig article lays out for us the existence, character, and consequences of the secret Cheney Bush policy making apparatus for Iran.

Beginning with Bush's recent warning that he will start WWW III if Iran is not prevented "from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." the article explores the "vision, and related terminology, which hovers just below the horizon in the brain of George W. Bush"

The influences "imprinting" Bush's actions are independant of and at cross purposes with the normal operations of our legal and Constitutional defense and foreign policy setting procedures, and of the Secretaries of State and Defense. They are, as Ritter says, "National Security Adviser  Stephen Hadley, Vice President Dick Cheney, and God."

In 2002-2003, I was so naive that I thought that an unprovoked attack on Iraq would be wildly unpopular!  Instead, bush's popularity rose 25 points and the flag-frenzied hysteria that accompanied our war of aggression  proved to one and all that the world's leading democracy has a deep strain of fascist lunacy.  Will it happen again?  According to Scott Ritter, we will soon find out.

So here we are - still dealing with twits like Joe Klein and now Matt Bai; still unable to shake the like of Senator Baucus and his "New Democratic Network" sponsors.

I'm glad David Sirota's article, "With "Progressives" Like These, Who Needs Enemies?", calls the Beltway "Progressives" out on this. But I think we, outside the Beltway, have to recognize that if we don't go back to "Real Democrat" policies and rhetoric the Democratic Gassroots will be reduced to preoccupation with local issues and lose the Beltway ballgame by forfeiture. [edited to clarify link to David Sirota's article]

Kind of a replay of sending the kiddies home to sort their garbage, back in the '70s - after the anti-Vietnam movement's intellectual base was corrupted by "New Age" moles (and post-modernism) and its activism mooted by Nixon's Watergate and Henry Kissinger.

At any rate, it does not seem that the grassroots are quite up to holding Washington Democrats responsible for their public pronouncements, let alone their actual votes.

I want to take an opportunity to show you the faces of soldiers who have served our nation in Iraq and who do not agree with the Bush administration's policy on Iraq. Nothing phony about these men and women. Nope. They're the real deal. Their courage was a virtual magnet that drew thousands to a September 29th march in Syracuse, N.Y. where soldiers and citizens denounced the Iraq War.

The people in our Upstate New York communities support these (very real) servicemen and women. I want to take an opportunity to show you some (very real) photos of (very real) citizens from diverse walks of (very real) community life in Syracuse and Upstate New York who took a Saturday afternoon on a halcyon September day to tell George W. Bush what they think of his administration's (all-too real and disastrous) Iraq policy.

  Every day the drums beat louder. We are being asked for more money for Iraq and Afghnistan. Iran is being painted as a greater threat every day. Congress does nothing to rein in the administration - but it has plenty of time to condemn MoveOn for questioning Bush's latest tame general.

 Did you know ~3,000 people marched in Syracuse yesterday? Did you know that Scott Ritter spoke in a phone interview before the rally, warning that what he'd seen in the run-up to Iraq is now happening with Iran as the target?

  If there's any mention in the NY Times or the Washington Post, I couldn't find it. I'm guessing it won't come up on the Sunday morning talking head shows; they'll be too busy discussing how annoying Hillary's laugh is. (Even Frank Rich is picking up on that one. Click on the graphic by Rich's column to see how bold the Democrats are.) So, what have you heard from Syracuse or elsewhere?

Scott Ritter?
Nice creds. Wish I had them, but I don't.
Never went into hostile territory. Never looked for Weapons of Mass Destruction! Anywhere.

He maybe deserves our attention, when he says: Iraq Will Have To Wait!

A former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served under Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Scott Ritter worked as a chief inspector for the United Nations Special Commission in Iraq from 1991 until 1998, helping lead the effort to disarm Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. He is the author of several books, including "Iraq Confidential" (2005, Nation Books), "Target Iran" (2006, Nation Books) and "Waging Peace" (2007, Nation Books). "Target Iran," with a new afterword by the author, has just been released in paperback by Nation Books.

Those are the creds. I'd give Mr. Ritter an award for heroic service - but he doesn't want that! He wants us to understand what's going on. He is my hero.

Moreover -

I'm in Syracuse, N.Y. Something's happening here. Someone should let Rush Limbaugh know that real soldiers (as opposed to those phony soldiers from his liars' fable) will march, rally, and discuss pressing issues alongside real Gold Star families  (whose real sons and daughters have died while serving our country)  and hundreds of real citizens who support them but do not support the current U.S. policy in Iraq. It will all happen tomorrow afternoon here in Syracuse, N.Y.

See the information below the fold.

Scott Ritter has an excellent essay over at Truthdig, the gist of which is this: The number one priority of the American anti-war movement should no longer be about Iraq, but Iran. If he's right, the feces is about to hit the oscillater. More below the fold: