Be INFORMED

Friday, May 09, 2008

The Pentagon vs. America

  This caught my eye while I was buzzing around the net tonight.

  Cross-posted from TruthOut

The Pentagon vs. America
    By Scott Ritter
    TruthDig

    Tuesday 05 May 2005

    I recently heard from an anti-war student I met while I was speaking at a college in northern Vermont. The e-mail included the following query:

    "I told you about how I wanted to build a career around social activism and making a difference. You told me that one of the most important things was to make myself reputable and give people a reason to listen to you. I think this is some of the best advice I've received. My issue however is that you mentioned joining the military as a way to do this and mentioned how that is how you fell into it.... We talked extensively about all of our criticisms of the military currently and our foreign policy.... What I don't understand is, how can you [advise] someone who wants to make a difference with the flawed system, to join that flawed system?"

    The question is a valid one. Throughout my travels in the United States, where I interact with people from progressive anti-war groups, I am often confronted with the seeming contradiction of my position. I rail against the war in Iraq (and the potential of war with Iran) and yet embrace, at times enthusiastically, the notion of military service. It gets even more difficult to absorb, at least on the surface, when I simultaneously advocate counter-recruitment as well as support for those who seek to join the armed services.

    The notion that the military and citizens of conscience should be at odds is a critical problem for our nation. That confrontation only exacerbates the problems of the soldier and the citizen, and must be properly understood if it is to be defeated. Let us start by constructing a framework in which my positions can be better assessed.

    First and foremost, I do not view military service as an obligation of citizenship. I do view military service as an act of good citizenship, but it can under no circumstance be used as a litmus test for patriotism. There are many ways in which one can serve his or her nation; the military is but one. I am a big believer in the all-volunteer military. For one thing, the professional fighting force is far more effective and efficient than any conscript force could ever be.

    There are those who argue that a draft would level the playing field, spreading the burdens and responsibilities associated with a standing military force more evenly among the population. Those citizens whose lives would be impacted through war (namely those of draft age and their immediate relatives) would presumably be less inclined to support war.

    Conversely, the argument goes, with an all-volunteer professional force, the burden of sacrifice is limited to that segment of society which is engaged in the fighting, real or potential. Two points emerge: First, the majority of society not immediately impacted by the sacrifices of conflict will remain distant from the reality of war. Second, even when the costs of conflict become discernable to the withdrawn population, the fact that the sacrifice is being absorbed by those who willingly volunteered somehow lessens any moral outcry.

    I will submit that these are valid observations, and indeed have been borne out in America's response to the Iraq war tragedy. However, simply because something exists doesn't make it right. The collective response to the Iraq war on the part of the American people is not a result of there not being a draft, but rather poor citizenship. An engaged citizenry would not only find sufficient qualified volunteers to fill the ranks of our military, but would also personally identify with all those who served so that the loss of one was felt by all. The fact that many Americans today view the all-volunteer force not so much as an extension of themselves, but more along the lines of a "legion" of professionals removed from society, illustrates the yawning gap that exists between we the people and those we ask to defend us.

    Narrowing this gap is not something that can be accomplished simply through legislation. Reinstating the draft is illusory in this regard. There is a more fundamental obstacle to the reunion of our society and those who take an oath in the military to uphold and defend the Constitution. Void of this bond, the inherent differences of civilian and military life will serve to drive a wedge between the two, regardless of whether the military force is drafted or volunteer.

    Lacking a common understanding of the foundational principles upon which the nation was built, a citizenry will grow to view military service as an imposition, as opposed to an obligation. Simply put, one cannot willingly defend that which one does not know and understand. The fundamental ignorance that exists in America today about the Constitution creates the conditions which foster the divide between citizen and soldier that permeates society today. America must take ownership of its military, not simply by footing the bill, but by assuming a moral responsibility for every aspect of military service. The vehicle for doing this has been well established through the Constitution: the legislative branch of government, the Congress, which serves to represent the will of the people.

    Congress, especially the House of Representatives, was never conceived of as separate and distinct from the people, but rather as one with the people, directly derived from their collective will via the electoral process. Unfortunately today, few Americans identify with Congress. An "us versus them" mentality pervades. This mentality creates the crack in the moral and social contract which exists regarding a citizenry and its military. Congress is responsible for maintaining the military. Congress is the branch of government mandated with the responsibility for declaring war. When the bond is strained between the people and Congress, the bond between citizen and soldier is broken. Congress, left to its own devices, will begin to view the military not as an extension of its constituents, but rather as a commodity to be traded and used in a highly politicized fashion.

    This is the reality we find ourselves in today (and indeed which has existed for some time). The 2006 midterm elections highlight this reality, where a strong anti-war sentiment upon the part of the voters resulted in a Democratic majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Having assumed the mantle of legislative power, however, those who were elected on the coattails of anti-war sentiment were able to shun their anti-war constituents. They did so by taking full advantage of the reality that the anti-war movement was in fact not a movement at all, but rather a concept pushed forward by a disparate mass without much political viability.

    Where anti-war sentiment did in fact cross over from the ranks of the progressive left and into the mainstream of American society, it was quickly quashed through the dishonest logic that if one truly supported the troops (as most red-blooded Americans swear they do), then one must by extension support the mission. This flawed connectivity empowered Congress to sidestep the issue of withdrawing American forces from Iraq, and enabled it to continue rubber-stamping funding for a war which long ago lost any connection, perceived or otherwise, to the general security of the American people.

    And so U.S. service members continue to fight and die in Iraq, a conflict which grows more unpopular with the American people each passing day. The question thus emerges: What is the appropriate response on the part of the American citizenry? While we insulate ourselves from political duplicity, the soldiers ultimately pay the price for the cowardice of those whom we elect to represent us in higher office. This seems to be the path taken by most Americans, who have grown numbly indifferent to the incessant stream of disappointment over the continued failure of Congress to truly represent the will of the people. We have therefore built a wall which separates we the people from the one aspect of republican governance which is, by design, supposed to give us voice.

    In doing so, we likewise create a buffer between citizen and soldier, as those who are constitutionally mandated to fund the care, equipping and utilization of the military now operate in ambiguity created by the vacuum of citizen apathy. Thus liberated from the moral compass provided by the people, Congress has lost its ability to defend its own role in governance, and over time has demeaned its constitutional mandate by transferring powers inherent to the legislative branch to an executive branch which has assumed the role of caretaker of the military. By vesting absolute power in the hands of the executive, Congress has all but assured that America has become a nation no longer governed by the rule of law, but rather the rule of man. This sort of tyranny is what Americans fought a revolution to free themselves from 233 years ago.

    An executive that operates in accordance with a unitary theory of governance is one that views the capacity to defend the state as being in fact the capacity to defend the realm. As such, one sees a gravitation of emphasis: Rather than focusing on external threats to the collective, the realm becomes obsessed with internal threats to its ability to retain power. The Patriot Act is a clear-cut example of how a unitary executive has undermined and corrupted the legitimate law enforcement mechanisms of the land by vesting the executive with powers normally associated solely with the legislative branch. In this regard, we see the armed forces similarly abused, with the creation of military command structures (namely U.S. Northern Command) which exist not to protect the people, but rather protect the realm from the people. This is not a stated objective, but rather one inferred from the fact that, for the first time since the imposition of posse comitatus in 1876, the United States has positioned its armed forces so that they can participate in normal state law enforcement. In short, instead of serving as a force of protection for the American people from external threats, the military views the American people as the threat, "targets" which need to be investigated as potential threats to the military.

    An example of just how far off track the executive branch, facilitated by an all too complicit legislative branch, has strayed when it comes to the common defense is the Pentagon's controversial Counterintelligence Field Activity, ostensibly created in a post-9/11 world to "protect the [Defense] department by supporting the detection and neutralization of foreign espionage." The CFA operates under the umbrella of U.S. Northern Command, created in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks to ostensibly safeguard the American homeland. A major aspect of the CFA's work is something known as the Joint Protection Enterprise Network, or JPEN.

    The JPEN network enables the Defense Department to share unverified information with civilian police departments, the FBI and other government agencies such as the National Security Agency (NSA). Originally dubbed Project Protect America, the JPEN system came into being in July 2003 with the full support of then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The heart and soul of the JPEN system is the "Threat and Local Observation Notice," or TALON report, the brainchild of then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. In the conduct of its work, the CFA created and distributed thousands of TALON reports via the JPEN system on the activities of private U.S. citizens, with a particular focus of those engaged in anti-war protests.

    The CFA is slated in the near future to be morphed into a larger Defense Intelligence Agency-run Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence activity. Far from limiting the scope and scale of the activities currently undertaken by the CFA, this new organization will simply increase the level of illegal and unconstitutional activities currently undertaken by the CFA against the American "target." The fact that the U.S. military now views the American citizenry as its target, as opposed to the object of its defense, shows just how broken the circle of trust is between citizen and soldier. Additional TALON reports are being assembled on anyone deemed to be a potential threat to the U.S. military, including all who are involved in "counter-recruitment" activities designed to provide alternatives to military service for today's youths. This myopic approach toward installation and facility security undertaken by the Pentagon is not only intellectually weak but constitutionally prohibited. The legislative branch, operating amid constituent apathy, continues to fail in its mission of upholding the rule of law.

    In similarly deplorable fashion, the Pentagon has allowed itself to be hijacked by the radical right wing of the Republican Party. The fact that Fox News has become the channel of choice for the U.S. military speaks volumes about the mind-set which has gripped those who lead it. The military has always been a conservative institution. Yet when wearing the uniform of the United States serves more as a front for defending a political ideology (a rabid one at that) rather than upholding and defending the Constitution, the military does itself a disservice. The disconnect between those who serve in the military and those whom they are sworn to protect can be fatal when one realizes the recruiting pool no longer identifies with the military as a legitimate expression of patriotism and citizenship.

    The scope of this ideological hijacking is broad, yet barely recognized. One can glimpse just how deep and nefarious this ideological shift is when one considers the extent to which evangelical Christians have infiltrated the U.S. Air Force Academy, proselytizing their heavily politicized religion to the future officers and leaders of that service. The past comments of Lt. Gen. William Boykin, a decorated Army Special Operations veteran who described America's post-9/11 "war on terror" as a conflict between "Christian" America and "radical Islam," are widely embraced within the U.S. military. President Bush has echoed Boykin in his speeches and statements, and the military's favorite presidential candidate, Republican Sen. John McCain, has become the embodiment of Boykin's philosophy. The Constitution prohibits the notion that America be defined as a Christian nation. To allow the military, sworn as it is to uphold and defend that document, to posture itself as Christian, becoming in effect the "sword of God," is unthinkable and unforgivable.

    The implications of such posturing are far-reaching, especially from the military recruitment standpoint. The all-volunteer military succeeds when it attracts to its ranks those who have a sincere desire to serve their nation. It succeeds greatly when those it attracts come from the broadest possible cross section of the American demographic. There has always been an economic aspect to the all-volunteer force; service is not slavery, and the military has always promised the security of a middle-class lifestyle to those who choose to enlist. But military service, properly motivated, has never been solely about the money. It is about defending a greater good, the people of the United States of America and their values and ideals as defined by the Constitution.

    It has become increasingly difficult to motivate enough of today's youths to serve in the armed services based upon the call of duty alone. One of the primary reasons for this shortfall is the unfortunate perception, not improperly derived, that military service is not in keeping with the concept of "doing the right thing." This perception, born of an unpopular war and the dishonest foreign policies of successive administrations, is further exaggerated by the reality that the military not only operates as a separate and distinct part of American society (this has always been the case) but, due in large part to post-9/11 hysteria, has been positioned to view the American people as a threat. The inherent problems of the military trying to recruit from a population base which is under attack from the military are self-evident. Genuine patriotism was once a viable recruitment pitch. Now, economic incentives, false promises and pseudo-patriotism are used as the bait to lure the youths of today into America's legions. Like the legions of the past, these new warriors march not on behalf of the citizens they are sworn to protect, but rather the emperor who commands them. This may be viewed as an overly harsh statement, but there is no other way to describe the abuses of a unitary executive who positions himself above the Constitution and Congress in a time of war.

    Having described the current state of the military and military service in this manner, why would I ever encourage a citizen of military age to consider service in the armed forces? First and foremost, one needs to understand that the entire military system has not been corrupted. There are still men and women of honor who serve with dedication and pride. They are, in fact, in the majority. It takes only a few bad apples to spoil the lot, however, and our military today, thanks to a nebulous mission and lower recruiting standards, is full of bad apples. Likewise, to quote a Russian general, "a fish stinks from its head," and nothing smells worse today than the "head" of the United States. Our commander in chief has disgraced the office he was entrusted with, and in doing so has severely damaged the foundation of American civil society as well as the institutions sworn to uphold and defend it.

    The solution, however, cannot be "cut and run." Simply identifying the problem and pointing a finger at the perpetrators will do nothing to resolve these critical issues. Our military cannot change unless we the people re-establish the link between ourselves and the legislative branch of government and rebuild the bond of trust between citizen and soldier. This cannot happen in stages, but rather must occur simultaneously. While the vast majority of America struggles to regain its moral and ethical compass through the re-establishment of the rule of law as set forth by the Constitution, we need to continue to maintain a military which is capable of defending us.

    This requires good people to serve, even if the conditions of their service are not ideal. Do I want to have an intelligent, morally grounded soldier on the front line in Iraq, making the decisions about the use of force in the framework of an illegal and unjust occupation, or do I want to relinquish that job to a former felon lacking even a high school diploma? Do I want the troops of today led by Bible-wielding zealots or Constitution-wielding patriots? While we struggle to re-establish the bond between citizen and soldier, we have an absolute requirement to ensure we continue to field a military composed of citizen soldiers. The only way to prevent our military from becoming the new Roman Legion is to staff it with citizens of principle who reject such an abominable label. We are a nation at war, not just abroad, but with ourselves. Now, more than ever, we need citizens of standing to answer the call to service, not in the name of a criminal president or an illegal war, but rather in defense of the Constitution and all that it stands for, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

   Original Article

A Foreign View Of Our Presidential Candidates

  I get a kick out of reading news from foreign papers and such because they have quite varying views on the United States and our goings on.

   Here is one of those views from a paper based in Lebanon. Only Brief excerpts are taken.

Al-Hayat, Lebanon via Watching America
The Three U.S. Presidential
Candidates and Us

What is certain is that the election campaign has garnered an interest by people worldwide not seen for such a campaign in the past. It's worth it to explain the reasons for such an increased interest.
1- The fact that American policy, in its diplomatic, military, and economic power, if to a lesser extent, remains shameless. And by this word I mean its excessive ambitions, the viciousness of its behaviors, the cruelty of its practices, and perhaps as well the greatness of its defeats. If not defeats than the irrelevance of its victories despite the sheer amount it has spent on armaments and wars and in its preaching of a certain ideology.

  On John McCain

As for Senator McCain, the announcement of his candidacy caused something of a shock in many public opinion-making circles, as the senator has, since the first days of his campaign, shown himself to be the successor to President Bush in his total commitment to his foreign policy and his complete dedication to his policies aimed at the economy. A commitment, he claims, without any of the drawbacks caused by Bush's personality. His campaign marks in fact a more extreme version of his foreign policy, especially when it comes to issues like the war against Islam under the banner of a War on terror and a war on Iraq (which he contends could last for 100 years or longer), his support for Israel at the expense of all Arabs and of the Palestinians in particular. At the same time McCain has continued to insist that he is not identical to Bush and Bush continues to suggest to his audience that McCain avoids him and doesn't want to be seen with him. This supposedly comes as per instructions from the Republican party.

Therefore politicians in China and Russia and in Europe have a reason to be more sensitive towards the three presidential candidates. Whichever one of them inherits the responsibility of managing America's interests in the contest for predominance will have to do so while doing the least damage to America. For that reason one has to take a serious look at the plans of candidate McCain, especially in regards to the long term war against Iraq and Iran and perhaps all Muslims and Arabs. One has to look seriously at the comments by Hillary as well, especially those about obliterating Iran from existence. And at the same time one has to take into account Barack Obama's plans, not only because he talks at length about an understanding with Iran and North Korea, but also especially because he does not have any previous experience in foreign policy and would need a significant amount of time in order to gain the support of the Military establishment and the armaments industry and the elite on the extreme right and Israeli lobby groups, because without the support of these factions or at least a majority of them he will not have any significant political achievements in international relations, and especially with Asia and the Middle East. 

  The next time that you hear about Iran supporting Obama or whatever, remember that the rest of the world has their own reasons for supporting whomever they want in the White House also.

Thursday, May 08, 2008

Unfit Troops In Combat

  On the subject of 43,000 troops being sent into combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have this from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

News reports that troops determined by the Department of Defense to be medically unfit for combat have been deployed to Iraq are additional reminders of the unacceptable strain the war in Iraq is continuing to have on the readiness of our military and our national security.

These reports are further evidence that it is not possible to keep more than 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq without cutting corners that endanger those serving in Iraq.

  Bush and Cheney now want to attack Iran? They're a joke, to say the least!

Technorati Tags: ,,

Unfit Troops Sent Into Combat

  More of the Bush administrations support for our troops as it seems that some 43,000 troops have been sent to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan after being called medically unfit for combat just weeks before they were deployed, according to the Pentagon. That is 43,000 since 2003.

USAToday

At Fort Carson, Colo., Maj. Gen. Mark Graham ordered an investigation into deployment procedures for a brigade deployed to Iraq late last year. At least 36 soldiers were found medically unfit but were still deployed, Graham told USA TODAY.

For at least seven soldiers, treatment in the war zone was inadequate and the soldiers were sent home, he said, and at least two of them should never have been deployed.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February, the panel's chairman, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., asked Army leaders about an e-mail from the surgeon for the Fort Carson brigade that said medically "borderline" soldiers went to war because "we have been having issues reaching deployable strength."

"That should not be happening," Army Secretary Pete Geren told the committee. "I can't tell you that it's not, but it certainly should not be happening."

  I should note that not all of the service members had serious health problems such as mental illness. Many had problems such as needing eyeglasses and dental work.

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Pentagon Posts Propaganda Papers

   If this does not warrant a criminal investigation by our congress, then nothing does.

Cross-posted from AlterNet

Pentagon Releases Propaganda Documents -- Will the Media Pay Attention?

By John Stauber, PR Watch. Posted May 7, 2008.

With 8,000 pages of documents online for the world to see, will the networks continue their media blackout?

Eight thousand pages of documents related to the Pentagon's illegal propaganda campaign, known as the Pentagon military analyst program, are now online for the world to see, although in a format that makes it impossible to easily search them and therefore difficult to read and dissect. This trove includes the documents pried out of the Pentagon by David Barstow and used as the basis for his stunning investigation that appeared in the New York Times on April 20, 2008.

The Pentagon program, which clearly violated U.S. law against covert government propaganda, embedded more than 75 retired military officers -- most of them with financial ties to war contractors -- into the TV networks as "message surrogates" for the Bush Administration. To date, every major commercial TV network has failed to report this story, covering up their complicity and keeping the existence of this scandal from their audiences.

News of the Pentagon's online posting of the documents came from Joe Trento of the National Security News Service, who notes that NSNS provided the New York Times "limited information about a military office early in the reporting process."

Here is the official Pentagon website with the 8,000 pages of documents, the most interesting and revealing of them previously secret and only available to the Pentagon and the New York Times:

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/milanalysts/

More than two weeks after the New York Times reported on the Penatgon's military analyst program to sell controversial policies such as the invasion of Iraq, the broadcast television news outlets implicated in the program are hoping to tough out the scandal by refusing to report it. Recently Media Matters of America (MMA) reported that, according to a search of the Nexis database, "the three major broadcast networks -- ABC, CBS, and NBC -- have still not mentioned the report at all."

The Pew Excellence in Journalism project has a chart showing that " there was virtually no mainstream media follow up to The Times' expose" with the only national TV coverage being the introduction segment and live debate featuring CMD's John Stauber on the PBS NewsHour.

Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro and three dozen colleagues have sent a letter to the Department of Defense Inspector General calling for an investigation of this "propaganda campaign aimed at deliberately misleading the American public."

John Stauber is the Executive Director of the Center for Media and Democracy.

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

Republicans: It's Alright If You're White

  This is just a brief comment about the double standard which does exist in our country's battle for the White House. We all know that the Republicans and even Hillary Clinton have used the Reverend Wright story to smear Barack Obama and to question his character. This must be some white republican thing because you aren't hearing anything about John McCain and his endorsement from Hell-Raising, War-Mongering, Pastor John Hagee, who has some pretty nutty/radical views, even for a preacher.

   Anyway, let's take a quick look at the Republican's and their bigoted political party. Just a few facts Here from the NYT.

   The Clintons and Mr. Obama are always held accountable for their racial stands, as they should be, but the elephant in the room of our politics is rarely acknowledged: In the 21st century, the so-called party of Lincoln does not have a single African-American among its collective 247 senators and representatives in Washington. Yes, there are appointees like Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice, but, as we learned during the Mark Foley scandal, even gay men may hold more G.O.P. positions of power than blacks.

An all-white Congressional delegation doesn’t happen by accident. It’s the legacy of race cards that have been dealt since the birth of the Southern strategy in the Nixon era. No one knows this better than Mr. McCain, whose own adopted daughter of color was the subject of a vicious smear in his party’s South Carolina primary of 2000.

Sunday, May 04, 2008

Barack Obama Meets The Press Part II

   A little more on Tim Russert's interview with Senator Obama on NBC's  Meet The Press

  On the discussion of Reverend Wright and a few of his comments that Obama did not care for, and Obama not letting Wright do the invocation when he ( Obama ) announced his candidacy back in 2007.

  Edited for brevity:  

   But, but that doesn't detract from, you know, my belief that, ultimately, what he has represent--what he has been saying about the United States over the last several months and over the last several years, particularly some of the statements that I had not heard before, are contrary to who I am and what I stand for.  And, look, I think it's important to, to put this in context, Tim. You know, I'm somebody who is born to a white mother and a, and an African father.  It's in my DNA to believe that we can bring this country together and that the people are the same under the skin.  And that's what I've been fighting for all my life, and, you know, the--to, to a large degree, everything that I've done as a community organizer, everything that I've done as a state legislator and a United States senator embodies those ideals that we can get people who look differently or speak differently or come from different experiences to recognize what they have in common.  That is a set of principles that I think Reverend Wright was dismissing and diminishing, and that's why, ultimately, you know, I had to forcefully state how wrong I thought he was.  

MR. RUSSERT:  You're done with him?  If you're elected president, you won't seek his counsel?

SEN. OBAMA:  Absolutely not.  Now, I think it's important to keep in mind, Tim, that I never sought his counsel when it came to politics.  And I--you know, some, some of the reporting that implies that somehow he's my spiritual advisor or mentor, as he himself said, overstated things.  He was my pastor, and he built a terrific church.  I'm proud of that church.  We've got a wonderful young pastor who's there who's doing--continuing the terrific work that the church does.  And that's my commitment.  My commitments are to the values of that church, my commitment is to Christ; it's not to Reverend Wright.

 Transcript

  Senator Obama has now faced the Wright issue and answered the questions which needed to be asked. Maybe now the MSM and the Republicans will find something else to bitch about, for a change.  Move along folks, nothing to see here.

  Next up: Obama's Patriotism

Barack Obama Meets The Press

  Senator Barack Obama appeared on NBC's Meet The Press today, and of course the first topic of discussion was Obama's views on his former pastor Reverend Wright. We all know the little disturbance that Wright has been causing this past week with a few of his comments, so host Tim Russert wasted no time in getting to the subject.

    Mr. Russert began by asking Obama what effect had Wrights comments made on his campaign.

SEN. OBAMA:  Well, obviously it's distracted us.  I mean, we ended up spending a lot of time talking about Reverend Wright instead of talking about gas prices and food prices and the situation in Iraq.  And so it, it's, it wasn't welcome.  But, you know, I think that the American people understand that when I joined Trinity United Church of Christ, I was committing not to Pastor Wright, I was committing to a church and I was committing to Christ. And it is a wonderful church. But when I saw, this week, him come out and speak in a way that was just as divisive, that didn't explain or apologize, but rather worsened some of the comments that he had made previously, I felt it was very important to make clear that that's not who I am, that's not who I stand for.  I don't think it represented well the church or the African-American church.

  On why it took so long for Obama to come out and say something about Wrights previous comments:

But when he came out at the press conference of the National Press Club, not only did he amplify some of those comments and defend them vigorously, but he added to it.  He put gasoline on the fire.  And what that told me was not only was he interested in using this platform to continue to make statements that I fundamentally disagree with and that offend me, but also that he didn't have much regard for the moment that we're in right now here in the United States where we can't be distracted or engaged in this divisive, hateful language.  Instead, we've got to bring the country together to solve problems.  And, so in that sense, what became apparent to me was he didn't know me as well as I thought he did, and I certainly didn't know him as well as I thought I did.  And, and that, you know, was disappointing, but something that I had to clearly speak out about.

  Senator Obama spent the entire hour speaking with Russert and I'm not about to get into the whole hours worth of transcript at this time. However, if you wish to, you can read it Here at your leisure. I will be bringing up some more of this conversation later on.