Bollinger signals possible lift on ROTC ban
In light of the Senate’s 65-31 vote today to repeal the Pentagon’s “don’t ask don’t tell” policy, Columbia, along with several other Ivy League institutions, announced intentions of possibly lifting the existing ban prohibiting ROTC activities on campus.
Bollinger said in a statement through University spokesperson Robert Hornsby, “This is a historic development for a nation dedicated to fulfilling its core principle of equal rights. It also effectively ends what has been a vexing problem for higher education, including at Columbia—given our desire to be open to our military, but not wanting to violate our own core principle against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”
Bollinger added, “We now have the opportunity for a new era in the relationship between universities and our military services.”
The 42-year ban has been in place since the Vietnam War, when the University Senate voted to deny academic credit to students participating in Columbia’s ROTC program, effectively ending the program on campus. In recent years, Columbia has justified its continued ban because of the discriminatory nature of “don’t ask, don’t tell”.
Military activity as of late has become a more regular part of campus life, with a weekly flag raising ceremony since Veteran’s Day from Columbia students participating in an off-campus ROTC, a recent visit from Admiral Michael Mullen, and record numbers of veterans enrolling in the School of General Studies as a result of a revamped GI Bill. Now with the Senate’s decision to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell”, Columbia’s USenate may reform its existing policy and offer to reaccredit ROTC.
According to politico.com, around the Ivy League, other institutions have responded positively to the Senate’s decision.
Harvard President Drew Faust said in a statement, “Because of today’s action by the Senate, gay and lesbian Americans will now also have the right to pursue this honorable calling, and we as a nation will have the benefit of their service.”
Faust also added, “I look forward to pursuing discussions with military officials and others to achieve Harvard’s full and formal recognition of ROTC.”
Yale spokesperson Thomas Mattia also responded to the decision in an email.
“We are aware of the vote and have plans in consideration,” Mattia said.
The other five Ivy League schools have not commented yet.
it’s just ridiculous to keep ROTC off campus after the DADT repeal.
ask, tell.
Gotta love them nation building wars where we spend a trillion dollars!
A TRILLION DOLLARS!!! JESUS CHRIST!!! HOW CAN WE POSSIBLY LET INTELLIGENT PEOPLE INTO THE MILITARY WHEN WE SPEND SO MUCH MONEY??? SHOULDNT WE JUST LEAVE IT TO THE BUFFOONS TO DEAL WITH SINCE WE’RE SPENDING A TRILLION DOLLARS AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
time. this was so ridicullous.
Columbia ROTC advocacy page:
http://advocatesforrotc.org/columbia/index.html
hurry and bring back to columbia! i know many people who have considered it but are dissuaded by the lack of a program on campus. it’s time to proceed swiftly so that those who are interested can benefit from the program and represent columbia in the military.
what’s many. 2? glad obama’s doing something tho.
You’ve got to be joking. Obama had next to nothing to do with the DADT repeal, and there are at lest six people taking ROTC classes (for NO credit) right now, so I bet there are a lot more who would want to do it for credit.
I hope Navy ROTC comes back. Considering the long history NROTC has with Columbia, the many Columbia NROTC alumni EAGER to support NROTC on campus, that the 2008 NROTC poll came about because SEAS students called for NROTC, and that SEAS students then voted in favor of NROTC, I predict that if NROTC comes back to Columbia, NROTC midshipmen numbers won’t be a problem.
This is a good time to get concrete about what an NROTC program would mean. We’ve done this in the context of Harvard in the article “Blueprint for Harvard ROTC” on the Harvard-associated MilBlog “Secure Nation”: http://www.securenation.org/blueprint-for-harvard-rotc/
The lack of a Navy opportunity for Columbia students, the strength of Columbia’s engineering school, and the relative lack of ROTC slots in NYC argue for this. And as detailed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/17/nyregion/17campus.html, New York City is interested in upgrading engineering expertise in NYC to be on a par with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology or Stanford University.
Moving forward towards a vision of excellence is a better plan that arguing over returning to the 1960s.
This is a good time to get concrete about what an NROTC program would mean. We’ve done this in the context of Harvard in the article “Blueprint for Harvard ROTC” on the Harvard-associated MilBlog “Secure Nation” (link not included since it prevented the comment from appearing).
The lack of a Navy opportunity for Columbia students, the strength of Columbia’s engineering school, and the relative lack of ROTC slots in NYC argue for this. And as detailed in a 16 December NYT article “City Seeks Partner to Open Graduate School of Engineering” (link not included since it prevented the comment from appearing), New York City is interested in upgrading engineering expertise in NYC to be on a par with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology or Stanford University.
Moving forward towards a vision of excellence is a better plan that arguing over returning to the 1960s.
@Michael Segal: Good point and good article. We need something like that for Columbia ROTC.
FYI, link to Blueprint for Harvard ROTC: http://www.securenation.org/blueprint-for-harvard-rotc
what the hell do you know about the wishes and desires of columbians? even if it’s only 10 people that would serve if the program were reinstated, why not give those people the chance? it’s not up to you who gets to do what on this campus.
Yea, sure…who doesn’t want to risk there life for a nation building war where we lose a lot of soldiers, innocent civilians die, and we spend one trillion dollars!!!
Spending and running up the deficit is only ok for nation building war!!!
YAY.
that is all.
stfu.
The deaths and intimidation of innocent civilians is fundamental to the terrorists’ strategy.
Nation-building as a strategy to defeat tyrannies and violent oppressive ideologies springs from the same fundamental liberal philosophy that underlies Red Cross, UN, Peace Corps, etc.. You know, America as Leader of the Free World kind of stuff.
Many Columbians are liberal, while the organization confronting the most vicious illiberal forces in the world directly and fighting the hardest for a liberal future is the American military, led in large measure by ROTC-graduated officers. From an ideological standpoint, Columbians and the US Military are an ideal match.
thank you!
If the Columbia University Administration begins to start training U.S. military officers for the Pentagon’s endless war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan on its campus in 2011, its additional institutional complicity with the U.S. War Machine will likely be resisted non-violently by anti-war activists in New York City. Protest folk song at following link indicates, somewhat, why it’s still morally wrong for the Columbia University Administration to bring ROTC back to its campus:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwimCKkcYuQ
I watched the video suggested by columbiasds68. What does dying for oil have to do with fighting in the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan? Or is this an attempt to undermine the thesis that having more Columbia people in the military will improve the effectiveness of our forces?
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2002/09/17/changing-times-columbia
On campus, a new crop of patriotic student groups openly challenging Columbia’s anti-military reputation is quickly gaining support. The sizeable veteran population in Columbia’s student body is organizing with the intent to fairly portray the military culture that is often grossly misunderstood by their classmates. Alumni who long ago abandoned Columbia’s affairs in disgust over the Spirit of ’68 are turning back to Alma Mater. Columbia’s ROTC cadets, who have been marginalized since ROTC’s was ousted from Columbia in 1968, are organizing to represent their interests in the Columbia community. This year, for the first time in over 30 years, Columbia’s ROTC cadets were in uniform, openly representing the military on campus during the University’s student activities day. Aside from a token protest by a few campus radicals, the majority of students responded with curiosity and praise.
The historical engine of change has begun again at Columbia; however, the damage caused by the 34-year reign of the Spirit of ’68 will not be undone overnight. Most Columbia students still arrive on campus ignorant about the military and are susceptible to negative stereotypes of it. The administration and faculty, closer to the past and still held hostage by the Spirit of ’68, have yet to be convinced to provide the fair and balanced view of the military desired by today’s students. Even though their actual student base has dwindled to a small number, anti-military activists have used the last 30-odd years to burrow into the heart of the institution. The anti-military faction on campus still controls the status quo and uses its power to cast aspersions on the military. The anti-military policies in place now will likely require years to displace because of these groups’ influence in the Columbia community.
Still, as student-led efforts continue to tear down the decaying myth of a Columbia student body in lock-step with ’60s anti-militarism, it seems that the status quo is doomed and fundamental change at Columbia is inevitable. As they did for a past generation of Columbians, today Dylan’s words inspire the 9-11 generation: “As the present now will later be past, the order is rapidly fadin’. And the first one now will later be last, for the times they are a-changin’.
The purpose of the Iraq war was supposedly to get rid of WMDs. Once everyone realized there were none, then Bush started harping on, “freeing Iraqi people.”
There’s not a single redneck in the U.S. that cares about freeing Iraqi people. There are very few republicans that care about the welfare of Iraqi people.
Peace Corp and Red Cross is not about nation building. Your analogy is absurd.
And there is no shortage of people to free. The people of Iran, North Korea, and around a dozen African and Middle Eastern countries need to be free. Shall we spend 30 trillion for these people?
P.S. Saudi Arabia is one of the most backward, f-ed up countries in the world. They restrict women’s rights more so than Iran or North Korea. What do you recommend we do with our ally, Saudi Arabia?
“The purpose of the Iraq war was supposedly to get rid of WMDs. Once everyone realized there were none, then Bush started harping on, “freeing Iraqi people.””
Wrong. The disarming and liberating purposes for Operation Iraqi Freedom were concurrent and complementary. See
H. J. RES. 114 To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm
In fact, the liberating goals for our Iraq mission predated President Bush; the liberating goals for Iraq were ordered by President Clinton (see 1998 Iraq Liberation Act). In further fact, little of our rationale to invade Iraq in 2003 was developed by the Bush administration. The case for war against Iraq was inherited from the Clinton administration, largely unchanged from Clinton’s case for bombing Iraq in the 1998 Operation Desert Fox. Clinton’s case for war against Iraq developed over the course of the Iraq mission that dated back to Desert Storm in 1991.
First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.
The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.
Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion — resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.
We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq’s neighbors and less food for its people.
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government — a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.
The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm’s way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq’s military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.
Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm’s way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.
We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.
Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.
Because we’re acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.
. . .
In the century we’re leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we’ll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.
All you rednecks are the same. Once we call out Bush for one of his many ignorant decisions, you ignore this and go back and accuse Clinton, Carter, or JFK.
The purpose was to rid Saddam of the ability to use WMDs. This was the purpose plain and simple.
Lets assume that the purpose was to free these people. No one in the U.S. wants this, especially all the rednecks and republicans who supported Bush.
And we could use this logic for 30 countries. Wouldn’t we need 30 trillion or so to do this?
But again, the purpose was not to free the people. If you believe that, you are naive.
This nation, in world war and in Cold War, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history’s course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own.
Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan’s citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family.
On Saddam Hussein’s orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.
America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi’a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.
Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq’s people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.
. . .
We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And by our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day.
The point is, Operation Iraqi Freedom has been a definitively liberal mission since day one, in large part due to the liberal view of our Iraq mission defined by the Clinton administration. President Clinton, President Bush, and President Obama come from the same school of Liberal foreign policy. As Commanders in Chief, they have given the US Military liberal missions. And for liberal Columbians, there is no better way to live and affect the world according to their values than by leading our military as officers.
You might get the award for the most naive, brainwashed buffoon on this site. Not this month. But forever.
Your comments are so bizarre, this must be a joke.
What a moron • December 19, 2010 at 1:45 pm was PWNed!
Besides President Clinton/Bush’s liberating goals for Iraq, the UN had liberating goals for Iraq, too:
http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/unscr1441.htm
Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,
Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,
Neither of you buffoons care to respond to my comment regarding Saudi Arabia.
If war’s purpose is to free people, then shouldn’t the UN and the U.S. invade Saudi Arabia?
It would cost less than a trillion. Perhaps only 1/2 trillion.
You brave men want to risk your life for some ragheads (as the rednecks call them), then sign up.
P.S. Saddam gassed Kurds and Iranians starting in 1984. He continued this for at least six years. Everyone knew this including the U.S.
What did the U.S. do about it? We continued to sell arms to both Iran and Iraq at the same time, ignoring the deaths of innocent civilians.
You punks are both too young to know about this. I recommend you google it. Called Iran-Contra.
Har Har,
You’re brain is owned by FOX NEWS.
Hey, I didn’t say my opinion on these topics. I just found the pwnage entertaining. Look, some advice: if you’re going to come onto a Columbia website talking stuff, then you better know what you’re talking about before someone takes you seriously. Echo-chamber leftist distortions just aren’t going to cut it in a debate with a Columbia student. It’s like throwing mud in a gun fight.Your IQ’s gotta be *this* high to play on this field, son.
Har Har,
Ever see the movie Trading Places? During the jail scene, there is a character who says nothing while his friend is talking except, “yeah!” You are like that character. How about you open your mouth for once instead of watching this like a damn pansy.
Second, I am an alum of this school and an alum of another ivy.
Third, this individual is clinically insane. It is well accepted by the right wing that Iraq was grave mistake. With the exception of neo-cons, virtually everyone in the republican party agrees we should not have entered Iraq.
Even if one supports the war, they generally do not support it for the purpose of removing a dictator to free the citizens of the country.
As I mentioned previously on two occasions, if this were true then the drumbeat for our military to invade Saudi Arabia would have begun years ago.
The same could be said for Sudan, Iran, N. Korea, and a few dozen other countries.
But the truth is well known. No right wing, redneck, republican wants to help brown, towelheads (as the GOP would call them.) Not a single one cares to free the people of Iran. Not a single one cares about starving Africans or those living under despotic rule.
The fact that you align yourself with this individual’s comments demonstrates you too are willing to say that the purpose for the U.S. to invade Iraq was to free the Iraqis.
I’d love to have an intellectual debate regarding the ivy league and their willingness to allow the ROTC to conduct activities on campus but not when the individual I am debating is so far right wing, he is a nazi.
A cost/benefit debate about the Iraq war is one thing. But you made an obviously wrong factual claim that the liberal basis was tacked on by Bush after the failure to find the WMD stockpiles. You were corrected with clear and convincing evidence: the Congressional authorization, the UN resolution, Clinton statement on Iraq, and Bush statement on Iraq, all of which established the liberal basis before the WMD searches. Yet all that evidence only made you object to the truth even more strongly. Instead of digging your hole deeper, you’d be better off admitting you were wrong.
Funny stuff.
Again, when your enemy is superior, evade. You, like a typical, uneducated, right-wing, FOX-NEWS loving, redneck evade me. I am superior, you evade. Sun Tzu, Art of War.
You evaded the point about Saudi Arabia, our ally who restricts civilian’s rights were than Saddam did.
You also evade what do with Iran, a country that has oppressed it’s citizens more so than Iraq has.
You evade the Iran-contra affair, which demonstrated that the U.S. continued to sell arms to Saddam despite evidence he was gassing innocent civilians (Kurds and Iranians.)
You evade what to do with the other despotic regimes around the world.
You also evade the issue altogether by pointing out a document. Bill Clinton never invaded Iraq. To suggest this is simply right-wing rhetoric that is typically spewed by non-intellectual right wingers. I assumed you were a Columbia student, perhaps you were let in because of nepotism.
Bill Clinton would have invaded Afghanistan even quicker than Bush did. However, Clinton would have never entered Iraq. Clinton was far too smart. He would have used the resources more intelligently.
You are a yellow bellied, spineless coward. Continue to evade me. It reminds me of my superiority. Thank you for no debate.
“However, Clinton would have never entered Iraq.”
You’re dead-wrong again, UMMM. You make this way too easy . . .
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/22/lkl.00.html
Former President Bill Clinton, July 22, 2003:
“Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn’t know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don’t cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.”
“It is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in ’98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn’t know it because we never got to go back in there. And what I think — again, I would say the most important thing is we should focus on: What’s the best way to build Iraq as a democracy?”
“We should be pulling for America on this. We should be pulling for the people of Iraq.”
You evade me like a yellow bellied coward. • December 20, 2010 at 10:14 am • (aka UMMM aka What a Moron) PWNed AGAIN!
Dude, did you decide to just ignore the news for the last 20 years and get all your ‘facts’ from wakadoo blogs?
That was a surgical strike using a B1B.
I’m all for that.
There is a tremendous distinction between Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi freedom. Great distinction between surgical strikes by Clinton compared to a 10 year war by GW Bush.
You linked us to a transcript in 1998? LOL.
What does that have to do with the war in 2003?
Also, I own you because you evade me. As I mentioned before, you are wise to evade me, for as Sun Tzu says, “if your enemy is superior, evade.”
You are wise.
Dude, are you serious? The Clinton quote is from July 2003, not 1998.
Keep digging that hole deeper, son.
At this crossroads in our history, we must choose: are we an “Ivory Tower” disconnected from the needs of society, divorced from nation and people, and only good for insular thinking and selfish pursuits? Or, are we truly America’s producer of vanguard leaders who pursue integration, diversity, the greater good and the improvement of all parts of our society, including the military?
The challenge of our time demands the best leaders from our generation. As Dr. Martin Luther King said in another time of pressing need in American history:
“Let us stand with a greater determination. And let us move on in these powerful days, these days of challenge, to make America what it ought to be. We have an opportunity to make America a better nation.”
At Columbia, it is again time to stand with a greater determination, for the sake of our people, our country and our world. The decision we make for the restoration of ROTC is about more than just ROTC. We are shaping our generation’s vision of Columbia University and, thus, our value to society.
Being integrated into what? A nation building war where we spend a trillion dollars and the only positive is we secured cheap oil?
you seem to be conflating the military with our leadership in washington. the military does not get to decide where it goes, it is people like bush and OBAMA (who i’m guessing you voted for) that dictate our foreign policy. the military serves the executive branch regardless of what is decided.
Being that it is an all volunteer military, the individual members can decide.
Bush ordered the military to go into Iraq.
Perhaps you can’t think deep enough to understand my point. As long as these wars are wasteful, nation building wars, there should be no reason for rotc to recruit on any campus where intelligence trumps greed or stupidity.
P.S. I’m all for war, as long as we are attacked.
you don’t seem to really “get it” either. recruits sign up for what are called tours of duty, meaning they serve for up to four years regardless of what a president decides to do. many serve because they genuinely want to serve this country, to live under an esteemed tradition. some people are willing to dedicate their lives for an overarching belief in democracy and human rights, even if the immediate objective is an unnecessary war.
the ROTC itself is also not about going to afghanistan and finding oil to satiate bush or obama’s greed, it is about serving something greater than them. what your argument ignores is that the military is involved in many other conflicts than just afghanistan. we have troops stationed in germany, japan, south korea, etc. many of these are just stationed to bolster national security. your argument assumes that every ROTC member goes to fight the war in afghanistan, whichi s obviously not true.
you might say that the wars we are currently involved in are immoral, but it is not up to you and your fringe liberal beliefs to decide which wars are moral and which are not. your efforts are best directed against president obama, who has the sole power of drawing down troop presence in afghanistan. after 2001, the country voted on whether or not they want to fight these wars by electing bush again. the military serves the american people.
if intelligence did trump stupidity on this campus, then we wouldn’t be having this argument.
If you understood statistics, you would understand that most individuals who sign up for the military do so for financial reasons. Most of the soldiers in combat are individuals from low-income families. To people who have even a superficial level of intellectual capacity, it is easy to see that the armed forces are not made up of volunteers.
They are people who due to certain circumstances do not have the same opportunity as the majority of individuals who graduate from a top fifty college or university.
Hardly anyone whose parents are upper income are in the military. And the ones I know who were had parents in the military and they wanted to carry on a tradition in the family.
We got rid of the draft because if people were forced into war, then we’d never be able to invade another country.
You can disagree with this all you want but you would simply be living in denial and ignoring facts.
P.S. It is not up to you and your fringe, right wing beliefs to decide which wars are just.
Thanks to your hero GW, the Iraq war put us in the greatest recession in 70 years.
Columbia College Dean Michele Moody-Adams’ statement on Columbia ROTC from Hamilton Society’s Service and Society event in October 2010: http://www.advocatesforrotc.org/columbia/2010MoodyAdams.pdf
Actually, all of our leaders are part of the same hypocrisy.
You are right to blame Clinton and Bush. Also, President Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan and has made incursions into Pakistan. We older folks will see the imprint of Nixon’s 1970 incursion into Cambodia in the same light.
To think the dems are substantially any better than the GOP is naive.
My recommendation. Read anything by Howard Zinn.