That Bush now wants to send more troops to Iraq means that he has lost control of policy and lost control of Iraq. Never mind that the war is already lost; at least three Civil Wars already rage; the "insurgents" are not "insurgents" but a guerrilla war against the illegal US occupation of Iraq. But we were told that we would be greeted as liberators. Not so!
One is reminded of Winston Churchill who wrote that the statesman "...who yields to war fever...is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events." At last, what does "staying the course" and "getting the job done" mean? There is, in fact, no course to stay but mere "war fever" itself. Bush, moreover, has never defined what is meant by winning. Some 650,000 Iraqis are now dead as a result of the US invasion and the wave of civil war that spewed up in its wake. I believe that figure to be even higher than US civil war dead! Now Bush wants to send more troops to Iraq to achieve a "goal" that he cannot even articulate. Bush wants to aggravate an utterly failed strategy by repeating it. Bush wants to raise the stakes on a losing bet —and dares to call himself a "Texan"! Bush has made of us all mere slaves to uncontrollable events.
An army of principles can penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot.What good, then, more troops when Bush has already abandoned all our Democratic principles and eschewed habeas corpus? Indeed, so-called "terrorists" could not conquer America from without nor have they the need to do so. Bush has accomplished from within what they could not from without.—Thomas Paine
What price have we paid for this appalling record of utter failure and ignominious defeat amid unapologetic idiocy and hubris? We have paid the highest price that a free nation can pay. We have paid with our freedom! We have indulged Bush's delusions with our very Constitution. We have suffered his hubris at the expense of Democratic ideals. We have sold our souls.
Even as we were told that the war was fought to preserve our American freedoms, Bush was at work destroying those freedoms more effectively than any terrorist could possibly have done.
"One bit of trivia that caught our eye was the elimination of habeas corpus, which apparently use to be the right of anyone who's tossed in prison to appear in court and say 'Hey, why am in prison?'"Americans are Waking Up to the Reality That Bush's "War on Terrorism" Isn't Aimed at Making Us More Secure. Its Only Aim is to Keep Him in Power.—Keith Olbermann, quoted by the Washington Post
Bush also wants to steal Iraqi oil with impunity.
Bush has denounced charges that Iraqis were actually better off under Saddam. Denounce all you want, Bush, but the fact of the matter is this: the average Iraqi had a better chance of surviving Saddam than he has of surviving you and your criminal occupation of his country!
Saddam's regime seems benign compared to the Bush occupation now characterized by heinous torture (another war crime), the deaths of some 650,000 civilians, and a level of violence which Bob Woodward described in his new book and on CBS:
Getting to the point now where there are eight, 900 attacks a week. That’s more than 100 a day—that is four an hour. Attacking our forces.Saddam, we are told, murdered Iraqi people. So has the US.—Bob Woodward, CBS 60 Minutes
Saddam, we were told, tortured people. So has the US.
Saddam, we are told, was a "bad man". Well —what makes Bush a good one, when, in fact, Bush has done everything and with more force and brutality than did Saddam.
Saddam, we are told, enslaved the people of Iraq. And Bush has not? And for oil? Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote that one who believes himself the master of others —as Bush presumes to master Iraq —"...is a greater slave than they." If I were an Iraqi citizen, what difference would it make to me whether I am murdered or tortured by Saddam or by Bush? Bush and the mindless GOP cultists who follow him blindly seem to think that murder committed by "good" people is good but murder committed by "bad" people is bad. The cult of Bush believes that if done in the name of Democracy, America may enslave the world. In fact, murder is murder and people are defined by what they do. One who murders in cold blood is a cold blooded murderer. One who would enslave others is a tyrant. Bush does not get a pass. Bush must be held to account on both counts.
It was only recently that Bush tried —in bad faith —to link his "war on terrorism" with his abysmal quagmire in Iraq. At the time, Bush polled well only on the "terrorism" issue. Bush had hoped that linkage would pull his fat out of the Iraq fire. That strategy was undermined when some 16 US intelligence agencies linked the two issues in a more honest, straightforward and meaningful manner. They found that the continued US presence in Iraq inspires more terrorism, makes terrorism worse, and inflames the middles east.
If Bush's real goals are merely the theft of Iraqi oil for the benefit of his corporate base, then the war must not be won. But, in fact, the US war of naked aggression against the people of Iraq is already lost. Moreover, it is a heinous war crime that absolutely MUST be prosecuted at the Hague if the ideals of international justice are to be anything but the empty rhetoric and meaningless platitudes that Bush would have you believe that they already are.
Not merely the US but the world must make an existential choice. Our choice will determine the nature of human civilization over the next century; it may even decide if we will have one. Choose Bush and revert to a dark age of technological, fascist totalitarianism that would have made Hitler blush. Reject Bush and the horse he rode in on and we may yet survive to nurture the true ideals upon which our own nation was founded.
Some updates. Keith Olbermann strikes again. His topic is about how George W. Bush murdered the Bill of Rights and HabeasCorpus —an established principle that goes back to Magna Carta:
And also to Evergreen Politics and the heads up from Sadbuttrue.Olbermann on Bush - It is Unacceptable to Think?
Keith Olbermann on MSNBC comments on Bush's reaction on Friday to Colin Powell's letter of last week. He suggests that the President owes the nation an apology. Olbermann repeats both the question to the President at the Rose Garden press conference and Bush's response:Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. If a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former secretary of state feels this way, don’t you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you’re following a flawed strategy? BUSH: If there’s any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it’s flawed logic. It’s just — I simply can’t accept that. It’s unacceptable to think that there’s any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.
And then, without missing a beat, Olbermann says:
Of course it’s acceptable to think that there’s "any kind of comparison."
And in this particular debate, it is not only acceptable, it is obviously necessary.
Some will think that our actions at Abu Ghraib, or in Guantanamo, or in secret prisons in Eastern Europe, are all too comparable to the actions of the extremists.
Some will think that there is no similarity, or, if there is one, it is to the slightest and most unavoidable of degrees.
What all of us will agree on, is that we have the right — we have the duty — to think about the comparison.
And, most importantly, that the other guy, whose opinion about this we cannot fathom, has exactly the same right as we do: to think — and say — what his mind and his heart and his conscience tell him, is right.
All of us agree about that.
Except, it seems, this President.
With increasing rage, he and his administration have begun to tell us, we are not permitted to disagree with them, that we cannot be right. That Colin Powell cannot be right.
Thank you, Mr. Olbermann, for continuing to point out out what is so clearly true.
Hat Tip to Jane at Firedoglake
Brent Budowsky -- Men And Women Of Faith: Google "Abramoff, Marianas, Rove, Republicans, Forced Abortion"
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Brent Budowsky
To men and women of faith, in my title I suggested a Google because I do not ask you to believe me, or anyone else, in this politically supercharged election. In this case the truth is more repugnant and immoral than any political comment could fully describe and I suggest you research this yourself and talk about the results with fellow believers.Jack Abramoff made a fortune of money, then donated a fortune to Republicans, lobbying for the Marianas. These Islands in the Pacific are an American territory not subject to all US laws and on these islands, horrific, disgusting and sinful acts are committed especially against women and children.
This is no different than Mark Foley raising huge political money, then giving a hundred thousand to the Chairman for the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, and be protected by Republican Leaders for so long. Congressman Reynolds may partially apologize, but when it mattered, Congressman Foley's money talked, because in Washington, if the abusers give more money than the young page, the abusers are protected and pages are endangered.
Same with Jack Abramoff, his money, the support it bought on the Marianas, the damage it did to abused children and women with forced abortions.
Please, do not believe me, check the facts independently and carefully yourself. Key words that will bring up volumes of objective stories include: Abramoff, Marianas, Rove, Republicans, forced abortion, and forced prostitution.
The Existentialist CowboyRove’s October Surprise Is Still Out There
Posted by Jon Ponder | Oct. 12, 2006, 7:36 am
When will the other shoe drop?This election is far from over, and Pres. Bush and his team are desperate. Their entire agenda — not to mention their freedom from investigation and perhaps indictment and even impeachment — rests on a Republican victory on Nov. 7.
On Sept. 21, Raw Story reported that Karl Rove was telling conservative groups that he had a surprise scheduled for the last two weeks of October that would turn the midterms in the Republicans’ favor.Now, as mid-October approaches, we have to assume that Rove’s other shoe will drop within a week or so.
We have already seen how suddenly the narrative can change in an election. Eight days after the Raw Story report, Rove found the shoe on the other foot for once when an unnamed Republican operative outed GOP Rep. Mark Foley as chickenhawk who had been stalking Capitol Hill page boys for years. And worse, GOP leaders, including Speaker Dennis Hastert, Majority Leader John Boehner and others, have known about Foley’s predatory ways for months and years, and have been covering it up to keep Foley’s seat in GOP hands. The scandal has had Republicans on the defensive and off-message for two weeks. ...
Torture
War on Terrorism
Iraq
Foley
Bush
Iraq
17 comments:
Did you not get the memo, Len? You know, the one about Bush's recent Rose Garden interview where he declared, "It's unacceptable to think.."? Because you are definitely treading on unacceptable ground with every new post. Furthermore, you are inducing a lot of thought in your readers, which has got to be doubly unacceptable.
When we think we are forced to confront facts, and not parrot talking points. When we think we see the existential choices before us, and know that we cannot cower in fear. When we think we know Bush and his cronies for the unsophisticated criminal thugs that they really are.
I can see why he considers that unacceptable.
Sad, indeed, Bush is a rare combination: stupid, arrogant, and psychotic —all wrapped up in one package. Bush left Texas a polluted waste land where kids are not educated but taught to standardized tests, where the number of executions won for Texas the monicker: gulag state! But Bush is still not done raping the Lone Star state. He plans to build a 700 mile Berlin Wall across some of the most pristine desert ecologies to be found in North America. Auschwitz was more picturesque. Is he hoping to keep "aliens" out or us in?
Bush always gives himself away with his neurotic, awkward gestures and downright weird body language. I would love to get him in a poker game. I could retire after a couple of hands.
Some warned about Bush but few listened. Bush seems especially nervous and bellicose lately. Bush should not have wasted his "eh-kuh-lek-tic" time on "...three Shakespeares" and a Camus. He should have read Faust. Bush will not be so lucky as Faust who is often seen as not deserving eternal damnation. But just as Iraq is most certainly a hell of Bush's making, Bush's personal hell is no one's fault but Bush himself. The big difference: Faust did not intend to be evil. Can that be said of Bush? Or Cheney?
I've just come across some interesting stuff about Susan Lindauer who was apparently involved as a US back channel agent with Libya and Syria over the Lockerbie bombing. In this same role she alleges she relayed invitations from the Iraqi government in March 2001 to the US via her second cousin, WH Press Sec. Andy Card "that the Iraqi government was very eager to have weapons inspectors come back to their country in order to prove that they had no weapons of mass destruction."
She further claims that when she sought to tesify before Congress over pre-Iraq war intelligence she was arrested in March 2004 and charged with being an unregistered lobbyist for Iraq. She was released on bail for 18 months but was then locked her up by the US government on what appears to have been contrived grounds of mental illness. She also says Iraq offered to provide information about the perpetrators of the 1993 WTC bombing which was refused. I don't really know anything other than these superficial details, but Susan Lindauer is an interesting person and the jpg images of her correspondance to Andy Card from March 2001 (1 2 3 4) are fascinating. Also here and here.
The Lancet death figures in Iraq have been taking a beating from the usual media pundits. The Guardian replies:
"But the US researchers have the backing of four separate independent experts who reviewed the new paper for the Lancet. All urged publication. One spoke of the "powerful strength" of the research methods, which involved house-to-house surveys by teams of doctors across Iraq."
Tim Lambert also provides a useful discussion, noting that official Iraq death records are notoriously understated:
"Even with the death certificate system, only about one-third of deaths were captured by the government's surveillance system in the years before the current war, according to informed sources in Iraq. At a death rate of 5/1000/year, in a population of 24 million, the government should have reported 120,000 deaths annually. In 2002, the government documented less than 40,000 from all sources. The ministry's numbers are not likely to be more complete or accurate today."
Tell me again about the moral necessity of the Iraq invasion.
Fuzzflash, the "fine piece of bastardry" played out against Susan Lindauer is only what you would expect. I am not in a position to comment on Susan's mental health, but she appears to have real credentials as a non official go-between for the US government, an intelligent woman and a good judge of people. She is also a deeply religious person (in the best sense of the phrase) and her muslim contacts appear to have recognised this fundamental decency and responded very openly to her (She has a philosophical slant on life that reminds me of catherine austin fitts).
It is no surprise about Lindauer's claim that the Bushies rejected Saddam's offer to let the inpectors in. They needed the fiction of WMDs in order to attack Iraq. The US refusal to accept Sadam's information about the 1993 WTC bombing brings up a whole lot of stuff raised by Peter Lance (also here) about Ali Mohamed. He was the guy who trained most of bin Laden's bombers (inc. 1993), he participated in the Somalia and Kenya bombings, was able to move freely in and out of the US and "until his arrest in 1998, he lived as an American citizen in California, applying for jobs as an FBI translator...It is now generally admitted that Ali Mohamed (known in the al Qaeda camps as Abu Mohamed al Amriki — "Father Mohamed the American") worked for the FBI, the CIA, and U.S. Special Forces."
No wonder the Bushies weren't interested in Saddam's explanations about 1993!
I've seen a review about the Macbeth film shot in Melbourne. The video shorts look good. Shades of Richard III. I don't know anything about the Ken Loach thing. In the spirit of my ancestors I'll try to steal a copy. ;)
damien, I recommend your links highly. One day, because of her courage and that of others, the whole truth will eventually come out. The whole truth is sure to be even worse that we have suspected or could possibly imagine. There is much faux shock and indignation in the MSM and elsewhere when Bush is compared to Hitler. Perhaps that's because Hitler looks better by comparison. After all, Hitler didn't have nukes. This fetid bog will eventually puke up the miscreants to justice; one day all will be known. If one sentence could sum up the whole conspiracy this (from one of your links) might very well have done the trick: "But the Neocons wanted to attack Iraq anyhow, to make huge profits for the weapons manufacturers." In other words, truth meant nothing. Bush would have attacked Iraq in any case. All were lies. All were pretext. Bush's regime is illegitimate, lacking all legal or moral authority. It is a hoax justified with previous hoaxes, lies, and frauds. Whatever your moral, metaphysical or religious convictions, it is undeniable that Bush —more accurately Bush and his complicit inner circle —is the "deceiver of nations".
Put another way, this nation's big defense contractors —often multi-nationals owing but lip service allegiance to flag or national sovereignty —now dictate a US policy designed to maximize their profits —with mass murder if necessary.
Sadly, all estimates of Iraqi dead will be pooh poohed by the murderers themselves and all will be smaller than the actual death count. Complicating the matter is that there is no way to know just how many of these Iraqi civilians were killed by US fire alone. I am of the opinion, of course, that all are ultimately US responsibility just as those who died suspiciously under Saddam are Saddam's responsibility. As one contributor to these forums wrote recently: "...I am reminded of the Who, "Won't Get Fooled Again". And given the many times this evil, crooked Bush admin has avoided justice, I am reminded of the Eagles:
"They're livin' it up at the Hotel California
What a nice surprise (what a nice suprise)
Bring your alibis".
Alibis, indeed! Also:
They stab it with their steely knives,
But they just can't kill the beast
Guest Blogger: I'm also getting sick to death of the stoopud theme that if they pull out now it will lead to chaos.
Indeed! We would call a doctor an idiot who tells you to keep on doing whatever it is that's making you sick. Bushies would not have gotten away with that transparent fallacy on my high school debate team. Repeating a failed strategy ad nauseam is pathological if not downright stupid. Sending more troops to Iraq will only raise the body count; increase the resistance, the violence, the chaos. Sending more troops to Iraq will only make worse a trend that will last for generations: the absolute hatred to destruction of the United States.
Fuzzflash, thanks for the heads up on the MacBeth film. And, damien, you mentioned "Richard III". Have you seen the fairly recent Richard with Ian McKellan?
Yet again, thank you, Len, and commenters for some thoughtfilled words and links!
I recently attended a democratic rally that featured Iowa's Senator Tom Harkin and MA's Senator John Kerry.
Harkin made a comment that practically burst the bubble for many democrats in the room that night. He said that if the democrats gain the majority in the House and Senate that they will not impeach. Some in the crowd made some noises, most of them sounded like whimpers. I whimpered inside, as well.
Harkin tried to redeem himself by saying that if they didn't want to impeach (the president), because they didn't want Cheney as president. Apparently, that appeased much of the crowd as they clapped and cheered at the comment.
It did not appease me. Harkin went on to say that the democrats want to hold them accountable, and they want to investigate.
Well, that's all fine and dandy, but why vote Democrat on Nov. 7 if the democrats aren't willing to impeach and punish those who've mangled the Constitution, and to right the wrongs that were made against the Constitution and freedoms of the American people?
Accountability is one thing. Responsibility is taking the bull by the horns and doing what needs to be done to make the Constitution a valid, living, breathing document vital to our country. I hope the Democrats will change their tune, but I won't hold my breath.
That's the one I was referring to Len. I loved it. A terrific way to do Shakespeare.
Jen: again the people are ahead of the Democrats on this issue. I live in one of the most conservative areas of the nation and I am now hearing open and angry denunciations of Bush. In fact, I don't recall a time in my life that I have seen an electorate so very near the point of boiling over. Bush should be impeached; he should be bound over for trial in this nation for capital crimes under US Codes; he should be turned over to the Hague for numerous war crimes to include the attack and invasion of Iraq itself.
Damien: yep! McKellen's Richard is superb! I loved the how beautifully the line "A horse! My kingdom for a horse!" fit in the modern context. Shakespeare rules!
BTW that 'guest blogger' above was me. I wasn't trying to be a sock puppet, I just need to log into my own blog that way sometimes to put up guest posts under a byline other than my own. Multitasking that night, I forgot to switch back to my own ID. Sorry. Also, if you want to guest at Friendly Neighbour or Les Enragés.org anytime Len, we would be honoured. iamsadbuttrue at hotmail dot com
Some quick observations about Kim Jong-il. He has, in fact, called Bush out and, in doing so, he has exposed the paper tiger. Bush set it all up with his arrogant bluster lumping NK among three nations in the so-called "Axis of Evil".
In poker terms, Bush has again overplayed his hand, having already done so in Iraq. It is the UN which has taken the lead with regard to sanctions. Bush is reduced to doing what he does best: shooting his stupid mouth off. What can Bush do? Nothing short of starting WWIII. Is even Bush that stupid?
Meanwhile, other nations —Japan primarily —are less secure with the US 'nuclear umbrella' and will demand the right to develop nukes of their own.
Bush has very nearly screwed up the entire world and, in his six years of utterly incompetent administration, has made the entire world a much, much, much, much more dangerous place.
I get so fucking depressed knowing that the Bush regime is getting away with their crimes and have 33% of clueless America supporting them that I find myself watching "V for Vendetta" over and over again, and substituting in Congress for the Old Bailey and the White House for the Parliament Building.
Who will be our V and barricade their self inside the offices of FOX News with an important message for America?
Voila!
In view, a humble Vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both villain and victim by the vissisitudes of fate, this visage, no mere veneer of vanity is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant and vanished, however, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal vermin vanguarding vice and violating all our civil rights.
the pulling out now line just doesn't hold much water for me. thinking back, during the vietnam war, they said the same thing. if we pull out, it will lead to chaos! it will all dissolve into a horrible mess! i didn't then and my tingling spidey sense tells me that america's presence in iraq alone is creating more chaos than the alternative...
Kara wrote: during the vietnam war, they said the same thing. if we pull out, it will lead to chaos! it will all dissolve into a horrible mess!
Exactly! Like Iraq now, there was never a legitimate regime to defend in the South. The CIA engineered the the coup d'etat that resulted in the murder of Ngo Dinh Diem —the first elected leader of the Republic of South Viet Nam. Few mourn Diem. He was apparently content to rule in but a part of a divided Viet Nam and refused to hold elections for the whole of the country in July 1956. His response to self-immolations was to arrest thousands of Buddhist monks who dissapeared and were never seen or heard from again. A string of puppets, often called faceless generals succeeded Diem.
Diem's plight is not unlike that of Saddam. Both men could be described as "brutal dictators" but both were US puppets to the very end. US foreign policy is consistently a pox on the entire world —creating and supporting brutal, un-democratic regimes in the name of Democracy. It is the sheerest hypocrisy and the entire world knows that to be the case even if Americans are slow to wake up to that fact. Our enemies are the enemies of our creation.
The Nazi analogies are right on.
I watched "V For Vendetta" over the weekend, and I couldn't help but think that the American revolutionaries of the 1770s must have been labeled as "terrorists" or "insurgents" by the British. And maybe even by some of their own countrymen.
Post a Comment