Thursday, May 10, 2007

Batiste to Bush: "You have placed our nation in Peril"

General John Batiste's statement to George W. Bush is a direct challenge to Bush's legitimacy as well as his credibility. Bush claimed that he listened to his commanders in the field. It was just another lie. Bush didn't listen to his commanders and would replace those who told him what he didn't want to hear.

And General Bastiste says that Bush should have anticipated the "insurgency".

Nevermind that I object to the term "insurgency". On the whole, Batiste is correct and Bush's incompetence in this area alone is impeachable. Bush heedlessly placed US troops in peril. In my last article, I outlined a very, very brief history of US incursions into Lebanon and Iraq. Bush made all the same mistakes and even more in the bargain.

It is a measure of the tragic nature of Bush's misadventure in Iraq that there is no satisfaction in having been right all along. Bush's overall approval rating has dropped to 28%, the level reached by Nixon just prior to his resignation amid various moves to remove him from office. But learning the truth has taken too long and too many lives, innocent and otherwise. Will the American people at least be told the criminal, fraudulent nature of this war?

Bush has shamelessly exploited a single phrase: "support the troops", code for "if you don't support the war, you don't support the troops." But worse than not supporting the troops is lying to them and that's what Bush has done. His administration would have the troops believe that they are defending America from Islamic terrorists who "jest hate America".

From Iraq, we get another story. The US occupation is opposed across the spectrum throughout what had been a "secular" nation and a secular government. If Bush wanted to strike a blow against Islamic "extremism", he picked a lousy target. Instead, he has given genuine Islamic extremists a cause celebre. Bush, owned by the powerful oil lobbies, has another agenda, his real agenda. It is simply this: secure the oil fields of the middle east for American oil barons. And for the ambitions of Dick Cheney's Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, et al, Bush continues to sacrifice American troops. Is this impeachable? If it is not, it ought to be. It is one thing to die for one's country, but for Halliburton?

We have all been deliberately deceived. Bush has waged a more effective war against Americans than against Iraqis who have a right to oppose any illegal occupation of their country. Americans, it seems, have acquiesced to the dismantling of our very sovereignty at the hands of an enemy of the people: George W. Bush.
"Iraq is free of rape rooms and torture chambers.

—"President" Bush, 2003 Republican National Committee Presidential Gala, Oct. 8, 2003

That was a lie told to all the nations of the world. In fact the management and operation of the "rape rooms" and "torture chambers" had been taken over by the United States. There's more.
"The Iraqi people are now free. And they do not have to worry about the secret police coming after them in the middle of the night, and they don't have to worry about their husbands and brothers being taken off and shot, or their wives being taken to rape rooms. Those days are over."

—Paul Bremer, Administrator, [Iraq] Coalition Provisional Authority, Sept. 2, 2003

Another lie. The BBC's source, UN chief anti-torture expert Manfred Nowak, paints a vivid picture of reality and truth, a situation "...out of control" and a seemingly endless stream of abused victims traceable directly to the US-led multinational forces, security forces, militia groups and anti-US guerrillas. It's a picture of hell on earth:
The UN report says detainees' bodies often show signs of beating using electrical cables, wounds in heads and genitals, broken legs and hands, electric and cigarette burns.

Bodies found at the Baghdad mortuary "often bear signs of severe torture including acid-induced injuries and burns caused by chemical substances".

Many bodies have missing skin, broken bones, back, hands and legs, missing eyes, missing teeth and wounds caused by power drills or nails, the UN report says.

BBC, Iraq torture 'worse after Saddam'

"Sources have revealed new details from the Army's criminal investigation into reports of abuse of Iraqi detainees, including the location of the suspected crimes and evidence that is being sought. U.S. soldiers reportedly posed for photographs with partially unclothed Iraqi prisoners, a Pentagon official told CNN on Tuesday."—Barbara Starr, CNN, Jan. 21, 2004

"Saddam Hussein now sits in a prison cell, and Iraqi men and women are no longer carried to torture chambers and rape rooms …"—Bush, remarks on "Winston Churchill and the War on Terror," Feb. 4, 2004

"Seventeen U.S. soldiers have been suspended of duties pending the outcome of the investigation into alleged allegations of abuse of Iraqi prisoners, a U.S. officer said Monday."—Associated Press, Feb. 23, 2004

"[B]etween October and December 2003, at the Abu Ghraib Confinement Facility (BCCF), numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees. This systemic and illegal abuse of detainees was intentionally perpetrated by several members of the military police guard force. … The allegations of abuse were substantiated by detailed witness statements (ANNEX 26) and the discovery of extremely graphic photographic evidence. … I find that the intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:

a. Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;

b. Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;

c. Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;

d. Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;

e. Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear;

f. Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;

g. Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;

h. Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture; …

j. Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female soldier pose for a picture;

k. A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;

l. Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee …

These findings are amply supported by written confessions provided by several of the suspects, written statements provided by detainees, and witness statements. …

In addition, several detainees also described the following acts of abuse, which under the circumstances, I find credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses (ANNEX 26):

a. Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;

b. Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;

c. Pouring cold water on naked detainees;

d. Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;

e. Threatening male detainees with rape; …

g. Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick."

—Executive summary of Taguba report, finalized Feb. 29, 2004, briefed to superiors on March 3, 2004, and submitted in final form on March 9, 2004

Bush had assured the American people and the world that Iraq was better off under American occupation. Clearly that is not the case. One evil dictator has been replaced by an equally evil occupation and Iraqis are worse off under Bush. We were not greeted as liberators because it was clear to everyone but the American people, who supported Bush at the time, that the only thing Bush wished to liberate was Iraqi oil.

Because we acted, torture rooms are closed, rape rooms no longer exist, mass graves are no longer a possibility in Iraq."

—Bush, remarks at "Ask President Bush" event, Michigan, May 3, 2004

Bush is not merely a liar, he is a hoaxer, a deceiver of nations and people. Is this impeachable? Indeed! This is not merely an isolated lie, a protestation of innocence protected by the Constitution. This is not a mere blow job. This is nothing less than a criminal fraud.
It is a felony, it's a crime to mislead and distort information and submit it to Congress.

- John Dean, Former White House Counsel

That is precisely what Bush has done. The results of Bush's treasonous hoax is as follows:
  • 650,000 Iraqis dead
  • US dead approaches 4,000
  • The very core of the US Constitution has been gutted
  • habeas corpus is caput
  • the separation of powers is subverted
  • due process of law is all but a thing of the past
  • the presumption of innocence is denied arbitarily
  • likewise, right to counsel and the right to have legal representation
  • the right to dissent is in its death throes
  • the right to a speedy trial, indeed, any trial at all can be denied without demonstrable cause.
So...who hates America?

The answer is simple and clear: George W. Bush, a traitor to the nation, the Constitution that literally created the nation, a traitor to the principles of Democracy for which this nation stood, a traitor to the concept of freedom for which this nation went to war in WWII. The reality in Iraq is a harsh light on Bush's big lie.



hizzoner said...

The thing that struck me immediately about Batiste's video was that he resigned his commission so he could speak out against the war.

That stands in sharpe relief with Colin Powell, George Tenet and a couple of others who could have made a difference....who could have kept the killing from happening...who could have kept Iraq from turning into a living hell...who could have kept the world on our side ...

But they didn't

The didn't have the courage.

I think I'm going to have to reconstruct my Something of Value post again. Briefly, I recalled a lesson from my early college years where we discussed the book Something of Valueby Robert Raurk (link here.. talked about Belgium abruptly ending its colonization of the Congo and the chaos that ensued. The lesson was (try not to fall off your chair) if you are going to undo decades of established order, you must make certain that it is replaced with Something of Value. Sound familiar?
As usual, good job Len.

Unknown said...

Thanks hizzoner. That's the troubling thing about Iraq. There is simply no way that the US can undo the damage its done by either staying or leaving. Having no good options is what I call losing a war. Bush continues to repeat the mantra that leaving Iraq will "embolden al Qaeda". But there was no al Qaeda in Iraq before the US invasion. Staying has already "emboldened" them by making of us handy targets. I am beginning to doubt America's ability to survive this war.

hizzoner said...

I seem to recall, at the onset of the attack/invasion of Afghanistan, being told by the Bush Administration that the "War on Terror" wasn't going to be recognizable as a war in the sense that we knew it...he said it would be a "different kind of war". Most pundits at the time said that meant it would be conducted "in the shadows" and by mostly covert operations.

So try this on for size:

If we pull our troops out of Iraq now, what, exactly is there to stop us from intervening in "special ops" from time-to-time to address the terrorist element? What's to stop us from fighting "a different kind of war" in Iraq that doesn't involve fixed positions and "set-piece" warfare?

I'm guessing there is NOTHING to stop us from doing that except the will (and intelligence?) to do it.

It's time to think about this in a different way.

btw: It's also time to start talking about the fact that liberals/progressives don't want to surrender as the neocons like to frame it...we want to fight the right enemy ; the REAL terrorists.


Unknown said...


I think you are correct. This is a classic case of bait and switch. But it should have been clear to us what Bush had in mind when the US went into Afghanistan. Success in Afghanistan was premised upon the idea that the Taliban had partnered with Bin Laden in planning and executing 911. In retrospect, we were all naive. I have found nothing but administration assertions in support of the idea that the Taliban had anything whatsoever to do with 911. When an administration loses its credibility, it loses everything.

At last, I no longer trust the Bushies to conduct even a "covert" war against "terrorists". Perhaps, even less so. It would appear that Bush is conducting a covert war against American citizens as we write and post here.

Somewhat simplistically, it may be fair to say that until 911, European nations countered terrorism with good police work. That's probably the only thing that will work. Acts of terrorism are, after all, crimes.

The FBI stats that I have previously cited were compiled by the FBI. The graphic was prepared by the Brookings Institution based on those stats. It is difficult to cite those stats as brookings keeps moving the URL of the paper that it has written based on those raw stats. I had found it yet again, but typically, the URL had changed again by the time I posted by article. Now, I am afraid that the article is no longer available.

The conclusion that I have reached, based on the pattern, is that any war waged against the tactic of "terrorism" is doomed to fail. Wars are fought between armies. For that reason, a "war" cannot defeat a determined guerrilla resistance nor can a massed army defeat the "tactic" of "terrorism".