Wednesday, September 26, 2007

'The Night They Drove Ol' Dixie Down' or The Origins of a Culture War

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Some distinguished historians and the famous poet Walt Whitman have said that it was only after the Civil War that the several "United" States became a single nation. I would like to believe that true but the fact is we have never been more divided. Some divisions have never healed. It has taken the most radical regime in US history to expose them and exploit them.
Strange (is it not?) that battles, martyrs, agonies, blood, even assassination, should so condense a nationality?

--Walt Whitman, as quoted by James Piereson, Lincoln and Kennedy: A Tale of Two Assassinations

This quote also found its way into Ken Burns' famous "The Civil War", where the point was made by historians Barbara Fields and Shelby Foote that from the carnage of civil war, this national crucible which claimed the lives of at least 620,000 Americans, came our nationhood, our identity as a single nation. As Fields describes the Civil War, "it is the moment that made the United States as a nation." Certainly, she points out, the US had become a nation with the ratification of the Constitution but a it remained for a Civil War the baser job of sorting it all out, making real what had been only written. That is precisely the problem. What had been written is a precious legacy left us by the founders. It is ours to lose. Making it real is the task that befalls every generation. As this administration demonstrates daily, the battle is not won. If our nationhood must be won by war, the war has only just begun.
"before the war it was said that the United States "are". Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. After the war, it was always 'the United States "is" ... as we say today without being self-conscious at all. That sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an 'is' "

Historian Shelby Foote, The Civil War, a Film by Ken Burns

This idea might well have originated with Whitman, though it finds eloquent expression in Foote. There is always the slim chance that Whitman, a man of his times, was simply in accord with a popular consensus, writing as he did of the greater "use" to which a nation had put its young men. It would have been hard at the end of that bloody conflict to say of it that all those young men had died in vain.

"Then there is a cement to the whole people, subtler, more underlying than anything written in the constitution, or courts or armies" Whitman wrote in 1879, "namely the cement of a death identified thoroughly with that people, at its head, and for its sake. Strange (is it not?) that battles, martyrs, agonies, blood, even assassination, should so condense a nationality?" I don't wish to pick a fight with a deceased poet and certainly not one who has achieved the stature of American sage. Yet, I must point out that the tragedy of "the South" is not Greek tragedy imposed by 'gods'. It is rather, an end that is found in its beginning. As Pogo said "We have met the enemy and it is us!"

Not so long ago, I might have agreed with Whitman --despite the many tragedies of reconstruction, Jim Crow, Viet Nam, the Civil Rights movement, a wave of political murders obviously designed to wipe out a nation's left wing, a radicalized youth movement, the desperate flight to suburbia in which many had found not Utopia but Stepford.

Today, we are more divided than ever. Did the Civil war, in fact, forge the nation that had been dreamt of and written down at Philadelphia? I think not! The fault lines are tragically familiar --race, class, and religion. Despite the gains made throughout the sixties, the struggle for racial equality is not won. Like the murder of JFK, the cold blooded murder of Dr. Martin Luther King had the effect of benefiting only those who most certainly wished him dead.
The great difference between Lincoln and Kennedy is that the former died at his moment of victory while the latter was killed before he was able to achieve any great success. Lincoln was assassinated at the end of a Civil War, Kennedy at the beginning of a long-running cultural war.

--James Piereson, Lincoln and Kennedy: A Tale of Two Assassinations

Since the Civil War, a "robber baron" class industrialized the nation by denying, for decades, the right of workers to organize. To this day, the rich get richer and everyone else is left behind. The enemies of science and intellectual progress have renewed their numerous assaults on learning itself. They wish to roll back the enlightenment.

The right wing has bet its future on a few cynical tactics --the big lie, character assassination, and wedge issues designed to divide and conquer. How the GOP became America's radical reactionary party is a long and winding road. Nevertheless, I am less appalled than surprised to find in the US a level of hatefulness that we dared hope had been laid to rest on the battlefields of the Civil War.

The story is not without its surprising plot twists. When the Radical Republicans ruled the South, they were despised by the same demographic segments that now embrace the likes of George W. Bush. The Great Grandfathers of Bush's most staunch southern supporters were most certainly Democrats at a time when the GOP was identified with and blamed for the horrors of reconstruction. It remained thus until the middle 1960's when Richard Nixon effected what is known as the "Southern Strategy". Simply, the GOP decided that there were more bigot votes down south than liberal/moderate votes elsewhere. The GOP battled the Democrats for the low ground and won. JFK was never forgiven for having put his own party on the right side of morality and history. Thus, from the ashes of the "Old South" rose a mean and prejudiced spirit, just as from the ashes of Watergate rose a radicalized, reactionary Republican party.

In Monroe, LA, for example, I found in the only large bookstore in town, a huge section devoted to various Civil War books. Many of them are filled with venom, disillusionment, and hate. Some of them dealt with how the South had been betrayed as Hitler believed Germany had been betrayed at the end of World War I. Across town, a stone's throw by big city standards, is the Civil War Cemetery, a more sobering reminder of tragedy. Farther afield, down the road is Vicksburg, MS, where the forces of U. S. Grant had approached from the Mississippi River only to learn that Vicksburg could not be taken by direct assault. Grant's Vicksburg seige came to symbolize the ideological stand-off as well.

It was among the disaffected descendants of the Civil War south that the GOP found manna, a strategy often falsely attributed to Kevin Phillips who was nevertheless its most articulate voice.

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats. --Kevin Phillips
It must be remembered that this "Negro vote" had been the GOP's to lose. They were, after all, the party of Lincoln. It was the "Radical Republicans" --not Lincoln --who had imposed the reconstruction that turned the South into occupied territory faring little better than Iraq. The era of "reconstruction" is best known for the terrorist organization it spawned: the Ku Klux Klan.

It would be a mistake to ascribe to the North some mythical moral superiority although it is true that the economies of 11 states making up the Confederacy were dependent upon slavery to produce and harvest the crops, most famously, cotton. Slavery, to be sure, was illegal in the north but only a handful actively opposed it. Martin Scorsese probably got it right; Lincoln was probably as despised in New York as he had been in the deep south.

Richard Nixon is remembered as much for his Southern Strategy as for Watergate, bombing Cambodia, and his involvement in the cover up of a famous burglary of Democratic Headquarters at Watergate. The Southern Strategy turned a solid Democratic South into GOP occupied territory.

Not every division in America is traced directly to the civil war, though you will find, to this day, many who will defend the institution of slavery. Others still resent the harsh reconstruction. It was Nixon's evil genius that his campaign was able to overcome the natural resentment of his party's role in "reconstructing" the South. That the Democrats would pay dearly for having done the right thing may explain the party's timidity. In better times, Democrats did not shy from confrontation. They sought it out. Nevertheless, Democrats have historically paid high prices for being or doing right. As he signed the Voting Rights Act, LBJ famously said that he was, in fact, forever ceding the South to the GOP. And so, he was.

A long story is, of necessity, made short. Nixon's legacy is that of a GOP benefiting from George Wallace's politics of hate as well as from LBJ's signature on the Voting Rights Act. The GOP would find votes wherever there was resentment or prejudice. The GOP would foment distrust when our various peoples might have put the Civil War behind them and moved forward. The GOP would wage war on labor as well as "the nattering nabobs of negativity", Spiro Agnew's code word for academics and free thinkers. The Civil War looms like a ghost upon the body politic. It was only a few years ago that, in Jaspar, Texas bigots dragged a black man at high speeds over back country roads until very nearly nothing was left of his body.

The Reconstruction period may be found at the very roots of American political, cultural and racial divisions. Reconstruction was the real war and real wars are never won on the battlefields. The military campaigns preceding reconstruction decided nothing except who had the greater arms and the industrial stamina to slug it out and endure. The issues of division are in fact still, fueling cultural and racial unrest throughout the sixties. It was always the counterpoint to the grassroots opposition to US militarism/imperialism in Viet Nam.

George Wallace was Nixon's biggest competition for southern voters unhappy with civil rights. They had mounted a movement to Impeach Earl Warren, then the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a court identified with integration and civil rights. Even today, Texas seems a liberal bastion compared to most parts of Louisiana where billboards had promised "Continued Segregation".

Southern attitudes have not changed. Like the party as a whole, it communicates with its base in code words, not wishing to tip off the greater population. Since the ascension of George W. Bush, a separate south is now talked about openly. There are websites advocating the dissolution of the United States, a separate, independent south.


The Night They Drove Ol' Dixie Down

Additional Resources

Share

Subscribe



GoogleYahoo!AOLBloglines

Add to Google

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

Add to Google

Download DivX

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

'Dodgin' the Draft and Dancin' nekkid': George W. Bush's Lost & Hidden Years


by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

By the time he fell on the sword for Bush and Black Rock1, Dan Rather had become a national icon. Now, he's reduced to plugging his lawsuit against CBS on Larry King Live, the same daytime cable show that obsessed over Anna Nicole Smith, the exploits of O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson's fondness for the youth of this nation.

Larry King believes there is no news so low that it cannot be stooped to. At a time when the American media, generally, seems out to lunch, a man claiming to be "President" of the United States commits capital crimes while a kiss up Congress rewrites the laws to get him off the hook retro-actively.

It's a pity Larry King didn't see fit to spend as much time examining Bush's non-military record as he has spent looking up Paris Hilton and down Anna Nicole. To his credit, King interviewed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. He really grilled him with smurf balls like "...doesn't the idea of spying run against the grain of Americans?" And, how about this for hard-hitting journalism, "Senator Specter, though, did say he is troubled by it did he not?" Oh well! That changes everything!

Here's the meat of King's interview of Dan Rather, in which Rather, at last, states that government has no business in the newsroom.
KING: Is that what you're saying, they were trying to appeal to the Bush White House?

RATHER: Yes is the short answer to that. But I think that they and others have been doing it to part of Washington's power structure long before them. And what I'm trying -- look, in my own wee small way -- perhaps, I can't succeed at it, is to say people, whether you're Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative -- big government and big corporations have far too much influence and are intimidating, especially investigative reporting.

You may remember, Larry, after the 2000 election, when all three of the news division presidents went down to Washington and testified. They never should have been there. Big government has no business in the newsroom.

KING: Yes.

RATHER: And they read scripts prepared for them written on the corporate side.
It is against Rather's fall and the sorry condition of American journalism in general that journalist Greg Palast tries to set the record straight about George W. Bush's mysterious years in the Texas Air National Guard.
Monday September 24, 2007Click to see the larger image
New York- Newly unearthed records reveal that, in 2004, when Americans were in the midst of a brutal electoral battle over whether to reelect a president posing as a war hero, a commanding US reporter, Dan Rather, went AWOL.

Just three months before the election, Rather had a story that might have changed the outcome of that razor-close race. We now know that Dan cut a back-room deal to shut his mouth, grab his ankles, and let his network retract a story he knew to be absolutely true.

In September 2004 when Rather cowered, Bush was riding high in the polls. Now, with Bush’s approval ratings are below smallpox, Rather has come out of hiding to shoot at the lame duck. Thanks, Dan.

It began on September 8, 2004, when Rather, on CBS, ran a story that Daddy Bush Senior had, in 1968, put in the fix to get his baby George out of the Vietnam War and into the Texas Air National Guard. Little George then rode out the war defending Houston from Viet Cong attack.

The story is stone-cold solid. I know, because we ran it on BBC Television a year before CBS (see that broadcast here). BBC has never retracted a word of it.

But CBS caved. So did Dan.

George W Bush- Draft Dodger
That’s according to Rather’s written confession, his law suit, which is as much a shameful set of admissions as it is a legal complaint. In the suit filed Thursday, Rather tells us that Sumner Redstone, CEO of Viacom, owner of CBS, was “enraged that the [Air Guard] Broadcast had hurt CBS in the eyes of the Bush administration.” Viacom then set out to, “divert public attention from the accurate facts reported in the Broadcast concerning President Bush’s service (and lack thereof) in the TexANG during the Vietnam War; and enable CBS and Viacom to curry favor with the White House….”

--DAN RATHER: TASED AND CONFUSED

So what did George W. Bush do when he should have been reporting for duty? Some sources recall him dancing naked on sleazy, Texas barstools --for guys! And tips?

Palast accuses Rather of picking up an old story and missing the big, new one. The "old story" --Bush's AWOL record --had, after all, been widely available back in 1999. Palast says the bigger story is all about how former Texas Lt. Gov Ben Barnes pocketed a cool $23 million bucks in two ways: 1) getting the junior Bush into the National Guard and safe from that mean ol' Cong and 2) keeping mum about it for some 35 years.

How does one pull off such a huge payoff in the gulag, GOP state of Texas? According to Palast, then Texas Gov. George W. Bush simply overruled the Lottery director and steered the billion dollar contract to a firm tied to the former Lt. Gov, Barnes. Barnes took a 23 million dollar "commission", a polite term for "payoff".
This is a devastating accusation. And one that’s more serious than the scandal of a draft-dodging rich kid’s vile use of daddy’s connections three decades ago. Here was evidence of gross abuse of public office by Governor Bush to pay off a crony who kept silent while Bush ran for the presidency.

--Greg Palast

Palast has been on this story longer than even Dan Rather who must surely regret ever having heard the word "Bush".
Under pressure, Burkett gave CBS a false name to cover for the whistleblower. Burkett should not have done that. It is understandable but inexcusable. Period. Yet, that does not tell us the document was fabricated. It was the job of CBS to follow up — they are the journalists.

And it is also the President’s job. Safire in the Times, in charging that Burkett faked the document, demanded the military open a criminal investigation. Darn right they should. They haven’t. Why not? Maybe they don???t want to check into this ???fake??? document because maybe it’s not fake.

An investigation should begin with questions for the President. After all, he can clear up the matter lickety-split.

“Mr. President, did you or did you not ask your commander Lt. Col. Killian how you could shirk your duty to show up?”

“Mr. President, did you or did you not refuse a direct order to take a medical exam and pee into a jar?” (The record is solid on the evidence of refusing that order, Mr. Top Gun — you were stripped of your flight wings.)

“Mr. President, did Texas Lt. Governor Ben Barnes make any calls to get you out of ‘Nam and into the Air Guard? Yes or no?”

See Dan, that’s how it should be done. It wasn’t Burkett’s job to verify the evidence, it was the job of Dan and the President.

--The Real Lt. Col. Burkett: In His Own Words to BBC Television

Palast points out that it was in the same week that Andrew Myer of florida was being tasered with about 50,000 volts for daring to ask tough questions of John Kerry. Palast hasn't said so --but I will: this smacks of Hitler's brownshirts, just as did the "white shirted" gang of uglier goppers who attacked vote recounters in Florida.
Andrew is just a student and still needs a couple of lessons in posing questions properly. (Lesson One: “Wear a grounding wire.”) But Andrew has the next lesson down pat: ask the question they don’t want to hear when they don’t want to hear it. Rather could use a few lessons in journalism himself - from Andrew - about taking the heat for the story.

--Palast [previous link]

It's update time. The following comment about this addition to the "Cowboy" was found on Buzzflash.net
...just who was THE one of the "less privileged kids" who died instead of that Wild & Crazy Guy who danced his way through an otherwise dull duty-station in the Texas Air National Guard? Perhaps it was the very young black kid who drowned in the back channels of the 'Rung Sat Special Zone' one night in mid-December, 1966. No shots were fired...he simply sank to the bottom when he let go of the safety line to keep from losing his rifle. We recovered his body at low tide the following morning. His name is etched on 'The Wall' instead of "Bush, George W."

--SgtRock

One day, some one will put that question to Bush himself.

Here's the Moveon.org ad that was pulled in 2004


MoveOn's pulled AWOL Bush ad from 2004


Trump Calls Bush "Worst President in History"

Note: 1 CBS Building in Manhattan

Additional Resources and Discoveries

Monday, September 24, 2007

The Warrior Queen vs the Evil Empire


by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Not long ago PBS broadcast a British film called "Warrior Queen" --the story of the Iceni Queen Boudicca who dared rebel against an oppressive Roman occupation of Britannia. She was, of course, eventually defeated by a better trained and technologically superior army commanded by Suetonius Paulinus. Today she would be called a "terrorist" as, perhaps, she was called by Romans who, by that time, were living in well-appointed, true Roman-style townhouses in Camulodunum (present day Colchester) and Veralamium (present day St. Albans)and Londinium (London). You can find ruins of these townhouses and a Roman theater in St. Albans.

The film is visually interesting but classical accounts by Tacitus and Dio Cassius paint an even more vivid picture of aggression, technological superiority, conquest and needless bloodshed. One reads the accounts and sees the same story repeated throughout history. Notable examples are the British in Africa vs the Zulu, the US Cavalry vs "Native America".

According to the Roman historian Dio Cassius:
"...a terrible disaster occurred in Britain. Two cities were sacked, eighty thousand of the Romans and all of their allies perished, and the island was lost to Rome. Moreover, all this ruin was brought upon the Romans by a woman, a fact which in itself caused them the greatest shame... The person who was chiefly instrumental in rousing the natives and persuading them to fight the Romans, the person who was thought worthy to be their leader and who directed the conduct of the entire war, was Boudicca, a Briton woman of the royal family and possessed of greater intelligence than often belongs to women... In stature she was very tall, in appearance most terrifying, in the glance of her eye most fierce, and her voice was harsh; a great mass of the tawniest hair fell to her hips; around her neck was a large golden necklace; and she wore a tunic of divers colors over which a thick mantle was fastened with a brooch.

--Dio Cassius

Boudicca was married to Prasutagus, ruler of the Iceni people of East Anglia. When the Romans conquered southern England in AD 43, they allowed Prasutagus to continue to rule.
Prasutagus, the late king of the Icenians, in the course of a long reign had amassed considerable wealth. By his will he left the whole to his two daughters and the emperor in equal shares, conceiving, by that stroke of policy, that he should provide at once for the tranquility of his kingdom and his family.The event was otherwise. His dominions were ravaged by the centurions; the slaves pillaged his house, and his effects were seized as lawful plunder. His wife, Boudicca, was disgraced with cruel stripes; her daughters were ravished, and the most illustrious of the Icenians were, by force, deprived of the positions which had been transmitted to them by their ancestors. The whole country was considered as a legacy bequeathed to the plunderers. The relations of the deceased king were reduced to slavery.

Exasperated by their acts of violence, and dreading worse calamities, the Icenians had recourse to arms. The Trinobantians joined in the revolt. The neighboring states, not as yet taught to crouch in bondage, pledged themselves, in secret councils, to stand forth in the cause of liberty. What chiefly fired their indignation was the conduct of the veterans, lately planted as a colony at Camulodunum. These men treated the Britons with cruelty and oppression; they drove the natives from their habitations, and calling them by the [shameful] names of slaves and captives, added insult to their tyranny. In these acts of oppression, the veterans were supported by the common soldiers; a set of men, by their habits of life, trained to licentiousness, and, in their turn, expecting to reap the same advantages. The temple built in honour of Claudius was another cause of discontent. In the eye of the Britons it seemed the citadel of eternal slavery. The priests, appointed to officiate at the altars, with a pretended zeal for religion, devoured the whole substance of the country. To over-run a colony, which lay quite naked and exposed, without a single fortification to defend it, did not appear to the incensed and angry Britons an enterprise that threatened either danger or difficulty. The fact was, the Roman generals attended to improvements to taste and elegance, but neglected the useful. They embellished the province, and took no care to defend it.

--Tacitus, 'Annals of Rome'

Tacitus presents a vivid image of Boudicca's united tribes laying waste to three Roman settlements in Britain.

While the Britons were preparing to throw off the yoke, the statue of victory, erected at Camulodunum, fell from its base, without any apparent cause, and lay extended on the ground with its face averted, as if the goddess yielded to the enemies of Rome. Women in restless ecstasy rushed among the people, and with frantic screams denounced impending ruin. In the council-chamber of the Romans hideous clamours were heard in a foreign accent; savage howlings filled the theatre, and near the mouth of the Thames the image of a colony in ruins was seen in the transparent water; the sea was purpled with blood, and, at the tide of ebb, the figures of human bodies were traced in the sand. By these appearances the Romans were sunk in despair, while the Britons anticipated a glorious victory. Suetonius, in the meantime, was detained in the isle of Mona. In this alarming crisis, the veterans sent to Catus Decianus, the procurator of the province, for a reinforcement. Two hundred men, and those not completely armed, were all that officer could spare. The colony had but a handful of soldiers. Their temple was strongly fortified, and there they hoped to make a stand. But even for the defense of that place no measures were concerted. Secret enemies mixed in all their deliberations. No fosse was made; no palisade thrown up; nor were the women, and such as were disabled by age or infirmity, sent out of the garrison. Unguarded and unprepared, they were taken by surprise, and, in the moment of profound peace, overpowered by the Barbarians in one general assault. The colony was laid waste with fire and sword.

The temple held out, but, after a siege of two days, was taken by storm. Petilius Cerealis, who commanded the ninth legion, marched to the relief of the place. The Britons, flushed with success, advanced to give him battle. The legion was put to the rout, and the infantry cut to pieces. Cerealis escaped with the cavalry to his entrenchments. Catus Decianus, the procurator of the province, alarmed at the scene of carnage which he beheld on every side, and further dreading the indignation of a people, whom by rapine and oppression he had driven to despair, betook himself to flight, and crossed over into Gaul.

---Tacitus, 'Annals of Rome'

The portrait pained by Tacitus of the Roman General, Suetonius is that of a calculating commander, a stranger to panic, a "cool customer", who would not and did not hesitate to abandon to Boudicca's angry horde Londinium itself. He would to so in order "... to save the province at the cost of a single town." Already, London had established its importance as a regional center of trade, the embarkation point of all goods exported to Rome.

Indeed, Suetonius withdrew leaving London to its fate.
At that place he meant to fix the feat of war; but reflecting on the scanty numbers of his little army, and the fatal rashness of Cerealis, he resolved to quit the station, and, by giving up one post, secure the rest of the province. Neither supplications, nor the tears of the inhabitants could induce him to change his plan. The signal for the march was given. All who chose to follow his banners were taken under his protection. Of all who, on account of their advanced age, the weakness of their sex, of the attractions of the situation, thought proper to remain behind, not one escaped the rage of the Barbarians.

--Tacitus, 'Annals of Rome'

To this day, in Boudicca's ravaged cities, a layer of ash is found in archaeological excavations, hard evidence that all is true. The number of dead in London alone is estimated variously between 80,000 to 90,000, most probably every resident of the city at that time.

Suetonius, in strategic retreat, gathered his remaining legions and marched north. He compensated for his inferior numbers with superior technology, weaponry, and tactics. Suetonius took up a position, according to the Roman accounts, the high ground. Dense forests flanked his legions.

Boudicca arrayed across the lower plain her throng, estimated at between 90,000 and 100,000. Behind the warriors--a veritable wagon train of family, onlookers, and townsfolk! From Tacitus, we have a vivid picture of Boudicca, like Vince Lombardi rallying his team, like Patton in Louisiana, exhorting his troops. If Tacitus is in any way accurate or even close, we may say of this speech as Johnson said of Shakespeare that it is "not of an age, but for all time".
This is not the first time that the Britons have been led to battle by a woman. But now she did not come to boast the pride of a long line of ancestry, nor even to recover her kingdom and the plundered wealth of her family. She took the field, like the meanest among them, to assert the cause of public liberty, and to seek revenge for her body seamed with ignominious stripes, and her two daughters infamously ravished.

From the pride and arrogance of the Romans nothing is sacred; all are subject to violation; the old endure the scourge, and the virgins are deflowered. But the vindictive gods are now at hand. A Roman legion dared to face the warlike Britons: with their lives they paid for their rashness; those who survived the carnage of that day, lie poorly hid behind their entrenchments, meditating nothing but how to save themselves by an ignominious flight.

From the din of preparation, and the shouts of the British army, the Romans, even now, shrink back with terror. What will be their case when the assault begins? Look round, and view your numbers. Behold the proud display of warlike spirits, and consider the motives for which we draw the avenging sword. On this spot we must either conquer, or die with glory. There is no alternative. Though a woman, my resolution is fixed: the men, if they please, may survive with infamy, and live in bondage."

--Boudicca, Warrior Queen

The following video describes visually what most surely happened, given what we know of Roman tactics, weapons technology and training. Initially, Boudicca's outrage worked to her advantage. In the end, however, professionalism, tactics and cold blooded calculation would win over anger and indignation.

Over a period of some 2,000 years, Boudicca has come to symbolize the universal resistance of conquered or "subject" peoples against technologically superior, arrogant, and often fascist would-be conquerors, empire builders, and other megalomaniacs. According to popular myth, Boudicca lies buried under Platform 10 of London's King Cross Station.

[Note: The motion picture referenced in the article is not the source for the video above. It is the 2003 production entitled Boudica (Warrior Queen in the USA). It is a UK TV film written by Andrew Davies and starring Alex Kingston (Moll Flanders) as Boudica]

Sunday, September 23, 2007

How Bush May Have Gotten Away with Mass Murder, War Crimes and Torture

By Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Bush is desperately seeking ways to avoid prosecution at the Hague for his many war crimes in both Afghanistan and Iraq. This is a long and "tortured" story about how Bush and his cabal have hijacked the apparatus of government and intimidated the Congress.

The obvious motive is money --millions made by defense contractors whose business is killing people. It includes Blackwater, another name for Murder, Inc. It's about war, crimes and torture. It's about a "President" who has committed capital crimes and re-wrote the law to absolve himself.

Found in a recent Keith Olbermann broadcast:
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell tells G-Q magazine he is "sorry" he gave the world wrong information when he told the U-N of the threat Iraq supposedly posed.
Olbermann makes the case that the Bush administration is habitually wrong because being wrong or, worse, a bald faced liar is rewarded. The Bush administration is 180 degrees out of phase with every good and human value be it secular or religious.

It bears repeating that Powell's presentation to the UN was a deliberate fraud. Despite his mea culpa, Powell will have trouble scrapping off Bush's guilt. Powell is a modern Faust. It remains to be seen whether he will succeed in redeeming himself. Powell's presentation was not a mere, isolated lie, exaggeration, or misspeak. It was --from start to finish --a polished, planned, pre-meditated fraud intended to deceive all the nations of the world. Powell is up to his neck in a war crime. Perhaps, if Powell told the whole story, he might survive with a shred worth redemption.

I recently made the case that Bush repeatedly tried to escape culpability for his crimes for which even US Codes prescribe the death penalty, that is, until Bush decided to intimidate Congress into re-writing him to be above the laws.
President Bush signs the "Military Commissions Act of 2006? today in the Rose Garden, a bill that will not grant detainees legal counsel. "Also, it specifically bars detainees from filing habeas corpus petitions challenging their detentions in federal courts." The new law sets the stage for what many analysts believe will be yet another historic showdown between the courts, the president, and Congress.

--Thinkprogress:
Hidden inside the Military Commissions Act were measures designed to let Bush off the hook for violations of Geneva, most prominently US Codes, Title 18, Section 2441, which make violations resulting in death punishable by death.
§ 2441. War crimes

(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
That Bush insisted upon those changes seems to me evidence that he was and remains in violation of them. Typical of his ilk and his endemically criminal party, he has sought yet again to re-write the laws. It is bad enough that Bush presumes to be above the law, he exempts himself from them retro-actively. This --from a monster who pokes fun at Texas inmates awaiting death in a Texas gulag, perhaps the model on which the CIA's gulag archipelago is premised.

Congress ought not to have abrogated any portion of powers delegated only to Congress by the Constitution. Members of congress supporting Bush are not merely misguided, they have been abused and/or intimidated. They have abrogated their responsibilities to the people and the Constitution. These attempts to white wash Bush crimes retroactively are transparent, cynical, contemptuous of the rule of law, and unconstitutional.

As I write this Chuck Hagel is deploring the fact that America's political leadership has lost the confidence of the American people. I am appalled that he has just now gotten that message. Clearly, the Congress has sold out the American people and the people know that to be the case. The people are utterly without competent leadership. The government of the US is a gang of thugs and should be treated as such. It should be overthrown and replaced by a government free of the MIC, the corporate media, the CIA, and the troglodyte thugs of the Skull and Bones best likened to an infestation of Texas cockroaches. Down with this government. Down with this administration. Down with this Congressional leadership! Down with this gang of venal kiss ups to Bush.

I take no pleasure or pride when I say that I have been writing about this since Afghanistan when it was clear that "detainees" were not accorded the protections of Geneva and, later, when the war on Iraq itself is a war crime in violation of the Nuremberg Principles. Over a year ago, Amnesty International called for the Prosecution of George W Bush for War Crimes
The past five years have seen the USA engage in systematic violations of international law, with a distressing impact on thousands of detainees and their families. Human rights violations have included:
  • Secret detention
  • Enforced disappearance
  • Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
  • Outrages upon personal dignity, including humiliating treatment
  • Denial and restriction of habeas corpus
  • Indefinite detention without charge or trial
  • Prolonged incommunicado detention
  • Arbitrary detention
  • Unfair trial procedures
The Congress and the Bush "Presidency", more accurately described as "occupancy", have simply sold us down the river. If there is any good news it is that attempts to rewrite Geneva themselves may violate Geneva to which the US is still bound. Despite the worst efforts of both Bush and the kiss up Congress, Bush may actually face trial for having committed "capital" war crimes in Iraq. The actions of congress itself violates Geneva and are, likewise, punishable by death.

Thanks to the boycott of this story by the MSM, you may have to refer to the Congressional record itself to stay informed. Even so, there is, at least, some outrage to this silent and under-reported coup d'etat, this stealth subversion of the rule of law. Two lawsuits were filed before the legislation was signed .
The new legislation, passed a week ago Friday, bars judges from hearing detainee lawsuits. Instead, it sets up a much more limited appeals process for detainees who are seeking to challenge their designation as an enemy combatant or to challenge a war crimes conviction by a military commission.
One suit was filed on behalf of Majid Khan, one of the 14 so-called high value Al Qaeda suspects recently transferred from secret Central Intelligence Agency prisons to the terrorist detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The other was filed on behalf of 25 detainees being held among some 500 men at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan.
It remains to be seen whether Bush's re-write of the law will bar these lawsuits. Because the MSM has apparently boycotted the story, it is has been difficult to mobilize public opinion. Bush meanwhile continues to dominate the news with purple rhetoric about his "desperate need to question detainees". My response is simply this: the Bush administration has wasted precious time and resources torturing people who most certainly have no knowledge of al Qaeda --a CIA asset. Bush calls "torture" one of the most "vital tools" in the War on Terror.

That, of course, is nonsense. There is no data whatsoever to support that position. None! On the contrary, numerous studies support the opposite view that torture and coercion are among the least effective measures and counter-productive. Tortured people will simply say anything to stop the pain. No information obtained by torture can be relied upon. It's use has inflamed world opinion against us even as it has made the threat of terrorism worse!  I will debate George W. Bush on that point anytime, anywhere, including main street at high noon! Bush is dead wrong, stupid, and perverted! I am right!
KABUL, Afghanistan - Sixteen Afghans and one Iranian released from years in captivity at Guantánamo Bay prison arrived in Afghanistan on Thursday, an Afghan official said, maintaining that "most" of the detainees had been falsely accused.
The 16 Afghans appeared at a news conference alongside Sibghatullah Mujaddedi, head of Afghanistan's reconciliation commission, which assists with the release of detainees from the American detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and the U.S. prison at the Bagram military base north of Kabul.
Mejadedi said many of the detainees, who are now free, had served up to four years in Guantánamo. He said "most" of the prisoners were innocent and had been turned in to the U.S. military by other Afghans because of personal disputes.

"For four years they put me in jail in Cuba for nothing," said Shah, a doctor from the eastern province of Paktia whose hands shook from nervousness when he spoke.
"All these people (the other prisoners) and all those Afghans still in Cuba, they are innocent," he told reporters. "All were arrested because of false reports, and the Americans, without investigating, they arrested innocent people and put them in jail for a long time."

Another former prisoner, 20-year-old Habib Rahman, said he was arrested because he had a weapon in his home.
"They told me, 'You are against us, you are anti-American and anti-government and you are fighting with us,'" said Rahman. "At that time in our area everyone had weapons. I was innocent and I hadn't participated in any fighting."
Rahman said that he was treated harshly at Guantánamo, and was once kept awake for 38 hours while being questioned about ties to terrorists.
"The last time they tortured me like that was four months ago," he said. "They were kicking us all the time, beating us with their hands."

--17 Falsely Accused Guantanamo Detainees Returned to Afghanistan
Rahman now 20, was taken to Guantánamo when he was only sixteen. Many Gitmo detainees were simply sold into captivity by Afghan warlords.
Bounties ranged from $3,000 to $25,000, the detainees testified during military tribunals, according to transcripts the U.S. government gave The Associated Press to comply with a Freedom of Information lawsuit.
A former CIA intelligence officer who helped lead the search for Osama bin Laden told AP the accounts sounded legitimate because U.S. allies regularly got money to help catch Taliban and al-Qaida fighters. Gary Schroen said he took a suitcase of $3 million in cash into Afghanistan himself to help supply and win over warlords to fight for U.S. Special Forces.
Via the Freedom of Information Act, the ACLU has acquired abundant documention about how innocent people are tortured by the US. Sadly, this information is still ignored, despite the publicity, despite the outrage, despite the revelations about global "rendition". From Thinkprogress:
President Bush has consistently touted the U.S. detention facility in Guantánamo Bay as a "model prison," saying the American people should "take great pride" in the facility.
But a sworn statement by Marine Sgt. Heather Cerveny paints an entirely different picture. Cerveny has described how "she met several Navy prison guards at a club on the base where, over drinks, they described harsh physical abuse" of Gitmo detainees. The guards alledgedly told Cerveny of practices including "hitting the detainee's head into the cell door" and "punching [them] in the face." The Pentagon Inspector General today announced a new investigation into the claims.
Cerveny gave her first public comments on her charges last night to ABC News. You can read Cerveny's affidavit to the Pentagon Inspector General here (pdf).
US officials persist in characterizing the US as a nation of laws, though we behave lawlessly. In fact, in the absence of Geneva and Nuremberg, the US has become, under Bush, a rogue nation, in fact, the world's biggest terrorist organization. Or, as the French would put it, Les Etat-Unis sont le plus grande terroriste!

Two expert United Nations bodies - the Committee against Torture and the Human Rights Committee - told the US government that secret detentions violated the USA's international treaty obligations. In effect, the President was rejecting the conclusions of these UN bodies, as well as admitting that the USA had resorted to enforced disappearance, a crime under international law.

The response of the US administration to the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruling has been even more shocking but not sufficiently so to nudge Congress into calling the executive to account for "war on terror" abuses. Indeed, President Bush's defense of the CIA's program of secret detention and "alternative" interrogation techniques policy, which he said had been called into question by the Hamdan ruling and therefore needed congressional approval, showed an administration in assertively unapologetic mood.
One can trace the administration's manipulation of the law to fit its policy.

According to a document recently issued by the Director of National Intelligence, after "high-value" detainee Abu Zubaydah was captured in Pakistan in March 2002 and handed over to the USA, he refused to cooperate with his US interrogators. In response, the CIA designed a new "interrogation program" and "sought and obtained legal guidance from the Department of Justice that none of the new procedures violated the US statutes prohibiting torture."

Any such claim of legality rings hollow. For until the Detainee Treatment Act was passed in December 2005 (in the face of executive opposition), Justice Department lawyers took the position that because of the reservation attached to the USA's ratification of the Convention against Torture in 1994, the USA had no treaty obligation on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment with respect to foreign nationals held in US custody overseas.

In August 2002, the Justice Department provided legal advice in a memo which only came to light in after the Abu Ghraib torture revelations. The memo was reportedly in response to a CIA request for legal protections for its interrogators. Among other things, it stated that interrogators could "cause a great deal of pain before crossing the threshold to torture". It said that there was a "significant range of acts" that might constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment but which might not rise to the level of "torture" prosecutable under US laws.

Congress may rewrite 2441, a Federal statute, but it is hoped that such a rewrite be powerless to save Bush retro-actively. Government simply making up the rules as it goes along is no government at all. At worst, it's tyranny, at best chaos. Laws themselves become meaningless, the "rule of law" absurd. Geneva, to which the US is still signatory, is not a Chinese menu from which an executive can merely pick and choose. Congress, in a blatant, transparent attempt to get Bush off the hook for capital crimes by trying an "end run" around Geneva, will find itself in dangerous violation.

Visualize a day when Bush is taken cuffed, shackled and frog marched to a black helicopter which will whisk him away to the Hague. There he will experience the meaning of justice. He will learn that he is not above the law. He will learn that he is mortal. He will pay the price for his arrogant venality, the mass murders that he ordered, the lies that he told. He will learn, too late to save himself, the penalty for having deliberately defrauded the nations of the world.

An update from Singularity. It's about why the Congress has failed America. Though it supposedly has a Democratic majority, the Congress has kissed Bush's sorry ass:
Again, look at the facts, the reality: Bush wants Congressional approval of his illegal surveillance; he gets it. Bush wants to launch spy satellites against the American people; he does it. Bush wants concentration camps and secret prisons with torture; he's got them. Bush wants to escalate a ruinous, murderous, unpopular war; he does it. He wants to declare people "enemy combatants" and imprison them indefinitely; he does it. Bush's spokesmen openly claim that the laws passed by the people's representatives are "just advisory" and "the president can still do whatever he wants to do," and there is no outcry, no action, no defense of the Republic against this overthrow of the Constitution.

Who could look at this reality and declare that the United States is still a republic, in any genuine form? Who could see this and deny that the nation is now an authoritarian state under an "elected" dictator?

--Chris Floyd, Singularity
This update from Les Enrages:
It's important to remember that SCOTUS did indeed rule against Lincoln's suspension of habeas. In consideration of that, I came up with this (hopefully) interesting (perhaps) legal argument:
  • The legislature's attempt to suspend the Great Writ through the Military Commissions Act was unconstitutional on its face - defying Article I, section 9. There is a procedure for amending the constitution, (Article V), and it was never attempted. BTW, are the Senators and Congresspersons sent to Washington content with having NO familiarity with the document defining their responsibilities? (and limiting their authority, BTW) Are their constituents?
  • The Supreme Court shirked its duty when they shamefully declined to even hear a case testing the law back in April, simultaneously giving the finger to the Constitution, their oath of office, and the American public.
  • Normally when a law is passed, if it hasn't yet been ruled unconstitutional it still has legal weight until it is considered by the Supremes. IOW, it is in the interim period 'the law of the land.' You can't be brought to court later for having followed the law prior to the high court's ruling because you were acting in good faith, and the fact that the law is stricken from the books later shouldn't put you in jeopardy. I think this is as it should be.
  • But what if the Supreme court has already ruled on constitutionality, prior even to the passage of the bill? Shouldn't that change things? In the instance of the suspension of habeas, there is a standing ruling of its unconstitutionality, from Lincoln's time. The alleged suspension is therefore a legal nullity, a bit of shadow-puppet theater, a farce. It is "a tale told by an idiot, all full of wind and fury and signifying NOTHING." I know that quote is well out of its original Shakespearian context, but you get my point.
  • It seems to me that in this particular instance there are a number of federal officials, in the military, the Justice Department, and even in the White House who could be facing multiple kidnapping charges. The idea that they were acting in good faith is absurd on its face.
I think a forceful lawyer could make a damn good case of it anyway. But it is not likely to happen.
--Les Enrages


Saturday, September 22, 2007

Bush's "Final Solution" or Why Bush Will Nuke Iran

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Bush's plan for a "Final Solution" were revealed by Bush himself in off the cuff remarks that he made to former French President Jacques Chirac. Bush's speeches have always been "apocalyptic". It's not surprising that Bush would find in biblical "prophecy" a role that in his delusional state, he sees himself playing out. Unlike Hitler's Final Solution, the Bush version is lifted right out of the Old and the New Testaments. It's an apocalyptic vision of a final battle, a "final solution" in the Middle East.

Of course it's all psychotic but tell that to Bush and his religious minions who accept it as "the" Gospel. Don't forget --Bush has threatened the hard rain of nukes to trigger it all.
Added: Sep 19th, 2007 6:30 AM

In 2003, University of Lausanne theology professor Thomas Römer received a telephone call from the Elysée. Jacques Chirac's advisers wanted to know more about Gog and Magog ... two mysterious names pronounced by George W. Bush while he was attempting to convince France to enter the war in Iraq at his side. In its September edition, the University of Lausanne's review, Allez savoir, reveals this story that could seem fantastic did it not, as Allez savoir's Editor-in-Chief Jocelyn Rochat emphasizes, reveal the religious underpinnings of Bush's policy.

Apocalyptic prophecy: Bush would have declared to Chirac that Gog and Magog were at work in the Middle East and that the Biblical prophecies were in the process of being fulfilled. That was several weeks before the intervention in Iraq. The French president, to whom the names of Gog and Magog meant nothing, was stupefied.

In Allez savoir, Thomas Römer details: Gog and Magog are two creatures who appear in Genesis, and especially in the most arcane chapters of the Old Testament Book of Ezekiel. An apocalyptic prophecy of a global army giving final battle in Israel.

"This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people's enemies before a New Age begins," continues Thomas Römer.

According to him, George W. Bush is not the first to look for an incarnation of Gog and Magog on earth. Ronald Reagan had deemed that the cold war and the atomic bomb's existence made Ezekiel's prophecy realizable....

If today the University of Lausanne reveals these explanations Thomas Römer supplied to Jacques Chirac, it's because the latter has left the Elysée. For Jocelyn Rochat, this little international policy professional secret raises a vast question: our lack of religious education, our ignorance of Scriptures at a time when religious foundations are far more crucial than we'd like to believe in political and military decisions. Religion is not confined to the private sphere, Jocelyn Rochat concludes. A parameter to take into account "at the risk of no longer understanding the way the world works today."

A Little Scoop on Bush, Chirac, Gog, Magog, and the End of the World

--A Little Scoop on Bush, Chirac, God, Gog and Magog, Jacques Sterchi, Rue89 in partnership with La Liberté, Fribourg
What does all this mean? Bush either fancies himself the Messiah or, possibly, Satan Incarnate whose mission is to deceive all the nations of the world to begin the last war --Armageddon, a Final Solution.

It is not unusual for those suffering profound psychosis to cast themselves in "biblical" roles. Bush will play out a script in which he uses the peoples of the world as pawns. Based upon his remarks to Chirac, we may reasonably conclude that his script is found in Revelation 20:1-10
And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time. I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection.

Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth--Gog and Magog--to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them.

And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

--Revelation 20:1-10
Bush has said that he will not be "cowed" by international pressures and opinions denouncing his plans to wage pre-emptive, nuclear war on Iran. Certainly Bush has made the bald faced lie his modus operandi. Nevertheless, when Bush often tells the truth inadvertently, it always lays bare a murderous cretin, contemptuous of intelligence, desirous of absolute power for the ego strokes it gets him. Such moments include the ridicule he heaped upon Karla Faye Tucker, awaiting death by injection in a cell on death row deep inside the gulag state of Texas. Such moments include his revelatory quip: "I just won the trifecta!" Equally repugnant his "plans" for America: "This would be a whole lot easier if this was a dictatorship...jest as long as I'm the dictator!"
I am quite certain that what is denied in public is discussed in private. What is obvious to anyone certainly cannot be a mystery to the elites. Now we might imagine it's Nero all over again, at least the Nero of popular myth who "fiddled while Rome burned". But these grey-faced, grey-suited, somber, soured souls are not hedonists nor are they acting like Hitler's cronies in the Berlin bunker. They aren't looking to solutions and they aren't going out with one last party. To my mind that leaves only one possible scenario.

They know what's coming and they don't care because they don't intend for most of us to survive. Reduce the population by 90-95% and none of this makes any difference. There's plenty of oil, plenty of places on the planet to move to, even if the coastlines of the continents are under water. Things start to look much different if you imagine a world of at most a few hundred million. Quite honestly, as far as I can see, that's the only future in which what's going down right now can end well for anyone.

In that context the aggregation of wealth and power become paramount. It's like the back end of a poker tournament. Wars become very useful in a variety of ways. They help the population reduction. They distract the masses. They provide tangible "enemies" while masking the common enemy. They inure people to all sorts of cruelty and inhumanity. And they garner chips so that the winners have more clout in the competition between elites after the die-off begins.

If I were a member of the elites, and possessed that sense of innate superiority and lack of compassion and morality that mark those who are visible members, it's what I'd do. It just makes sense. And it's already begun in Africa and elsewhere.

Of course, it's totally unnecessary, but the alternatives are as unthinkable to the elites as this idea is to most of us. There is a path to a sustainable economy but it involves massive decentralization and localization. It collapses the corporations, destroys the elites, and creates a world in which there are neither rich nor poor. It's what some of us call the better world, Possible. But it's anathema to fat cats and the power brokers. ...

--Len Harrison

It's easy enough to believe its true. It's in Bush's make up. Bush does tell the truth inadvertently and when he does so, it reveals hideous truths about the dark soul he sold long, long ago. About, Iran, we may believe the indications that have now put the leaders of Europe on quiet alert. Bush plans a nuclear strike on Iran.

Everything in its place. Bush, upon his whim and order, may simply drop the nukes on Iran. We may awaken one day to the aftermath of nuclear holocaust. We might brace ourselves for yet another holocaust as a result.

Bush may seem incomprehensible to sane people but that's because Bush is insane. If you suspend normal modes of thought and, for a moment, indulge the psychotic fantasies that obviously rule Bush's life, his modus operandi all begins to make sense.

Friday, September 21, 2007

George W. Bush Tries to Avoid the Death Penalty

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Bush is trying to pardon himself of horrible war crimes --a desperate attempt to escape the death penalty for which he is subject under US Criminal Codes.

Bush is trying to ram through Congress legislation that will pardon him and his criminal gang of thugs for the felonies that they have already committed ---torture and murder! His action to pardon himself is proof of his guilt.
§ 2441. War crimes

(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

It is not only the civilian dead --well over a million in Iraq alone --for which Bush may be held to account. It is also the campaign of torture carried out in a gulag Archipelago from Iraq to Eastern Europe. There is no evidence that these heinous acts by the US have resulted in any reliable information about a war of terrorism in which most of the terror is perpetrated by Bush.

The US "President" is a pervert, whose administration has made terrorism worse as did the horrific administration of Ronald Reagan. [See: Terrorism is Always Worse Under GOP Regimes]

The American people simply must face a horrible reality. George W. Bush rules by decree and eschews the very rule of law. Bush has undermined every democratic principle. He has waged a campaign of war crimes, state sponsored murder, and torture not seen since the Third Reich. The lessons of history are found in the transcripts of the Nuremberg Trials. Justice Robert Jackson, depicted above, had hoped that the Nuremberg would make future war crimes impossible within the framework of international law. He could not have imagined that his own country would one day be among the worst offenders.

If the rule of law means anything in the US, then this legislation must not be allowed to pass. But given Congress' cowardly denunciation of Moveon.org for practicing nothing more than Constitutionally guaranteed free speech, I am not optimistic. Rather, Congress, Democrats including, will kiss Bush sorry ass and it, in a cowardly act of betrayal, it will tell the American people that Bush is above the law while everyone else is expected to pay him obeisance.

This legislation will consign "the rule of law" to oblivion. Bush will have consolidated his dictatorial power. He will never be held to account for some of the most heinous crimes ever committed on this planet. He will have joined a rogue's gallery of war criminals in the hall of infamy. America R.I.P.

History Will Not Absolve Us: Leaked Red Cross report sets up Bush team for international war-crimes trial

Nat Hentoff

Global Research, September 20, 2007
Village Voice - 2007-08-28


If and when there's the equivalent of an international Nuremberg trial for the American perpetrators of crimes against humanity in Guantánamo, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the CIA's secret prisons, there will be mounds of evidence available from documented international reports by human-rights organizations, including an arm of the European parliament-as well as such deeply footnoted books as Stephen Grey's Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program (St. Martin's Press) and Charlie Savage's just-published Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy (Little, Brown).


While the Democratic Congress has yet to begin a serious investigation into what many European legislators already know about American war crimes, a particularly telling report by the International Committee of the Red Cross has been leaked that would surely figure prominently in such a potential Nuremberg trial. The Red Cross itself is bound to public silence concerning the results of its human-rights probes of prisons around the world-or else governments wouldn't let them in. ...

I urge the creation of a broad based coalition consisting of the American Civil Liberties Union, Moveon.org, the 911 truth movement and other groups independent of both major political parties. It's goal should be nothing less than bringing to justice George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the other architects of Bush's war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I am beginning to feel guilty for having tipped Bush off. As I recall, I wrote about his culpability for capital crimes shortly after the "Shock and Awe" campaign in which some 30,000 civilians died. Bush's order thus makes his culpable for the civilian deaths resulting.

Try Bush for war crimes, urges US combat veteran

Mark Dodd | September 05, 2007

GEORGE W. Bush should be tried as a war criminal for his role in launching the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the Howard Government is culpable for supporting him, a US anti-war activist claims.

The US President and John Howard were committed to a failing war that was being waged for oil and economic motives, former US marine and two-time combat tour veteran Matt Howard said in Sydney yesterday.

The anti-war movement was growing in the US, and veterans had a responsibility to tell the truth about what was happening in Iraq, Mr Howard, 26, told a news conference at the Alternative APEC Centre in Sydney's Trades Hall.

The Prime Minister's support for the war provided "political cover" to Mr Bush's "dangerous political agenda", said Matt Howard.

His message on behalf of the Iraq Veterans Against the War was timed to coincide with the arrival in Sydney of Mr Bush for the APEC summit.

Tactically, Australia's 900-strong military contribution in Iraq was so small it made no difference compared with the 160,000 US troops there, but politically it was indispensable for the Bush White House, Matt Howard said.

"We've destroyed Iraq and it's been done in our name, and the Australian Government is involved," he said.

"In 2003, I illegally invaded Iraq. We left a swath of destruction all the way from Basra to Baghdad."

Mr Bush should be tried for crimes against humanity over the killing of the tens of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children who were victims of the war, Mr Howard said.

Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said the Government was "entirely comfortable" with Britain's decision to withdraw its troops from their base in the southern city of Basra and redeploy them in the nearby airport.
We might also recall Bush's callous reaction to the impending execution of Karla Faye Tucker.
In pondering the relationship between governors and the prisoners over whom they have power of life and death, I find myself remembering the single worst thing I ever heard about President Bush. It was something Bush, then governor of Texas, said to a reporter during his first presidential campaign. The reporter in question was Tucker Carlson—hardly a hostile figure—and Carlson reported it in Talk magazine in 1999. It was about Karla Faye Tucker, a convicted murderer whose execution Bush, as governor, had refused to stay. Here is what Carlson wrote (as quoted in National Review, another source hardly known to be hostile toward Republicans):

In the week before [Karla Faye Tucker's] execution, Bush says, Bianca Jagger and a number of other protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask.

Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them," he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with [Tucker], though. He asked her real difficult questions, like 'What would you say to Governor Bush?' "

"What was her answer?" I wonder.

"Please," Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "don't kill me."

The ugliness of a sitting governor mocking a prisoner's plea to spare her life horrified Carlson, especially after he looked up the transcript of Karla Faye Tucker's appearance on Larry King Live and discovered that nowhere did it show the prisoner asking Bush to stay the execution. It horrified a lot of other conservative journalists, too, including George Will, Richard Brookhiser, and the editorial page of the Manchester Union Leader in New Hampshire.

--Slate, Bush's Tookie


Everything We've Been Told Is a Lie!

The US Senate has gone on record against free speech, condemning the citizen's organization Moveon.org for criticizing Gen. Petraeus who has assumed PR duties for the White House. Petraeus' mission has more to do with papering over both Bush's failed policies and war crimes than providing Congress a clear and unbiased assessment. When a General ceases to be a general to become an errand boy for a war criminal, he deserves what he gets. It was not long ago that I wrote that America's future depends upon whether or not the general is an honest man. That issue has been decided!
As Eleanor Clift points out, the GOP has pulled out and dusted off a typical GOP strategem, a tired tactic that has, nevertheless, worked miracles for them in the past. Bush, says Clift, will keep just enough troops in Iraq "...to provide a surface illusion of progress." Bush will leave it to the Democrats to pull out and cut off support for whatever regime is in place. It will not matter to the GOP that it will fall because it will never have been legitimate. The GOP will blame "weak-kneed, weak on defense" Democrats for the inevitable fall of an illegitimate puppet regime.

--America's Fate Depends Upon Whether Gen. Petraeus is an Honest Man

How dare the US Senate condemn the Moveon.org for stating an opinion to which its members have a right. It's called freedom of speech. Moveon has a right to be wrong --but they also have a right to be right and they most certainly are on this issue. It is the US Senate --Democrats included --who are wrong and dead wrong. The Democratic betrayal on this issue is the unkindest cut!

Everyone voting for this un-American resolution should resign along with the war criminal that dares to occupy the Oval Office. He is the very worst "President" in American history and not worthy of the title. How dare the general enter the halls of Congress for the purpose of supporting Bush's commission of a war crime!!

How dare the Senate impugn the wishes of a grass roots organization which, at least, listens to its constituency --something the US Senate should try for a change.

What the US Senate ought to learn is that freedom of speech is not granted by government. We have it! Governments serve at our pleasure. At the moment some 80 percent of us are sorely pissed!

Governments are legitimate only to the extent that they recognize our freedom. Instead of passing this stupid, un-American resolution, the Congress should have taken a strong stand against the usurper on PA avenue!

Our elected leaders have but one job --and they consistently blow it. That job is the preservation of our freedoms, our Constitutional rights. Our elected leaders consistently behave as if we are a subject people who should kowtow to them and put up with their rest room antics, their stupidity, their utter failure to represent the needs of this nation. The Democrats in Congress should have filibustered his war and every spending bill that enables it. Our "elected" leaders have failed us. They have kowtowed and kissed up to a would be dictator at every step of the way.

This Congress sucks! The bankrupt government of the US sucks! The Washington Bureaucracy is a fraud! The Military/Industrial Complex is a scam! The lobbyists who bought and paid for our government are fascist traitors.

This Congress has enabled Bush's every crime, his every lie, his every fraud.

If the Congress, indeed, this government, will not serve the people, if they will not do their ONLY Constitutional duty, then its time for them to go. Every Senator voting for this un-American resolution should resign.
The Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly passed a measure condemning MoveOn.org for a newspaper ad it ran last week attacking Gen. David Petraeus. The move came as President Bush accused Democrats of cowering to the liberal political action group.

The measure passed in a 72-25 vote, with none of the Democratic presidential candidates supporting it. Sponsored by Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn, never one to shy away from forcing Democrats to go on record on politically sticky issues, the amendment to the defense authorization bill did win the backing of 23 Democrats.
It is correctly pointed out that Congress has proven itself impotent to pass a resolution condemning our ongoing and heinous war crime in Iraq but had no problem attacking the very freedoms that we are supposed to be defending.

General Petraeus is not above the vicissitudes of public opinion. His is a public job whether he likes it or not. It was Harry Truman who said, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the Kitchen!" Those would betrayus, those will not tell the truth for political reasons should consider finding another line of work. I suggest he and the members of Congress --Democrats included --who voted for this cowardly cop out hit the road. So long and don't let the door hit you in your sorry asses on your way out.



The Grand Ol' Party of Liars and Perverts
There was a war man named Petraeus
Whose named rhymed well with Betrayus
When he lied to the people
He fell off the steeple
Of esteem reserved by some for ol' Zeus

Additional resources







Why Conservatives Hate America




Spread the word:

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine