Karl Rove is set to leave the White House at the end of August, and the news asks more questions than it answers. I don't really understand it, and I don't really like it, although I feel like I should like it. I've been waiting for this guy to be out for five years, but I always hoped it would be under some cloud of suspicion, or as the result of one of his many scandals. This farewell is downright joyful, and the guy (according to Bush et al) is set to go down as some sort of national hero.
Now I know that Bush would say he was a hero no matter the circumstances. Witness Rumsfeld and all the other incompetents who WERE forced out in shame, only to be immortalized by a wonderful speech from Bush. But this departure really does smack to me of Rove simply realizing that there is nothing more that needs to be done with this Presidency. I mean, the guy has less than 18 months left in office, which pretty much means that he can't be impeached. It's just too late, unless somebody finds a 12-year-old boy handcuffed and ball gagged in one of the Lincoln bedroom closets. If the scandals thus far haven't been enough to finish him, nothing will be.
Likewise, it has become pretty clear that we will still be in Iraq when Bush leaves office. If the Democrats haven't sacked up and made the move thus far, it is unlikely they will be able to before they get a Democratic President.
Every other issue on the table has clearly already been won or lost. Immigration is not getting fixed before Jan 09, the tax breaks aren't getting repealed, social security will still be broken, gay marriage will still be illegal, abortion will still be legal, etc, etc, etc.
So Rove leaves with a bit of a victorious smirk on his fat, balding face. Fuck that guy, I hope he has a heart attack and dies tomorrow. He's in a neck and neck race with Cheney for evilest guy in the country.
Showing posts with label bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bush. Show all posts
Monday, August 13, 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007
The very thought of a Gonzales Perjury investigation makes my stomach churn
I should have been ecstatic over the prospect of a perjury investigation into Alberto Gonzales like the one proposed in this article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070726/congress-gonzales/
Instead I am lukewarm at best, and deep down I am dreading it because I already know nothing will ever come of it. The problem is that we've let these obvious liars and villains reach such strongholds of power, they can't be investigated or stopped by any traditional means.
For example, Congress has issued Contempt of Court citations for Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers, two of Bush's top political aides, for their refusal to even APPEAR to testify with regard to the politically motivated firings at the Justice Department. That doesn't matter, though, because that same justice department has already said they will refuse to enforce the citations. So the ones we are trying to investigate are the same ones whose help we need to execute an investigation. How well is this going to work?
In a similar way, how are we going to try Alberto Gonzales for perjury? The guy is the top of the heap as far as prosecutions are concerned. He is supposed to be the most gung-ho prosecutor in the entire country, yet now he is blatantly violating the laws in a ridiculous effort to defend the leader of the free world. What are we supposed to do?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070726/congress-gonzales/
Instead I am lukewarm at best, and deep down I am dreading it because I already know nothing will ever come of it. The problem is that we've let these obvious liars and villains reach such strongholds of power, they can't be investigated or stopped by any traditional means.
For example, Congress has issued Contempt of Court citations for Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers, two of Bush's top political aides, for their refusal to even APPEAR to testify with regard to the politically motivated firings at the Justice Department. That doesn't matter, though, because that same justice department has already said they will refuse to enforce the citations. So the ones we are trying to investigate are the same ones whose help we need to execute an investigation. How well is this going to work?
In a similar way, how are we going to try Alberto Gonzales for perjury? The guy is the top of the heap as far as prosecutions are concerned. He is supposed to be the most gung-ho prosecutor in the entire country, yet now he is blatantly violating the laws in a ridiculous effort to defend the leader of the free world. What are we supposed to do?
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
The press has failed us...
I saw Bush today say that "The same people bombing innocent people in Iraq are the ones who attacked us on 9/11". Now, that is bullshit, not to put too fine a point on it. Two weeks ago, Bush admitted that Al Qaeda accounts for less than a quarter of the violence and fighters in Iraq. And even those fighters don't work for Osama bin Laden, they are Al Qaeda in name only. But here's the thing -- Nobody pointed that out to Bush. The reporters present at the time just sat there and nodded like idiots. Nobody said anything. If nobody is going to say anything, OF COURSE he's just going to keep spouting that unadulterated bullshit. It is totally absurd. Fuck the press, fuck the government, they are in this together as far as I am concerned. What happened to the muckraking, take no shit, call everyone's bullshit of journalists past. Ed Murrow, we hardly knew ye...
Monday, July 16, 2007
Palestine...Lost in the shadow of Iraq, but still with lessons for us.
I just saw this really interesting guy named Dennis Ross on Charlie Rose. He's an author and a think tank guy on the middle east. He made some interesting statements about the elections in 2005 (the ones in which Hammas took power, and directly after which the world cut off foreign aid to the region). This guy claimed that those elections should never have taken place, because Hammas refused to abide by the election criteria established during the previous elections in 1996. Apparently, the Bush administration pushed for these elections to take place anyways, and were the first to condemn them when Hammas won power.
There is an interesting parallel here between the kind of faith-based decision making that Ross describes, and the kind of faith-based decision making that has gotten us into such incredible trouble in Iraq. That is, Bush pushed for elections in Palestine because he had faith that free elections were a prescriptive wunderkind that would solve problems in any context. Now, from his own janky election victory, he should have known categorically this was not true. At least as importantly, he should have seen that with Fatah (the party opposed to Hammas in those elections) in shambles at the time, the better organization and message discipline of Hammas would allow them to triumph in spite of being in fact a minority party. After that happened, Bush (and much of the democratic world) was left in the awkward position of opposing a duly elected democratic regime, because of human rights violations and explicitly religious values.
Similarly, in Iraq, faith based decision making has gotten us in trouble across the board. We had faith that Iraqis cared more about freedom than they did about religion. To put it another way, we had faith that Iraqis cared more about being Iraqis than they did about being Sunni or Shia Muslims.
We also had too much faith in the superiority of US troops and firepower. My best friend is a US Marine, and I have as much respect for their capability as anyone, but they were tasked to use less than a quarter million troops to pacify a nation of more than twenty million. And to do so on that nation's home turf, more than a quarter world away from home. There simply aren't enough bodies to occupy that much space. US troops can achieve any specific tactical objective, but they cannot be present in the entire country at once. It's like trying to sop up twenty gallons of liquid with a single rag. There's no question the rag can absorb water, but at the same time, there's no question there is more liquid than a single rag can absorb.
At the core, the Bush administration is guilty of the same faith based error as the general in the Kubrick film "Full Metal Jacket". The general confronts Joker wearing ambivalent imagery on his uniform, and says that the US must prevail in Vietman because "Inside of every Gook there is a red-blooded American trying to get out." Replace "Gook" with "Iraqi" (or with "Towelhead", if the slur must stick), and you have a pretty accurate description of the Bush attitude towards the middle east. We are finding out, to our detriment, just like to the film's General, that this is simply not the case. Whether Palestine, Iraq, or anywhere else in the Middle East, Muslims are simply, categorically, and finally different than us. They care about different things, they live in different ways. The only way they are like us is that they are willing to fight and die for their families and their beliefs.
There is an interesting parallel here between the kind of faith-based decision making that Ross describes, and the kind of faith-based decision making that has gotten us into such incredible trouble in Iraq. That is, Bush pushed for elections in Palestine because he had faith that free elections were a prescriptive wunderkind that would solve problems in any context. Now, from his own janky election victory, he should have known categorically this was not true. At least as importantly, he should have seen that with Fatah (the party opposed to Hammas in those elections) in shambles at the time, the better organization and message discipline of Hammas would allow them to triumph in spite of being in fact a minority party. After that happened, Bush (and much of the democratic world) was left in the awkward position of opposing a duly elected democratic regime, because of human rights violations and explicitly religious values.
Similarly, in Iraq, faith based decision making has gotten us in trouble across the board. We had faith that Iraqis cared more about freedom than they did about religion. To put it another way, we had faith that Iraqis cared more about being Iraqis than they did about being Sunni or Shia Muslims.
We also had too much faith in the superiority of US troops and firepower. My best friend is a US Marine, and I have as much respect for their capability as anyone, but they were tasked to use less than a quarter million troops to pacify a nation of more than twenty million. And to do so on that nation's home turf, more than a quarter world away from home. There simply aren't enough bodies to occupy that much space. US troops can achieve any specific tactical objective, but they cannot be present in the entire country at once. It's like trying to sop up twenty gallons of liquid with a single rag. There's no question the rag can absorb water, but at the same time, there's no question there is more liquid than a single rag can absorb.
At the core, the Bush administration is guilty of the same faith based error as the general in the Kubrick film "Full Metal Jacket". The general confronts Joker wearing ambivalent imagery on his uniform, and says that the US must prevail in Vietman because "Inside of every Gook there is a red-blooded American trying to get out." Replace "Gook" with "Iraqi" (or with "Towelhead", if the slur must stick), and you have a pretty accurate description of the Bush attitude towards the middle east. We are finding out, to our detriment, just like to the film's General, that this is simply not the case. Whether Palestine, Iraq, or anywhere else in the Middle East, Muslims are simply, categorically, and finally different than us. They care about different things, they live in different ways. The only way they are like us is that they are willing to fight and die for their families and their beliefs.
Friday, July 13, 2007
So many scandals its actually muddying the water
The Bush administration may have come up with a new tactic: Create so many scandals at once that none of them gets extreme coverage, and then claim that none of them are such a big deal, and wait for them to start dropping off the national radar. There's so many freaking scandals now that every time there's a new development in one of them, I kind of have to jog my memory of exactly what it was all about. It's really incredible how this guy can still be in office. I don't think he's gone more than a few weeks without a major scandal in months.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
What the hell does "Mixed Bag" even mean?
It never ceases to amaze me how Bush will take language that seems meant to describe a round of golf and apply it to the war in Iraq. Today he issued a progress report on Iraq that said the government there had made satisfactory progress on about half their benchmarks, and called the results there a "mixed bag". You know, a mixed bag, like "I hit a few birdies, a few too many bogies, I was in the rough a lot off the tee, but I putted pretty well." That's a mixed bag. "We quelled the resistance in Al-Anbar at the cost of hundreds of dead Americans and thousands of dead Iraqis, but Baghdad is still hostile despite the mass death there." That's not a mixed bag. That's an unmitigated disaster.
This administration's willingness to use rhetoric, and this President's ability to use his supposedly "simple" grasp of language to minimize problems is truly incredible. But what is really shocking is the way the mainstream press just reports this bullshit. Every single paper who reported this White House update as if it were factual in any way should be ashamed. In fact, the administration should not be allowed to report on the state of the war at all. It's like a parent telling a five year old to clean her room, and then taking her word that it's done instead of opening up the door and looking for themselves. Gee, I wonder if she's going to say she's made more progress than she really has.
What it is really like, though, is the Enron case. It's like during the trial, Enron issued an internal report saying that there was reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt. And then, in the middle of the trial, Enron's defense lawyers pulled out the report and said, "See, this report says there's doubt, so they can't be guilty." And then the jurors (played here by the media) said "Well, they must be right, look, it's right there in that report." People are such GD idiots.
This administration's willingness to use rhetoric, and this President's ability to use his supposedly "simple" grasp of language to minimize problems is truly incredible. But what is really shocking is the way the mainstream press just reports this bullshit. Every single paper who reported this White House update as if it were factual in any way should be ashamed. In fact, the administration should not be allowed to report on the state of the war at all. It's like a parent telling a five year old to clean her room, and then taking her word that it's done instead of opening up the door and looking for themselves. Gee, I wonder if she's going to say she's made more progress than she really has.
What it is really like, though, is the Enron case. It's like during the trial, Enron issued an internal report saying that there was reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt. And then, in the middle of the trial, Enron's defense lawyers pulled out the report and said, "See, this report says there's doubt, so they can't be guilty." And then the jurors (played here by the media) said "Well, they must be right, look, it's right there in that report." People are such GD idiots.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Scooter Libby gets what's coming to him
Bush did it. I knew it was coming, but this halfway bullshit doesn't fool me at all. Scooter Libby got a pardon, whether they call it that or not. He got two and a half years of his life back, and as for the fine? As for the loss of reputation? I'll bet anybody a million dollars that Scooter Libby doesn't have any trouble getting a job somewhere, and I'll bet he makes waaaay more than a quarter million dollars (the amount of his fine) in the next thirty months.
I actually don't have a problem with Scooter getting a pardon. In fact, Bush SHOULD have pardoned him, since Scooter was clearly doing exactly what Bush wanted. If he hadn't pardoned him, it would have been a supreme act of disloyalty. What I have a problem with is Bush pardoning him, in the context of Bush's unwavering support for tough sentences and mandatory minimums. I've written on this blog about the kid who got a DECADE in prison for having consensual sex with a fifteen year old girl when he was seventeen. Bush took a look at that case and decided not to intervene with a pardon. But now less than three years is too much for a guy who perjured himself to obfuscate the process by which this country was led into a war has resulted in thousands of deaths. Seems a little strange to me.
The question this raises is whether Scooter was, as I just heard someone so eloquently put it, a "designated defendant" for Bush and Cheney. It is interesting how quickly Libby changed his tune about putting Cheney on the stand in his trial. He just kind of took his lumps...almost as if he knew he was going to get off the hot seat when it came down to it.
So although Bush has the power to pardon anybody he wants, isn't it fair to say there's a conflict of interest here? The guy was supposed to go to prison for protecting Bush. Now Bush is pardoning him. So you know what? I think that's what they call a flaw in the system.
I actually don't have a problem with Scooter getting a pardon. In fact, Bush SHOULD have pardoned him, since Scooter was clearly doing exactly what Bush wanted. If he hadn't pardoned him, it would have been a supreme act of disloyalty. What I have a problem with is Bush pardoning him, in the context of Bush's unwavering support for tough sentences and mandatory minimums. I've written on this blog about the kid who got a DECADE in prison for having consensual sex with a fifteen year old girl when he was seventeen. Bush took a look at that case and decided not to intervene with a pardon. But now less than three years is too much for a guy who perjured himself to obfuscate the process by which this country was led into a war has resulted in thousands of deaths. Seems a little strange to me.
The question this raises is whether Scooter was, as I just heard someone so eloquently put it, a "designated defendant" for Bush and Cheney. It is interesting how quickly Libby changed his tune about putting Cheney on the stand in his trial. He just kind of took his lumps...almost as if he knew he was going to get off the hot seat when it came down to it.
So although Bush has the power to pardon anybody he wants, isn't it fair to say there's a conflict of interest here? The guy was supposed to go to prison for protecting Bush. Now Bush is pardoning him. So you know what? I think that's what they call a flaw in the system.
All the coverage in the world doesn't change policy
Washington Post has a profile of Bush today, and it crystallized something that had been nagging me for a while. There's no shortage of administration coverage out there. Quite the opposite, in fact. The problem is that every story I read diagnoses the same problem. It just diagnoses the same set of incorrect decisions and refusals the change, over and over and over. There is never a prescription for a set of concrete steps that would fix any of these problems.
Now by "these problems" I don't mean specific issues. There are plenty of articles and Op-Ed pieces on what to do about immigration, or the war in Iraq, Social Security, whatever. I mean what to do about the problem of the prospect of the next year and a half with a President that is an embarrassment and a danger to himself and others.
The article today on WaPost quotes some pundit as saying that Bush has "a knack for not looking in the rearview mirror". He reads some limited newspapers, but he doesn't really read about himself or his failings that much, and he considers the stubborn support of his positions a virtue.
The logical end of this line of thinking is that talking about how shitty Bush is will simply not have the desired effect. I want to see an article about what we, outside of the President's purview, can do to change policy. Basically, I want somebody to start talking about impeaching this guy. Why did Nancy Pelosi say that is off the table? What the fuck is her problem? I want this guy gone. Not in 18 months. Now.
Now by "these problems" I don't mean specific issues. There are plenty of articles and Op-Ed pieces on what to do about immigration, or the war in Iraq, Social Security, whatever. I mean what to do about the problem of the prospect of the next year and a half with a President that is an embarrassment and a danger to himself and others.
The article today on WaPost quotes some pundit as saying that Bush has "a knack for not looking in the rearview mirror". He reads some limited newspapers, but he doesn't really read about himself or his failings that much, and he considers the stubborn support of his positions a virtue.
The logical end of this line of thinking is that talking about how shitty Bush is will simply not have the desired effect. I want to see an article about what we, outside of the President's purview, can do to change policy. Basically, I want somebody to start talking about impeaching this guy. Why did Nancy Pelosi say that is off the table? What the fuck is her problem? I want this guy gone. Not in 18 months. Now.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Congress issues meaningless subpoena 5 years too late.
This article on HuffPost:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070627/eavesdropping-subpoenas/??
describes the subpoenas issued today by the congress for a whole slew of documents related to warrantless wiretapping, and other blatantly illegal programs employed by the administration during the war on terror.
First, I would point to the same insightful comment I posted a few days ago. Tying this up in the courts is, for the administration, just as good as killing the subpoenas. 2008 looms closer and closer, and all Bush et al has to do is get to the end of his term. It would take a fool to believe that these problems will follow him back to his ranch in Crawford, whence he will disappear in January '09, only to emerge for $250,000 speaking engagements in front of morons who worship him.
Goddamn I hate this guy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070627/eavesdropping-subpoenas/??
describes the subpoenas issued today by the congress for a whole slew of documents related to warrantless wiretapping, and other blatantly illegal programs employed by the administration during the war on terror.
First, I would point to the same insightful comment I posted a few days ago. Tying this up in the courts is, for the administration, just as good as killing the subpoenas. 2008 looms closer and closer, and all Bush et al has to do is get to the end of his term. It would take a fool to believe that these problems will follow him back to his ranch in Crawford, whence he will disappear in January '09, only to emerge for $250,000 speaking engagements in front of morons who worship him.
Goddamn I hate this guy.
The Washington Post on Cheney, Part 3
Here is the third part of that profile on Cheney:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/leaving_no_tracks/index.html
Finally, here is some of the muckraking that ought to have been the standard for this entire run of articles. This section focuses on Cheney's continued and viscous attempts to undercut environmental regulations for the benefit of industry, particularly the energy industry.
Like yesterday's article, there isn't a broad theme that I didn't already know existed. If you had asked me whether Cheney was Pro-Environment or Pro-business, I would have guessed the right side of the coin. But still, the details are enough to chill the blood.
Now, this is an issue that is near and dear to my heart. I'm a hugely Pro-Environment person, to give full disclosure. I believe that the degradation of the environment is the number one issue facing humanity today, and that a solution (or rather a comprehensive solution, involving countless small changes and fixes, in both regulation and personal behavior) is in the interests of EVERYONE. And if you're a farmer, or a fisherman, or a logger, who thinks your industry will suffer from increased regulation, too bad. You shouldn't have over-fished, clear-cut logged, or over-irrigated in the first place. You've been doing whatever you want for a hundred years, now it's time for Mother Nature to get some back.
To return to Cheney, I'd like to point out something about his tendency to "reach down" and talk directly to the people involved in the issues of interest. It's something for which he has been universally praised, and that's just ridiculous. Cheney called the 19th ranked person at the EPA, and left a message on her voice mail instructing her to "call the White House." That's not attention, that's intimidation.
What I mean, of course, is that what has been interpreted as Cheney "sinking his teeth" into an issue or some such bullshit, is Cheney going low enough on the totem pole to find people he can easily intimidate with his office, and people he can fire easily if they fail to respond to his intimidation.
And fire them he has. Over and over in the article, we see evidence of the Vice demanding his way, and demanding (and getting) resignations from people that disagreed with him. He abused his position by using it as a bully pulpit against people flustered and surprised at even receiving a call from the second most powerful man in the country.
To conclude, I place a ton of blame at the feet of the people who resigned instead of fought, and on the whole did so without a lot of clarity (or outright lies) about why they were resigning. One example is the head of the EPA, who said she was resigning for "Personal Reasons". Now she comes out for this article and says that it was actually because of the White House's behavior over environmental regulation.
Coming forward now, after it's too late to do anything except place blame on top of a large heap, is a cowardly, expedient thing to do. Where was her anger and her whistle-blowing when it would have made a difference? Then she just didn't want to be bothered with the heat that would have come down for her position. Now that the popular kids are saying what a bad guy Cheney is, she figures she'll jump on the pile.
It is this kind of cowardice that facilitates the kind of abuses described in this article. See lady, when you leave, they just put someone in your place who agrees with them. That's how we got in this shitty mess. All the people of principle (I'm talking to you Colin Powell) leave, and Bush/Cheney put talking heads in their place. It's pathetic.
To anyone left in the government with some principle: Ask yourselves why you got into government in the first place. Was it to protect the things you care about? This woman was the head of the EPA. Her career had nowhere else to go. Yet she saved face and, I assume, saved her "career" by resigning for "Personal Reasons" instead of stopping play and calling foul. That is a failure of the system, it is a failure of policy, and it is a failure of personal courage.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/leaving_no_tracks/index.html
Finally, here is some of the muckraking that ought to have been the standard for this entire run of articles. This section focuses on Cheney's continued and viscous attempts to undercut environmental regulations for the benefit of industry, particularly the energy industry.
Like yesterday's article, there isn't a broad theme that I didn't already know existed. If you had asked me whether Cheney was Pro-Environment or Pro-business, I would have guessed the right side of the coin. But still, the details are enough to chill the blood.
Now, this is an issue that is near and dear to my heart. I'm a hugely Pro-Environment person, to give full disclosure. I believe that the degradation of the environment is the number one issue facing humanity today, and that a solution (or rather a comprehensive solution, involving countless small changes and fixes, in both regulation and personal behavior) is in the interests of EVERYONE. And if you're a farmer, or a fisherman, or a logger, who thinks your industry will suffer from increased regulation, too bad. You shouldn't have over-fished, clear-cut logged, or over-irrigated in the first place. You've been doing whatever you want for a hundred years, now it's time for Mother Nature to get some back.
To return to Cheney, I'd like to point out something about his tendency to "reach down" and talk directly to the people involved in the issues of interest. It's something for which he has been universally praised, and that's just ridiculous. Cheney called the 19th ranked person at the EPA, and left a message on her voice mail instructing her to "call the White House." That's not attention, that's intimidation.
What I mean, of course, is that what has been interpreted as Cheney "sinking his teeth" into an issue or some such bullshit, is Cheney going low enough on the totem pole to find people he can easily intimidate with his office, and people he can fire easily if they fail to respond to his intimidation.
And fire them he has. Over and over in the article, we see evidence of the Vice demanding his way, and demanding (and getting) resignations from people that disagreed with him. He abused his position by using it as a bully pulpit against people flustered and surprised at even receiving a call from the second most powerful man in the country.
To conclude, I place a ton of blame at the feet of the people who resigned instead of fought, and on the whole did so without a lot of clarity (or outright lies) about why they were resigning. One example is the head of the EPA, who said she was resigning for "Personal Reasons". Now she comes out for this article and says that it was actually because of the White House's behavior over environmental regulation.
Coming forward now, after it's too late to do anything except place blame on top of a large heap, is a cowardly, expedient thing to do. Where was her anger and her whistle-blowing when it would have made a difference? Then she just didn't want to be bothered with the heat that would have come down for her position. Now that the popular kids are saying what a bad guy Cheney is, she figures she'll jump on the pile.
It is this kind of cowardice that facilitates the kind of abuses described in this article. See lady, when you leave, they just put someone in your place who agrees with them. That's how we got in this shitty mess. All the people of principle (I'm talking to you Colin Powell) leave, and Bush/Cheney put talking heads in their place. It's pathetic.
To anyone left in the government with some principle: Ask yourselves why you got into government in the first place. Was it to protect the things you care about? This woman was the head of the EPA. Her career had nowhere else to go. Yet she saved face and, I assume, saved her "career" by resigning for "Personal Reasons" instead of stopping play and calling foul. That is a failure of the system, it is a failure of policy, and it is a failure of personal courage.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
The Washington Post on Cheney, Part 2
Here is the second part of the WaPost Article on Cheney:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/a_strong_push_from_back_stage/index.html
I know I said I wasn't going to be updating as regularly, but I don't want to lose any regular readers I might have gained, and I have a few minutes, so...
I found this article deficient in the ways that the first installment was, but not nearly as bad. I think the basic problem the Post has is that they want to be perceived as objective, but if they wrote an objective piece on Cheney it would come off as a hack-job because the guy is so fucking evil.
Or maybe I'm just reading the article as a free pass because the things they are saying aren't a surprise to me. Looking at their narrative, it is actually a rather stark description of a Vice-President seeking to expand his power by deceiving anyone he has to, including the President. It's just that I already knew that was Cheney's MO. It's like a guy in prison for murder, and then somebody tries to shock me by telling me that he shot a guy. It's like, yeah, I get it, the guy's a killer. Tell me something I don't know.
Also, the article really hasn't dealt with a lot of the newer stuff about Cheney, and that's the stuff that I find the most problematic and absurd. I mean, compared with the transparently, flagrantly dishonest shit he's trying to pull now, the "I'm not part of the Executive Branch thing, all the stuff he's done as a run-up to that seems tame.
As a side note, I heard something really insightful on Hardball last night about that whole affair. I think it was David Gregory who said "Cheney is just trying to run a delay right now. He knows how much longer he has in office, and if he can stall with these ridiculous tactics for that long, he can do whatever he wants until he leave office." Great point. Cheney may indeed be the Anti-Christ.
Back to the article: One thing I did find really interesting was their blow-by-blow description of how Cheney got his way on the specifics of Bush's 2003 Tax Cuts. First, he screwed Greenspan (Chairman of the fed and most respected economist in the country) out of getting his say by placating him and then discrediting his evidence. Then, when Bush didn't want to include the capitol gains break that Cheney wanted, Cheney pitched the idea directly to members of the relevant House committee, had them put it in the bill, then went back and told the President that he had to give in to get the bill passed. Asshole.
So overall this profile has been a disappointment so far. Hopefully they'll get more into the meat tomorrow. I'll make sure to blog again at that point.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/a_strong_push_from_back_stage/index.html
I know I said I wasn't going to be updating as regularly, but I don't want to lose any regular readers I might have gained, and I have a few minutes, so...
I found this article deficient in the ways that the first installment was, but not nearly as bad. I think the basic problem the Post has is that they want to be perceived as objective, but if they wrote an objective piece on Cheney it would come off as a hack-job because the guy is so fucking evil.
Or maybe I'm just reading the article as a free pass because the things they are saying aren't a surprise to me. Looking at their narrative, it is actually a rather stark description of a Vice-President seeking to expand his power by deceiving anyone he has to, including the President. It's just that I already knew that was Cheney's MO. It's like a guy in prison for murder, and then somebody tries to shock me by telling me that he shot a guy. It's like, yeah, I get it, the guy's a killer. Tell me something I don't know.
Also, the article really hasn't dealt with a lot of the newer stuff about Cheney, and that's the stuff that I find the most problematic and absurd. I mean, compared with the transparently, flagrantly dishonest shit he's trying to pull now, the "I'm not part of the Executive Branch thing, all the stuff he's done as a run-up to that seems tame.
As a side note, I heard something really insightful on Hardball last night about that whole affair. I think it was David Gregory who said "Cheney is just trying to run a delay right now. He knows how much longer he has in office, and if he can stall with these ridiculous tactics for that long, he can do whatever he wants until he leave office." Great point. Cheney may indeed be the Anti-Christ.
Back to the article: One thing I did find really interesting was their blow-by-blow description of how Cheney got his way on the specifics of Bush's 2003 Tax Cuts. First, he screwed Greenspan (Chairman of the fed and most respected economist in the country) out of getting his say by placating him and then discrediting his evidence. Then, when Bush didn't want to include the capitol gains break that Cheney wanted, Cheney pitched the idea directly to members of the relevant House committee, had them put it in the bill, then went back and told the President that he had to give in to get the bill passed. Asshole.
So overall this profile has been a disappointment so far. Hopefully they'll get more into the meat tomorrow. I'll make sure to blog again at that point.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Pay attention to Rhetorical shifts or you'll be in a diferent conversation without knowing it
I just found an EXCELLENT, GREAT, SUPERLATIVE article on Salon.com that I wanted to share:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/06/23/al_qaeda/index.html
This article describes the rhetorical shift among the bush administration and the military leaders from calling the people we are fighting "insurgents" or "Sunni/Shia fighters" to calling them "Al Qaeda". This is the kind of thing that changes conversations, and the fact is that (as the article states) the Bush administration only a few years ago freely admitted that only the smallest portion of the enemy was actually Al Qaeda affiliated.
This is the kind of reporting that is truly important, and keeps people honest, particularly if others take notice and start to call officials on it directly.
At least as important, the author points out that the NY Times has picked up the administration rhetoric and put it in dozens of stories. Papers that are infamously liberal (at least according to those on the right) like the NYT should not blindly accept terminology changes like this, especially ones that are obviously bullshit. That's how conversations get changed, and rhetorical battles get won.
I've just written a letter to both the times and salon.com, chiding the one and congratulating the other. I suggest you all do likewise. This is an absolutely CRITICAL issue.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/06/23/al_qaeda/index.html
This article describes the rhetorical shift among the bush administration and the military leaders from calling the people we are fighting "insurgents" or "Sunni/Shia fighters" to calling them "Al Qaeda". This is the kind of thing that changes conversations, and the fact is that (as the article states) the Bush administration only a few years ago freely admitted that only the smallest portion of the enemy was actually Al Qaeda affiliated.
This is the kind of reporting that is truly important, and keeps people honest, particularly if others take notice and start to call officials on it directly.
At least as important, the author points out that the NY Times has picked up the administration rhetoric and put it in dozens of stories. Papers that are infamously liberal (at least according to those on the right) like the NYT should not blindly accept terminology changes like this, especially ones that are obviously bullshit. That's how conversations get changed, and rhetorical battles get won.
I've just written a letter to both the times and salon.com, chiding the one and congratulating the other. I suggest you all do likewise. This is an absolutely CRITICAL issue.
The Washington Post on Cheney, Part 1
The Post has a four part profile of the Vice Prez coming out this week, and I am going to be tracking it on this blog. I think that this is, while not the most important story in the news right now, certainly the freshest and most interesting. It has the potential to give us a glimpse into the most powerful Vice in the history of this country, at a time when he is kind of on the ropes.
The first part, though, reads like a puff piece. They spend a lot of time talking about his personality, his "kindness to subordinates, etc. Uhh...do they mean kindness to subordinates like taking career revenge on anyone who stands in his way? Or using Alberto Gonzales to deceive the President into taking his advice, as they report him having done in the article? Or do they mean that he remembers people's names? Cause remembering people's names can be interpreted as kindness, or it can be interpreted as setting them up to be used as tools. Most of the sociopaths I know are great with names.
They also talk a lot about how Cheney isn't interested in any verdict but history's, and how he honestly believes that what he is doing is good for the country. You know who else believed in what he was doing, and wasn't interested in the opinions of his contemporaries? Hitler.
The first part, though, reads like a puff piece. They spend a lot of time talking about his personality, his "kindness to subordinates, etc. Uhh...do they mean kindness to subordinates like taking career revenge on anyone who stands in his way? Or using Alberto Gonzales to deceive the President into taking his advice, as they report him having done in the article? Or do they mean that he remembers people's names? Cause remembering people's names can be interpreted as kindness, or it can be interpreted as setting them up to be used as tools. Most of the sociopaths I know are great with names.
They also talk a lot about how Cheney isn't interested in any verdict but history's, and how he honestly believes that what he is doing is good for the country. You know who else believed in what he was doing, and wasn't interested in the opinions of his contemporaries? Hitler.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Dick Cheney is whatever he says he is
Just saw this article:
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1371
on HuffPost regarding the way in which Dick Cheney claimed his office was not required to follow government-wide procedures for safeguarding national security information, because his office is "not a part of the executive branch."
Okay, first of all, that statement is absurd on a number of levels. First, yes it is. Second, all Dick Cheney talks about is the need for secrecy and the protection of national secrets, so this is coming totally out of left field. It's just a deeply confusing position for the guy to try and take.
Second, there is another cover-up at work here. When Representative Waxman, Chairman of a House Oversight Committee, wrote to, guess who, Alberto Gonzales over at DOJ and requested he force the Vice-President to follow procedure, guess what Cheney did? If you said complained to Gonzo and tried to get the administrative office of the National Archives (the office that oversees the procedures) shut down, paste a gold star next to whatever computer you're sitting at.
As a side note, for a more complete listing of Cheney's unprecedented efforts at secrecy, follow this link:
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070621095118.pdf
I've accepted the fact that Cheney is going to do whatever he wants. I'v accepted the fact that he isn't going to tell anyone what he's doing. I've even accepted the fact that the Democrats are too pussy to do anything about it. Fine. That's their fault, not Cheney's. But then an ironic thought occurred to me. It was a memory, something I had once read...let's see, I'm calling up the memory banks...
Oh yeah. Remember this article?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,198829,00.html
They put the money shot right up front. It reads:
Invoking executive privilege, Vice President Dick Cheney refuses to disclose details of meetings he held last year with Enron officials.
Looks like Cheney had a change of heart sometime since 2002. His status as a member of the executive is about the only area in which he's shown the least bit of flexibility. Sorry Dick, can't have it both ways.
Oh, and also, I put together this post in 30 minutes with nothing more than my memory and Google. How much does anyone want to bet that none of the major news networks run anything like this? You know what show might? The Daily Show. See, cause this sort of calling leaders on their bullshit is only acceptable as a firm of comedy. Otherwise, people might actually start to demand action.
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1371
on HuffPost regarding the way in which Dick Cheney claimed his office was not required to follow government-wide procedures for safeguarding national security information, because his office is "not a part of the executive branch."
Okay, first of all, that statement is absurd on a number of levels. First, yes it is. Second, all Dick Cheney talks about is the need for secrecy and the protection of national secrets, so this is coming totally out of left field. It's just a deeply confusing position for the guy to try and take.
Second, there is another cover-up at work here. When Representative Waxman, Chairman of a House Oversight Committee, wrote to, guess who, Alberto Gonzales over at DOJ and requested he force the Vice-President to follow procedure, guess what Cheney did? If you said complained to Gonzo and tried to get the administrative office of the National Archives (the office that oversees the procedures) shut down, paste a gold star next to whatever computer you're sitting at.
As a side note, for a more complete listing of Cheney's unprecedented efforts at secrecy, follow this link:
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070621095118.pdf
I've accepted the fact that Cheney is going to do whatever he wants. I'v accepted the fact that he isn't going to tell anyone what he's doing. I've even accepted the fact that the Democrats are too pussy to do anything about it. Fine. That's their fault, not Cheney's. But then an ironic thought occurred to me. It was a memory, something I had once read...let's see, I'm calling up the memory banks...
Oh yeah. Remember this article?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,198829,00.html
They put the money shot right up front. It reads:
Invoking executive privilege, Vice President Dick Cheney refuses to disclose details of meetings he held last year with Enron officials.
Looks like Cheney had a change of heart sometime since 2002. His status as a member of the executive is about the only area in which he's shown the least bit of flexibility. Sorry Dick, can't have it both ways.
Oh, and also, I put together this post in 30 minutes with nothing more than my memory and Google. How much does anyone want to bet that none of the major news networks run anything like this? You know what show might? The Daily Show. See, cause this sort of calling leaders on their bullshit is only acceptable as a firm of comedy. Otherwise, people might actually start to demand action.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
MSNBC News Shows failure today
Okay, let me say first that I think the Pundits and hosts on MSNBC are the best of all the 24 hour news networks. Top to bottom, they ask the best questions and let the smallest number of egregious statements go unremarked.
That said, they failed today with regard to the Karl Rove email story. Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson both devoted extensive coverage to Presidential Elections more than a year away, and neither did so much as mention the fact that 88 or more members of the current administration have broken the law, and that increasing evidence is available that they violated both the Hatch Act and the Presidential Records Act. These newest revelations are damning on a number of levels, and are but a further example of the duplicitous and decietful nature of the administration in general.
The only Pundit to give it proper coverage was Keith Oberman. Bravo Keith, but the problem is that he is too liberal for it to make a difference. That is, Oberman is going to cover ANY story that looks bad for Bush, so him being the only one to cover it makes it look like a liberal issue, which it is not. This is a well-established legal precedent that dates from early in the last century, and it should have been a lead story on any network. Bad form, MSNBC
That said, they failed today with regard to the Karl Rove email story. Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson both devoted extensive coverage to Presidential Elections more than a year away, and neither did so much as mention the fact that 88 or more members of the current administration have broken the law, and that increasing evidence is available that they violated both the Hatch Act and the Presidential Records Act. These newest revelations are damning on a number of levels, and are but a further example of the duplicitous and decietful nature of the administration in general.
The only Pundit to give it proper coverage was Keith Oberman. Bravo Keith, but the problem is that he is too liberal for it to make a difference. That is, Oberman is going to cover ANY story that looks bad for Bush, so him being the only one to cover it makes it look like a liberal issue, which it is not. This is a well-established legal precedent that dates from early in the last century, and it should have been a lead story on any network. Bad form, MSNBC
Sunday, June 17, 2007
If this isn't the final straw we have to just declare Bush "King of America"
Check out this article on HuffPost:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/16/counsel-hatch-probe/
Here is the pertinent passage:
The White House has admitted that roughly 20 agencies have received a PowerPoint briefing created by Karl Rove’s office “that included slides listing Democratic and Republican seats the White House viewed as vulnerable in 2008, a map of contested Senate seats and other information on 2008 election strategy.”
Politicization of the federal government has been illegal for decades. The 1939 Hatch Act specifically prohibits partisan campaign or electoral activities on federal government property, including federal agencies.Okay...so this is it, right? There must be some criminal charges forthcoming. The White House has ADMITTED that this happened, and there is no grey area. This is illegal. If they can't touch Rove on this, because of some Executive Privilege bullshit, this is the last straw. I'm renouncing my citizenship and moving to Europe.
The truth we've all known about Abu Ghraib...a few years too late.
Everyone should read the following article from the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/06/25/070625fa_fact_hersh?currentPage=1
My comments are my own. All quotations are from the above article.
This article describes the intricate procedures and chain of command by which events like Abu Ghraib are allowed to transpire, and the calculation with which deniability is manufactured by high ranking members of the military, as well as civilian leadership.
Now, it has been obvious for a while that these horrific events were not simply the work of a few low-level soldiers. My friends serving in Iraq have told me as much in confessional tones, that these behaviors are the exception rather than the rule, and that the only violation of procedure in this case was the photographic documentation of the acts.
The basic problem is that, given the strict control of the civilian press by the military, the only people in a position to expose these abuses are the ones with the most vested interest in keeping them a secret: The US Military. All that stands in the way of this cover-up is the integrity and honesty of common soldiers and officers. The same qualities that the armed forces deem secondary to loyalty and blind obedience.
The other mechanism in place to prevent these abuses is, of course, congressional oversight. The article says:
By law, the President must make a formal finding authorizing a C.I.A. covert operation, and inform the senior leadership of the House and the Senate Intelligence Committees. However, the Bush Administration unilaterally determined after 9/11 that intelligence operations conducted by the military—including the Pentagon’s covert task forces—for the purposes of “preparing the battlefield” could be authorized by the President, as Commander-in-Chief, without telling Congress.
So there is problem number one. Congress (which is not nearly aggressive enough in oversight anyway) was kept in the dark by an administration driven mad by fear-induced power.
The second problem was related, and potentially as serious: Those in the Special Operations community suffering under the same delusion of power, who decided to operate (or were forced by circumstances to operate) outside of designated guidelines. Again, the NY Article:
J.S.O.C.’s special status undermined military discipline. Richard Armitage, the former Deputy Secretary of State, told me that, on his visits to Iraq, he increasingly found that “the commanders would say one thing and the guys in the field would say, ‘I don’t care what he says. I’m going to do what I want.’ We’ve sacrificed the chain of command to the notion of Special Operations and GWOT”—the global war on terrorism.
So either way what we have here is a breakdown in the checks and balances that are supposed to control the behavior of our armed forces. The fact is that we will never know which it was, such are the pitfalls of allowing people to classify their missions and prevent transparency from ever being achieved.
But what we can say is that the secrecy of our secret operations has gotten totally out of control. From the article:
A former high-level Defense Department official said that, when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, Senator John Warner, then the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, was warned “to back off” on the investigation, because “it would spill over to more important things.” A spokesman for Warner acknowledged that there had been pressure on the Senator, but said that Warner had stood up to it—insisting on putting Rumsfeld under oath for his May 7th testimony, for example, to the Secretary’s great displeasure.
What the article fails to mention is who could possibly have put pressure on a high-ranking senator. Who could have the secrecy to avoid being named in the article, yet have the power to force a sitting senator to "stand up to" him, rather than simply tell him to shut the hell up?
The very existence of any such person is a huge problem for this country. It literally smacks of the SS, or the KGB under the worst auspices of Communist Russia. I am not merely using these analogies to make a point. We in the free world CANNOT allow people to wield this sort of power from the shadows, any more than we can allow the people high up in our military or civilian leadership to claim they were unaware of abuses as a defense of their inaction. In a lengthy quote from the article:
And, as a result, somebody just sent a secret report to the press, and there they are,” Rumsfeld said.
Taguba (A full General, the primary investigating officer into the scandal, who has since taken a forced retirement), watching the hearings, was appalled. He believed that Rumsfeld’s testimony was simply not true. “The photographs were available to him—if he wanted to see them,” Taguba said. Rumsfeld’s lack of knowledge was hard to credit. Taguba later wondered if perhaps Cambone had the photographs and kept them from Rumsfeld because he was reluctant to give his notoriously difficult boss bad news.
There are two possibilities here. One is that Rumsfeld is lying, and he was aware of the abuses. In that case, he is a human rights violator not qualitatively different than Saddam Hussein. The other is that he is telling the truth, and he didn't know. What it's impotrant to understand is that having your underlings in a place where they fail to inform you of something this serious is not deniability, it is negligence. It is not WORSE is Rumsfeld's underlings knew of this and failed to tell him, and he failed to ask, but it isn't that much better. He has still failed this country miserably. And anyone else in the chain of command, up to and including the President, who was similarly ill-informed, is equally negligent.
Finally, we come to the cover up, always the easiest part to prove and, in this case, actually the easiest to condemn. I've seen the Abu Ghraib photos, and they are terrible, but I do not hate the soldiers in them. I've often said that these kinds of abuses have occured in every war that has ever been fought, and will occur in every war that is ever waged. The point is that you cannot dehumanize a population enough to kill them, yet maintain an understanding of their dignity as human beings, enough to prevent rape and torture from occurring.
So the question of real importance is whether this torture was the sad but natural consequence of war, or the calculated policy of those tasked to oversee and prosecute the strategy. The following quote from the article may shed some light:
The former senior intelligence official said that when the images of Abu Ghraib were published, there were some in the Pentagon and the White House who “didn’t think the photographs were that bad”—in that they put the focus on enlisted soldiers, rather than on secret task-force operations. Referring to the task-force members, he said, “Guys on the inside ask me, ‘What’s the difference between shooting a guy on the street, or in his bed, or in a prison?’ ” A Pentagon consultant on the war on terror also said that the “basic strategy was ‘prosecute the kids in the photographs but protect the big picture.’ ”
Let me answer the question posed in that second to last sentence. The difference between shooting a guy in the street, as opposed to in his bed or in a prison, is that in the street, the guy has a chance to shoot back. That's the difference between a war and a massacre.
There are basically two sides in this conflict (That would be the conflict over the cover-up/information failure in Abu Ghraib. There are, unfortunately, many more sides than that in the Iraq War.). One side is the portion of the civilian and military leadership that claims no abuses are occuring, and no cover-up has occured, with reference to Abu Ghraib. They claim that aggressive investigation techniques are just that, and that the reported acts that are clearly torture did not occur. The other side is the other portion of the leadership, which says that there are unimaginable abuses happening at Abu Ghraib and other places around the world, and that the leadership, particularly the civilian leadership, right up to and including former Secretary Rumsfeld, did everything they could to obfuscate the acts.
Now, I want to point out two things. One is that one of the primary people on the second side is General Taguba, the guy who was specifically assigned to investigate this matter, who has spent more time than anyone looking at these issues, and who has since been (by his own account) ostracized by the military leadership and forced into early retirement in spite of his years of dedicated service. The second is that what we are really arguing about here is the semantics of torture, and whether or not the things that occured at Abu Ghraib are widespread or isolated instruments. What actually happened there is not at issue. As I said, I have personally SEEN PICTURES of people being tortured. That case is closed.
Normally I am all about shades of grey, but in this case, one or the other group is lying. Their accounts of what has happened are diametrically opposed. Either Rumsfeld had seen the pictures or he hadn't. Either he told people to cover it up or he did not. Either instructions came down to put the MP's in charge of softening prisoners up, or they did not. There doesn't seem to be a lot of middle ground here, as much as Rumsfeld, et al would like to create one.
The leadership insisting there is no torture and no coverup (Rumsfeld, et al) are protecting an organization which makes them among the most powerful people in the world. They are also protecting themselves from criminal prosecution from human rights violations. And they are doing it by sacrificing people with no power or voice to fight back.
The leadership claiming a coverup (Taguba, et al) are stirring up a hornet's nest within an organization they have dedicated their lives to. They are being widely criticized and ostracized by their peers, and in many cases they are ruining their careers.
The nice thing about a blog is that it is not a court of law. I don't have to prove anything, I don't even have to draw conclusions. So let me just pose this question. Given the two previous sets of circumstances, who does it seem would be more likely to lie?
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/06/25/070625fa_fact_hersh?currentPage=1
My comments are my own. All quotations are from the above article.
This article describes the intricate procedures and chain of command by which events like Abu Ghraib are allowed to transpire, and the calculation with which deniability is manufactured by high ranking members of the military, as well as civilian leadership.
Now, it has been obvious for a while that these horrific events were not simply the work of a few low-level soldiers. My friends serving in Iraq have told me as much in confessional tones, that these behaviors are the exception rather than the rule, and that the only violation of procedure in this case was the photographic documentation of the acts.
The basic problem is that, given the strict control of the civilian press by the military, the only people in a position to expose these abuses are the ones with the most vested interest in keeping them a secret: The US Military. All that stands in the way of this cover-up is the integrity and honesty of common soldiers and officers. The same qualities that the armed forces deem secondary to loyalty and blind obedience.
The other mechanism in place to prevent these abuses is, of course, congressional oversight. The article says:
By law, the President must make a formal finding authorizing a C.I.A. covert operation, and inform the senior leadership of the House and the Senate Intelligence Committees. However, the Bush Administration unilaterally determined after 9/11 that intelligence operations conducted by the military—including the Pentagon’s covert task forces—for the purposes of “preparing the battlefield” could be authorized by the President, as Commander-in-Chief, without telling Congress.
So there is problem number one. Congress (which is not nearly aggressive enough in oversight anyway) was kept in the dark by an administration driven mad by fear-induced power.
The second problem was related, and potentially as serious: Those in the Special Operations community suffering under the same delusion of power, who decided to operate (or were forced by circumstances to operate) outside of designated guidelines. Again, the NY Article:
J.S.O.C.’s special status undermined military discipline. Richard Armitage, the former Deputy Secretary of State, told me that, on his visits to Iraq, he increasingly found that “the commanders would say one thing and the guys in the field would say, ‘I don’t care what he says. I’m going to do what I want.’ We’ve sacrificed the chain of command to the notion of Special Operations and GWOT”—the global war on terrorism.
So either way what we have here is a breakdown in the checks and balances that are supposed to control the behavior of our armed forces. The fact is that we will never know which it was, such are the pitfalls of allowing people to classify their missions and prevent transparency from ever being achieved.
But what we can say is that the secrecy of our secret operations has gotten totally out of control. From the article:
A former high-level Defense Department official said that, when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, Senator John Warner, then the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, was warned “to back off” on the investigation, because “it would spill over to more important things.” A spokesman for Warner acknowledged that there had been pressure on the Senator, but said that Warner had stood up to it—insisting on putting Rumsfeld under oath for his May 7th testimony, for example, to the Secretary’s great displeasure.
What the article fails to mention is who could possibly have put pressure on a high-ranking senator. Who could have the secrecy to avoid being named in the article, yet have the power to force a sitting senator to "stand up to" him, rather than simply tell him to shut the hell up?
The very existence of any such person is a huge problem for this country. It literally smacks of the SS, or the KGB under the worst auspices of Communist Russia. I am not merely using these analogies to make a point. We in the free world CANNOT allow people to wield this sort of power from the shadows, any more than we can allow the people high up in our military or civilian leadership to claim they were unaware of abuses as a defense of their inaction. In a lengthy quote from the article:
Nevertheless, Rumsfeld, in his appearances before the Senate and the House Armed Services Committees on May 7th, claimed to have had no idea of the extensive abuse. “It breaks our hearts that in fact someone didn’t say, ‘Wait, look, this is terrible. We need to do something,’ ” Rumsfeld told the congressmen. “I wish we had known more, sooner, and been able to tell you more sooner, but we didn’t.”
Rumsfeld told the legislators that, when stories about the Taguba report appeared, “it was not yet in the Pentagon, to my knowledge.” As for the photographs, Rumsfeld told the senators, “I say no one in the Pentagon had seen them”; at the House hearing, he said, “I didn’t see them until last night at 7:30.” Asked specifically when he had been made aware of the photographs, Rumsfeld said:
"There were rumors of photographs in a criminal prosecution chain back sometime after January 13th . . . I don’t remember precisely when, but sometime in that period of January, February, March. . . . The legal part of it was proceeding along fine. What wasn’t proceeding along fine is the fact that the President didn’t know, and you didn’t know, and I didn’t know.And, as a result, somebody just sent a secret report to the press, and there they are,” Rumsfeld said.
Taguba (A full General, the primary investigating officer into the scandal, who has since taken a forced retirement), watching the hearings, was appalled. He believed that Rumsfeld’s testimony was simply not true. “The photographs were available to him—if he wanted to see them,” Taguba said. Rumsfeld’s lack of knowledge was hard to credit. Taguba later wondered if perhaps Cambone had the photographs and kept them from Rumsfeld because he was reluctant to give his notoriously difficult boss bad news.
There are two possibilities here. One is that Rumsfeld is lying, and he was aware of the abuses. In that case, he is a human rights violator not qualitatively different than Saddam Hussein. The other is that he is telling the truth, and he didn't know. What it's impotrant to understand is that having your underlings in a place where they fail to inform you of something this serious is not deniability, it is negligence. It is not WORSE is Rumsfeld's underlings knew of this and failed to tell him, and he failed to ask, but it isn't that much better. He has still failed this country miserably. And anyone else in the chain of command, up to and including the President, who was similarly ill-informed, is equally negligent.
Finally, we come to the cover up, always the easiest part to prove and, in this case, actually the easiest to condemn. I've seen the Abu Ghraib photos, and they are terrible, but I do not hate the soldiers in them. I've often said that these kinds of abuses have occured in every war that has ever been fought, and will occur in every war that is ever waged. The point is that you cannot dehumanize a population enough to kill them, yet maintain an understanding of their dignity as human beings, enough to prevent rape and torture from occurring.
So the question of real importance is whether this torture was the sad but natural consequence of war, or the calculated policy of those tasked to oversee and prosecute the strategy. The following quote from the article may shed some light:
The former senior intelligence official said that when the images of Abu Ghraib were published, there were some in the Pentagon and the White House who “didn’t think the photographs were that bad”—in that they put the focus on enlisted soldiers, rather than on secret task-force operations. Referring to the task-force members, he said, “Guys on the inside ask me, ‘What’s the difference between shooting a guy on the street, or in his bed, or in a prison?’ ” A Pentagon consultant on the war on terror also said that the “basic strategy was ‘prosecute the kids in the photographs but protect the big picture.’ ”
Let me answer the question posed in that second to last sentence. The difference between shooting a guy in the street, as opposed to in his bed or in a prison, is that in the street, the guy has a chance to shoot back. That's the difference between a war and a massacre.
There are basically two sides in this conflict (That would be the conflict over the cover-up/information failure in Abu Ghraib. There are, unfortunately, many more sides than that in the Iraq War.). One side is the portion of the civilian and military leadership that claims no abuses are occuring, and no cover-up has occured, with reference to Abu Ghraib. They claim that aggressive investigation techniques are just that, and that the reported acts that are clearly torture did not occur. The other side is the other portion of the leadership, which says that there are unimaginable abuses happening at Abu Ghraib and other places around the world, and that the leadership, particularly the civilian leadership, right up to and including former Secretary Rumsfeld, did everything they could to obfuscate the acts.
Now, I want to point out two things. One is that one of the primary people on the second side is General Taguba, the guy who was specifically assigned to investigate this matter, who has spent more time than anyone looking at these issues, and who has since been (by his own account) ostracized by the military leadership and forced into early retirement in spite of his years of dedicated service. The second is that what we are really arguing about here is the semantics of torture, and whether or not the things that occured at Abu Ghraib are widespread or isolated instruments. What actually happened there is not at issue. As I said, I have personally SEEN PICTURES of people being tortured. That case is closed.
Normally I am all about shades of grey, but in this case, one or the other group is lying. Their accounts of what has happened are diametrically opposed. Either Rumsfeld had seen the pictures or he hadn't. Either he told people to cover it up or he did not. Either instructions came down to put the MP's in charge of softening prisoners up, or they did not. There doesn't seem to be a lot of middle ground here, as much as Rumsfeld, et al would like to create one.
The leadership insisting there is no torture and no coverup (Rumsfeld, et al) are protecting an organization which makes them among the most powerful people in the world. They are also protecting themselves from criminal prosecution from human rights violations. And they are doing it by sacrificing people with no power or voice to fight back.
The leadership claiming a coverup (Taguba, et al) are stirring up a hornet's nest within an organization they have dedicated their lives to. They are being widely criticized and ostracized by their peers, and in many cases they are ruining their careers.
The nice thing about a blog is that it is not a court of law. I don't have to prove anything, I don't even have to draw conclusions. So let me just pose this question. Given the two previous sets of circumstances, who does it seem would be more likely to lie?
Friday, June 15, 2007
Saddam Hussein and a Time Machine
As anyone who reads this blog obviously knows, I'm very much against the war in Iraq. It seems that most of the congresspeople in this country are against it also. I hear Republicans use the rhetorical device of asking "Well do you think we would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in power?" and forcing people to address that question on their terms. Why do Democrats, or any reasonable person, allow that to happen?
The answer to that question is simple. If it meant that we had never invaded Iraq, and this whole mess had never started, yes, I think we would be much better off with Saddam Hussein still in power. Not only would we be better off, but the Iraqi people would be better off. We are now killing a hundred Iraqi civilians a day, by the Pentagon's own estimates. Saddam wasn't doing that. Political repression through violent means? Yes. A hundred dead a day? No. So yes, everyone involved would be better off if Saddam were still in power.
By the way, guess what will happen once we leave: Someone like Saddam or worse will come into power. That's after a period of ethnic cleansing and civil war to rival anything happening in Africa. Thousands dead, and then we'll be, and the Iraqis will be, just as bad off as we all were before, if not worse. They will have less infrastructure, less ability to meet basic needs, and still no democracy or freedom. Nice.
The answer to that question is simple. If it meant that we had never invaded Iraq, and this whole mess had never started, yes, I think we would be much better off with Saddam Hussein still in power. Not only would we be better off, but the Iraqi people would be better off. We are now killing a hundred Iraqi civilians a day, by the Pentagon's own estimates. Saddam wasn't doing that. Political repression through violent means? Yes. A hundred dead a day? No. So yes, everyone involved would be better off if Saddam were still in power.
By the way, guess what will happen once we leave: Someone like Saddam or worse will come into power. That's after a period of ethnic cleansing and civil war to rival anything happening in Africa. Thousands dead, and then we'll be, and the Iraqis will be, just as bad off as we all were before, if not worse. They will have less infrastructure, less ability to meet basic needs, and still no democracy or freedom. Nice.
Follow up to the arming of Sunni Insurgents
I just read an interesting although somewhat confusing article on slate.com regarding the arming of Sunni Insurgent groups that I posted on yesterday:
http://www.slate.com/id/2168400/fr/flyout
This article seems at times to make opposing points, and may simply be a symptom of how confused and hopeless our entire Iraq situation has become, but it suggested one interesting point to me that I thought worth making here.
The article says that "The main Bush argument for the surge has been that a withdrawl would embolden Al Qaeda in its actions in Iraq and around the world." I've heard Bush make versions of this argument many times, some version of the idea that "Iraq is the frontline of the war on terror and the fight against Al Qaeda."
Now, hardly anyone disputes that Al Qaeda had no significant presence in Iraq until we arrived there. Even the idea that Saddam supported and sponsored terrorism has been disproven, much less the idea that there was a terrorist presence actually inside the country. So we created the Al Qaeda presence there by going there and setting up shop.
Now if I, as a member of society, start a fight. If I throw a punch on someone, and they start to fight back, and they get the upper hand, and then I kill them, I get charged with murder. That is, the fact that the person was fighting me and might have killed me is not a mitigating circumstance, because I started the fight. The situation would never have existed had I not thrown the first punch. Yet it seems that in the case of nations, such behavior is justified, at least according to the logic of this administration.
Why is it that behavior not allowed within a country is nonetheless practiced by the country. Doesn't this seem hyperbolically hypocritical? We should not be able to use Al Qaeda as a justification for our continued presence in Iraq, because we brought them there and inflicted them on the Iraqi people.
http://www.slate.com/id/2168400/fr/flyout
This article seems at times to make opposing points, and may simply be a symptom of how confused and hopeless our entire Iraq situation has become, but it suggested one interesting point to me that I thought worth making here.
The article says that "The main Bush argument for the surge has been that a withdrawl would embolden Al Qaeda in its actions in Iraq and around the world." I've heard Bush make versions of this argument many times, some version of the idea that "Iraq is the frontline of the war on terror and the fight against Al Qaeda."
Now, hardly anyone disputes that Al Qaeda had no significant presence in Iraq until we arrived there. Even the idea that Saddam supported and sponsored terrorism has been disproven, much less the idea that there was a terrorist presence actually inside the country. So we created the Al Qaeda presence there by going there and setting up shop.
Now if I, as a member of society, start a fight. If I throw a punch on someone, and they start to fight back, and they get the upper hand, and then I kill them, I get charged with murder. That is, the fact that the person was fighting me and might have killed me is not a mitigating circumstance, because I started the fight. The situation would never have existed had I not thrown the first punch. Yet it seems that in the case of nations, such behavior is justified, at least according to the logic of this administration.
Why is it that behavior not allowed within a country is nonetheless practiced by the country. Doesn't this seem hyperbolically hypocritical? We should not be able to use Al Qaeda as a justification for our continued presence in Iraq, because we brought them there and inflicted them on the Iraqi people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)