Denial: Where We Lost

Let's talk of graves, of worms, and epitaphs;
Make dust our paper, and with rainy eyes
Write sorrow on the bosom of the earth;
Let's choose executors and talk of wills:
-- Richard II

Abu Ghraib.

The death of honor; the death of our ideals; the ascendancy of our own liars, sadists, monsters and torturers.

What of those who tried to be heroes and make it stop? General Taguba has retired from the military. One of the things the current New Yorker article makes clear is that there were several problems; and that some of them have been pointedly ignored. The military confined its investigation to the narrow area of military involvement. No one with authority to investigate all aspects was ever appointed. Of course, we have a president who resists truth, and so the authority was never delegated in an honorable and honest fashion.

Clearly, both the CIA and contractors had much involvement and no accountability. To this day, the faceless nature of the perpetrators remains.

Moreover, the identity of the stonewallers (who blocked knowledge of the crimes from raging upward as they should have) remains shadowy. Five reports, stalled by people with no morals or ethics except CYA -- the crimes by those in our government are pervasive to this day.

An independent panel headed by James R. Schlesinger, a former Secretary of Defense, did conclude that there was “institutional and personal responsibility at higher levels” for Abu Ghraib, but cleared Rumsfeld of any direct responsibility. In an August, 2004, report, the Schlesinger panel endorsed Rumsfeld’s complaints, citing “the reluctance to move bad news up the chain of command” as the most important factor in Washington’s failure to understand the significance of Abu Ghraib.

More important than a "failure to understand" was the institutional reaction to the information about torture. Taguba was sidelined into a Pentagon job where he could be under the immediate "supervision" of people with a vested interest stonewalling. Meanwhile, General Miller at Guantanamo was protected by his superiors even as he interrogated prisoners in ways that clearly violated the Geneva Conventions.

Did they deny that the events happened? Did they merely deny people upstream from them the information? Does it matter which when those actions have resulted in a loss of the moral high ground?

For, indeed, the loss of the moral high ground started there, and it has contaminated our every word and action to this day. The uncontrolled and individualized brutality has seeped out and turned the population we supposedly liberated into a quasi-enemy entity, due nothing but suspicion, raids, arrests. The loss of our integrity is the start of a greater loss.

Congress, shown the evidence, did nothing. Just nothing. They are a disgrace to the principles of good government and oversight. Not one of them has courage where courage would count.

After 9/11 the showing of flags was pervasive. After Abu Ghraib, a lot of us put our flags away until our pride can be restored.

It hasn't happened yet.

[via Political Animal]

The Only Spending Allowed

is spending on his frickin' war, or gimmies for oil companies and tax cuts for plutocrats.

The rest of you can eat cake.

And pay.

Bush Hates Troops

"The White House also said Bush would veto any bill drafted by House Democratic leaders that would fund the Iraq war only into the summer months. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said such short-term funding would be very disruptive and “have a huge impact” on contracts to repair and replace equipment."

Why Not Tell the Whole Truth?

Bush Vetoes Appropriation of Billions for Iraq.

Wah wah wah. He did not like the terms.

He wants billions with no oversight at all.

Gravy train time is over.

Old Cliches

"Never chalk up to malice what can easily be explained by stupidity."

Is that why so many characterize Bush as slow? Because they do not want to think he acts on purpose?

I don't misunderesitmate* him. I honestly think that if Congress tries to impose a deadline on the administration, that it would either be ignored (Abu Ghraib picture method of dealing) or that the administration would take Congress to court over what duties the Constitutionally outlined role of Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces gives the President in terms of a free hand.

With the current Supreme Court, do you want to take bets on how such a decision would fall out?

________________
*joke

Iran Could Be

Iran could be training commandos to takeover the ISS!!

Iran could be enriching uranium for dirty roadside bombs!

Iran could be planning to blow up oil tankers!

Iran could be raising the anti-Christ in a madrassa!

Iran could be Bush's bogeyman, the new war-drum villian.

***************
Note: AP/MSNBC's headline has changed. It previously read "Iran may be Helping Iraqis Build Bombs". I took a screen print of the original :)

Thankless Job

Bush is trying to find a general willing to oversee both wars. Generals so far have not been ready to hop right into Bush's mess. Three have declined to take the job.

Actually, any intelligent general will shun this unless Bush has (or wants) a plan to withdraw from Iraq. Iraq is eating the military alive. It has run the Army, the Reserves and the National Guard into rags; and it has had a notably deleterious effect upon the USMC as well.

Who would be deluded enough to take this job?

The Problem With Funding

The problem with allocating funds supposedly for Iraq is that the Executive Branch can't be trusted to spend the money to take care of the troops, to use the money solely for Iraq, or to oversee contractors so that the money is not spent for sailboat fuel or for mercenaries posing as guards.

Other than that, is there a problem?

Since when have veteran's benefits been "strings"?

Wouldn't it be great if the next round included and equal allotment to use for interest free loans for individuals to use in rebuilding New Orleans?

Rule of Law

Today, Avedon Carol at The Sideshow has items relating to the necessary task ahead -- restoring the rule of law in the United States.

Restoring the rule of law is only part of the job. Other parts should include a Constitutional amendment explicitly forbidding the acts that led to its erosion in the first place.

Inventing language to circumvent the Geneva Conventions certainly falls under "high crimes and misdemeanors" in my book. Equally horrible is the fact that the guidelines for the military have been stripped of rules that enforce the Geneva Conventions.

Stopping Congress from changing judicial nominating criteria every time the political balance in Congress changes would be a Good Thing.

It would also help if the Attorney General was someone who knew how to read -- and someone who was not spending all his time reinforcing a corrupt and cynical Executive. I surely hope that something takes these criminals down -- and if necessary, let rendition to a country with more guts than the USA be the vehicle that puts them away for their crimes. Germany would do very nicely -- they could use Nuremberg rules and lock up the war criminals.

Grasping at Straws

Oh, Bush is such a fatuous lout. Today's headline has him claiming that the vote to fund the war, define a pullout, and give aid to New Orleans was "wasting taxpayer money".

Sorry, but the only waste of taxpayer money going on right now is the part that pays for an administration that is raping the Constitution and playing at politics with the lives of both active duty and wounded members of the armed forces.

War With Iran a Bad Idea

Cast your mind back to the day when the Berlin Wall came down. For quite awhile after that it seemed we had jumped tracks to an alternate universe, one where the threat of war, both nuclear and conventional, had backed off drastically. It was an interesting feeling after the Cold War years. And then -- and then came the Bushes. The current Bush has us back to the brink of catastrophe with his lust to meddle in the Middle East. He creates enemies out of people who do not have the ability to actually invade the US. He really *has* done his best to take Iraq's oil. He is making the citizens of this country into Good Germans because it is difficult to shout loudly enough. Still, we need to try.

Via Avedon Carol at The Sideshow, I went to Arthur Silber's Building an Effective Resistance.

Arthur outlines a plan for trying to prevent the Bush buildup to an attack on Iran. It will be interesting to see if any members of Congress start to state out loud and up front that an attack would be unwarranted and criminal. I am not sure any of them are that courageous.

My own Senators sold their souls so long ago that calling them would be as useful as petitioning Satan for an act of mercy. If your Senators are better than mine, you can implement Arthur's plan of reminding them daily at no cost. The Senate switchboard number is 1-866-808-0065 -- just ask for your senator when they answer. Oh, and give an extra call each day to Clinton, Obama, Reid and Steney Hoyer. Extra responsibility falls on those who want national office or leadership positions -- these people should be right up front in trying to repeal both Authorization for the Use of Military Force resolutions, the one passed immediately after 9/11 and the one on Iraq.

They should be reminded every day that resisting war with Iran is the right way to start opposing the Bush administration's criminal acts.

The Great Circle

Follow the logic:

Bush invaded Iraq on intelligence cooked to his taste to justify invading Iraq. And according to No More Mr. Nice Blog, the New York Post published a push poll validating the stand of "We are at war so we should stand behind the president."

Um. If he invades Iran on cooked grounds -- nay, on any grounds but a direct attack on the US with armed forces -- will those same nitwits declare that we should stand behind him? I suppose on that ground they would have stood behind the leader who invaded Poland, too. Those who did so were ultimately tried as war criminals, and shunned as monsters.

Someday, our own monsters must be held accountable. Vive la Resistance!

____
edited for clarity

Watching Their Own Tails

Did you know that Bush's ranch is off the electrical grid entirely, and self-contained?

For what it's worth, Bush's Crawford ranch is completely off-the-grid and equipped with the latest in energy saving and renewable power systems. It has been described as an "environmentalist's dream home." The fact a man as steeped in the petroleum industry as Bush would own such a home should tell you something.

On a similar note, Dick Cheney's personal investments indicate he (or more accurately, whoever handles his money) is expecting economic collapse.

Neither Bush or Cheney (or really, any administration) can be honest with the American people about the severity of what we're facing. If they were honest with the country, half the nation would refuse to believe them while the other half would likely panic.

So if he starts a war with Iran and does critical damage to them, he can just go hide in Crawford, snug and power-fat while everyone else can just go ....

Do you like this picture? Whether or not you like this picture, do you get this picture?

Today

Today, honest, I started looking at three-wheeled adult tricycles. If Bush attacks Iraq, I am going to buy one immediately -- because if he does that it will be the beginning of the end. This web post at Pygalgia says that the administration would be attacking to steal Iran's oil, but I don't think that would be a likely outcome. It is not easy to steal oil -- pipelines are way too amenable to sabotage. The supply line is way too long. We don't even *buy* oil from Iran -- and I doubt their customers would sit quietly by and permit such a theft.

Of course, if Bush does attack them, he should definitely be removed from office forthwith -- but I think he should have been removed for crimes quite awhile back. And if he does attack, it is not going to be with a ground incursion designed to maintain the infrastructure -- it's going to be with bombs.

Oh crap. Those of you who voted for these warmongers have much to answer for.