Category: Bush & Co.

The quaint and obsolete Nuremberg principles

His invasion of Iraq caused the deaths of at least 100,000 (and almost certainly more) innocent Iraqis: vastly more than bin Laden could have dreamed of causing. It left millions of people internally and externally displaced for years. It destroyed a nation of 26 million people. It was without question an illegal war of aggression: what the lead prosecutor of the Nuremberg Trials — as Ferencz just reminded us — called the “the central crime in this pattern of crimes, the kingpin which holds them all together.” And that’s to say nothing of the worldwide regime of torture, disappearances, and black sites created by the U.S during the Bush years.

Yet the very same country — and often the very same people — collectively insisting upon the imperative of punishing civilian deaths (in the bin Laden case) has banded together to shield George Bush from any accountability of any kind. Both political parties — and the current President — have invented entirely new Orwellian slogans of pure lawlessness to justify this protection (Look Forward, Not Backward): one that selectively operates to protect only high-level U.S. war criminals but not those who expose their crimes. Worse, many of Bush’s most egregious crimes — including the false pretenses that led to this unfathomably lethal aggressive war and the widespread abuse of prisoners that accompanied it — were well known to the country when it re-elected him in 2004.

Glenn Greenwald | Salon

Sodomized to Protect Our Freedoms

What’s so sick about it is that the sexual nature of the torture seems so unnecessary. I mean, even if we were going to torture them, we could have stuck to waterboarding, pulling some fingernails or just beating the shit out of them. But menstrual blood smeared on their faces? Rape? What kind of people do that? What possible purpose does that serve that outweighs becoming known as the country that ass-rapes people? We couldn’t get enough answers, or false confessions, or whatever we were looking for, from regular brutality? We had to go all BDSM on these people?

The upshot is this: America is the country that rapes its prisoners. We’re sex criminals. That’s our thing now. And Obama’s refusal to “look back,” i.e. prosecute these incredibly serious crimes, ensures that it’s our permanent legacy. No national reputation can survive this simply by shrugging it off.

We used to be seen as a bastion of freedom and decency around the world. That shit is over, folks. Now we’re like the Soviet Union, with better movies. When we talk about human rights, we are an international joke.

And when we talk about torture, we stick to waterboarding, because nobody, not even the “liberals,” are willing to face what we’ve done.

What’s so sick about it is that the sexual nature of the torture seems so unnecessary. I mean, even if we were going to torture them, we could have stuck to waterboarding, pulling some fingernails or just beating the shit out of them. But menstrual blood smeared on their faces? Rape? What kind of people do that? What possible purpose does that serve that outweighs becoming known as the country that ass-rapes people? We couldn’t get enough answers, or false confessions, or whatever we were looking for, from regular brutality? We had to go all BDSM on these people?

The upshot is this: America is the country that rapes its prisoners. We’re sex criminals. That’s our thing now. And Obama’s refusal to “look back,” i.e. prosecute these incredibly serious crimes, ensures that it’s our permanent legacy. No national reputation can survive this simply by shrugging it off.

We used to be seen as a bastion of freedom and decency around the world. That shit is over, folks. Now we’re like the Soviet Union, with better movies. When we talk about human rights, we are an international joke.

And when we talk about torture, we stick to waterboarding, because nobody, not even the “liberals,” are willing to face what we’ve done.

Allan Uthman | Alternet

Cheney and Rice Remember 9/11. I Do, Too.

Yes, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice may have been surprised by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — but it was because they had not listened. And their surprise led them to adopt extreme counterterrorism techniques — but it was because they rejected, without analysis, the tactics the Clinton administration had used. The measures they uncritically adopted, which they simply assumed were the best available, were in fact unnecessary and counterproductive.

“Ill freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities,” Cheney said in his recent speech. But this defense does not stand up. The Bush administrations response actually undermined the principles and values America has always stood for in the world, values that should have survived this traumatic event. The White House thought that 9/11 changed everything. It may have changed many things, but it did not change the Constitution, which the vice president, the national security adviser and all of us who were in the White House that tragic day had pledged to protect and preserve.

Richard A. Clarke | washingtonpost.com

War Room is No Place for Bible Study

A Robert Draper article in Gentleman’s Quarterly revealed that some of the top-secret “World Wide Intelligence Briefings” that Rumsfeld provided to Bush were covered with photographs of Americans at war, and captions taken from Scripture. In one, above a huddle of GIs apparently at prayer, is the question famously put by God, “Whom shall I send and who will go for Us?” Over the soldiers is the answer from Isaiah: “Here I am, Lord. Send me.” Above a trooper hunched over a machine gun is this promise from Proverbs: “Commit to the Lord, whatever you do, and your plans will succeed.” Another cover shows Isaiah-inspired US tanks: “Open the gates that the righteous nation may enter.”

Sent by God. Protected by God. Sure to succeed. The righteous nation. A war defined not merely as just, but as holy. Such manifestations are one thing from eccentric religious groups operating on the fringe of the US military, in space guaranteed by freedom of religion. It is another when they show up at the peak of the chain of command – and from inside the intelligence community, which is charged with nothing less than defining the character of America’s wars.

James Carroll | CommonDreams.org

All Fall Down

With so many signs of a nation unravelling —

  • the budget-squandering, shame-spawning militarism;
  • the self-serving foolishness of American unilateralism;
  • the kowtowing to religious fundamentalists;
  • the age-old campaign against the rights of women;
  • the rampant “all-american” xenophobia;
  • the fubar demise of our so-called free market economy;
  • and, our idiot inaction in the face of urgent environmental concerns….

— isn’t it great that our presidential hopefuls are devoting their campaigns to media-manufactured hullaballoos over which advisor said what offensive-to-somebody-somewhere-thing or which old friend is not a media-approved perfect American citizen?

As Kurt Vonnegut once remarked: “There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don’t know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president.”

When they write the history of the fall of the American empire, they will point to this time and note how in one election after another we managed to avoid all of the critical issues of the day. Or at best dealt with monumentally complex problems with farce debates and sound-bite electioneering.

Actual candidates who have clue are quickly branded as unelectable. Which leaves, inevitably, politicians, not leaders. Which means that the actual governance of a great nation is all about the political game, rather than the issues of the day.

Maybe Obama’s just playing the game to win, and once in office will dazzle us all with sweeping progressivism. You gotta hope!

Or maybe Vonnegut’s right and we should be concerned about the mental health of anybody who wants the job of cleaning up George W Bush’s mess.

Michael Sky

This Awful, Awful Man

Back from another hiatus caused by my inability to process Bush and all the damage wrought. For 7+ years we’ve pointed out the lies and mistakes, we’ve accurately predicted the inevitable disasters, and we’ve called in vain for somebody in power to take a stand against this awful, awful man.

The ’06 elections returned real power to the Dems and allowed us to believe again in American democracy. For about a month, until our new leaders made clear that they would continue to kiss the ring and bow to the idiot demands of this awful, awful man.

But an end is finally in sight — to him, at least, though his many crimes will plague us for years — so the muse is shaking off the rust and dusting off the keyboard.

While I rediscover my own voice,  here’s a little from Scott Ritter, one of few who has been right about Iraq from the very beginning:

The collective refusal of any constituent in this complicated mix of political players to confront Bush on Iraq virtually guarantees that it will be the Bush administration, and not its successor, that will dictate the first year (or more) of policy in Iraq for the next president. It also ensures that the debacle that is the Bush administration’s overarching Middle East policy of regional transformation and regime change in not only Iraq but Iran and Syria will continue to go unchallenged. If the president is free to pursue his policies, it could lead to direct military intervention in Iran by the United States prior to President Bush’s departure from office or, failing that, place his successor on the path toward military confrontation. At a time when every data point available certifies (and recertifies) the administration’s actions in Iraq, Iran and elsewhere (including Afghanistan) as an abject failure, America collectively has fallen into a hypnotic trance, distracted by domestic economic problems and incapable, due to our collective ignorance of the world we live in, of deciphering the reality on the ground in the Middle East.

Michael Sky

Hating Bush

Last night I watched “Death of a President,” a British-made “docu-drama” that imagines the lead-up to and aftermath of the assassination of George W. Bush. Overall, I found the movie enjoyable and thought-provoking — but this isn’t a movie review. I want to write about hating Bush.

The movie unfolds as Bush is coming to give a speech in Chicago, and the streets are filled with thousands of Bush-hating protestors. I thought the portrayal of the protestors was pretty accurate: a large majority of reasonable people out exercising their rights to speak out against a vile administration, peppered with a handful of individuals so crazy with anger that they seemed doomed to behave every bit as vile as Bush.

What struck me most as I watched the movie was how viscerally repelled I was by the demonstrators — the whole crowd, the reasonable and the anger-crazy — and by their overwhelming hatred for Bush. No matter how utterly justified it is, no matter how much damage Bush has done and how many lives, and whole nations, he has ruined, I just could not side with those consumed with such seething hatred.

This is something I’ve wrestled with for years. During the life of ThinkingPeace.com I’ve received a fair number of comments and emails lambasting me for being filled with Bush-hate. Typically, when I’ve looked back at the writing in question, I’ve considered it entirely reasonable and I’ve dismissed the comment/letter writer as a conservative troll. Though some surely were, I realize now that others just found my overt hatred for Bush repulsive.

So, what’s a basically decent, peace-thinking lefty to do?

On the one hand, George W Bush is a vile, despicably self-centered and self-serving little man who has done incalculable damage to this country and the world. And, just when you think he can’t sink any lower, he does or says something that has you screaming, “I HATE THIS MAN!!” louder than ever.

On the other hand, the emotional energy of hatred poisons the hater, and repulses everyone around him/her.

On the one hand, if we don’t forcefully stand up to tyrants like Bush they’ll only go on doing worse damage.

On the other hand, do we have any evidence of hatred working?

Let’s ask Gandhi what he thinks: “You have to be the change you want to see in the world.”

If we want less hate-inspiring leaders like Bush, first step is to be less hateful.

Doesn’t mean we like him, or agree with him, or will stop working to remove him. Just means we don’t give him the power to fill us with destructive energy.

Michael Sky

Bush Veto a No-Hearter

Why is this country, at this time, the richest in the world, arguing about how few or how many children they can serve? We ought to — this is a no-brainer. The American people want all of its children served. All children deserve health coverage, and I don’t know why we’re having such a hard time getting our president and our political leaders to get it, that children should have health insurance. —Marian Wright Edelman

I believe government cannot provide affordable health care. I believe it would cause the quality of care to diminish. I believe there would be lines and rationing over time. If Congress continues to insist upon expanding health care through the SCHIP program — which, by the way, would entail a huge tax increase for the American people — I’ll veto the bill. —George W. Bush

Pretty much says it all. This man has not the vaguest idea of what it means to be anything other than pampered-from-birth. Doesn’t see any problem with the free heathcare the government provides for him — just doesn’t think it would work out for all those poor children.

Michael Sky

All the President’s Enablers

I’ve been watching PBS’s Newshour every weekday night since the early days of MacNeil-Lehrer, and have been especially faithful to the Friday night conversation with two pundits, one from the right, the other ostensibly from the left, though actually a mainstream centrist. Though they’ve never had anyone close to my own views, I watch because they talk instead of shouting, and it all gives a reliable look into the mind of the ruling class.

The past couple years, however, the segment often provokes shouting — from me — as I listen to the designated rightie, David Brooks, defend the varied mistakes, incompetencies, frauds, and outright crimes of the Bush years. Last night was no exception, as Brooks repeated a familiar tirade, blaming the current state of bitterly-divided partisan politics on Harry Reid and the Democrats.

As if the 8 years of the Right’s war on Clinton never happened. As if such proudly partisan legislators such as Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, Dick Armey, and Trent Lott weren’t in charge of Congress for 12 years. As if the compromise- and negotiation-averse Bush didn’t flush the hopeful post-9/11 national unity down his reelection toilet.

Brooks’ complaint of the moment is that the partisan dems are pushing for a fast withdraw from Iraq, when, in the interest of bipartisan comity, they should be supporting the Iraq Study Group recommendations.

Which, of course, they did, almost unanimously, last fall when the ISG report was released. And rejected with nary a comment by Bush.

So Bush and the neo-cons bamboozle us into a war, totally botch its execution, refuse the advise of a politically neutral group of experts, label any criticisms as treason, announce that a President-At-War is constitutionally impervious to any oversight by Congress, and when the opposition party finally scrapes up enough courage to push an alternative that a majority of the American people want — they’re being overly partisan.

First the Right destroyed the national conversation, with its proliferation of radio squawk-shows and cable TV screaming pundits. Then it went after our political system, undermining the legislative process and then inflicting the worst president in history on the nation.

And now, without admitting to a single error in all that time, they blame the mess on anyone but themselves. As Paul Krugman puts it:

You know, at this point I think we need to stop blaming Mr. Bush for the mess we’re in. He is what he always was, and everyone except a hard core of equally delusional loyalists knows it.

Yet Mr. Bush keeps doing damage because many people who understand how his folly is endangering the nation’s security still refuse, out of political caution and careerism, to do anything about it.

Lying Us Into War, Again

Bush/Cheney continue to prattle on about Al Qaeda’s presence in Iraq, and about the aid the supposed terrorists are getting from Iran and Syria — all lies and all part of the sales pitch for their final fiasco, an invasion of Iran.

Here’s a few key facts that we won’t be hearing from our war-mad leaders:

1. Of the more than 19,000 insurgents currently held in US prisons in Iraq, 135 are foreigners. So, if indeed it’s an Al Qaeda insurgency, then it is one entirely of Bush’s creation. Terrorists are not flocking to Iraq to join in the fight against freedom; rather, they were born and raised in Iraq and have rightfully turned against an unlawful, brutal, foreign occupation.

2. Of those 135 foreign terrorists in custody, nearly half are from Saudi Arabia. Few, if any, are from Iran.

3. Half of all those Saudi “can’t be terrorists because they’re our allies” come to Iraq as suicide bombers.

4. And lest we forget, all but four of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia; none were from Iraq or Iran.

As Juan Cole puts it:

Which country is providing a lot of foreign suicide bombers? US ally Saudi Arabia. Has any general or Bush administration official called a press conference to denounce Saudi Arabia? No. Has Joe Lieberman threatened it with a war? No. Everything is being blamed on Iran because powerful American special interests want to get Iran, regardless of the facts.

There isn’t any significant cadre of foreign “al-Qaeda” fighters in Iraq if this is all we could capture. They can’t take over the country because they are such a tiny group. Everything Bush and Cheney have said about the nature of the war and the supposed dangers of a US withdrawal is transparent falsehood.

Second verse, worse than the first…………

Michael Sky