Some on the right have taken the position that torture can be rationalized with their Judea-Christian values because "it works".

Setting morality to the side, former Vice President D ick Cheney, who is obviously anticipating judicial proceedings, is pushing this line.

I guess whether or not torture "works" depends on how you define the word. If you are seeking accurate, reliable intelligence, it does not work.

Who says torture doesn't work to gather intelligence?

The military's Joint Personnel Recovery Agency. JPRA ran the military program known as Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE), which trains American pilots to resist hostile questioning and psychological abuse by their captors.

In a document sent to the Pentagon's chief lawyer in July 2002 (a month prior to Cheney and Rice signing off on the use of "enhanced techniques"), they referred to the application of extreme duress as "torture" and warned that it would produce "unreliable information."

"The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel," according to the JPRA document.

It continues, "The requirement to obtain information from an uncooperative source as quickly as possible -- in time to prevent, for example, an impending terrorist attack that could result in loss of life -- has been forwarded as a compelling argument for the use of torture," the document said. "In essence, physical and/or psychological duress are viewed as an alternative to the more time-consuming conventional interrogation process. The error inherent in this line of thinking is the assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable and accurate information. History and a consideration of human behavior would appear to refute this assumption." (emphasis mine)

So how can torture "work"?

It works if you tell your victim what you want them to say. Exactly how Communist regimes used to get American prisoners to "confess" to war crimes.

What did the Bush administration, specifically Cheney, want?

A "link" between 9-11 and Iraq.

According to a former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the interrogation issue, former Vice President Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld demanded that the interrogators find evidence of al Qaida-Iraq collaboration. The former official, who is also former Army psychiatrist, asserts that the Bush administration applied "relentless pressure on interrogators" to use harsh methods on detainees to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

Here's how torture "works": Your victim will agree to anything you say to stop the pain.

We all carry a version of 9-11 in our heads. I watched the second plane hit, and each tower collapse on a 6" B&W screen in a buddy's cubicle at the office.

You no doubt remember how the events unfolded into your world.

But there is an Official version of the worst act of violence on American soil since Pearl Harbor. Although most people think of The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), as an attempt to prevent further attacks, the "independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks."

This report - delivered to the American people on July 22, 2004, nearly two years after American troops invaded Iraq in retaliation for the attacks - is the Federal government's version of what happen on September 11, 2001. You can read, or review the record managed by of the National Archives and Records Administration, here.

But keep this in mind. As we now know by admission of the CIA, the three primary authors of the report were coerced into writing it by the use of torture.

(Save any comments about what you personally consider to be torture. There are legal definitions under various statutes, and they were all broken in the treatment of Abu Zubdayah, Abd a'Rahim al-Nashri, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.)

The 9-11 Commission failed to account for the fact that it's primary witnesses - the alleged perpetrators of these acts - were under threat of torture and death when they laid out the "official" story of 9-11. In the courts, of course information obtained through coercion is unacceptable as evidence (not to say it doesn't happen), but in intelligence circles, information obtained through torture is highly suspect, because research shows that people will say whatever they need to to avoid physical pain.

The 9-11 Commission never had access to any of the detainees, but sent their questions to the CIA, who obtained answers by whatever methods they felt necessary.

So, much of the Official version of 9-11 must now be considered to be fictionalized to meet the demands of those holding the whip - the United States government, specifically the Bush administration.

Now there is a growing call for another "Truth Commission" - to investigate the very actions that lead directly to the report from the 9-11 Commission.

We are a nation of laws. We do not need any more commissions.

We need a full, legal investigation by a Special Prosecutor of the possible crimes, national and international, committed by President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, and any other officials of the previous administration, including the CIA, the military, and private contractors to determine what, if any, laws were broken.

Those who have broken the law need to be tried, and those convicted need to be sentenced appropriately.

Just a few days ago, someone who calls themselves "seektruth" left a comment on my post "Progress in Iraq".

"You liberals just can't let the past go…can you?", wrote "seektruth".

Those of you who are believers in any of the justifications for invading Iraq would like to believe that it all came out OK.

Maybe you feel pride in our military for beating down the Iraqi army and then building it back up.

Maybe you feel safer knowing for sure that Iraq didn't have Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Maybe you sleep better because Al-Queda has has come and gone from Iraq.

Maybe you even feel proud for having taken out a dictator and liberating the Iraqi people.

Congratulations. Mission accomplished.

Just don't expect the Iraqis to thank you.

According to new figures from the UN, some 4.5 million Iraqis were driven from their homes by our invasion and our failure to predict and prevent sectarian warfare. Half of those are refugees, still without a place to live. In the last year, despite the reduced level violence, only 5% of those displaced have felt it was safe to return to their former homes, fearing renewed sectarian violence.

Iraqi officials estimate there are 5 million orphans as a result of our war.

Whether you support the war - it is not "past" - or you don't, you and I are responsible for as many as a million dead Iraqis.

Those who claimed a franchise on patriotism in these blogs and elsewhere when the war was front page news don't talk about Iraq anymore.

It is outrageous that they just want to pretend that it's "past".

I didn't expect I would be the one to call for celebration of the peaceful elections in Iraq yesterday.

Prison-camp style security - but not direct involvement by U.S. troops - brought provincial elections that were, by all accounts that I have read, free of violence.

The fact that the Iraq government and the Iraqi Army could conduct these events in security is a remarkable achievement, and does give hope that democracy does have a future there. After the 2005 elections, blood literally ran in the streets.

Unfortunately, democracy in Iraq remains a hope.

Despite the participation of the Sunnis in yesterday's elections, voter turnout was the lowest in the nation's short history of electoral contests.

Apparently, Iraqis do not see any significant change in their lives as a result of elections. Their country is still occupied by a foreign force. Their economy is in shambles and corruption in their government is world caliber.

True, most Iraqis can now go out on the street and reasonably expect to return home in one piece, but once the threat of violence fades, other human needs quickly arise. Clean water. Electricity. Jobs.

As these are met one by one, only then do people really begin to think seriously about alternative paths of improving their country through electoral government.

Certainly, the Iraqis are finally making progress towards some definition of a "normal" society, and that is fantastic. Now we can get out of their country.

Does this forward step for Iraq justify Bush's decision to invade?

Absolutely not.

It's been so long.

Since my kids are out of school, the only time I am present at the playing of the national anthem is sporting events, of which I attend very few.

But when I have, I have felt a hypocrite standing and removing my hat only because of peer pressure. I felt no "pride" in being American when we were acting like an empire.

I have not been proud to be an American since Bush invaded Iraq, and I have not sung the Star Spangled Banner.

I have stood. I have taken off my hat.

But I have not sung.

Until last night.

I was sitting in a semi-darkened room with about 30 people. We had just watched a replay of the day's events; the inauguration of Barrack Hussein Obama as the 44th President of the United States of America.

(Thanks Justice Roberts for messing with the oath. Talk about your cheap shots.)

When the Navy Chorus concluded the ceremony by singing the Banner, something totally unexpected happened.

One, by one, we all began to sing.

It had been so long, I stumbled on some of the words.

By the last stanza, we were singing loudly.

When we finished there was silence.

YES!

My recent posts on the need for this country to cleanse itself through the unequivocal denunciation of torture, our unconditional commitment to honor all international and U.S. laws providing for the protection of human rights, and the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for the violations of human rights during the Bush administration, have brought numerous comments (from a small number of people) attempting to convince me that;

• Waterboarding is not torture, if it's done in a certain way or only a few times.
  
• Even if it was torture, we "only" tortured a small number of people.
  
• Even though we did torture, since it occurred in Guantanamo Bay, a legal no-man's land, it was technically not a violation of any international or U.S. law.
• The torture administered by Americans on Iraqis in Iraq were the work of a few rogue soldiers.
• Torture was authorized by the Congress.
  
• Torture and gross violations of human rights are necessary to protect us from those who would grossly violate our human rights and torture us.
• Because of any or all of the above, we are morally entitled to treat human beings as less than human.
  

May I say to those who wrote to express those views or those who are considering doing so: Save your time.

As insignificant as this forum is, I will not let it be used as a microphone for voices that call for or excuse the degradation of our fellow humans.

It would be entirely appropriate if lame-brain duck President George W. Bush, now on his final "surprise visit" to Iraq, should remain there for the rest of his days, basking in the eternal gratitude of the Iraqi people.

A "surprise visit", of course means that he is still not brave enough, Iraq is still too bloody and chaotic, for anything like an announced head-of-state visit, unless you are the head of state of Iran.

Sneak in, take some pictures ("You guys still have that plastic turkey around here?"), sneak the hell out and never to return. That is the plan.

One last photo-op with W and the grateful Iraqi people. No. Can't do that. Might get blown up.

OK, one last photo op in a bunker deep in fortress "Green Zone" with the democratically-elected representatives of the grateful Iraqi people. Thank us for putting the Shia back in power over the Sunni, and opening the door for the Iranians to run the place.

Nice work, W. Nice job.

We destroyed the infrastructure of an entire country, killed hundreds of thousands of its citizens, drove 4 million more into exile, and then threw $100 billion American tax dollars at a totally bungled and corrupt reconstruction effort.

Heck'ova job, Bushie.

Do us all a favor; check yourself into Abu Grebe, and save us the cost of a trial.

[UPDATE]

Obviously, the Iraqis don't want the SOB either.

[UPDATE]

And then, on to Afghanistan.

From the NYT:

“This is a country significantly larger than Iraq, and significantly poorer; the infrastructure is difficult,” he said. ”Nevertheless, the mission is essential. We cannot, you know, achieve our objective — of removing the safe havens, kicking out Taliban — and say, ‘O.K., now let’s leave.’ ”

"We want to do the hard work now," he said.

And then - he left.

The so-called "Bush Legacy Project" currently being conducted out of the White House - while the economy melts down, and at taxpayer's expense - led by none other than Karl Rove, is attempting to use the commercial media to document a completely perverted version of history.

Wouldn't these two pathetic individuals love to paint their portraits as honorable and decent men who were the victims of someone - anyone - else?

Unfortunately for Bush and "Bush's brain", history has long since passed them both by.

Regardless of Bush's and Rove's recently expressed regrets for the "failure of intelligence" regarding the supposed possession of weapons of mass destruction by one Saddam Hussein, former dictator of Iraq, and their claims that they would never have invaded said country if they had known... both were long ago on record as saying that they would have invaded even if they HAD known there were no WMD.

This re-christened "mistaken" invasion of Iraq has resulted in the loss of perhaps a million lives, many more casualties, and the displacement of as many as five million Iraqis from their homes, most of whom now waste in poverty, with no hope of resuming their former lives.

In this wonderful day of instant documentation and global dissemination of every event and spoken word, history will not allow itself to be re-written, even by Karl Rove.

Bush will go down in history as the worst U.S. president since the founding of this great republic, and will hopefully meet his end in prison for his crimes. Personally, I hope that it's by a conviction of the International Criminal Court, because that would be most appropriate for the magnitude of his digressions, and would be appropriate for a man who thoughtlessly dismissed the authority of that body in implementing torture as the policy of the United States.

It would be fitting if Bush and Rove ended up sharing a cell so that they could spend the rest of their lives pointing fingers at one another.

*** Cheney almost certainly cheats legal justice by claiming that his poor health prevents him from standing trial, in the sad tradition of deposed dictators. Would that he spend whatever time he has left headlocked by his conscience, forced to face the deaths and suffering he has wrought in the cause of his personal enrichment... but I doubt that he has anything like a conscience left.

A horrific, shameful chapter in American history is closing too slowly upon these sick men.

May they be recalled only as examples of the perversion of the human spirit that can overtake those who come to think of themselves as masters of their fellow humans.

History will be served. May justice also.

It appears as though the nations of Iraq and the United States are very close to finalizing a Status of Forces Agreement that would take effect when the U.N. mandate authorizing the U.S. occupation of Iraq expires at the end of this year.

The agreement still needs to be approved by several parties in Iraq, but this is certainly good news. Now in it's sixth year, the war in Iraq has cost the U.S. 4183 military lives and nearly 30,000 wounded. The accumulated financial cost to support the estimated 140,000 troops in Iraq is estimated at close to three trillion dollars. The continuous rotations into combat there have severely strained our military and our reserves.

When to leave Iraq has been a furiously debated issue, with the administration and candidate John McCain rejecting the idea of setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. They have argued that to do so is tantamount to surrender.

Democrat Barack Obama, who opposed the invasion before it occurred, has argued that our military occupation of Iraq, which contains several of Islam's holiest cities, actually contributes to the currents of Islamic hostility towards the U.S., and proposed that our troops should be drawn down gradually and safely, leaving only a "residual" force in place by 2010.

When Senator Obama traveled to Iraq last summer, and met with Prime Minister Noori al-Maliki, the Prime Minister embraced Obama's timeline, saying that it reflected a solid understanding of the complex issues involved. Senator McCain still maintains that a timeline for withdrawal represents a defeat. It's not clear how he will respond to an Iraqi-imposed timetable.

The timeline about to be agreed upon is a few months longer than Obama's proposal. But the point is, there will be a timely withdrawal of most U.S. forces over the next 1-2 years.

Senator Obama's understanding of the situation not just in Iraq, but the Middle East, and his leadership on this issue have been a very significant force in bringing this costly and unnecessary war to an end.

Obama offers precisely the kind of rational and insightful thinking needed in a President, along with the courage to stand independently when necessary. He deserves great credit for his role in working to get our troops out of Iraq.

What will become of Iraq?

Frankly, it seems that further violent struggle for power and resources between the Shia, the Sunnis and the Kurds is inevitable. And, certainly, the fact that we installed the Shia into power will increase Iranian influence not just in Iraq, but in the region.

These are some of the many unfortunate effects of our ill-conceived invasion. Along with hundreds of thousands of lives lost.

But ultimately, what becomes of Iraq is up to the Iraqis. As it should be.

How did you do? How many of these "liberal" positions do you agree with?

When the liberal label is thrown around as a slur, it's worth noting that the majority of Americans are liberals - even those who don't know what it means.

And it's worth remembering that it was liberals who brought us Social Security, Medicare, the minimum wage, the Peace Corps, Clean Air and Clean Water legislation, the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts and the Family and Medical Leave Act.

 

As I wrote a few weeks back, the war in Iraq is essentially over for the United States. It ended, in effect, when the Iraqis asked us to leave. By the way, they want a timetable to be sure we actually get out.

The Iraqis had seen the writing on the wall, with many Americans, notably Barack Obama, getting behind a fixed timetable for the withdrawal of American forces, as opposed to the open-ended "hundred years" or more occupation called for by John McCain and expected by the architects of the war.

With a threatened American withdrawal signaling the end of American protection of the Sunnis from a still revenge-seeking Shite majority, the Sunnis "awoke" and sloughed off the radical element and turned to cooperation with American troops and the Shite-dominated government. More than the so-called "surge" of American troop numbers, this "Awakening" movement by the Sunnis resulted in a drop in violence in recent months, according to American General David Petraeus. The myth of the "success of the surge", of course, has been used by John McCain and his supporters to demonstrate McCain's brilliance in all matters military, even though General Petraeas disagrees.

With the UN authorization of American occupation nearing expiration, the Bush/Cheney/McCain neocons tried to strongarm the Iraqis into allowing American forces to remain and the United States to act indefinitely as a super-government, whose troops and hired guns could attack at will would remain above Iraqi law. Originally, the Americans had demanded a completely open-ended military presence in Iraq at over 50 bases around the country.

This is the plan that was envisioned by *** Cheney and the people who started this war, including John McCain. From before day one of the war, the plan was (and remains) to "secure" stable supplies of petroleum for the global oil industry.

With many Americans, including military personnel and their families, lining up behind a fixed timetable for withdrawal, and especially the rise of Senator Obama, whose signature issue was ending American involvement in Iraq, the Iraqis realized that they would have to establish some semblance of order, or descend back into the all-out sectarian war that has balkanized their country. Hence, the Sunni Awakening.

And so, John McCain and the Republicans are crowing about "victory", while frantically negotiating with the elite of Iraq to divide up the spoils of war. Again, General Patraeus, constantly cited as a paragon of virtue and a genius of military strategy, denies that anything like "victory" has occurred and remains extremely skeptical that Al-Queda has been, or ever will be, defeated in Iraq.

Unfortunately, "conditions on the ground" do not look good. Recently, sectarian tensions seem to be on the rise again. Presumed Sunni suicide bombers are striking at Iraqi Army and police recruiting stations, in a return to an old tactic. And in response, the Shite government has begun "cracking down" on Sunni Awakening groups.

The hard-core pro-war among us, and John McCain, continue to maintain that our phony "victory" justifies the invasion/occupation and the hundreds of thousands of deaths that ensued. Some are even starting to deny that we invaded at all, but claim were called by the Iraqis to "liberate" them.

If it were not for Iraqi national pride, and their absolute insistence that we leave, we would be doing the exact same thing the Russians are doing in Georgia - settling in for a permanent occupation.

It's too patently Rovian not to consider it.

If anyone has heard any plausible explanation as to why Georgia decided to provoke the Russian bear during the opening ceremonies of the Olympic games, please let me know.

I am sure that most Americans were too mesmerized by the Olympic events to pay any attention when tiny Georgia - a staunch U.S. ally with very close ties to John McCain - attacked Russian loyalists in South Ossetia.

If you get all of your news from TV, you could be excused for thinking that it was Russia who is the aggressor. Of course the Russians, for their own political and economic purposes, are happy to oblige by pinning Georgia to the mat, and seizing the real opportunity of taking it back into their borders.

What on earth would make the Georgians think that their actions would result in anything other than a swift and brutal defeat by the Russian army?

Branding himself as the battle-hardened warrior with the military pedigree and labeling Obama as "not ready for the 3 AM phone call", it would seem that every second of video of Russian tanks rolling across Georgia is a campaign commercial for McCain. As we know, when faced with the reality that his "experienced warrior" image was being roundly rejected by Americans in favor of Obama's "change" brand, John McCain made a conscious decision, if hidden from the public eye, to sign up Karl Rove and subscribe to his philosophy that there is nothing off limits when it comes to winning an election. Nothing.

(Rove himself, being widely recognized as the PR shill for the gang that foisted the war on Iraq on us, outed a CIA agent, and innumerable other atrocities, is far too toxic to have an official position with the McCain campaign. He plays a journalist on FOX TV. But his cronies are on board, and his slimy fingerprints are all over McCain's new wave of smear tactics.)

SO, the question stands: Why did the Georgians attack the Russian enclave in South Ossetia now, a mere 100 days before the U.S. presidential election?

Did Bush/McCain give Georgian leadership false assurances that they would receive military support from the Bush administration, or perhaps even coerce them into attacking the Russians?

If it strikes you as incredible that Bush and McCain would knowingly and deliberately sacrifice the lives of thousands of innocent Georgians and throw one of our allies to the Russian bear for political gain, remember that soldiers never decide who lives and who dies in wars. The politicians do.

That's the way war works, my friends.

 

Remind me, who won the Cold War?

"The New American Century" that according to the neocons was supposed to follow the dissolution of the Soviet Union, leaving us in a unipolar world with the U.S. as the solitary "super power" seems to have ended prematurely - about 90 years early. I have to wonder what Ronald Reagan would think.

Somehow, I don't think he would be very happy with George Bush.

After the former Soviet state of Georgia, a strong American ally, made the mistake of poking the Russian bear, Russia has responded with asymmetrical violence. This flexing of the Russian muscle reflects both the growing totalitarian state of Russia and their exploding economic/military wealth, largely due to the increasing value of their plentiful petroleum resources in a world that constantly craves that drug.

What can the U.S. do to stop Russia from overrunning Georgia and preventing her from re-absorbing the sovereign democratic state of Georgia?

Nothing. Nothing at all.

Thanks to George Bush.

The Bush administration's illegal aggression against the sovereign state of Iraq has set a new, negligible, international standard for invasion and occupation.

The United States has absolutely no moral platform for condemning Russia's invasion or thousands of deaths of innocent Georgian civilians.

And, most pathetically, we do not have the military strength to offer any resistance to to the Russian aggression.

Why? Because we have spent all of our military strength fighting a phony "war on terror".

It seems very clear that Russia will do whatever it wants, and the United States will be powerless, either militarily or politically, to even stand up a token resistance. Thanks to the neocons - *** Cheney and their stooge George Bush.

Oh, and by the way, China will overtake the U.S. next year as the largest manufacturer of goods.

Pathetic.

A new Rand Corporation study concludes that the Bush administration's "war on terror" was essentially ill-conceived and wholly ineffective at preventing terrorist violence. In fact, it has been counterproductive and the study urges a "fundamental rethinking" of counterterrorism strategy.

Guess what. Many of us have been saying this since before the phony "war on terror" was declared.

The Rand corporation is no left-wing think-tank, nor does it have any affiliation with the Democratic Party. Rand was set up in 1946 by the United States Army Air Forces as Project RAND. In fact, RAND has been criticized as militarist.

I think it is worth quoting a few lines from the report, otherwise I might be accused of exaggerating or distorting the degree to which this report disparages the Bush/Cheney/McCain approach to fighting religious extremism with military force.

Here is a report on what the Rand study says:

The current strategy for defeating al Qaeda has not been successful in diminishing the group's capabilities and is unlikely to do better without a shift in emphasis, the Rand Corp. study concludes.

Since 2001, al Qaeda has conducted a greater number of attacks across a larger geographic area than at any time in its history. "We find it hard to agree that al Qaeda has been significantly weakened since Sept. 11, 2001," says Seth Jones, coauthor with Martin Libicki of the report titled "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qaeda."

The authors evaluate al Qaeda since 2001 as being both "strong" and "competent."

What's needed, the report suggests, is a "fundamental rethinking of U.S. strategy" to focus on minimizing overt military action and increasing intelligence collection and partnerships with law enforcement agencies around the world.

The report couldn't have been clearer in its refutation of one of the central tenants of the Bush administration's strategy against al Qaeda: the characterization of the conflict as a "global war".

For one thing, they point out, a major American military role sets the stage for a backlash. "The U.S. military can play a critical role in building indigenous capacity but should generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim countries, where its presence is likely to increase terrorist recruitment," Jones and Libicki wrote." (emphasis mine)

Bush/Cheney/McCain were/are dead wrong. And many are dead because of them.

We need a new approach to neutralizing Muslim fundamentalism.

The "war on terror" is now over and we lost.

Let's now try to understand and to diffuse the antagonism towards the United States that it has bred.

Let's demonstrate by example the tolerance and freedom that were the hallmarks of this country until the past few years.

 

The language of intolerance is not without consequences. Unfortunately, the intolerant are too weak minded to understand the consequences of their own words.

So-called "conservatives", taking their cue from the "You're with us, or with the terrorists" jargon of their President, love to use the word "hate".

While they constantly accuse those who disagree with them of being "haters", as in "Bush-hater", which is practically a proper noun in their writings, the right-wing began to fall into its current pattern of extremism during the Clinton administration. Clinton is still a favorite target of right-wing haters.

The appropriation of the Conservative ideology by the extreme right-wing has its roots in racism, in reaction to the human-rights movement of the 1950s and 60s, which threatened their social privileges and illusions of superiority. George Wallace nearly rode a wave of fear and hatred to the Presidency, and seven elections later George Bush succeeded in re-mobilizing the hate movement, unifying racists, homophobes, religious fundamentalists and the just plain greedy to form an alliance that narrowly lost the popular vote in the 2000 election.

George Bush's handlers, in fact give some credit to George Bush, were smart enough to recognize that hate is a powerful weapon if you are willing to set your personal morality aside and use it. This is the essence of fascism, and the current culture of right-wing hate lacks only the label. Let's call it what it is; fascist.

The attacks of September 11, 2001 gave rise to a wave of terror among the so-called conservatives, and the language of hate and extreme pseudo-patriotism felt empowering to those whose moral values are insecure, and soothed their fears of a world that is changing around them.The Bush administration stoked this fear and loathing in order to carry out it's dastardly crimes against the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. The President, the Vice-President and top members of the administration cultivated hatred as a national policy, and bear personal responsibility.

The radio wave of right-wing hate has subsided somewhat, but it is not hard to find both local and national loudmouths who use ignorance, intolerance and hate to get their dim-witted listeners foaming at the mouth.

Of course, Fox News is now giving these hate-mongers a run for their money, with outright demagoguery masquerading as television news. There is a lot of money to be made pandering to the fearful and weak-minded.

Right here on these pages the implied violence of the right is on prominent display. For disagreeing with the president, I have repeatedly been accused of hating George Bush, the "troops" and my country.

Writers such as Amy Geiger-Hemmer and Jim Hayett frequently base entire blog posts on a message of hate and intolerance. Their comments on other's blogs are peppered with the word "hate".

In their ignorance, they think that whipping out the h-word wins an argument. What they and the right-wing media are actually doing is promoting violence and death. Yet, they deny any personal responsibility for the violence that they promote. Any personal responsibility for the wars that they continue to promote but decline to fight.

Last weekend, one of their kind decided to put his hate into action, and took a shotgun into a Unitarian Universalist church, a church that actively supports human rights and social justice for all people.

This is the end product of the culture of right-wing hate. If you preach intolerance and hate, you are promoting violence.

Personal responsibility may be denied, but it can not be escaped. I hope your God grants you grace.

 

History will record that the war on Iraq ended this week. And Barack Hussein Obama is probably the only man who could have done it.

Obama made resistance to the war a legitimate, mainstream position. In fact, he made it the centerpiece of his candidacy for President of the United States.

Obama gave a recognizable face and a powerful voice to the struggle against this war which had been demonized by the right and ignored by the media.

He stood up to his own party's certain nominee, based on his conviction that the war was wrong from the start.

His stood up to every attempt by the right-wing to paint him as naive or even unpatriotic. His personal courage, and the growing movement he has come to represent, have spurred the Democrats in Congress, who had been intimidated by the demagoguery of the Bush loyalists, and his cool presentation and reasoned manner have soothed much of the pain that has surrounded the war and divided the country.

The responsible and realistic timetable Obama put forward to bring our troops home was embraced and welcomed by the Iraqis, which forced Bush to accept it as well.

As if this historic achievement weren't enough, Obama's leadership and the growing power of his supporters have diffused any American talk of military action against Iran. Incredibly, his influence has forced both Iran and the United States to the negotiating table, something both sides adamantly refused to do just weeks ago.

Obama's message of change and hope have been scorned and mocked by the dwindling messengers of the pro-war right, but as Obama breaks down the walls, those voices grow weaker and sound ever less relevant.

The world is watching, and listening to Barack Obama. And yes, they are hoping.

 

 

I have to admit it's pretty damn funny.

The utter ineptitude of the McCain camp that is.

I'm really starting to love John McCain - the old codger. I aspire to be a curmudgeon when I get old, and John does a pretty fair job of it.

But his campaign? Talk about the gang that couldn't shoot straight. I am reminded of the classic western scene where the cruel guy shoots at the feet of some innocent bystander yelling "Dance!" "Dance!", and the poor dude jumps around in a cloud of dust trying to avoid getting a foot blown off, much to the amusement of the heartless spectators. Except in this case, the guy doing the shooting is the same guy doing the dancing!

LOL

For months, John McCain and his ever-changing lineup of lobbyist/handlers have been trying to parlay McCain's undistinguished Navy career into some kind of foreign policy "expertise". He was constantly appearing in military settings, scowling most impressively. (Great scowl John. Way better than your grin... which is scary.)

But every time he opens his mouth he steps right into it - repeatedly mixing up those Sunnis and Shites, and repeatedly being corrected on camera by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, his personal apologist. Yesterday, McCain expressed his concerns about recent developments on the border between Pakistan and Iraq. I wonder if he knows Iran is in between.

McCain has also been discussing how our proposed missile shield will be received - in Czechoslovakia. That country that has not existed in fifteen years. CBS has a scorecard of the McCain gaffes here, but you get the idea.

It's hard to sound all presidential when you mix up Germany and Russia. They're so sort of... different.

SO ANYWAY, see, the McCain boys devised this great strategy to portray our boy Obama as unconcerned with foreign affairs, even dissing the troops in Iraq by not showing up at their house. They would put Obama in a trap, see? They would challenge him to go to Iraq!

He would have to admit he didn't care about the troops, or.. or... go to Iraq.

LOL

Yeah, so Obama flies into the Middle East and most of the world's media, including all three American network anchors follow right along, watching him take the place by storm - leaving grumpy old John sitting by himself. Then, before he even landed in Iraq, Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki told the German press that Obama's plan for bringing American troops home in something like 19 months was just about the timetable that the Iraqis were thinking of. Which sort of gave Obama some major credibility, and made Bush/McCain look like they were totally misreading their own ally and were left out of the loop - I don't know...intentionally?

Now, Obama is touring U.S. military bases and being treated like a rock star. The soldiers love him! The generals are completely down with him in photo ops. He listens to them respectfully, and talks to them like he were their Commander-in-Chief.

He is on the agenda of virtually every head of state in the Mid East, and the Europeans can hardly wait to fist-bump the man and gaze into his soulful eyes. (See last night's Daily Show. I'm sure it's on YouTube.)

And worst of all, the man looks SO damn good doing it. Presidential, you might say. They are saying.

He is cool, authoritative and confident and has so far not given the press the satisfaction of putting a foot wrong while waltzing all over the world stage.

McCain is actually lucky that no one is listening to his sad attempts to piece together an economic vision in public, but it has so distressed him that there is a rumor going around that he will announce his selection for a running mate this week - to take attention away from Obama's sold-out Iraq tour!

Talk about shooting off the big gun!

McCain may be ready to take a shot in the dark. Hope he doesn't hit the new Vice President.

Sorry, I know it's cruel, but...

"Dance, John, Dance!"

- UPDATE below -

[Apologies to all you Fox News types for such a long post. Some subjects actually require of a bit of thought and analysis.]

John McCain, desperate Republicans, and apparently right-wing radio think they have found an issue that works for them - Did you support "The Surge"?

Except it's not an issue.

This pseudo-argument about "The Surge" - Were you behind it or not? - like everything about this war except the lives of those destroyed by it, is phony. The question - accusation - is based on the false assumption that The Surge is responsible for the decline in violence in Iraq.

The right is positing that the military genius displayed by Bush/McCain in calling for "The Surge" demonstrates, as McCain brags, "I know how to win wars." (Do we need another "Bring 'em on!" president?)

The obvious question is: If all it took to stabilize Iraq was a few thousand more troops, why did we wait five years to send them?

Before we invaded Iraq, then U.S. Army General Eric K. Shinseki stated that a successful occupation of Iraq would require several hundred thousand American troops. This was recognized by the Bush White House as being politically unacceptable, and Shinseki was dismissed, both figuratively and literally.

Donald Rumsfeld, who fantasized himself a brilliant, next-generation military strategist, had convinced the clueless Bush and the panting *** Cheney that he could overrun the Iraqi defenses with 100,000 troops. He was right. American forces reached Baghdad with relative ease, and chaos ensued immediately.

What General Shinsheki knew, but Rummsfeld ignored, was that taking Baghdad would not be the end of the war. ("Mission Accomplished")

Shinsecki understood that protecting the Iraqi infrastructure - the electrical grid, the sanitation system, the financial and cultural institutions and the petroleum industry - even simply maintaining law and order in a hostile sectarian population - could never be accomplished with 100,000 American troops.

Many experts predicted that without a strong hand - enough troops to maintain order - Iraq would descend into civil war. Which is exactly what happened. They also predicted that unless there were enough troops to seal the country's borders that sectarian partisans would flow in from Shite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia to provide the spark. Which is exactly what happened. All the while Bush/Cheney/McCain remained defiant of the facts on the ground.

Even as Iraqi cities descended into utter lawlessness, Shite death squads blockading the streets and beheading Sunnis in broad daylight, Al-Queda-inspired terrorists teaming with the Sunnis to create anarchy, and millions of Iraqis abandoning or being forced to flee their homes with just the clothes on their backs, Bush balked at making the politically unpopular call to send in more troops. Bush, Cheney, and, yes, John McCain continued to assert that victory was just around the corner, that al-Queda was on the run. While they tried to score politcial points, the slaughter and mayhem continued.

This unwillingness or inability to provide for basic security for the Iraqi population, which is required of an occupying force by international conventions, is the real war crime of the Bush administration. The American people chose to close their eyes to the evidence and stand behind the invasion of Iraq. The million dead Iraqis were given no choice - their eyes were closed for them.

With the American public becoming disillusioned about the length and cost of their war, and the midterm elections coming, Bush had no choice but to abandon his asinine "Stay the Course" slogan, and change American military strategy, as experts had been calling for continuously since the invasion. "The Surge" was not born of a flash of military brilliance but of naked political desperation following four+ years of failure, death and chaos.

Military groupies and John McCain imagine "The Surge" as a singularity, like man's stepping onto the moon - a great achievement surrounded only by a vacuum.

The addition of American reinforcements was actually only one ingredient in the bubbling stew that is the history of the Iraqi people. It was not the cause of the reduction of violence in the last year.

The fact is that the Iraqi civil war burned itself out. It ran out of fuel - people who were willing and able to continue the killing.

With as many as a million dead, and 4-5 million Iraqis displaced and segregated by sect, the stresses on the sectarian fault lines have been, at least temporarily, relieved.

The ability of the foreign terrorists to create terror faded out because the Iraqi people had reached the limits of their terror. They can no longer be terrorized. It was the strength and courage of the Iraqi people that made Al-Queda irrelevant, not American military force.

The so-called "Surge" came just as the Iraqis had decided that they had had enough death, and stopped killing one another.

It was no ingenious military strategy, but a political expedient, and simply the latest chapter in the sorry record of the unprovoked invasion of Iraq by the United States.

If that's John McCain's evidence of his brilliant military mind, it is pathetic indeed. He can be predicted to follow the same path that Bush and Cheney have been taking us down for eight years, a path of unnecessary and gratuitous military conflict and destructive unilateralism.

If you liked the surge in Iraq, you'll love the surge in Iran.
 

- UPDATE -

In an interview with Katie Couric yesterday, which CBS News did not air on the evening news, John McCain demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of the so-called "surge". Or he forgot. Or he lied.

Couric cited Barack Obama's statement that besides the additional American troops, in fact before they arrived, there were other factors driving down the level of violence in Iraq. McCain, obviously flustered and angry, stated "Colonel MacFarland was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history."

McCain's time-line is reversed. The rejection of foreign fighters by the sheiks, and the so-called awakening councils began before the so-called surge plan was even conceived. In fact, McCain himself, in arguing for the surge, cited the Anbar Awakening as a reason to support the surge.

McFarland's own reports show that his unit actually left Anbar before most of the surge troops arrived; his success in the region came between June 2006 and February 2007.

Either McCain has lost his memory of the events, he has reconstructed events in his mind to match his policy, or he lied, assuming that no one would call him on it. CBS decided not to air the footage.

Since this exchange, and CBS's decision not to air became known, the McCain camp issued an attack on Obama, saying that he was refusing to give credit to the generals and the troops for their hard work.

This seems like a likely line of attack, and I expect to see it echoed here.
 

The endorsement by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki of Senator Barack Obama's proposed 16-month timeline for the withdrawal of the bulk of American troops has significance well beyond its positive effect on his campaign. Obviously, it demonstrates that Obama's instincts and advisers are more than a match for the vaunted foreign policy expertise of John McCain.

The call by the Iraqi Prime Minister for a specific timeline for American troop withdrawal was more than a huge blow to the credibility of George Bush and McCain - it may be the last nail in the coffin of the neo-conservative movement, headed up by Vice President *** Cheney.

The plan, of course - as articulated in a rare moment of candor by John McCain - was to stay in Iraq indefinitely. In the negotiations of a Status of Forces agreement, the U.S. had originally demanded more than 50 permanent bases on Iraqi soil, immunity for all U.S. soldiers and contractors, and the ability to use those forces unilaterally against Iraqi citizens. (And presumably, against Iran.)

This permanent occupation of Iraq was the primary objective of the war, and now it has turned to sand. A "free and democratic" Iraq was to be the home base for American military power in the Mid East. From Iraq, we could control the flow of oil, assuring that American companies would receive royalties for every gallon.

The Iraqis may be divided by religion, but the one thing that they all agree on is that they want their country back.

The endorsement of Obama's proposal blows wide open the Bush/McCain illusion that American occupation was at the request of a free Iraq. Both have said in the past that if the Iraqi government asked us to leave, we would.

Well, we have been asked.

Now, how we will reconcile our further occupation? Will McCain now advocate staying in Iraq against the will of the Iraqis? Assuming that we cannot simply walk away from our "investment" in Iraqi oil and strategic control of their forces, how long will the Iraqis tolerate our presence?

This conundrum proves the bankruptcy of the neo-conservative dream of American empire, and exposes the myth of McCain's so-called expertise in foreign policy.