In Bush's second inaugural address, which lasted all of seventeen minutes, he used the word "freedom" twenty-five times. His reference, of course, is to our mission in Iraq (although, curiously, the word "Iraq" never passed his lips). Talk about protesting too much!
Ohhhhhh! FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM
Viola! Iraq is free!
The word "liberty" appeared fifteen times in the speech. Apparently Bush is hoping that if he repeats that word often enough the American people will, when they think of the war in Iraq, picture in their minds' eyes Lady Liberty, lifting her lamp beside the golden door. Unfortunately a more likely candidate for war icon -- and a truer reflection of the reality--is the image of a hooded man perched on a box with electrodes attached to his hands. Not exactly lamps and golden doors here. Rather another sort of monumentalism, one reflected in the words "All hope abandoned ye who enter in."
Perhaps Dante's caveat should be inscribed by the provisional authority over the arrival gates at Baghdad International Airport.
Friday, January 21, 2005
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Accountability Moment
“Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 election. And the American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me, for which I'm grateful.”
Am I alone in finding the above comment made by George Bush in a recent interview not only stupid but downright chilling? I mean like the remark, “Who today still speaks of the massacre of the Armenians?” THAT kind of chilling?
What is he saying? “Since 51% of the American people who voted voted for me, that means I am not to be held accountable for anything I did, any decision I made, in my first term.” Is it something like that? That his re-election makes him immune from any blame?
Sounds like a guilty man, acquitted by an incompetent jury, breathing a huge sigh of relief as he cites his constitutional protection from double jeopardy. Think of O.J. Simpson post murder trial.
Because Bush has been re-elected, he is no longer accountable, for example, for war crimes committed by our side in Afghanistan and Iraq? (Recall that after WWII it was primarily the Nazi leadership, rather than the soldiers who committed atrocities, that were tried and condemned).
Bush is not accountable for the long-term effects of the “Bush Doctrine” of pre-emptive war? If he is not, then who is? Is it God? Should it instead be called the "God Doctrine"? Perhaps, because, after all, it was God who put Bush in office. So Bush assures us.
Perhaps it is God alone who will ultimately hold Bush responsible for his actions, since -- God knows!-- the American people clearly lack the wisdom, and Congress the backbone, to do so.
Am I alone in finding the above comment made by George Bush in a recent interview not only stupid but downright chilling? I mean like the remark, “Who today still speaks of the massacre of the Armenians?” THAT kind of chilling?
What is he saying? “Since 51% of the American people who voted voted for me, that means I am not to be held accountable for anything I did, any decision I made, in my first term.” Is it something like that? That his re-election makes him immune from any blame?
Sounds like a guilty man, acquitted by an incompetent jury, breathing a huge sigh of relief as he cites his constitutional protection from double jeopardy. Think of O.J. Simpson post murder trial.
Because Bush has been re-elected, he is no longer accountable, for example, for war crimes committed by our side in Afghanistan and Iraq? (Recall that after WWII it was primarily the Nazi leadership, rather than the soldiers who committed atrocities, that were tried and condemned).
Bush is not accountable for the long-term effects of the “Bush Doctrine” of pre-emptive war? If he is not, then who is? Is it God? Should it instead be called the "God Doctrine"? Perhaps, because, after all, it was God who put Bush in office. So Bush assures us.
Perhaps it is God alone who will ultimately hold Bush responsible for his actions, since -- God knows!-- the American people clearly lack the wisdom, and Congress the backbone, to do so.
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
The Hackery of Machan
In a recent editorial entitled "The Incompetence of Rather," Tibor R. Machan, who bears the impressive title of "R.C. Hoiles Chair in business ethics and free enterprise at Chapman University in Orange, California," takes to task the long-time CBS anchorman for the part he played in the scandal over forged documents related to Bush's Texas Air National Guard service.
Machan notes that Rather testified he "still believes that the content of the documents is true because 'the facts are right on the money,' and that no one had provided persuasive evidence that the documents were not authentic." These assertions by Rather are "preposterous," says Machan. "Facts are established by proofs, by evidence, not by the absence of disproof or the lack of counter-evidence." Machan complains that Bush is presumed guilty by Rather, is forced to prove his innocence, to "prove a negative." This is very bad form indeed for any respectable journalist.
It appears to me, though, the Machan is deliberately conflating two claims by Rather. I agree that it is preposterous for Rather to continue to insist that the documents are not forgeries. They clearly are. That this is the case, however, does not mean that their "content"--what they suggest about Bush's National Guard service--is not true. If "content" refers to the claim that Bush blew off the final year of his Guard service, that claim may very well be, probably is, true, though the documents CBS produced to "prove" this claim may be fraudulent.
An analogy: I can believe that Mark Fuhrman was a real sleazeball, a bad cop who planted evidence to try to get O.J. Simpson convicted of murdering his wife. I can believe this and still believe, as most reasonable people do, that O.J. Simpson murdered his wife.
It appears to me the Bushites are very much interested in encouraging the sort of logical confusion that Machan deliberately fosters here. They are hoping the John Q. Public will assume that, since the documents meant to prove that Bush behaved irresponsibly were fraudulent, then there must be no truth to the claim the Bush was a naughty boy. But clearly he was. If Bush did not blow off the final year of his Guard service, why does he not produce evidence of this? How difficult could it be to find one person who remembers serving with him at that time? To continue to claim that it is possible that Bush did his Guard duty in full is just as "preposterous" a position as any Machan blasts Rather for taking.
Another thing. "Facts are established by proofs, by evidence, not by the absence of disproof or the lack of evidence." I think it impossible that Mr. Machan could write those words and not hear in them the echo of Donald Rumsfeld's infamous gloss on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." What Machan accuses Rather of doing to Bush--of presuming him guilty and making him prove his innocence--is precisely what Bush and his men did to Saddam Hussein. They accused him of having weapons and demanded that he prove that he did not--to prove a negative. Of course we know now that Saddam was being put in an impossible position since the weapons did not exist. Machan writes, "such a defendant would have no way to go about showing that none of these things happened since in order to do so, one would need to know what evidence exists for the claim. But none had been provided." What solid evidence did the Bush administration provide that Saddam possessed WMD? None. The best it could do was the dog-and-pony show poor Colin Powell was forced to put on at the United Nations -- not exactly one our our country's finest moments.
"Dan Rather," writes Machan, "appears to believe that whenever someone says something damning about people he doesn't much like, that must be 'right on the money,' simply because no one has proven it wrong." Once again, how can Machan not observe that this precisely describes Bush's attitude toward Saddam, a person Bush "doesn't like much," to put it mildly ("This is the guy who tried to kill my dad"). Bush didn't much like Saddam, therefore the claim that he possessed WMD must be "right on the money." Bush didn't much like Saddam, so the claim that he was in bed with Osama bin Laden must be valid. And so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
Machan concludes that "Dan Rather should be fired" for his misbehavior. Allowing him to retire early, apparently, was not enough; a much greater mess should be made of him. So how about Bush? As for Rather's ethical lapse, what damage did it do, except to his own and his news organization's credibility? Compare that to the damage caused by Bush's lapse: thousands of lives lost, billions of dollars down the drain, and our country's reputation in the world a smoking ruin.
Machan notes that Rather testified he "still believes that the content of the documents is true because 'the facts are right on the money,' and that no one had provided persuasive evidence that the documents were not authentic." These assertions by Rather are "preposterous," says Machan. "Facts are established by proofs, by evidence, not by the absence of disproof or the lack of counter-evidence." Machan complains that Bush is presumed guilty by Rather, is forced to prove his innocence, to "prove a negative." This is very bad form indeed for any respectable journalist.
It appears to me, though, the Machan is deliberately conflating two claims by Rather. I agree that it is preposterous for Rather to continue to insist that the documents are not forgeries. They clearly are. That this is the case, however, does not mean that their "content"--what they suggest about Bush's National Guard service--is not true. If "content" refers to the claim that Bush blew off the final year of his Guard service, that claim may very well be, probably is, true, though the documents CBS produced to "prove" this claim may be fraudulent.
An analogy: I can believe that Mark Fuhrman was a real sleazeball, a bad cop who planted evidence to try to get O.J. Simpson convicted of murdering his wife. I can believe this and still believe, as most reasonable people do, that O.J. Simpson murdered his wife.
It appears to me the Bushites are very much interested in encouraging the sort of logical confusion that Machan deliberately fosters here. They are hoping the John Q. Public will assume that, since the documents meant to prove that Bush behaved irresponsibly were fraudulent, then there must be no truth to the claim the Bush was a naughty boy. But clearly he was. If Bush did not blow off the final year of his Guard service, why does he not produce evidence of this? How difficult could it be to find one person who remembers serving with him at that time? To continue to claim that it is possible that Bush did his Guard duty in full is just as "preposterous" a position as any Machan blasts Rather for taking.
Another thing. "Facts are established by proofs, by evidence, not by the absence of disproof or the lack of evidence." I think it impossible that Mr. Machan could write those words and not hear in them the echo of Donald Rumsfeld's infamous gloss on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." What Machan accuses Rather of doing to Bush--of presuming him guilty and making him prove his innocence--is precisely what Bush and his men did to Saddam Hussein. They accused him of having weapons and demanded that he prove that he did not--to prove a negative. Of course we know now that Saddam was being put in an impossible position since the weapons did not exist. Machan writes, "such a defendant would have no way to go about showing that none of these things happened since in order to do so, one would need to know what evidence exists for the claim. But none had been provided." What solid evidence did the Bush administration provide that Saddam possessed WMD? None. The best it could do was the dog-and-pony show poor Colin Powell was forced to put on at the United Nations -- not exactly one our our country's finest moments.
"Dan Rather," writes Machan, "appears to believe that whenever someone says something damning about people he doesn't much like, that must be 'right on the money,' simply because no one has proven it wrong." Once again, how can Machan not observe that this precisely describes Bush's attitude toward Saddam, a person Bush "doesn't like much," to put it mildly ("This is the guy who tried to kill my dad"). Bush didn't much like Saddam, therefore the claim that he possessed WMD must be "right on the money." Bush didn't much like Saddam, so the claim that he was in bed with Osama bin Laden must be valid. And so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
Machan concludes that "Dan Rather should be fired" for his misbehavior. Allowing him to retire early, apparently, was not enough; a much greater mess should be made of him. So how about Bush? As for Rather's ethical lapse, what damage did it do, except to his own and his news organization's credibility? Compare that to the damage caused by Bush's lapse: thousands of lives lost, billions of dollars down the drain, and our country's reputation in the world a smoking ruin.
Sunday, January 16, 2005
Freedom on the March!
What George W. Bush said:
"As a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva."
What happened as a consequence:
"According to ICRC [the Red Cross], one prisoner 'alleged that he had been hooded and cuffed with flexicuffs, threatened to be tortured and killed, urinated on, kicked in the head, lower back and groin, force-fed a baseball which was tied in his mouth using a scarf and deprived of sleep for four consecutive days. . . . When he said he would complain to the ICRC he was allegedly beaten more. An ICRC medical examination revealed hematoma in the lower back, blood in urine, sensory loss in the right hand due to tight handcuffing with flexicuffs, and a broken rib.'"
In a detainee's own words: "They threw pepper on my face and the beating started. This went on for half and hour. And then he started beating me with a chair until the chair was broken. After that they started choking me. At that time I thought I was going to die, but it's a miracle I lived. And then they started beating me again. They concentrated on beating me in the heart until they got tired from beating me. They took a little break and then they started kicking me very hard with their feet until I passed out."
Another. "They stripped me naked, they asked me 'Do you pray to Allah?' I said 'Yes.' They said 'Fuck you ' and 'Fuck him.'. . . Someone else asked me, 'Do you believe in anything?' I said to him, 'I believe in Allah.' So he said, 'But I believe in torture and I will torture you.'"
As Andrew Sullivan notes, "These are not allegations made by antiwar journalists. They are incidents reported within the confines of the United States government" (NYTimes, 13 Jan 04).
Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free; the wretched refuse of your teeming shores . . . and I will torture the hell out of them.
"As a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva."
What happened as a consequence:
"According to ICRC [the Red Cross], one prisoner 'alleged that he had been hooded and cuffed with flexicuffs, threatened to be tortured and killed, urinated on, kicked in the head, lower back and groin, force-fed a baseball which was tied in his mouth using a scarf and deprived of sleep for four consecutive days. . . . When he said he would complain to the ICRC he was allegedly beaten more. An ICRC medical examination revealed hematoma in the lower back, blood in urine, sensory loss in the right hand due to tight handcuffing with flexicuffs, and a broken rib.'"
In a detainee's own words: "They threw pepper on my face and the beating started. This went on for half and hour. And then he started beating me with a chair until the chair was broken. After that they started choking me. At that time I thought I was going to die, but it's a miracle I lived. And then they started beating me again. They concentrated on beating me in the heart until they got tired from beating me. They took a little break and then they started kicking me very hard with their feet until I passed out."
Another. "They stripped me naked, they asked me 'Do you pray to Allah?' I said 'Yes.' They said 'Fuck you ' and 'Fuck him.'. . . Someone else asked me, 'Do you believe in anything?' I said to him, 'I believe in Allah.' So he said, 'But I believe in torture and I will torture you.'"
As Andrew Sullivan notes, "These are not allegations made by antiwar journalists. They are incidents reported within the confines of the United States government" (NYTimes, 13 Jan 04).
Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free; the wretched refuse of your teeming shores . . . and I will torture the hell out of them.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
CBS Purge
Today CBS, in a broad mea culpa gesture, fired four people involved in the Sixty Minutes segment on Bush's National Guard service. Here the network attempts to salvage its news department's reputation by holding people accountable for bad journalism.
Gee whiz! Imagine if the Bush administration demonstrated a comparable level of accountability! For example, what if it held people accountable for the WMD fiasco, or the Abu Ghraib torture scandal? A deafening silence would descend upon the West Wing, upon certain corridors of the Pentagon -- given the sudden absence of the many individuals responsible.
I guess the difference is that the Fourth Estate is willing to admit that it is capable of making mistakes, whereas the Bush administration, as we all learned during the presidental debates, is mistake-proof.
The real news, of course, is that the administration secretly paid the right-wing editorialist Armstrong Williams a quarter of a million dollars (this tax dollars, by the way) to promote its No Child Left Behind program. So much for independent journalism. Psyops targeting, not the Iraqi people, but the American.
Gee whiz! Imagine if the Bush administration demonstrated a comparable level of accountability! For example, what if it held people accountable for the WMD fiasco, or the Abu Ghraib torture scandal? A deafening silence would descend upon the West Wing, upon certain corridors of the Pentagon -- given the sudden absence of the many individuals responsible.
I guess the difference is that the Fourth Estate is willing to admit that it is capable of making mistakes, whereas the Bush administration, as we all learned during the presidental debates, is mistake-proof.
The real news, of course, is that the administration secretly paid the right-wing editorialist Armstrong Williams a quarter of a million dollars (this tax dollars, by the way) to promote its No Child Left Behind program. So much for independent journalism. Psyops targeting, not the Iraqi people, but the American.
Saturday, January 01, 2005
A Tsunami of Stupidity
We give them money; are they grateful?
No they're spiteful and they're hateful.
--Randy Newman, "Political Science"
In the wake of the tsunami--death toll now estimated 150,000--Dubya emerged on the third day from his Crawford retreat to deliver tidings of comfort and joy. He pledged $35 million for disaster relief. Just think: almost as much in aid for the one of the greatest natural disasters of the last hundred years as he is likely to spend celebrating his re-election on inauguration day! It was only after a few days of being called a cheapskate by the world that Bush uped the figure to $350 million.
In the light of the this reluctant good samaritanism, consider again the current justification for our war in Iraq: that we are there spending billions of dollars (and hundreds of lives) because of our deep and abiding love for the Iraqi people. If our occupation is motivated by compassion -- and not by greed -- why not a comparable expenditure for the tsunami victims? Are they less worthy of our love?
I've been listening off and on for the last few days to what Bill Moyers, in a recent valedictory speech, characterized as "the nattering nabobs of no-nothing radio": Beck, Limbaugh, et al (I know, I know, but they're all I can get on the radio around here...). All of these instant geniuses are suggesting that ANY disaster relief we offer is more than those brown bastards deserve. "After all, we give more in humanitarian and developmental aid than the rest of the world combined and nobody appreciates it!" So saith the radio preachers.
Never mind the reality: "According to a 2001 poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes based at the University of Maryland . . . the average American believes that the United States spends 24 percent of its budget on assistance to developing nations, more than 20 times the actual figure." Whereas the money so far pledged by Sweden for tsunami relief amounts to $8.40 for each of its citizens, the money Bush initially pledged (the 35 million) amounts to "twelve cents per capita" (Charles Sennott, "Global Analysts Dispute Perceived US Generosity," the Boston Globe, 12/31/04).
Tsunami an irresistible metaphor now. For example: the tsunami of stupidity we experienced on November 2nd. Particularly in our part of Ohio. This a working-class area, suffering from severe economic depression, yet the people vote overwhelmingly to return to office a guy whose main goal as president is to loot the Treasury for the sake of his bloated plutocrat friends? A guy who is doing absolutely nothing to help working class people--is in fact positively harming them?
No, one need not have been listening all that closely on November 2nd to hear throughout Ohio's fourth district an immense collective "DUH!" The crashing of the moronic wave.
No they're spiteful and they're hateful.
--Randy Newman, "Political Science"
In the wake of the tsunami--death toll now estimated 150,000--Dubya emerged on the third day from his Crawford retreat to deliver tidings of comfort and joy. He pledged $35 million for disaster relief. Just think: almost as much in aid for the one of the greatest natural disasters of the last hundred years as he is likely to spend celebrating his re-election on inauguration day! It was only after a few days of being called a cheapskate by the world that Bush uped the figure to $350 million.
In the light of the this reluctant good samaritanism, consider again the current justification for our war in Iraq: that we are there spending billions of dollars (and hundreds of lives) because of our deep and abiding love for the Iraqi people. If our occupation is motivated by compassion -- and not by greed -- why not a comparable expenditure for the tsunami victims? Are they less worthy of our love?
I've been listening off and on for the last few days to what Bill Moyers, in a recent valedictory speech, characterized as "the nattering nabobs of no-nothing radio": Beck, Limbaugh, et al (I know, I know, but they're all I can get on the radio around here...). All of these instant geniuses are suggesting that ANY disaster relief we offer is more than those brown bastards deserve. "After all, we give more in humanitarian and developmental aid than the rest of the world combined and nobody appreciates it!" So saith the radio preachers.
Never mind the reality: "According to a 2001 poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes based at the University of Maryland . . . the average American believes that the United States spends 24 percent of its budget on assistance to developing nations, more than 20 times the actual figure." Whereas the money so far pledged by Sweden for tsunami relief amounts to $8.40 for each of its citizens, the money Bush initially pledged (the 35 million) amounts to "twelve cents per capita" (Charles Sennott, "Global Analysts Dispute Perceived US Generosity," the Boston Globe, 12/31/04).
Tsunami an irresistible metaphor now. For example: the tsunami of stupidity we experienced on November 2nd. Particularly in our part of Ohio. This a working-class area, suffering from severe economic depression, yet the people vote overwhelmingly to return to office a guy whose main goal as president is to loot the Treasury for the sake of his bloated plutocrat friends? A guy who is doing absolutely nothing to help working class people--is in fact positively harming them?
No, one need not have been listening all that closely on November 2nd to hear throughout Ohio's fourth district an immense collective "DUH!" The crashing of the moronic wave.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)