Pinochet and Difficulty

Having made thousands of innocent people disappear in his day, General Augusto Pinochet finally drops down the rabbit hole himself, thus escaping the long arm of justice. And what is the reaction from the White House?

"Augusto Pinochet's dictatorship in Chile represented one of the most difficult periods in that nation's history," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. "Our thoughts today are with the victims of his reign and their families. We commend the people of Chile for building a society based on freedom, the rule of law and respect for human rights."

Notice the diction here. The dictatorship of Pinochet was not one of the darkest periods in Chile's history, one of the most shameful periods in Chile's history, one of the most abominable periods in Chile's history, etc. No, it was a "difficult" period. Something tells me that "difficulty" is not the word the families of the disappeared would likely choose to describe what they suffered under Pinochet. How about "terrorism"?

It would be difficult indeed to acknowledge our government's complicity in the Pinochet coup and the terror regime that followed. Difficult to explain why Nixon and Kissinger cozied up to the good General while he presided over atrocity after atrocity. Very very difficult.

See article by Amy Goodman at http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1214-33.htm

Johnny Bolton Resigns

From today's Washington Post:

Unable to win Senate confirmation, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton will step down when his temporary appointment expires within weeks, the White House said Monday.

Critics have questioned Bolton's brusque style and whether he could be an effective bureaucrat who could force reform at the U.N. . . . .

The White House resubmitted Bolton's nomination last month. But with Democrats capturing control of the next Congress, his chances of winning confirmation appeared slight. The incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democratic Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, said he saw "no point in considering Mr. Bolton's nomination again."

LET US ALL RISE AND SING

Ye haven't an arm, ye haven't a leg, hurroo, hurroo
Ye haven't an arm, ye haven't a leg, hurroo, hurroo
Ye haven't an arm, ye haven't a leg,
Ye're an armless, boneless, chickenless egg
Ye'll have to put with a bowl out to beg
Oh Johnny I hardly knew ye

With your drums and guns and guns and drums, hurroo,hurroo
With your drums and guns and guns and drums, hurroo,hurroo
With your drums and guns and guns and drums,
The enemy nearly slew ye
Oh my darling dear, Ye look so queer
Johnny I hardly knew ye.

Rumsfeld and "Honor"

Neo-con theorist Kenneth Adelman, on a conversation with Donald Rumsfeld, to The New Yorker:

"What was astonishing to me was the number of Iraqi professional people who were leaving the country. People were voting with their feet, and I said that it looked like we needed a Plan B. I said, 'What's the alternative? Because what we're doing now is just losing.'"

He said Rumsfeld did not take the assessment well.

"He was in deep denial -- deep, deep denial. And then he did a strange thing. He did 15 or 20 minutes of posing questions to himself, and then answering them. He made the statement that we can only lose the war in America, that we can't lose it in Iraq. And I tried to interrupt this interrogatory soliloquy to say, 'Yes, we are actually losing the war in Iraq.' He got upset and cut me off. He said, 'Excuse me,' and went right on with it."

Enter Rumsfeld as Falstaff:

Well, 'tis no matter; honour pricks
me on. Yea, but how if honour prick me off when I
come on? how then? Can honour set to a leg? no: or
an arm? no: or take away the grief of a wound? no.
Honour hath no skill in surgery, then? no. What is
honour? a word. What is in that word honour? what
is that honour? air. A trim reckoning! Who hath it?
he that died o' Wednesday. Doth he feel it? no.
Doth he hear it? no. 'Tis insensible, then. Yea,
to the dead. But will it not live with the living?
no. Why? detraction will not suffer it. Therefore
I'll none of it. Honour is a mere scutcheon: and so
ends my catechism.

Then & Now

George W. Bush, after the 2004 Presidential election:

"Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it."

George W. Bush, after the 2006 Midterm election:

"Once I built a railroad, I made it run, made it race against time.
Once I built a railroad; now it's done. Brother, can you spare a dime?"

new rules on gays

The Catholic Church's just released “Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care”:

1. Tell them to knock it off and straighten up.
2. If they won't knock it off, sodomize them to drive home the point.
3. Console them by telling them "God hates the sin but thinks the sinner is fabulous."
4. If all else fails, excommunicate their genitals.

civil war . . . yet?

From today's Washington Post:

"The escalating violence in the Tigris River towns in many ways serves as a microcosm of the daily violence roiling Iraq. Sectarian attacks have increased more than tenfold since the start of the year and now claim more than 100 victims a day, according to the Iraqi government."

DUBYA SINGS!

AIN'T GONNA BE NO CIVIL WAR
AIN'T GONNA BE NO WAR
IF WE STAY THE COURSE
ON OUR BLINDERED HORSE
DER AIN'T GONNA BE NO WAR

AIN'T GONNA BE NO CIVIL WAR
AIN'T GONNA BE NO WAR
LONG AS WE WAIT
WITH NO PULLOUT DATE
DER AIN'T GONNA BE NO WAR

AIN'T GONNA BE NO CIVIL WAR
AIN'T GONNA BE NO WAR
WITH THE GOOD LORD'S GRACES
AND SOME PERMANENT BASES
DER AIN'T GONNA BE NO WAR

Police Academy X: Messypotamia

The Baghdad Police College, hailed as crucial to U.S. efforts to prepare Iraqis to take control of the country's security, was so poorly constructed that feces and urine rained from the ceilings in student barracks. Floors heaved inches off the ground and cracked apart. Water dripped so profusely in one room that it was dubbed "the rain forest." --Washington Post

A nice metaphor for the U.S. effort to prepare the Iraqi security forces for our long-delayed-but-always-expected pullout.

Being There

Appalled by a colleague who, in discussing the war in Iraq, while acknowledging that the war is a disaster, remarks, "But wouldn't it be exciting to be a part of the the most consequential happening of our time!" As if he envied the young men and women now serving in Iraq.

Let me find an analogy. Suppose that a gang rape happened at a small town tavern, and this crime was the "biggest thing ever to hit this town." Would a reasonable person respond by saying "Gee willikers! Wish I had been at the tavern that night rather than at home watching t.v. with the wife and kids. Nothing exciting ever happens to me!"

What good can come out of having taken part in this disgraceful war? How is it possible that any U.S. soldier will come away from it without wounds, be they physical, psychological, or moral? The proper attitude to take toward our soldiers is one of pity, not envy. Compassion for what they've gone through. We can admire their professionalism, admire their devotion to duty, etc., but to admire them for having been used to prosecute an immense crime? No, only pity there.

I wish I may, I wish I might . . .

It finally arrived in my email, the bit of apocrypha so many others have received. It is entitled "HOW TO STOP ISLAMIC TERRORISTS" and goes on as follows:

Once in U.S. history an episode of Islamic terrorism was very quickly stopped. It happened in the Philippines about 1911, when Gen. John J. Pershing was in command of the garrison. There had been numerous Islamic terrorist attacks, so "Black Jack" told his boys to catch the perps and teach them a lesson.

Forced to dig their own graves, the terrorists were all tied to posts, execution style. The U.S. soldiers then brought in pigs and slaughtered them, rubbing their bullets in the blood and fat. Thus, the terrorists were terrorized; they saw that they would be contaminated with hogs' blood. This would mean that they could not enter Heaven, even if they died as terrorist martyrs.

All but one was shot, their bodies dumped into the grave, and the hog guts dumped atop the bodies. The lone survivor was allowed to escape back to the terrorist camp and tell his brethren what happened to the others. This brought a stop to terrorism in the Philippines for the next 50 years.

This delightful myth came to me with a note from the sender: "Take that, liberal."

During times of crisis, wishful thinking runs rampant. All we need do to quash the Iraq insurgency, see, is provision ourselves with sufficient pig matter. Let's have our soldiers armed, not with assault rifles, but with super-soakers filled with pig's blood. Those mighty mujahadeen will head for the hills! As for terrorism at home, rather than air marshals we could have commercial airliners guarded by live pigs -- and let Porky ride first class, so every passenger can get an eyeful as they board. That'll make those creeps think twice before they turn the plane into a bomb, since they'd be taking the pig with them!

Sad, isn't it, that educated adults can fall for such bigoted nonsense, that they can give in to the wishful thought that America, if we puff ourselves up Big enough, if make ourselves Bad enough, can scare the bejeezuz into our enemies, can turn these would-be bloody martyrs into docile lambs. After all, they are nothing more than superstitious children, right?

According to this "logic," the tortures and humiliations carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo should have had the effect of frightening all faithful Muslims into easy submission to our will. Of course the opposite happened: the abuse of detainees has inflamed hatred of the United States throughout the Arab world and mightily fueled Islamic militancy. It has, indeed, made it impossible for us to win "the hearts and minds" of the Muslim peoples. With the possibility of a political solution now out the window, all that is left is an endless cycle of violence, of killing and being killed. Blood feud.

What has put us in this awful position? Once again, wishful thinking. The wishful thinking of Bush's neo-con cabal, who fooled themselves -- and for a while fooled us -- into thinking Iraq would be a military cakewalk. Now only a fool would believe that there is a military solution to the problem of Iraq.

We need to make the war in Iraq THE issue in the next round of elections. We need to use the war, the candidates' view of the war, as a touchstone. Anyone who evinces even a trace of belief that Iraq can still be won by military means needs to be shunned like the plague.

We cannot afford any more wishful thinkers in office.

a series of catastrophes ending in . . . ?

From today's Washington Post:

Rumsfeld obliquely acknowledged mistakes and setbacks in Iraq, quoting the French statesman Georges Clemenceau as calling all wars "a series of catastrophes that results in victory."

So, war must always result in victory? How about the idea that often in war both sides are losers? How about war as "a series of catastrophes ending in catastrophe"? Ever hear of Vietnam?

What kind of Defense Secretary would admit that the war he has managed has been "a series of catastrophes" unless that characterization came in the course of a resignation speech? "My administration, although choreographing a series of catastrophes, has produced a war that is a booming success. You're doing a heck of a job, Rummy!" [And here the Secretary gives himself a nice pat on the back with a prosthetic arm designed for just such a purpose].

How much worse could it be?

Bush's New Iraq Argument: It Could Be Worse

By Peter Baker
Washington Post,Thursday, August 24, 2006

For three years, the president tried to reassure Americans that more progress was being made in Iraq than they realized. But with Iraq either in civil war or on the brink of it, Bush dropped the unseen-progress argument in favor of the contention that things could be even worse.

Bush acknowledged this week that he has been discouraged as well. "Frustrated?" he asked. "Sometimes I'm frustrated. Rarely surprised. Sometimes I'm happy. This is -- but war is not a time of joy. These aren't joyous times. These are challenging times and they're difficult times and they're straining the psyche of our country."

The President continued,

"Yes, straining our psyches. Like straining our bowels, only mental. It's like a mental constipation, but nationwide. We need to be regular. Sometimes I'm sad. It's sad to strain mentally. But rarely am I surprised. Clueless, sometimes, but rarely surprised. Peace is happy. If we had peace we'd all be happy campers. We can all agree on that. Except Vice President Cheney."

Embryo R-E-S-P-E-C-T!

New Method Makes Embryo-Safe Stem Cells
By Rick Weiss,Washington Post

Scientists have developed a method of growing stem cell colonies without destroying human embryos. The method involves removing a single cell from an early embryo, a procedure already commonly done to test for genetic defects. . . . Although the safety of the cell-removal process is still under study, there is no evidence that the procedure puts embryos at significant risk or that babies born from such "biopsied" embryos are abnormal in any way.

"You can honestly say this cell line is from an embryo that was in no way harmed or destroyed," said Ronald M. Green, director of Dartmouth College's Ethics Institute and chief of an ethics panel that ACT convened to assess the experiment before it was done.

But early reactions from others suggest it will not be that simple. Bush offered little encouragement yesterday and, if anything, raised the bar higher, suggesting he would not be comfortable unless embryos were not involved at all.

"Any use of human embryos for research purposes raises serious ethical concerns," said a statement released by the White House. ". . . The President is hopeful that with time scientists can find ways of deriving cells like those now derived from human embryos but without the need for using embryos."

The statement went on, "The President is indeed uncomfortable with any disrespect shown an embryo. For example, one should never touch an embryo without first obtaining permission from the embryo to be touched. Using swear words such as 'damn' or 'shit' in the presence of an embryo, or deliberately breaking wind with an embryo nearby--these behaviors should also be strictly verboten. In short, one should treat all human embryos in much the same way one would treat a maiden aunt with strong fundamentalist Christian convictions."

More unkind observations on G. W. Bush

-- Bush often claims that he makes decisions "in his gut" -- by gut instinct. If so then he has a pretty dumb gut. So a new nickname for Dubya. Dumbgut. The Iraq war Dumbgut's excellent adventure. Dumbgut the Decider.

--Bush's election not unlike many an election for class president wherein the student body shows its contempt for the process by electing the least likely person available, say the class imbecile or delinquent -- often to the imbecile / delinquent's astonishment and agonizing embarrassment. "Wha . . . ME?"

--As every month of his presidency passes Bush's eyes seem to grow beadier, move closer together. By 2008 they will have actually merged and we'll have our first cyclops Chief Executive.

more collateral damage

"'And has thou slain the Jabberwock? / Come to my arms, my beamish boy! / O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' / He chortled in his joy. "

Midst all the newspaper and magazine articles calloohing and callaying about the extermination of al-Zarqawi, I noted a single reference to some "collateral damage": a woman and a child also perished when that Baquba safe house was blown to bits by our bombs.

The killing of al-Zarqawi was apparently the result of some very fine intelligence work. I wonder, did that intelligence also indicate that a woman and child were present in the house? Were the bombs sent on their way despite this knowledge?

Let us focus on that child for a moment. How old? Eight years? Eight months? A boy or a girl? Was the woman killed his or her mother? What was the child like? Did he or she have a ready smile? Infectious laughter? Eyes that looked out onto the world with trusting wonder? Was he or she loveable? Did he or she have many friends? What were his or her hopes and dreams? Did he or she survive the initial blast? Did he or she die in agony? Did he or she know that death was coming? Was he or she frightened?

What questions! How dare I try to cut through the comfortable callousness that most of us have developed to protect ourselves from the ugly realities of this war!

But that child . . .

Imagine that you found yourself in a room with public enemy number one, Osama bin Laden. Also in that room was a child. You were handed a pistol and given an option: you may kill bin Laden, but you must also kill the child. Otherwise you must let both go free.

I am not asking what Jesus would do. We all know what Jesus would do. I am asking what YOU would do. For this dilemma is one our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan face constantly: in killing the enemy, they must also sometimes kill the innocent.

Would you pull the trigger -- twice?

Bush: "My bad"

You know, you know how it is with me baby
You know, you know I just can't stand myself
Takes a whole lot a medicine
For me to pretend that I'm somebody else.

--Randy Newman, "Guilty"


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush, beset by public doubts about his leadership, has opted for a more humble tone in discussing the Iraq war, including admitting mistakes, as a way to rebuild his credibility, analysts said on Friday . . .

Bush was unusually frank in discussing his mistakes in a war that has killed more than 2,400 Americans and thousands of Iraqis, saying he regretted the "Bring 'em on" challenge he issued to Iraqi insurgents in July 2003.

He said the remark was the "kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong message to people."

Bush went on to apologize for the years he spent "completely zonked out on cocaine and drunker than a fiddler's bitch. That was a bad one on me. Sorry, Mom and Pop. I learned my lesson."

Bush's change in tone did not signal a change in policies, however. He and Blair refused to set a timetable for withdrawing troops and Bush said conditions on the ground would dictate future decisions about troop levels and commitments in Iraq.

******************

He apologizes for the cowboy rhetoric but not the actions that rhetoric was used to cover and justify. As if things would be different if he'd used a more diplomatic, more civilized tone as he led us into an unjust war. As if democracy would be in full flower in Iraq today if only he'd minded his Ps and Qs.

How long will it take for him to apologize for the war? To apologize to the families of the thousands killed? To apologize to the tens of thousands maimed, physically and or psychologically?

Well, perhaps that will be best left to future administrations.

Kenny Boy and the Book of Job

On reports that ex-Enron CEO Kenneth Lay has, in recent days, compared his trials and tribulations to those suffered by the Biblical Job.

****************

There was a man in the land of Enron whose name was Kenny-boy. And that man was perfect and upright . . . just about, and one that kinda feared God, and eschewed evil, more or less. And this man was rich beyond all imagining, and the greatest guy west of the Mississippi.

And one day the Lord said unto Satan, "Hast thou considered my servant Kenny-boy, that there is none like him in the earth, one that kinda feareth God, and escheweth evil, more or less."

Then Satan answered, "Uh, well, now that you mention it, I have considered Kenny-boy at some length, and had some palaver with him. In fact we've made quite a few, how shall I say, business arrangements together."

And the Lord said unto Satan, "Eh? What was that?"

And Satan returned, "Oh yea, me and Kenny-boy, we go way back. Good old boy, that Kenny. And a good Christian too. His Dad was a preacher, they say."

And the Lord replied, "Hum. Well, from now on he's all yours. I wash my hands of the bastard."

SOMETIME LATER

Kenneth Lay cried out onto the Lord: Why me, oh Lord! Why me?

And the Lord did answer: "Becauseth thou art a mighty shite in the eyes of God, Kenneth Lay, and thou shalt no more escape a heavy sentence than thou shalt draw out leviathan with an hook or his tongue with a chord. In short, you are well and truly fucked, my boy, by thy own filthy hand. So don't come bitchin to me."

the high and the low of it

We're in the money! We're in the money!
We've got a lot of what it takes to get along!

--Al Dubin, from "The Goldiggers"

We're low, we're low, we're very very low
As low as low can be.
For rich or high for we make them so
And a miserable lot are we.

--Richard Buckner, "The Song of the Low"

*****************************

HIGH

Record profits for Halliburton, which declared 2005 "the best in our 86-year history." David Lesar, Halliburton's chairman, president and CEO, declares on the company website, "For the full year 2005 we set a record for revenue and achieved net income of $2.4 billion with each of our six divisions posting record results."

LOW

As of Monday, May 8, 2006, at least 2,422 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes seven military civilians. At least 1,907 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers.

HIGH

In January, Exxon Mobil posted the highest quarterly and annual profits of any U.S. company in history: $10.71 billion for the fourth quarter of 2005 and $36.13 billion for the full year.

LOW

The report comes amid consumer outcry in the U.S. about soaring gasoline prices. The average retail price of gasoline in the U.S. is now $2.91 a gallon, or 68 cents higher than a year ago.

more dog wagging

From today's Washington Post, an article on how the importance of Zarqawi in Iraq has been exaggerated by the military -- perhaps at the Bush administration's request?-- to reinforce the idea of a connection between terrorism in Iraq and the 9/11 attacks.

"U.S. military policy is not to aim psychological operations at Americans, said Army Col. James A. Treadwell, who commanded the U.S. military psyops unit in Iraq in 2003. 'It is ingrained in us: You don't psyop Americans. We just don't do it,' said Treadwell. He said he left Iraq before the Zarqawi program began but was later told about it."

What a joke. What is the war in Iraq other than an immense PSYOPS campaign aimed at the American public? We know the Bush administration is all about politics-- that is, domestic politics. Foreign affairs simply serve the domestic political agenda. At the start Rove and others thought this war would be good for the political fortunes of Bush and his Republican guard, would help them win elections. It certainly won Bush a second term, although now he may regret having won, given his status as lamest of lame ducks. Still, that was the orignal intent and expectation behind the war.

Maybe Bush will start a war with Iran just on the off chance that the patriot effect will kick in again, that he'll get a boost in his pathetic approval ratings? Why not? He can start it, let the next administration -- or the next, or the next -- finish it.

Orwellian prophetic

Reading Orwell's Homage to Catalonia. A passage that rings true today, seventy years later.

"The fact is that every war suffers a kind of progressive degradation with every month that it continues, because such things as individual liberty and a truthful press are simply not compatible with military efficiency. . . . As for the newspaper talk about this being a 'war for democracy,' it was plain eye-wash. No one in his senses supposed that there was any hope for democracy, even as we understand it in England and France, in a country so divided and exhausted as Spain would be when the war was over. It would have to be a dictatorship."

On American press eyewash on Iraq, see Robert Fisk's recent Independent column at http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12395.htm

Support Our Troops?

Everywhere you look, the little yellow ribbons reading "Support Our Troops." A sentiment universally affirmed? Well, not in most of the rest of the world. And here at home?

Insofar as our troops are allowing themselves to be used by a corrupt administration to prosecute an unjust war, I say no, don't support the troops. Don't support them any more than you would have supported the troops of Germany or the troops of Japan in World War Two. Soldiers fighting a bad war should not be supported, no matter how admirable they may be as individuals.

Or rather support them only insofar as you support the movement to have them brought home immediately. Who can dispute the truth of what Michael Moore says at the end of Fahrenheit 9/11, that our troops are sworn to risk their lives in any necessary war but are not obliged to fight in an unnecessary and/or immoral war. It is dead wrong to put them in harm's way unnecessarily. This is what Bush has done.

The ethical status of a U.S. soldier fighting in Iraq? A painful question. If the soldier is intelligent and perceptive enough to recognize that the war is unjust, and yet s/he allows her/himself to be used to prosecute it, can that soldier not be found guilty of a certain degree of complicity?

How about the troops who are not perceptive enough to know that they are fighting a bad war? Is ignorance of the war's immorality an acceptable defense? And how many of them would be willing to offer that defense: "I was too stupid to know what was going on. I was just following orders."

Pity our troops? Most would bitterly resent the gesture, be ready to punch you in the nose for it. Both those who believe in The Cause (an ever-dwindling number) and those who don't but do retain a certain amount of professional pride. Because in pity there is always also a trace of contempt. Sometimes more than a trace.

A good many troops coming home from Iraq are very angry. They feel they have been ill used, although they are not sure how or by whom. Where is the dignity they hoped to find in the uniform?

If a civil war breaks out in Iraq?

From today's Washington Post:

There's no doubt that the sectarian tensions are higher than we've seen, and it's a great concern to all of us," Abizaid told the Senate committee, adding that the situation in Iraq is "changing [in] nature from insurgency toward sectarian violence." Asked about that comment after the briefing, Abizaid said that "sectarian violence is a greater concern for us security-wise right now than the insurgency."

Seems those folks in Iraq have run out of patience waiting for Uncle Sam to go home so they could get down to the bloody business of sorting each other out.

There's an old Irishism: "If you see a good fight, jump into it." I think the best policy here would be to reverse that. There's a hell of a fight getting started, and it's time to jump out.

Damn shame about all that oil, though. Maybe we can recover some of our losses by selling arms to all the competing sides in the civil war. That's been done before.

creeping peeping tomism

Elsewhere, Vice President Dick Cheney made his case for warrantless wiretaps today, telling reporters, "Everything else we've done for the past five years has been completely unwarranted." --Andy Borowitz, The Borowitz Report

Houston's chief of police Harold Hurtt, apparently feeling a bit overwhelmed these days by the influx of hurricane refugees (some of whom are criminals), has proposed placing surveillance cameras all over his fair city--in apartment complexes, in shopping malls, even in private homes. "I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother," Hurtt has commented, "but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?"

Mr. Hurtt is hardly alone in holding this opinion. After all, we have a president who is very much at ease with placing warrantless wiretaps on countless American citizens -- this ostensibly (note I say ostensibly) as a sort of fishing expedition launched in hopes of catching a terrorist or two. If you are not a bad guy, why worry that someone is eavesdropping on your telephone conversation? Why sweat it, even if this eavesdropping is in clear violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and therefore a felony? George Bush is the president, after all, and the president knows best.

One begins to fear that ours has become a nation of full-time busybodies --individuals who, instead of putting their shoulders to the wheel and their noses to the grindstone, are gleefully occupied applying their ears to the wall and their eyes to the keyhole. Our famed work ethic is being transformed, before our very eyes, into a watch ethic. Everyone watching everyone else, expecting -- yea, hoping -- to see the worst.

Consider the psychology of the surveillance enthusiast, he who would place a peephole camera in every kitchen, living room, and (especially) bedroom in America. This individual is not only voyeuristic but probably amnesiac as well. A moment's recollection would probably call up an instance wherein he had done something or said something that, presented to a spouse or a superior at work, would be the cause of acute embarrassment if not instant decapitation. (As Shakespeare put it, “Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping?") Yet this man's conviction of his own moral rectitude -- and the utter depravity of the rest of mankind -- makes him blind to such a possibility. Either that or he is simply convinced that he's far too clever ever to fall into the trap he would so casually set for others.

Among the rights central to the American way of life is the right to privacy. And as the shrinking of our world makes true privacy ever more rare, we need to grow more vigilant in safeguarding the right. This is why, whenever one of the self-proclaimed Guardians of Public Safety threatens to violate our privacy, we need to go after him, using every resource of the law. If we are lax in this, these contemptible peeping toms may very quickly morph into malignant Big Brothers. Then it will be too late.

A good place to start? Impeach George W. Bush.

Striking while the barrel is still smoking

A special prosecutor has been appointed to investigate why the Vice President harvested a lawyer that was clearly not flushed. This is poor sportsmanship, to say the least, and may break Texas game law.

****

A Washington psychologist, who prefers to remain anonymous, feels the Whittington shooting may be the result of pent-up rage the Vice President felt over not having had the opportunity to pull the trigger on a hijacked airliner on 9.11.

****

"The Vice President was acting on the best intelligence available to him at the time. This intelligence indicated that Harry Whittington was a quail. Mr. Cheney was thereby not only justfied in shooting him but obliged to shoot him. It was the responsible, indeed, the patriotic thing to do. Mr. Cheney is a hero in error."--Ahmed Chalabi.

****

I turned in the saddle and there was Armstrong, her sabre out, charging across the plain behind me, shouting hoarsely, “Wheel, Mr. Vice President! Not that way! Wheel – to the left, to the covey!” But the Vice President ignored Armstrong's plea and shot Harry Whittington in the face anyway.

Oh when shall his glory fade!
Oh the wild shot he made!

Honor that shot he made!
Honor that holy rage!
Oh Noble Dick Cheney!

Of Broken Pottery and Broken Kneecaps

Turns out it's a fallacy: Pottery Barn never had a "You broke it, you bought it" policy. Wiser business minds than that ran the Pottery Barn.

If only wiser minds were serving as apologists for our country's foreign policy, particularly our continued military occupation of Iraq. With the other justifications for that occupation having gone the way of all lies, the apologists are clinging desperately to the last and the lamest: "We broke Iraq, now we are obliged to stay and fix it."

Sounds all grown up and responsible, don't it? But how about the first Gulf War? We broke the hell out of Iraq then, didn't we? Did we fix it? No, we did not. In fact we imposed through the U.N. very severe economic sanctions to make sure that Iraq stayed broken. We wanted it broken, badly broken, so that the Iraqi people would be so miserable that they would be compelled, in desperation, to overthrow Saddam and his thugs.

And emiserate we did. Infant mortality rates soared. Tens of thousands of innocent children died of malnutrition or inadequate health care. The poor of Iraq were devastated. Only Saddam and his boyos continued to live high off the hog -- this from kickbacks for selling oil through loopholes in the sanctions, loopholes we deliberately left open for the sake of some of our oil-poor friends. We knew, through regular reports to the Security Council, that Saddam was getting these kickbacks, yet we did nothing about it. All of our attention was focussed on his WMD programs -- which programs, it turns out, did not exist.

The lamest of the lame. A better analogy for our occupation of Iraq would be a protection racket. You know, when the mob offers a small businessman "protection" from criminals, competitors, and corrupt cops -- all of this for a nominal fee? And if the businessman says "Thanks, but no thanks; I can protect myself," what happens to him? He gets his kneecaps shattered by his would-be protectors. The offer, it turns out, is one he can not refuse.

The American forces are presently supplying Iraqis with protection they can't refuse. And what is the price? That the Iraqis put in place an America-friendly government, one that can guarantee a steady flow of inexpensive oil our way for the next half-century.

And if they balk at our magnanimous offer -- as the worshippers at the Najaf mosque did yesterday, hurling their shoes at the head of one of our favorite puppets, the ex-Baathist thug / ex-CIA asset Iyad Allawi? Well, those ingrates had better watch their holy kneecaps.

Which kneecaps, if we break, we will most definitely NOT feel obliged to fix.

John Prine on the torture question

Some lyrics from John Prine's song "Some Humans Ain't Human," from his recently released Fair & Square.

Some humans ain't human
Some people ain't kind
You open up their hearts
And here's what you'll find
A few frozen pizzas
Some ice cubes with hair
A broken Popsicle
You don't want to go there . . .

Some humans ain't human
Some people ain't kind
They lie through their teeth
With their head up their behind
You open up their hearts
And here's what you'll find
Some humans ain't human
Some people ain't kind

Although not directly a commentary on the Bush administration torture policy, this song might serve as such. When we condone torture, we essentially have given up our humanity -- this because we've given up on humanity. We've given up on the idea that human beings can be redeemed, that people can be good. And once we've done that, what's the point in going on?

To state it differently: what keeps Dick Cheney from slicing his throat? If you have that much contempt for humankind, why not just cash in your chips?

I know Dick, I know: I can't handle the truth . . .

paid propagandists

A New York Times headline:

"U.S. Is Said to Pay to Plant Articles in Iraq Papers," . . . A covert campaign is under way to plant paid propaganda in the Iraqi news media and pay Iraqi journalists monthly stipends.

Why should we expect that Iraqi journalists should be treated any differently than our own? Armstrong Williams got a paycheck from the Bush administration for being in favor of No Child Left Behind, right? Why shouldn't Iraqis be paid to write articles favoring the U.S. backed government?

The difference is, of course, that Williams was not signing his own death warrant by supporting No Child Left Behind. Iraqi journalists might well be doing this if they allow their name to appear as author of what will be perceived as a pro-U.S. article in their papers. So give them some combat pay as well.

Who Loves Ya?

What's it like? It's like a man whose wife has divorced him, moved across the country, remarried, had children by her new husband, and obtained a number of restraining orders against her ex. Still, the man keeps contacting her saying "Come on, baby, I know we can make this marriage work!"

That's what Bush's attitude toward Iraq is like. He's just incapable of recognizing that it is over, kaput. The Iraqis don't love us, won't ever be persuaded to love us, in fact hate our guts and just want us to bugger off forever. But Bush won't see it.

"Come on, baby! Just give me another chance! That Abu Ghraib thing was just an aberration! And Fallujah? I was drunk, I swear. Come on, love me!"

By the company one keeps . . .

What is the test of an honest man?

An honest man, if he should happen to wake and find himself in a house of ill repute -- having accidently wandered in the night before (for even honest men take a drop now and then) -- an honest man will leave that house immediately, lest his family or co-workers spy him there.

Can there be any doubt now that the Republican Party is no place for an honest man? How much more evidence of its corrupt nature does one need to conclude that the GOP is a rotten den of iniquity? Do not fool yourself, friend, into thinking that you can somehow redeem that house by your very presence. No, flee it immediately. Get out, and for God's sake stay out.

Flee whither? To the arms of the Democrats? Not necessarily. An honest man may not be altogether comfortable in the company of Bill Clinton and John Kerry, I will admit; yet he certainly cannot stay in the company of George Bush, Karl Rove, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, "Scooter" Libby, "Duke" Cunningham, Bob Taft, Ken Blackwell -- yea, an endless gallery of rogues! -- and remain honest.

It's like the song the bartender sings at closing time: "You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here."

Ya better watch out! Ya better not cry!

From The Washington Post:

BAGHDAD, Nov. 24 -- A suicide attacker steered a car packed with explosives toward U.S. soldiers giving away toys to children outside a hospital in central Iraq on Thursday, killing at least 31 people. Almost all of the victims were women and children, police said.

He knows when you are sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows when you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness' sake!

The grotesque nature of this war would cause the most proficient craftsman of black comedy to throw his hands into the air and concede that he's no match for Bush and his gang. This indeed is the present Uncle Sam has brought the children of Iraq.

The parents of those children would be wise, I think, to advise their kids to give American soldiers bearing gifts a very wide berth, lest they be turned to bloody mush. In addition the Iraqi government should require that all Americans in country wear a tinkling little bell -- as a housecat might be forced to wear -- this to give the kids fair warning of their approach.

Vide the true history of the Pied Piper of Hamlin. Also see Derek Mainhart's excellent The Iraqi Tinies, his short graphic novel on the fate of the children of Iraq.

Precious Truths

The New York Times reports that the Bush administration has decided to charge Jose Padilla with lesser crimes than those of which he has been publicly accused (that is, planning to set off a "dirty bomb," to blow up apartment buildings with gas lines) because it was "unwilling to allow testimony from two senior members of Al Qaeda who had been subjected to harsh questioning."

For "harsh questioning" we should read, of course,"torture." And there is good reason why the courts do not accept as evidence testimony elicited by torture: it is notoriously unreliable. When one is being tortured, one will say almost anything to make the torture stop -- often whatever one thinks one's interrogators want to hear.

One of the "senior members of Al Qaeda" is reportedly Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, "believed to be the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." Mohammed is being held at a "black site" somewhere -- another kind of undisclosed location. Why undisclosed? "The better to give you the third degree, my dear!"

The Times report continues: "One review, completed in spring 2004 by the C.I.A. inspector general, found that Mr. Mohammed had been subjected to excessive use of a technique involving near drowning in the first months after his capture . . . . Another review, completed in April 2003 by American intelligence agencies shortly after Mr. Mohammed's capture, assessed the quality of his information from initial questioning as 'Precious Truths, Surrounded by a Bodyguard of Lies.'"

What a poetic way of putting it! Yes indeed, torture does bring out the Shakespeare in some people. The all-too-prosaic question the courts must ask, however, is the following: How does one know for sure, of the utterances gasped out during the waterboarding session, which are truths and which falsehoods? How to tell the VIP from his bodyguards?

Yet Mr. Cheney persists in defending torture as a necessary tactic in the War on Terror. We must not "tie the hands" of our Commander in Chief by prohibiting him from tying the hands of others -- this preparatory, of course, to kicking the living bejeezus out of them. If you oppose torture (as, for example, torture victim John McCain does), Mr. Cheney has a question for you: "Why do you hate Freedom?"

Let's call this what it is. It is not intelligence gathering. It is terrorism, pure and simple. We counter terror with terror. Why? Because such hardboiled tactics are what Bush's handlers think will play best in the heartland, will please a majority of voters. No better example of politics trumping moral principle than this.

The unflappable one

Dick Cheney's old friend Alan Simpson recently commented on how the scandals that have brought low the VP's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, will likely leave the boss untouched. The reason, Simpson suggests, is the marvelous strength of Cheney's character: "He's a survivor of all time. . . . I never saw him bow his head or go into a cocoon or suck his thumb or anything like that. He's an unflappable man."

In reading Simpson's characterization of Mr. Cheney, I was reminded of another unflappable character, this one from the realm of poetry. Allow me to quote a few stirring lines from this fine fellow: "What though the field be lost? / All is not lost -- the unconquerable will, / And study of revenge, immortal hate, / And courage never to submit or yield." The poet is John Milton, the poem is Paradise Lost, and the speaker is, of course, the Prince of Darkness -- flat on his back on the floor of hell (having recently been delivered there by that most Special of Prosecutors), trying nonetheless to buck up his own crestfallen chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Beelzebub.

Also an unflappable man, Milton's Satan, so much so that generations of romantic readers have mistaken him for the hero of the piece -- an egregious misreading that surely would have left Milton disgusted. The poet was, after all, in God's camp.

As for Simpson's reading of Cheney, it is also a misreading. For "unflappable" we should substitute "unscrupulous," "shameless," or better yet just plain "evil." It was Cheney, after all, who at the start of the so-called War on Terror asserted that our country might be compelled to employ "the dark arts" to win that war -- his reference being to torture. And that prediction has been borne out. No longer content simply to train other governments in the dark arts (vide WHINSEC, formerly the School of the Americas), the United States has itself become a torture regime, hanging out its shingle at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, at Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq, at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan -- at God knows how many "black sites" flung across this ever-suffering globe.

And it is Cheney who, in response to torture victim John McCain's recent attempt to excise this cancer from the body politic by demanding that all future interrogations done in our name be conducted in accordance with the Army Field Manual and the Uniform Code of Military Justice -- it is, as I say, the Unflappable One who has pressured Senator McCain and others to exempt CIA interrogators from the torture prohibition. Cheney wants those operatives to continue to be permitted to defend freedom ("Honor bound!") by inserting needles under fingernails, holding heads under water, administering electric shocks to genitals, and so on. He wants this in spite of the fact that every expert observer has concluded that very little in the way of actionable intelligence has been uncovered via such techniques.

Torture, it turns out, just doesn't work. And there is this troubling tendency for what begins as "coercive interrogation" to degenerate quickly into mere sadism. Thus those winning snapshots of our own Lynndie England demonstrating state-of-the-art canine training techniques. Just a bad apple, you say? Make no mistake, gentle reader: it was the Unflappable One who made her do it. And once she did it, we could kiss the possibility of success in Iraq -- what slim chance there was for that to begin with -- a fond farewell.

So "hearts and minds" be damned! In the manly vision of Richard Cheney, Lady Liberty lifts her lamp beside, not the Golden Door -- that fabled gateway to a Shining City upon a Hill -- but rather beside a rather grim chamber door, above which are inscribed the words "Abandon all hope ye who enter here," and upon which hangs a little cardboard sign that reads "Torture in Progress: Do Not Disturb."

counting bodies -- theirs

Then:

"We don't do body counts on other people," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in November 2003, when asked on "Fox News Sunday" whether the number of enemy dead exceeded the U.S. toll.

Now:

"For a discrete operation, it's a metric that can help convey magnitude and context," said Bryan Whitman, a senior Pentagon spokesman.

Today in The Washington Post a report (with the punning title "Enemy Body Counts Revived" -- tee-hee!) that our military has changed its mind about the enemy dead in Iraq, has decided to start counting them after all -- at least when we slaughter them in big bunches. This to impress the American public that ours is a Can-Do kind of military (in the killing department at any rate) and to signal "progress" in the war in Iraq. As if there is a finite number of enemy over there and every one we kill brings us a step closer to total victory.

Is there anyone still naive enough to buy this? Anyone who doubts that such mass slaughter will fuel anti-American sentiment, serve as a recruiting tool for the resistance, increase the number of enemy exponentially? Is there anyone whose attention will be distracted by this body count from our own troop death toll --closing in on 2,000 combat deaths?

This counting up of enemy dead, discredited after the debacle that was the Vietnam War, a sure symptom that our current war effort is -- to coin a phrase -- in its last throes. Time to get the Humvee out of Dodge.

*************

Also in the Washington Post report:

In May, Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, mentioned the killing of 250 of insurgent leader Abu Musab Zarqawi's "closest lieutenants" as evidence of progress in Iraq.

Myers went on: "These were the 250 lieutenants who grew up on the same block as Zarqawi, attended the same grade school, played on the same soccer team, dated the same girl, and served as best men at his wedding. You know, his mates."

Michael Brown can moo, can you?

"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job!"

--George Bush to Michael Brown, post-Katrina

It's never fun being the fall guy, and I'm not certain I'm being made to be the fall guy. But if being the fall guy gets done everything I want to get done, fine.

--Michael Brown, a few days later


Panegyrick to a Crony

(with apologies to Dr. Seuss)

Oh the wonderful things Michael Brown can do!
Michael Brown can go like a cow. He can go MOO MOO.
Michael Brown can do it. How about you?

He can go like the rain DIBBLE DIBBLE DIBBLE DOPP.
He can go to a hurricane HURRY UP AND STOP!
He can fake up a resume LICKETY SPLIT.
He can take the fall like a proper little s--t.

He can even be FEMA director.
He can do that, too.
Michael Brown can do it.
How about you?

-------

My two-year-old son is quite impressed by Dr. Seuss's Mr. Brown, thinks him a remarkably accomplished gentleman -- after all, he can make a wide variety of zoo noises. So George Bush seemed equally impressed by Mr. Michael Brown. "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job!" A good name for the gentleman in question, given that it was precisely due to his being a brownie (in the playground sense of the term) that he became head of FEMA.

Think about it. In the wake of 9/11, Bush promises to do everything in his power to protect this country from such disasters in future -- to preserve the country in the aftermath of such disasters should they occur. Yet he places at the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency Joe Allbaugh, a political hack (manager of the 2000 Bush-Cheney presidential campaign) who has zero experience in emergency management. And then, when Allbaugh leaves the post for greener (consulting) pastures, he replaces himself with his college bunkie Mike Brown, a man with even less experience in emergency management than he (if it is possible to have less experience than zero . . .).

If you look up "crony" in the dictionary, you'll find Brown's picture in the margin.

So how seriously are we to take Bush's sworn commitment to protecting this country from terrorist-spawned catastrophe? In this administration, cronyism always trumps policy, always trumps moral principle. Everything is grist for the (Karl)Rovian political mill, including the lives of our citizens.

Oh the wonderful things Mr. Bush can do.

Let the Eagle Soar

Let the eagle soar,
Like she’s never soared before.
From rocky coast to golden shore,
Let the mighty eagle soar!

--John Ashcroft, "Let the Eagle Soar"


Near the beginning of the war a colleague posted on his office door a cartoon of a bald eagle sitting on a stool sharpening his talons with a file. The implication was clear: after 9.11, it was lex talionis time. As our late, great Attorney General John "Jaysus!" Ashcroft put it, "Let the mighty eagle soar!"

The other day I was driving through the countryside, glimpsed in the distance a red-tailed hawk being tormented in flight by a group of blackbirds. The majestic hawk was soaring and swooping, doing its best to evade the smaller birds, who were darting in, pecking the hawk viciously, then darting out again -- instinctive guerilla tactics. The hawk was helpless. All it could do is keep flying and hope the blackbirds would eventually grow tired of the game and desist.

Which is the better analogy for our military and its predicament in Iraq, Ashcroft's triumphant eagle or my beleaguered hawk?

This Thing of Darkness

When can their glory fade?
. . .
Honor the charge they made,
Honor the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred.

--Tennyson


To my last post the blogger "Mausergirl" responds:

"You're making a basic mistake in your logic here - and that is to assume that every soldier is a grunt on the front lines. More than 80% of soldiers are not infantry or other combat MOSs, and individual experiences vary.

And let me tell you, soldiers gripe, moan, and whine about politics just as much as anyone else does. They question why we're where we're at, and what we're doing there."

Of course she's right that not all soldiers are combat troops. Of course she's right that lots of soldiers -- the vast majority, I suspect -- indeed do "reason why": reflect upon and analyze the war, its causes and consequences, and wonder if they are being abused by their leaders.

What I was getting at is that the soldier that the militarists exhort us to respect and revere is a mythological figure: He who does not question why and who has an absolute and unwavering devotion to Duty. This, the ideal soldier of their fevered dreams, is the soldier they hold up to the rest of us to honor and--this is most important--to emulate. "Pat Tillman did not question his leaders in time of war so neither should you." This mythic warrior is used by war propagandists as a rhetorical club to discourage critics of the war, to shame them into silence. "If only Cindy Sheehan could love Freedom as much as Pat Tillman loved Freedom! If only she understood Duty as that hero did! If only she could SHUT THE HELL UP!"

Reading the other day on The Washington Post website a chat session with a pro-Bush mother of a soldier killed in Iraq. Whenever a reader would ask her a question about the causes of the war, whether they were legitimate or not, her response was "That's not my call to make." When further pressed she commented that she trusted the leaders she had voted into office to do the right thing. A sad case. A mother of a dead soldier unable to face the fact that she may be partially responsible for her son's death, given that her vote help put in office the man who sent him to his death. A very bitter pill to swallow.

The fact is that we live in a democracy, we vote our leaders into office, so ultimately it IS our call to make. We bear part of the responsibility, part of the blame, when they make mistakes or act badly. This is certainly how much of the rest of the world sees it. Why they hate US for this war, not just Bush. What was Prospero's line about Caliban? "This thing of darkness I acknowledge mine." Only if we all acknowledge responsibility for this war, this thing of darkness, can we act to end it.

ask a soldier if

The pro-war party depends heavily on the cult of the soldier to quiet the opposition. Sabre-rattlers are fond of quoting our servicemen and women on their belief in their mission, in the Glorious Cause. "Just ask a soldier," these propagandists advise. Tell you what:

I'll ask a soldier if I want to know how to break down an M-16.

I'll ask a soldier if I want to know how to sight in a mortar.

I'll ask a soldier if I want to know if MREs generally cause constipation or its opposite.

I'll ask a soldier if I want to know what it feels like to be spattered by the brains of the now-dead soldier beside you.

I'll ask a soldier if I want to know what PTSD-induced insomnia feels like.

I will NOT ask a soldier about the true causes and the ultimate consequences of the war he or she fights. About these topics the typical soldier is as clueless as the civilian.

Perhaps more clueless -- not because of a lack of intelligence but on principle. It is part of the warrior ethic not to question the causes of the war he fights but just to fight it. "Theirs not to make reply / Theirs not to reason why / Theirs but to do and die." A soldier, were he to engage in public speculation about these larger questions, would likely be mercilessly mocked by his comrades-in-arms. The good soldier is a trained fighter, takes professional pride in fighting, so fights. Like a good fighting cock or pit bull. The fight is all.

An area to be examined: the conflict between the warrior mythos and the reality of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Does recognition of the existence of the latter require a radical solicitation of the former? Or are we to resign ourselves to the necessity of the soldier as sacrificial victim?

What's It All About, Cheney?

What is the reason for this war, again?

From today's New York Times:

Army Contract Official Critical of Halliburton Pact Is Demoted

A top Army contracting official who criticized a large, noncompetitive contract with the Halliburton Company for work in Iraq was demoted Saturday for what the Army called poor job performance.

The official, Bunnatine H. Greenhouse, has worked in military procurement for 20 years and for the past several years had been the chief overseer of contracts at the Army Corps of Engineers, the agency that has managed much of the reconstruction work in Iraq.

Ms. Greenhouse's lawyer, Michael Kohn, called the action an "obvious reprisal" for the strong objections she raised in 2003 to a series of corps decisions involving the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root, which has garnered more than $10 billion for work in Iraq.

Dick Cheney led Halliburton, which is based in Texas, before he became vice president.

"She is being demoted because of her strict adherence to procurement requirements and the Army's preference to sidestep them when it suits their needs," Mr. Kohn said Sunday in an interview. He also said the Army had violated a commitment to delay Ms. Greenhouse's dismissal until the completion of an inquiry by the Pentagon's inspector general.

Known as a stickler for the rules on competition, Ms. Greenhouse initially received stellar performance ratings, Mr. Kohn said. But her reviews became negative at roughly the time she began objecting to decisions she saw as improperly favoring Kellogg Brown & Root, he said. Often she hand-wrote her concerns on the contract documents, a practice that corps leaders called unprofessional and confusing.

Ms. Greenhouse fought the demotion through official channels, and publicly described her clashes with Corps of Engineers leaders over a five-year, $7 billion oil-repair contract awarded to Kellogg Brown & Root. She had argued that if urgency required a no-bid contract, its duration should be brief.

Ms. Greenhouse had also fought the granting of a waiver to Kellogg Brown & Root in December 2003, approving the high prices it had paid for fuel imports for Iraq, and had objected to extending its five-year contract for logistical support in the Balkans for 11 months and $165 million without competitive bidding. In late June, ignoring warnings from her superiors, Ms. Greenhouse appeared before a Congressional panel, calling the Kellogg Brown & Root oil contract "the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career." She also said the defense secretary's office had improperly interfered in the awarding of the contract.

************

Behind the cannon fire, always the Ka-ching of the cash register. A rich man's war and a poor man's fight.

Rather than the militarist's mantra "Freedom ain't free," more apropos for this war would be "Free markets ain't free." How does protecting Halliburton's profit margin by undermining competitive bidding protect my freedom, I wonder?

This war is bullshit, Billybob. Sorry you been suckered.

By God's grace?

Luke Stricklin, I have no doubt, would like to punch me in the head.

Mr. Stricklin was featured on CNN a few days ago -- a young soldier home from Iraq who has penned a patriotic little country ditty entitled "American by God's Amazing Grace." The main point of the song is that, if you had served with Mr. Stricklin in Iraq, you'd be very grateful that God allowed you to be born an AMERICAN:

Well when you've seen the things that I've seen
things don't seem so bad
quit worrying 'bout what you ain't got, thank God for what you have
Cause you could be raising your family in this place
but you were born in America, By God's Amazing Grace!!!!

I've little argument with this sentiment (although I might observe there are places in America damn neart as God-forsaken as the hell holes of Iraq). The lyrics to which I object -- which objection, I am certain, would incite Mr. Stricklin to assault and batter me -- are the following:

You want to talk about it, you better keep it short
cause I got a lot of lost time I gotta make up for.
Really don't care why Bush went into Iraq
I know for sure what I done there and I'm damn sure proud of that.
You got something bad to say about the USA
you better save it for different ears 'less you want to crawl away.

Here we have the warrior in full battle cry. "Really don't care why Bush went into Iraq." To Mr. Stricklin the WHY of the war is irrelevant ("Theirs not to reason why," etc.); all that matters is that he did his duty: "I know for sure what I done there and I'm damn sure proud of that." And if you dare suggest that Uncle Sam is on the wrong side of this war? Well, pal, them's fightin words. Prepare to meet your maker.

The timing here is interesting. It's been a while since we've been favored with a pro-war song -- patriotic gore such as Darryl Worley's "Have You Forgotten?" or Toby Keith's "Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue (The Angry American)" got a lot of radio play near the beginning of the War on Terror, when the country's blood was up. For the most part these songs have faded with the public's enthusiasm for the war. They've been displaced by anti-war songs such as Billy Bragg's "The Price of Oil," Steve Earle's "Rich Man's War," Eliza Gilkyson's "Highway 9," or the Rolling Stones' forthcoming "Sweet Neo Con."

I say "displaced," but that's not quite right. The pro-war songs received a good deal of play on mainstream radio, especially country stations. Toby Keith's bellicose growl went echoing through every laundromat across the land. The anti-war songs have never reached the ears of Clear Channel listeners, can only be found on alternative radio and the internet (and I doubt that the Stones' new cut will be an exception). No surprise, then, that when a belated pro-war song is penned, the writer should get prime facetime on CNN. Meanwhile Earle and Gilkyson must settle for the relatively modest stages of Democracy Now and Air America.

Poor Luke Stricklin. Listening to his song you can sense his violent ambivalence toward the war, his struggle to reconcile contradictory feelings. He tells us that he doesn't care about why "Bush went into Iraq." Note here the Commander-in-Chief is referred to as "Bush," not "President Bush" or even "Mr. Bush." Stricklin is clearly distancing himself from the prime maker of the war. This suggests that he's aware of the possibility that Bush's motives might not have been the best. Yet he does not want to hear criticism of the president, hasn't got the time, "got a lot of lost time I gotta make up for." Lost time? Does that not indicate time wasted? Is the war a just cause or a waste of time? If it is a waste of time, what of Mr. Stricklin's pride in his service? Is he protesting too much there?

Might not Mr. Stricklin's refusal to listen to criticism of the war be construed as a species of flight: he resists listening for fear that he'll discover he has been duped -- horribly duped -- by Dubya and the boys? Perhaps Mr. Stricklin, deep down, already knows this, knows that he's been suckered. Perhaps he is struggling to repress his desire to punch in the head, not yours truly or Cindy Sheehan or any other war protestor, but instead George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld -- perhaps even himself?

Can you say Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? "American by God's Amazing Grace" positively reeks of it. It's all there: the trauma ("I ain't never been to hell / but it couldn't be any worse than this place"), the uncertainty ("Tell my wife don't worry 'cause I know what to do / it makes you feel better sometimes, but don't know if it's true"), the anger ("And I laugh in your face when you say you got it bad"). Rather than stoking his rage by listening to the blood-spattered war anthems of his mentor Toby Keith, Mr. Stricklin probably would be better off listening to songs wherein PTSD is explicitly thematized, songs such as John Prine's "Sam Stone," Steve Earle's "Home to Houston," and Tom Waits' "Day After Tomorrow."

Little chance of that, however, given Mr. Stricklin's strong identification with the military. As an article in the latest Newsweek notes, "PTSD is one acronym the military does not like. It prefers 'temporary adjustment disorder,' with an emphasis on the temporary."

Yes, soldiers like Luke Stricklin are just a TAD crazy. May God's amazing grace deliver them from this evil.

vile weed

Power takes as ingratitude the writhing of its victims

--Rabindranath Tagore

I recall a comment made near the beginning of the Iraq war by Fred Thompson, former Senator from Tennessee, now an actor on the TV series Law & Order. Thompson opined that it was ridiculous for war protestors to claim that they "support the troops": how can you support the troops without supporting what the troops are doing, that is, making war?

In a sense Thompson is right. I, an opponent of the war, support our troops only insofar as I feel sympathy for them: they are being misused, abused, and ought to be brought home immediately. I don't support them in their mission. Not in the least.

For saying this of course I will be accused of ingratitude, "the vilest weed that grows." Yet why should I be grateful to the troops that are prosecuting an unjust war, a war that hurts my country more than helps it?

Let me offer an analogy. Suppose you decide to remodel your kitchen, hire a contractor to carry out this work while you are away on summer vacation. You give the foreman detailed instructions on what you want done, then leave. A few months later you arrive home to find the laborers in the last stage of the project. To your astonishment the kitchen looks nothing like the kitchen you requested, in fact is a disaster. You question the laborers about this, and they convince you that the work they've done follows exactly the plans given them by their foreman -- which plans differ entirely from the directions you had given him.

Now, it would be illogical and unfair for you to resent the laborers for the disaster -- it was the man giving them orders who is to blame, not they. And yet neither should you feel obliged to be grateful to the laborers for the work they have done. What they have done is create a disaster -- even if they did so in good faith, following the orders of their boss.

So, why should I feel gratitude toward the soldiers who are creating the disaster that is the war in Iraq? I don't blame them for the war -- they are merely following orders, as good soldiers must do. Yet I refuse to be bullied into the position that I should not be critical of the war because I might hurt the feelings of the men and women fighting it. If my opposition to the war appears ingratitude to some of the soldiers and their families, then so be it.

Still, some might say we should be grateful to those serving in Iraq, not for what they are doing, but for what they are: good and dutiful soldiers. We should be grateful to them for the same reason Tennyson was grateful to the men of the Light Brigade, for their absolute devotion to duty: "Theirs not to reason why / Theirs but to do and die."

Yet according to this logic we should also be grateful to the soldiers of the Third Reich, of Imperial Japan, for what they were during World War Two. They, too ( many of them, anyway), were paragons of duty -- men who followed the orders they were given without question, even unto death. On what reasoned principle can we deny them our gratitude, if what they were doing is irrelevant? Although we may feel a good deal of sympathy for them, I doubt that many of us would feel grateful to those German and Japanese soldiers, given that we consider the cause for which they fought unjust -- indeed, positively evil. Why, then, can we not take into account our view of the war in Iraq, whether it is a just or unjust war, when considering a proper attitude toward our troops? There appears to be a double standard at work here, one that cannot be logically or ethically defended.

By the way, the Charge of the Light Brigade was, tactically speaking, a disaster. It essentially destroyed the Brigade, made it unusable for the remainder of the Crimean War. ("C'est magnifique," noted a French commander of the brigade's suicidal charge, "mais ce n'est pas la guerre.") Only in Tennyson's heated romantic imagination could the charge become glorious. For a latter-day Tennyson, we have (alas!) the con man Ahmad Chalabi, who, in the period after the invasion, when it became clear that no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (the original casus belli) were going to be found, remarked defiantly, "We are heroes in error."

Should Ahmad Chalabi also be an object of our undying gratitude? Only, perhaps, in the superheated imagination of a Richard Perle.

On the dotted line

In reponse to my blog posting "Mr. Wronghead," a friend writes:

However, the other side of the coin is that, by joining the Army, you are agreeing to participate in the defense of your country. Casey must have believed he was doing the right and honorable thing by enlisting in the Army at the time of this Iraq war.

True enough. The question, of course, is whether the war in Iraq is necessary for the defense of this country. As Michael Moore observed in Fahrenheit 9/11, the men and women of our armed forced sign a contract that says they agree to defend us against all enemies, foreign and domestic -- this on the implicit condition, however, that they not be put in harm's way needlessly. The war in Iraq was not necessary and it has made America a more likely, not less likely, target for terrorism. The truly patriotic thing for a soldier to do today is to conscientiously object to serving in this war that endangers our country.

Besides, why do people join the armed forces? Is it always patriotism or are there other motives? How many of the young men and women now being exposed to mortal violence in Iraq would be in the military if they had been offered, say, a $50,000 a year job as an alternative to enlisting? My point is that many of the young people in the military are essentially economic refugees. If one's choice is between donning a military uniform or donning a Walmart-blue vest (a McDonalds-orange vest, etc.), then the military uniform may look like the better, more dignified choice.

I quite frankly am tired of hearing the argument that the families of our men and women led to the slaughterhouse which is Iraq have no right to complain since their loved ones signed on the dotted line, knew -- or should have known -- what they were getting into. Reminds me of the argument made by coal mine operators whose workers died in many cases because the operators were too tight to pay for necessary safety measures: that the workers knew going in it was a dangerous job so their families are due no compensation. Oftentimes these workers had no choice but to go into the mines: it was that or starve. The argument is callous to the point of cruelty.

Mr. Wronghead

A letter to the editor published in yesterday's Lima News, an "open letter to Cindy Sheehan," is typical in its wrongheadedness about the war in Iraq.

The letter writer asks Cindy to pack it up and go home. "Your actions on the side of the road in Texas give aid and comfort to those who not only killed your Casey, but made it necessary for him to be there."

One presumes the writer's reference here is to the Iraqi insurgents. The ones who killed Casey, however, work in the White House and Pentagon; they made it necessary for him to be there.

"The casualties we are sustaining in this war on terrorism are a sad necessity to our victory in this new face of war."

Hasn't the letter writer heard? It is no longer a war on terrorism. It's the "global struggle against extremist violence," or something like that. Whatever you call it, it's abundantly clear that IT is actually generating terrorism, not squelching it. How could it do otherwise?

(Dick Cheney yesterday spoke to a group of combat veterans, swearing that we will destroy terrorism utterly, even if it means hunting down and killing every last terrorist. Even if it means doing what is obviously impossible?)

"So, I ask you to go home Cindy and take some comfort in the fact that Casey did not die a trivial death in a car accident here at home, from drugs or in a senseless drive-by shooting. He died an honorable death defending the United States, a death many of us were willing to risk."

Yes, Cindy, be glad your son had a good and meaningful death, rather than a trivial or shameful death. Dulce et decorum est, Cindy. Sweet and fitting it is to die for your country -- your country, right or wrong. Be glad he's dead, you ingrate bitch.

"Please do not allow your grief to be used by our enemies here and abroad to subvert our efforts to bring an honest peace to our world."

Yes, Cindy, go home and swallow your grief, swallow your righteous indignation. Go home and swallow it, even if it burns a hole in your gut. Choke it down and keep it down, else be labeled a traitor by your betters, such as myself, the super-patriotic inditer of this disciplinary letter.

God bless America, Cindy, and God damn you.

Sacred Profanity

Cindy Sheehan, in testimony before the Conyers hearings on the Downing Street memos:

"There are a few people around the US and a couple of my fellow witnesses who were a little justifiably worried that in my anger and anguish over Casey's premeditated death, I would use some swear words, as I have been known to do on occasion when speaking about the subject. Mr. Conyers, out of my deep respect for you, the other representatives here, my fellow witnesses, and viewers of these historic proceedings, I was able to make it through an entire testimony without using any profanity. However, if anyone deserves to be angry and use profanity, it is I. What happened to Casey and humanity because of the apparent dearth of honesty in our country's leadership is so profane that it defies even my vocabulary skills. We as Americans should be offended more by the profanity of the actions of this administration than by swear words. We have all heard the old adage that actions speak louder than words and for the sake of Casey and our other precious children, please hold someone accountable for their actions and their words of deception."

Recall the story of the meeting between Abraham Lincoln and Harriet Beecher Stowe -- author of Uncle Tom's Cabin -- where Lincoln is reported to have remarked, "So, this is the little lady who started this great war?" Well, if George Bush ever works up the nerve to meet again with Cindy Sheehan (what are the chances?), he might well remark, "So, you're the little lady who wants to end my great big war?" To which Cindy might well reply, "Eff you, you stupid SOB."

Clear Channeling the War

So the little man gathered all his chicken hawks in
And the neo-cons and his daddy's kin
They had their own clear channel and a hell of a spin
And a white man hidden in a black man's skin

--Eliza Gilkyson, "Highway 9"


Listening to WLW Cincinnati ("a Clear Channel station") a few days ago, to one of their on-air personalities saying that he's heard from the troops in Iraq that they want the "liberal" media to stop counting bodies -- the bodies, that is, of dead American soldiers -- and start accentuating the positive, talking about the good things that are happening over there. That's what the troops want, so that's what we need to do.

Imagine if there were fifty violent events a day in Cincinnati and the press decided that, instead of covering the shootings and kidnappings and bombings and general chaos, it was going to focus exclusively on the positive things that were happening in the city -- say, the renovation of a school or the construction of a new water treatment plant. Wouldn't the press be accused of participating in a conspiracy of silence, of abandoning and betraying its mission to keep the public informed?

It's pathetic how these flag-waving Bushites just want the ugly reality of Iraq to go away -- for us all to pretend that it is other than a disaster -- rather than admit that their support for this disgraceful war was and is wrong.

Every time an American soldier bleeds in Iraq or Afghanistan it should lead, be front page news. We need to be reminded of the real cost of war as long as the war drags on.

And too bad if it ruins Dubya's vacation to have the mother of a dead soldier camping outside his ranch, demanding that he look her in the eye and tell her that her sacrifice was worth it. He doesn't have the balls, obviously, and neither would any of his right-wing radio propagandists, these professional smart-alecks turned warmongers.

****

I sent a version of the above to the on-air personality in question, who replied with an angry email saying that I had misrepresented what he had said on the air (I hadn't in the least) and letting me know that, because I was nothing more than another minor academic squirreled away in the ivory tower (an ivory tower in Lima, Ohio, no less), that my opinion about the war in Iraq was worthless.

This from a glorified disc jockey who took a week-long Potemkin village tour of Iraq and, on the basis of that experience, claims for his opinion about the war tremendous authority. What a joke! What of those soldiers who have been a hundred times longer in Iraq and think of the war as a complete disaster? Is their opinion a hundred times more valuable than his? If so, shouldn't he just shut up about the war?

I grow weary of Bushites trying to silence the critics of the war by claiming their criticism is an insult to the troops, is base ingratitude. For the thousandth time: one can be critical of the war without demeaning the men and women tricked into fighting it.

Besides, what does your average twenty-something soldier know of the true causes and long-term consequences of the war in which he fights? The answer to that, of course, is next to nothing. As Ambrose Bierce -- himself a soldier decorated for valor -- said of the rank and file's knowledge of the war, "they can know nothing more of the matter than the arms they carry." That was true at the time of the Civil War and still true today. Soldiers are trained to fight, take professional pride in fighting, and so fight without question. "Theirs not to reason why / Theirs but to do and die."

And dying they are, a few more each day. Let's all agree to look the other way. To do otherwise, apparently, is an unforgivable lapse in taste -- like gawking at the scene of a traffic accident.

Pullout? Bush and the Rhythm Method

In Today's Washington Post:

In Iraq, No Clear Finish Line

The Bush administration has sent seemingly conflicting signals in recent days over the duration of the U.S. deployment to Iraq, openly discussing contingency plans to withdraw as many as 30,000 of 138,000 troops by spring, then cautioning against expectations of any early pullout. Finally yesterday, President Bush dismissed talk of a drawdown as just "speculation and rumors" and warned against "withdrawing before the mission is complete."

The shifting scenarios reflect the uncertain nature of the mission and the ambiguity of what would constitute its successful completion. For all the clarity of Bush's vow to stay not one day longer than needed, the muddled reality is that no one can say exactly when that will be.

Pullout Schmullout. This administration has no intention of ending our military occupation of Iraq. That we have constructed there huge (and hugely expensive) military bases is evidence enough of our true intentions. We will have a military presence in country -- enough of a presence to intimidate the locals into seeing things our way -- forever if the neocons have their way. And as long as Bush is in office they will have their way.

The question Bush's handlers are asking themselves is how to create the impression of a pullout. In other words, how many troops do we need to remove to convince the American public that we are leaving -- that Iraq is over -- and thereby shift its attention elsewhere in time for the midterm elections? In other words this is all politics driven. It's about public relations in this country -- "winning the minds" of the American people by changing the lead. It's all Karl Rove stuff. Turd Blossom tactics.

Later in the above-cited article retired General Barry McCaffrey is quoted as saying that, although the war in Iraq is winnable, "It's a race against time because by the end of this coming summer we can no longer sustain the presence we have now." Nonethless, McCaffery's considered opinion is that Bush strategy in Iraq still has an "80% chance of success." Ironic, I thought, that the ex-Drug Czar, erstwhile Supreme Commander in another obviously unwinnable war, is asked to comment on our chances of winning this one. Ought to change his name to Jude, the patron saint of hopeless causes.

New Logo?

"Global War on Terror" is out. How about . . .

Grand Imperial Parade?

Eye for an Eye Expedition?

Great Global Goatfuck?

Worldwide Weapons Expo?

Dubya's Excellent Adventure?

Why They Hate Us World Tour?

Wholehog Hegemonic Hootenanny?

YES, DAMMIT, IN THE HEAD!

WASHINGTON (UP:Up) - The Bush administration today defended the controversial shoot-Valerie-Plame-in-the-head policy devised by beleaguered political strategist Karl Rove.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan conceded the possibility that innocent CIA agents could be killed as White House operatives are forced to make split-second decisions on whether a suspicious person who does not heed warnings is indeed Valerie Plame and should be shot in the head. Nonetheless, Mr. McClellan observed, desperate times call for desperate measures, "and we are in desperate times."

Portraying the threat posed by Valerie Plame to Republican control of Congress as "terrifying," McClellan said that "there is no point shooting Plame in the chest, because she might survive to write an Op-Ed piece for The Washington Post."

Robert Novak revealed in an opinion piece in Sunday's Fascist Daily that Rove had sent security teams for training to Israel and other countries hit by terrorism. There, Novak said, our people learned that "there is only one sure way to stop an undercover CIA agent determined to serve his or her country: destroy the brain instantly, utterly. One, two, three shots--blam, blam, blam, right between the freakin eyes!"

In response to a reporter who questioned whether Rove might be "kinda outta control," McClellan grew visibly indignant: "There is nothing gratuitous here in what is going on," he said. "There is nothing cavalier. There is no conspiracy to shoot people. I mean, except for Valerie Plame . . . and possibly her husband."

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia also weighed in on the policy: "We are living in unique times of unique evil, at war with an enemy of unspeakable brutality, and I have no doubt that now, more than ever, the principle is right," Scalia remarked while taking a break from his favorite pastime: pulling the wings off of flies.

a roving, a roving . .

A roving, a roving, since roving's been my ruin
I'll go no more a roving with thee fair maid.

So Dubya may soon be singing to his precious Turd Blossom -- if, that is, it turns out that Rove's were the lips that loosed the name of Valerie Plame.

Couldn't happen to a nicer fella.

afghan redux

"Oh I'm sick of hearing about Iraq!" replied the peevish infant Dubya to his many critics. "What about Afghanistan, huh? Huh? What about THAT! Now THAT was a victory, ya gotta admit!"

From today's NY Times: "The steady stream of violence has dealt a new blow to this still traumatized nation of 25 million. In dozens of interviews conducted in recent weeks around the country, Afghans voiced concern that things were not improving, and that the Taliban and other dangerous players were gaining strength."

Dubya: "OH SHADDUP!"

****

Twenty-seven years ago, when Jimmy Carter reinstituted draft registration in the wake of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, I made the decision not to register, fully expecting that my eighteen-year-old ass would wind up in jail as a result. Now there's rumor of reinstitution of the draft, this to supply the necessary cannon fod . . . er, manpower for our present and prospective imperial invasions / occupations, including our occupation of Afghanistan. There is an irony at work here, one almost too sickening to nail down.

What of the "defeated" Taliban? "'We were wrong,' a senior Afghan government official acknowledged, saying of the Taliban, 'It seems they were spending the time preparing.'" (NY Times)

Shades here of that pesky mujahadeen of old. Those freedom fighters we supported and so admired . . . for a time.

Undisclosed Location Disclosed!

The Vice President on Guantanamo detainees:

``They're very well treated down there. They're living in the tropics. They're well fed. They've got everything they could possibly want,'' Cheney said in a CNN interview. ``There isn't any other nation in the world that would treat people who were determined to kill Americans the way we're treating these people.''

It was revealed today that the undisclosed location to which Vice President Dick Cheney retreated post 9/11 was in fact the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. This reporter has received from an anonymous source photographs of the VP lounging barechested by the Gitmo pool, sipping daiquiris at the seaside bar, and playing shuffleboard with suspected Taliban fighters. Rumor now has it that the Bush administration, rather than yielding to political pressure to shut down the controversial facility, plans instead to push it as the next hot Caribbean tourist destination. Provisional promo line: "Gitmo Bay. Come for the waterboarding. Stay for the sailboarding."

Wanted: Skilled Cartoonist

From today's NYTimes:

WASHINGTON, June 24 - President Bush promised the Iraqi prime minister on Friday that he was "not giving up on the mission" in Iraq despite rising pressure from Congress and the public to describe a strategy for gradual American withdrawal. And he shrugged off suggestions that the military and members of his administration fundamentally disagree on the strength of the insurgency.

Directions to cartoonist: draw a picture of Dubya as Charlie Brown on the pitcher's mound. In the background a scoreboard that reads "Insurgents 50, Home 0." All around it is raining body parts. Dubya crying out: "Hey, where's everybody going? It's just a summer shower. It'll clear up in no time! Freedom is on the march, I tell ya! Come back, guys!"

Good grief.

Of Quagmires and (Mental) Pismires

This war has been consistently and grossly mismanaged," Senator Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, told Rumsfeld. "And we are now in a seemingly intractable quagmire."

"Well, that is quite a statement," Rumsfeld, flanked by top US commanders, responded. "First let me say that there isn't a person at this table who agrees with you that we're in a quagmire."

Rumsfeld continued, "No, not a quagmire. Not even close. More like a slough, I'd say. Worse than a bog, certainly, but nowhere near a quagmire. One can make a long, hard slog through a bog, through a slough, but never through a quag."

"And while we are making distinctions," Rumsfeld added, "about all this talk of President Bush's being an idiot. That's ridiculous. An imbecile perhaps. And certainly a moron. No one at this table would deny he's a moron. But an idiot? Goodness gracious no! Remember, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence--and that applies to brains as well as WMD. An idiot? No, never an idiot, Senator. I deny it, deny it to my last breath."

At this the Defense Secretary rose and excused himself from the hearing, remarking that he had an important appointment with the King of Borrioboola-Gha to discuss a status of forces agreement.

Meanwhile in their first meeting Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Al-Jaafari delivered to President Bush "a letter from the Iraqi people." It is reported that the envelop contained not only a letter but a quantity of fine white powder. This was wrested away from the President by Secret Service agents before he could set it up in lines.

Funny Stuff!

WASHINGTON (AP). At a White House press conference yesterday President Bush was asked by a reporter whether, given the horrific violence still common in Iraq, he regrets having announced "mission accomplished" on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln two years ago. Mr. Bush rolled his eyes and responded, "But we did accomplish our mission. It's like Turd Blossom said. What we wanted to do with this war was distract John Q. Public's attention while we looted the treasury for ourselves and our rich friends. It was all a matter of disassembling, don't ya see?" The President then glanced in the direction of a group of his advisors, all of whom were grimacing and violently drawing their index fingers back and forth across their throats. After hesitating a moment, Mr. Bush concluded, "But in any event we are convinced that the world is safer with Osama behind bars, that Freedom is on the march, and that Liberty is one very satisfied young lady. Now if you'll excuse me, I have an appointment with a sand trap." At this valedictory witticism the assembled press corps chortled appreciatively, thankful for being blessed with a President capable of self-deprecatory humor.

Meanwhile in Iraq four children died when the car in which they were riding was mistakenly fired upon by American soldiers at a checkpoint. No American soldiers were injured in the incident.

battle fatigue

AP WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney, reacting to a growing chorus of calls to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay where terrorism suspects are held, says there are no present plans to do so. "The important thing here to understand is that the people that are at Guantanamo are bad people," he said.

To which people is our Vice President, Mr. Hal I. Burton, referring? To the detainees or to the soldiers detaining them? Perhaps he has in mind that young stalwart caught pissing through an air vent on a prisoner? Next thing you know that guy will be getting a ticker-tape parade and a Congressional Medal of Freedom. "For pissing above and beyond the call of duty."

Battle fatigue. People sick of the war. Too sick of it to protest it, to demand that it be stopped. A collective sigh of boredom at every mention of Iraq. Almost worse than jingoistic, blood-thirsty support for the war, since it's possible that that passion could be converted into its opposite. But indifference? For that no remedy.

Drug Warriors Victorious!

From today's Washington Post, from an article on the Supreme Court's decision that the feds can over-rule states that legalize marijuana for medical purposes:

"Echoing an argument advanced by the Bush administration, [Justice] Stevens expressed concern that 'unscrupulous physicians' might exploit the broadly worded California law to divert marijuana into the market for recreational drugs."

How horrible. That the same croakers who now divert highly-addictive yet legal prescription painkillers like Oxycontin (RUSH!) into the market for party drugs would do the same with marijuana, a drug about as addictive, about as harmful, as a stick of Wrigley's Spearmint.

Saints -- and John Walters -- preserve us! The Spirit of Harry Anslinger, be with us!

cuchulain resartus

Cuchulain stirred,
Stared on the horses of the sea, and heard
The cars of battle and his own name cried;
And fought with the invulnerable tide.

--W.B. Yeats

From a Washington Post article of Thurs, June 2, 2005:

"Ladies and gentlemen, this is a war we are winning," Cheney told the 906 graduating cadets, their families and underclassmen gathered in Falcon Stadium. But much hard work remains, he added. "After 9/11, this nation made a decision. We will not sit back and wait for future attacks. We will prevent those attacks by taking the fight to the enemy."

Meanwhile Cuchulain, legendary Irish warrior, spoke to the Red Branch graduating class at their camp on the Irish sea. "For too long," remarked the brawny hero, "we have waited idly by while the waves gathered force to crash upon the shore. From this point on, we will take the battle to the enemy -- hit him before he hits us. King Conchubar calls it 'pre-emption,' and it's a damn fine strategy. So up, me boyos, up and at 'em!" And with this the Hound of Ulster leapt from the podium, ran straight into the surf, and, drawing his broadsword, began slashing madly at the waves -- this while his audience looked on with an air of puzzlement.

Memorial Day 2005

A pleasant day, contrary to forecasts.

I find myself wandering a cemetery in Dunkirk, Ohio --this
graveyard terminus of a tiny parade wherein my eldest son,
a 4-H'er, is marching with his dog.

My two-year-old boy is beside me. He wants poppa to lift him up
onto the monuments to play, is frustrated by my hesitation.

No anxiety in him about desecration, about disrespecting the dead.
In this he is as unselfconscious as George W. Bush placing a wreath.

This my forty-fifth Memorial Day. Impossible heap. My last grandparent
died just a few weeks ago. Fine summer days -- how many remain to me?

We drift past a weathered old stone on the periphery of the yard.
Slight shock of recognition. "Valentine Amspaugh," a Civil War vet,
his final resting place. A tiny flag flutters over the stone, a last
pathetic gasp of gratitude.

How many dead today in Iraq, I wonder?

And my sons -- will their names appear on some future casualty list?

Here comes the band.

Newsweek--author of all our woe!

Inquiry by U.S. Finds 5 Cases of Koran Mistreatment

By THOM SHANKER
Published: May 27, 2005, in New York Times

An American military inquiry has uncovered five instances in which guards or interrogators at the Guantánamo Bay detention facility in Cuba mishandled the Koran, but found "no credible evidence" to substantiate claims that it was ever flushed down a toilet, the chief of the investigation said on Thursday.

[we continue the story . . .]

"Sure," said Brig. General Jay W. Hood, "we creased the Koran, we tore the Koran, we tossed the Koran, we kicked the Koran, we stomped the Koran, we shot the Koran, we burned the Koran, we licked the Koran, we pissed on the Koran, we wiped menses on the Koran, but we never were so disrespectful as to flush the Koran down a toilet. Give us a little credit for cultural sensitivity, will ya?"

Meanwhile the White House through spokesman Scott McClellan has assigned blame to Newsweek for the death of Pat Tillman, recent hurricanes in Florida, and the miserable performance of the Cincinnati Reds' bullpen this season. The magazine has issued an abject apology for these lapses in journalistic intergity. "Jesus what ratpuke we are," remarked Associate Editor Mia Kulpa.

homo homini lupus

Listening on the way to work to a report on a soldier dead in Iraq, a male in his early twenties. Killed by an IED. They profiled him, his family in grief. The older brother recalling fondly his sibling's first deer kill: how he crouched, quiet and still, in the blind, how finally a buck came close enough, how he shot, how the deer flopped, how the boy of sixteen ran whooping across the field to tag his prize.

Picturing the insurgent in ambush. Waiting, waiting for the patrol, adrenaline surging, breath in gasps. Then, as the trucks rumble by, setting off the bomb, the thud and roar of the explosion, the smoke, the fire, the wreck, the screams of the wounded. The exhilaration of the insurgent, his pleasure in mere slaughter.

I snap off the radio in disgust. What abject creatures we are.