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.
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Sunday, October 30, 2005
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."
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."
Monday, October 24, 2005
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."
"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."
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
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.
--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.
Monday, September 12, 2005
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?
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?
Thursday, September 08, 2005
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.
. . .
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.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
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?
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?
Monday, August 29, 2005
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.
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.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
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.
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.
Monday, August 22, 2005
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.
--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.
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.
Friday, August 19, 2005
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.
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.
Monday, August 15, 2005
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."
"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."
Sunday, August 14, 2005
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.
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.
Friday, August 12, 2005
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
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?
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?
Monday, July 25, 2005
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
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.
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.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
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.
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.
Sunday, June 26, 2005
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."
``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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)