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.