The Surge of Success! Or Yet Another Carefully Crafted Iraq Lie
Posted on
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
by Gary A. Ballard
We've been told for over a year now that the surge of troops would be a rousing success. That in a year's time, the extra bodes thrown at the problem of Iraq would cut down on the violence, giving the Iraqi government time to make political headway on the most pressing issues the country faces. Those issues include things like regular electricity, potable running water and really, any of the things you expect a government to be able to provide. Thankfully, the violence in Iraq HAS gone down. Unfortunately, the Iraqi government's various ethnic and sectarian factions have done absolutely nothing in the way of providing anything close to a working government. Yet, despite that lack of important political progress, advocates for the surge have all been gleeful because the violence is down. The surge has worked! Success. The only problem with that success is that it's a carefully constructed lie.
Yes, it is true that the violence has gone down in Iraq. That's something I should be ecstatic about, but I can't help but feel sickened by the flim-flam with which such a positive result was achieved. In order to more effectively fight Al-Qaeda in Iraq, a group that did not exist prior to our invasion, by the way, the military began supplying Sunni insurgents with weapons and cash. That's right, those same Sunni insurgents who used to blow up American convoys with IED's are now aiding the American occupation in rooting out Al-Qaeda. This tactic is incredibly brilliant, in that the best way to actually defeat a guerrilla insurgency is to involve them in the positive future of their country. Defeating a bunch of foreign fighters intent on sowing sectarian discord in Iraq is most certainly something that all Iraqis, Sunni or Shia should be cheering.
But from the American perspective, it should be seen with the proper context. First, the Sunni insurgents are terrorists, at least in the eyes of the administration. So that administration, by allowing payments to the Sunni insurgents have now "negotiated with terrorists," which is something they claimed they would not do. This shows how hypocritical the administration is, but at least they finally acknowledged that just being bull-headed "kill 'em all" psychopaths was not a tenable long-term solution. This deal with the Sunnis also has nothing whatsoever to do with the tactic of putting more troops in country. Whether you had 100,000 or 100 troops in Iraq, this tactic would have likely born fruit. The Sunni insurgency's main beef has always been that America is an occupying force. If they don't want Americans occupying their country, they won't want Saudi or Jordanian or Lebanese terrorists doing the same thing, especially when those terrorists start bombing centuries-old mosques. Their other aim has been to ensure that the newly-empowered Shia majority, with the aid of the U.S. military, is attempting to oppress them in the same way their minority oppressed the Shia under Saddam Hussein's reign. Attempts at communication, even funding the Sunni militias, make them feel a part of the process instead of an oppressed minority.
But the real kicker to the entire "surge is succeeding" lie is that it's an accurate lie. The violence has gone down, but it isn't just because we tossed 20,000 more troops into the mix. The Sunni insurgency's main weapon has been the IED, the improvised explosive device, otherwise known in not-doublespeak as the roadside bomb. Now that the Sunni insurgency isn't targeting Americans and Shia anymore, focusing instead on Al-Qaeda in Iraq, those IED's aren't being seen as much. Isn't that a coincidence? No, but you won't hear anything about that particular connection from the proponents of the surge. All you will hear is "THE SURGE HAS WORKED!!!!" Never mind that it was a political solution and not a military one that caused much of the drop in violence. It's all about the military.
Don't believe it. The military has done an impossible job as best they can, but Iraq is the kind of problem that can never be solved with purely military solutions. Insurgencies do not get defeated by anything less than sustained genocidal insanity, something I hope our government doesn't consider a viable final solution. The violence has dropped, because we bought off some of the insurgents. Saying it as anything else is a flim-flam job meant to win elections.
Yes, it is true that the violence has gone down in Iraq. That's something I should be ecstatic about, but I can't help but feel sickened by the flim-flam with which such a positive result was achieved. In order to more effectively fight Al-Qaeda in Iraq, a group that did not exist prior to our invasion, by the way, the military began supplying Sunni insurgents with weapons and cash. That's right, those same Sunni insurgents who used to blow up American convoys with IED's are now aiding the American occupation in rooting out Al-Qaeda. This tactic is incredibly brilliant, in that the best way to actually defeat a guerrilla insurgency is to involve them in the positive future of their country. Defeating a bunch of foreign fighters intent on sowing sectarian discord in Iraq is most certainly something that all Iraqis, Sunni or Shia should be cheering.
But from the American perspective, it should be seen with the proper context. First, the Sunni insurgents are terrorists, at least in the eyes of the administration. So that administration, by allowing payments to the Sunni insurgents have now "negotiated with terrorists," which is something they claimed they would not do. This shows how hypocritical the administration is, but at least they finally acknowledged that just being bull-headed "kill 'em all" psychopaths was not a tenable long-term solution. This deal with the Sunnis also has nothing whatsoever to do with the tactic of putting more troops in country. Whether you had 100,000 or 100 troops in Iraq, this tactic would have likely born fruit. The Sunni insurgency's main beef has always been that America is an occupying force. If they don't want Americans occupying their country, they won't want Saudi or Jordanian or Lebanese terrorists doing the same thing, especially when those terrorists start bombing centuries-old mosques. Their other aim has been to ensure that the newly-empowered Shia majority, with the aid of the U.S. military, is attempting to oppress them in the same way their minority oppressed the Shia under Saddam Hussein's reign. Attempts at communication, even funding the Sunni militias, make them feel a part of the process instead of an oppressed minority.
But the real kicker to the entire "surge is succeeding" lie is that it's an accurate lie. The violence has gone down, but it isn't just because we tossed 20,000 more troops into the mix. The Sunni insurgency's main weapon has been the IED, the improvised explosive device, otherwise known in not-doublespeak as the roadside bomb. Now that the Sunni insurgency isn't targeting Americans and Shia anymore, focusing instead on Al-Qaeda in Iraq, those IED's aren't being seen as much. Isn't that a coincidence? No, but you won't hear anything about that particular connection from the proponents of the surge. All you will hear is "THE SURGE HAS WORKED!!!!" Never mind that it was a political solution and not a military one that caused much of the drop in violence. It's all about the military.
Don't believe it. The military has done an impossible job as best they can, but Iraq is the kind of problem that can never be solved with purely military solutions. Insurgencies do not get defeated by anything less than sustained genocidal insanity, something I hope our government doesn't consider a viable final solution. The violence has dropped, because we bought off some of the insurgents. Saying it as anything else is a flim-flam job meant to win elections.
Labels: Bush Administration, Dick Cheney, Fascism, Government Corruption, Iraq, Politics, Presidential Campaign 2008
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 3:24 PM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
| 
Again, On Bended Knee
Posted on
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
by Gary A. Ballard
Here's a message to the Democrats in the Senate, especially those who campaigned so hard on ending the war in Iraq during the 2006 campaign season. Shut the fuck up, you sniveling twats. You have absolutely no call to ever speak badly about the Bush administration again, because today's news proves that other than a small block of 24 Senators, you have all decided that aiding and abetting this President's criminal activities is more important than following the will of the electorate. You have capitulated again and again and again.
My rage at Democratic passivity this morning comes from this story. It involves the passage of a government spending bill to the tune of $555 billion. Now a spending bill alone wouldn't necessarily raise my ire. I'm sure there are plenty of things that might get me upset in the details of the bill, but the most prominent cause of my anger is the addition of $70 billion in Iraq war funding to the bill. That's right, despite their continued news cycle rhetoric about ending the war in Iraq, about forcing the President to adhere to the Constitution, nothing is being done.
The bill as passed by the House limited the additional war funding to use in Afghanistan only. A few Senators tried to put conditions on the money, forcing the President to adhere to timetables in order to use the money for the war in Iraq. But those measures failed. Only 24 Senators voted for it, all Democrats. I suppose those Senators should be commended.
Only, I don't feel like commending any Senators, because in the end, they all gave up. They gave the President $70 billion MORE of American taxpayers' money, with no strings attached to do what he wants. Again. And every single time the Democrats have capitulated to this President in the last year, they claim it's the last time they will allow it to happen, like some beaten wife who vows to finally go to the cops the next time her husband lays hands on her.
I don't believe you fuckers anymore. Sen. Harry Reid's leadership in the Senate has been a colossal fuckup. If you truly want the war in Iraq to end, STOP FUNDING THE FUCKING WAR, YOU SIMPERING CUNT. Just... Stop... Funding... It. This President is not going to play ball, he's not going to cooperate. If he were going to cooperate on anything, don't you think he'd have done it in situations where he is clearly wrong by the laws of the land? Don't you think he'd respect the subpoena powers of Congress instead of instructing his ex-employees to ignore it, and telling the Justice Department not to enforce those subpoenas? This President doesn't negotiate, he doesn't compromise, ever. You have to force him, like a petulant child refusing to eat his veggies. And as long as you continue to hand him a blank fucking check, he doesn't have to cooperate at all.
No, you giant pussy, you do have leverage. You have the law of the land. You have the power of the purse strings, the power to deny him funding for his war. You have the power to declare war, and you have the power to end it. This President never asked you to declare war, and no war was ever declared, which means that everything he does with the military is done because Congress has authorized it. Retract that authorization. While I know that wouldn't pass, I do know that defunding the war takes no action. All it takes is to have the balls to say to the President "No more
Every single soldier's death in Iraq, every single Iraqi civilian death from this point forward, is on the heads of those 76 Senators who voted to give the President more money for the Iraq war. That blood is not going to wash off, and I hope it haunts your dreams for years to come.
My rage at Democratic passivity this morning comes from this story. It involves the passage of a government spending bill to the tune of $555 billion. Now a spending bill alone wouldn't necessarily raise my ire. I'm sure there are plenty of things that might get me upset in the details of the bill, but the most prominent cause of my anger is the addition of $70 billion in Iraq war funding to the bill. That's right, despite their continued news cycle rhetoric about ending the war in Iraq, about forcing the President to adhere to the Constitution, nothing is being done.
The bill as passed by the House limited the additional war funding to use in Afghanistan only. A few Senators tried to put conditions on the money, forcing the President to adhere to timetables in order to use the money for the war in Iraq. But those measures failed. Only 24 Senators voted for it, all Democrats. I suppose those Senators should be commended.
Only, I don't feel like commending any Senators, because in the end, they all gave up. They gave the President $70 billion MORE of American taxpayers' money, with no strings attached to do what he wants. Again. And every single time the Democrats have capitulated to this President in the last year, they claim it's the last time they will allow it to happen, like some beaten wife who vows to finally go to the cops the next time her husband lays hands on her.
I don't believe you fuckers anymore. Sen. Harry Reid's leadership in the Senate has been a colossal fuckup. If you truly want the war in Iraq to end, STOP FUNDING THE FUCKING WAR, YOU SIMPERING CUNT. Just... Stop... Funding... It. This President is not going to play ball, he's not going to cooperate. If he were going to cooperate on anything, don't you think he'd have done it in situations where he is clearly wrong by the laws of the land? Don't you think he'd respect the subpoena powers of Congress instead of instructing his ex-employees to ignore it, and telling the Justice Department not to enforce those subpoenas? This President doesn't negotiate, he doesn't compromise, ever. You have to force him, like a petulant child refusing to eat his veggies. And as long as you continue to hand him a blank fucking check, he doesn't have to cooperate at all.
"In the end, we had very little leverage to do anything," Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) said as the once-heated war debate closed with little suspense and no drama.
No, you giant pussy, you do have leverage. You have the law of the land. You have the power of the purse strings, the power to deny him funding for his war. You have the power to declare war, and you have the power to end it. This President never asked you to declare war, and no war was ever declared, which means that everything he does with the military is done because Congress has authorized it. Retract that authorization. While I know that wouldn't pass, I do know that defunding the war takes no action. All it takes is to have the balls to say to the President "No more
Every single soldier's death in Iraq, every single Iraqi civilian death from this point forward, is on the heads of those 76 Senators who voted to give the President more money for the Iraq war. That blood is not going to wash off, and I hope it haunts your dreams for years to come.
Labels: Bush Administration, Dick Cheney, Fascism, Government Corruption, Iraq
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 10:00 AM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
Saving Lives, Damning Souls
Posted on
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
by Gary A. Ballard
The CIA has always operated as a shadowy organization, sometimes following questionable policies with enough moral ambiguity to provide a fertile ground for equally questionable tactics. Mining the harbors of Nicarauga, smuggling drugs and selling weapons to Iran to fund the Contras, secret drug research programs, brainwashing techniques, propping up the Ba'ath Party in Iraq, overthrowing the government of Iran and installing the Shah in 1953, all of these things have been attributed to the CIA since its inception. It comes as no real surprise then that the CIA has been the frontrunner organization in America's recent embrace of torture to fight the war on Terror. Just last week, we learned that videotapes of torture sessions involving waterboarding by CIA operatives were destroyed to "protect the identities of the operatives involved." Of course, the protection such operatives required was not from revealation to our enemies but from criminal prosecution once our government de-assified its collective head and chose to follow the law again. But now we have a former CIA operative who participated in torture speaking out, and his words are a slap in the face.
This man admits he used waterboarding. He admits that now he considers waterboarding torture, and that he regrets using the technique. How nice of him. The most galling part of his statement is that the use of the technique he now regrets "saved lives." He traded away America's good name, America's soul, to "save lives."
Bully for you.
I do understand that there are people working their asses off to make me safe. I understand there are a metric fuckton of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who are now more likely to be tortured and decapitated when they are captured because someone thought waterboarding was A-OK.
I also understand that as a citizen of this country, I never authorized agents to torture in my name, to break the laws of this land to make me safe. The cost is entirely too high. Every person, guilty or not, who was tortured in the war on terror, was ostensibly tortured IN MY NAME, and in the name of every other American citizen. Those acts of barbarism were done without my knowledge, without my consent, without even the backing of the laws of this land, and they were wrong. They tarnish the very soul of this entire country and everyone in it. Not only were the wishes of the American people that we NOT torture anyone made explicit in the law, those wishes were ignored for what? The sake of expediency? To justify more abuses of the law such as warrantless wiretapping and indefinite imprisonment without the right to object to such confinement?
Kiriakou says that he regrets the torture because "Americans are better than that."
No, it was not necessary at the time. We haven't moved beyond that because not only are we still doing it, the Bush administration has been attempting to make sure those techniques are legal now and are retroactively legal. His cronies in the CIA are destroying evidence just in case he can't bless those acts with the legal stamp. We haven't moved beyond it because assholes like you haven't accepted that such acts are wrong now and more importantly were wrong then. The lives that were supposedly saved, a quantity that cannot be measured because we'll never know what would have been, those lives were not worth damning our souls with the stink of barbarism.
America is SUPPOSED to be better than that, but we've let ourselves believe the lie. We've let ourselves believe the lie that we can do no wrong, that we are better than everyone else. The ugly truth is we have allowed ourselves to fall to a mentality that is no better than the vicious bastards we claim to oppose.
This man admits he used waterboarding. He admits that now he considers waterboarding torture, and that he regrets using the technique. How nice of him. The most galling part of his statement is that the use of the technique he now regrets "saved lives." He traded away America's good name, America's soul, to "save lives."
Bully for you.
"It's easy to point to intelligence failures and perceived intelligence
failures, but the public has to understand how hard people are working to make
them safe," [Kiriakou] said.
I do understand that there are people working their asses off to make me safe. I understand there are a metric fuckton of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who are now more likely to be tortured and decapitated when they are captured because someone thought waterboarding was A-OK.
I also understand that as a citizen of this country, I never authorized agents to torture in my name, to break the laws of this land to make me safe. The cost is entirely too high. Every person, guilty or not, who was tortured in the war on terror, was ostensibly tortured IN MY NAME, and in the name of every other American citizen. Those acts of barbarism were done without my knowledge, without my consent, without even the backing of the laws of this land, and they were wrong. They tarnish the very soul of this entire country and everyone in it. Not only were the wishes of the American people that we NOT torture anyone made explicit in the law, those wishes were ignored for what? The sake of expediency? To justify more abuses of the law such as warrantless wiretapping and indefinite imprisonment without the right to object to such confinement?
Kiriakou says that he regrets the torture because "Americans are better than that."
"Maybe that's inconsistent, but that's how I feel," he said. "It was an
ugly little episode that was perhaps necessary at that time. But we've moved
beyond that."
No, it was not necessary at the time. We haven't moved beyond that because not only are we still doing it, the Bush administration has been attempting to make sure those techniques are legal now and are retroactively legal. His cronies in the CIA are destroying evidence just in case he can't bless those acts with the legal stamp. We haven't moved beyond it because assholes like you haven't accepted that such acts are wrong now and more importantly were wrong then. The lives that were supposedly saved, a quantity that cannot be measured because we'll never know what would have been, those lives were not worth damning our souls with the stink of barbarism.
America is SUPPOSED to be better than that, but we've let ourselves believe the lie. We've let ourselves believe the lie that we can do no wrong, that we are better than everyone else. The ugly truth is we have allowed ourselves to fall to a mentality that is no better than the vicious bastards we claim to oppose.
Labels: Bush Administration, Dick Cheney, Fascism, Government Corruption, Habeus Corpus, Iraq, Politics, Presidential Campaign 2008, Torture
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 8:54 AM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
Congressional Democrats Need a New Agenda
Posted on
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
by Gary A. Ballard
This story from the LA Times gave me a brief moment of hope, which was quickly dashed by political pussyfooting. Presidential candidate and noted leprechaun Dennis Kucinich filed three articles of impeachment in the House of Representatives against Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday, proving that this diminutive Ohio Democrat has more balls per square inch than the entire Senate put together. The articles were, of course, doomed to failure, much like the tiny Congressmidget's presidential campaign, unfortunately. But it was a statement by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer that got my tits in a twist.
According to the article:
That's great, Steny. What exactly is the agenda, then? Is it upgrading S-CHIP? That's already been vetoed and you couldn't muster the votes to override the veto. Is it the war in Iraq? You've already rolled over like whipped dogs and let Bush scratch your belly, giving him every cent he asked for without holding him to any of his own benchmarks. Is it the U.S. Attorney firing scandal? Nope, you've pissed that one away by refusing to actually hold administration officials in contempt for not answering your subpoenas, and let Alberto Gonzales get away with lying directly to you under oath. Is it exposing fraud in Iraq war contracting, or Bush's private militia Blackwater's actions, raising the minimum wage or the fuckups of FEMA during Katrina? That's right, you've done fuckall with those issues as well.
So what is the agenda? From where I sit, you've been stymied at every opportunity by procedural shenanigans, or by Republicans in Democrats' clothing like Joe Lieberman. You've been made to look like complete pussies by the Republican noise machine's framing of all the important issues as failings of your party. Is there some other agenda, maybe like not rocking the boat too much and avoiding nuclear showdowns so you can sneak a Democratic president into the White House next year and get a rubber stamp Democratic Congress?
Look, I understand the political reality of the impeachment situation. I realize that you believe impeaching an obviously criminal, lame-duck president during a war would make you appear to be partisan hacks, just like the Republicans in 1998. I realize you believe the backlash would lose you seats in the Congress. Only, that isn't what happened to the Republicans. By 2002, they'd won a majority in Congress despite the supposed backlash over the trivialities of the Clinton impeachment. I realize you feel it would deadlock the Congress with a process that most likely would not result in the removal of Cheney or Bush from their positions of power.
But at some point, the Democratic leadership in Congress has got to wake the fuck up and realize this President has no intention of compromising on anything. He is the ultimate child king, an immature demagogue holding his breath until he gets his way. His way means the lives of troops in Iraq will be wasted, health insurance for poor kids goes unfunded and the pillaging of this country's treasury by corporate raiders with no sense of responsibility to the country that has made them rich beyond measure. He is not willing to work with you no matter what you offer. He is not willing to end the war in Iraq, he's not willing to stop torturing detainees whether innocent or guilty, and he's not willing to do anything that might make him anything less than an absolute ruler.
It's almost certain that impeachment would fail. It would be a terrible, ugly scene with sniping back and forth, partisan politics juiced to their most ugly spectacle. But it would be the right thing to do. And it would finally expose some of the nastiest political tricksters this country has ever seen as the devious shitheels they really are. It would serve as a warning to future Presidents that such evil will not be tolerated, an example that apparently Watergate did not provide to someone like Dick Cheney.
The Congressional Democrats need a new agenda, and fast. The one they've got is based on faulty logic and the misguided hope that a Democratic President will fix all the nation's problems. Without the precedent of an impeachment against the Executive, it will only serve to embolden future power-hungry assholes, and this country has shown a startling desire to elect such power-hungry assholes, and then re-elect them.
According to the article:
"Impeachment is not on our agenda," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer(D-Md.). "We have some major priorities. We need to focus on those."
That's great, Steny. What exactly is the agenda, then? Is it upgrading S-CHIP? That's already been vetoed and you couldn't muster the votes to override the veto. Is it the war in Iraq? You've already rolled over like whipped dogs and let Bush scratch your belly, giving him every cent he asked for without holding him to any of his own benchmarks. Is it the U.S. Attorney firing scandal? Nope, you've pissed that one away by refusing to actually hold administration officials in contempt for not answering your subpoenas, and let Alberto Gonzales get away with lying directly to you under oath. Is it exposing fraud in Iraq war contracting, or Bush's private militia Blackwater's actions, raising the minimum wage or the fuckups of FEMA during Katrina? That's right, you've done fuckall with those issues as well.
So what is the agenda? From where I sit, you've been stymied at every opportunity by procedural shenanigans, or by Republicans in Democrats' clothing like Joe Lieberman. You've been made to look like complete pussies by the Republican noise machine's framing of all the important issues as failings of your party. Is there some other agenda, maybe like not rocking the boat too much and avoiding nuclear showdowns so you can sneak a Democratic president into the White House next year and get a rubber stamp Democratic Congress?
Look, I understand the political reality of the impeachment situation. I realize that you believe impeaching an obviously criminal, lame-duck president during a war would make you appear to be partisan hacks, just like the Republicans in 1998. I realize you believe the backlash would lose you seats in the Congress. Only, that isn't what happened to the Republicans. By 2002, they'd won a majority in Congress despite the supposed backlash over the trivialities of the Clinton impeachment. I realize you feel it would deadlock the Congress with a process that most likely would not result in the removal of Cheney or Bush from their positions of power.
But at some point, the Democratic leadership in Congress has got to wake the fuck up and realize this President has no intention of compromising on anything. He is the ultimate child king, an immature demagogue holding his breath until he gets his way. His way means the lives of troops in Iraq will be wasted, health insurance for poor kids goes unfunded and the pillaging of this country's treasury by corporate raiders with no sense of responsibility to the country that has made them rich beyond measure. He is not willing to work with you no matter what you offer. He is not willing to end the war in Iraq, he's not willing to stop torturing detainees whether innocent or guilty, and he's not willing to do anything that might make him anything less than an absolute ruler.
It's almost certain that impeachment would fail. It would be a terrible, ugly scene with sniping back and forth, partisan politics juiced to their most ugly spectacle. But it would be the right thing to do. And it would finally expose some of the nastiest political tricksters this country has ever seen as the devious shitheels they really are. It would serve as a warning to future Presidents that such evil will not be tolerated, an example that apparently Watergate did not provide to someone like Dick Cheney.
The Congressional Democrats need a new agenda, and fast. The one they've got is based on faulty logic and the misguided hope that a Democratic President will fix all the nation's problems. Without the precedent of an impeachment against the Executive, it will only serve to embolden future power-hungry assholes, and this country has shown a startling desire to elect such power-hungry assholes, and then re-elect them.
Labels: Bush Administration, Corporate Corruption, Dick Cheney, Fascism, Government Corruption, Habeus Corpus, Health Care, Iraq, Presidential Campaign 2008
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 9:26 AM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
Mukasey and the Water
Posted on
Friday, November 02, 2007
by Gary A. Ballard
One of the stories coming out of Washington this week has been the contentious debate over the confirmation process of Judge Mukasey as Attorney General. For weeks, it seemed as if Mukasey would be a shoe-in to replace Raging Douchebag Alberto Gonzales as AG. Democrats spoke of Mukasey as a consensus candidate, one without any huge ideological hangups. But then a strange thing happened. Someone in the Senate Judiciary Committee asked Mukasey a simple question, and Mukasey's answer was neither simple, nor did it especially answer the question. The question was a masterful political move, and one I hope signals a sea change in the manner in which the Senate handles the White House from this moment forward.
The question was, "Do you consider water-boarding torture?"
Sane, rational people without any sort of authoritarian agenda should be able to answer that question quite easily without resorting to semantic discussions or abstract wankery. The phrase "a shock to the conscience" does not need to be invoked. To my mind, one shouldn't even need to reference the Geneva Conventions to determine the answer to this question. One only need examine the history of the "interrogation technique" known as waterboarding to determine the answer. One only need look at the names our country will be associated with, and the answer becomes clear.
The caring priest of the Spanish Inquisition used waterboarding. A prisoner in the tender embraces of Stalinist Russia could look forward to a terror dunking. One shouldn't forget that Cambodia's Khmer Rouge used the technique. In the halls of history, the United States of America, the "we don't torture" Americans, the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" Uncle Sams, the "no cruel or unusual punishment" champions of the U S of A, we use waterboarding. We will be placed in history among the luminaries of oppression, brutality and needless slaughter such as Josef Stalin.
If waterboarding isn't torture, then we should apologize to Cambodia for illegally bombing the country during the Vietnam War (something we should do anyway). If waterboarding isn't torture, we should apologize to the Soviet Union for the Cold War. And if waterboarding isn't torture, the Spanish Inquisition should be given its reputation back. After all, these people used waterboarding against a great enemy that threatened them and such harsh techniques were justified until that enemy was defeated.
It is torture, Judge Mukasey. Claiming you can't answer one way or the other because it's a classified technique is legal waffling, considering just how much knowledge the public has of the technique. Refusing to comment affirmatively because to do so would require you as Attorney General to actually prosecute those who ordered and carried out the use of the technique is a gutless, weasel move that speaks of cowardice and systemic corruption. If you as Attorney General would not confirm this technique as illegal and against the tenets of the Constitution, then you are no more effective a replacement for the spineless, mewling twat that was Alberto Gonzales than a cardboard cutout.
The Justice Department has been eaten away from the inside by an institutional cancer, a disease of the heart and mind that has replaced integrity with obedience, politics with justice. The department needs a firm hand to weed out the inbred political incompetence and base corruption and restore one of America's vital government institution. It requires someone who would actually enforce the legal subpoenas issued by the Congress on people like Harriet Miers and Karl Rove, no matter what the White House had to say about it.
But most importantly, the job requires that you take a stand against the vile attacks on America's soul that criminals like George W. Bush, Jr. and Dick Cheney have launched. It requires that you admit that waterboarding is a torture that stains all Americans' hands with blood
Update: I found this fantastic article on waterboarding, written by Malcolm Nance, a former Master Instructor and Chief of Training at the US Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in San Diego, California. This man knows all about torture techniques, as he's trained our soldiers how to resist such techniques for years.
The question was, "Do you consider water-boarding torture?"
Sane, rational people without any sort of authoritarian agenda should be able to answer that question quite easily without resorting to semantic discussions or abstract wankery. The phrase "a shock to the conscience" does not need to be invoked. To my mind, one shouldn't even need to reference the Geneva Conventions to determine the answer to this question. One only need examine the history of the "interrogation technique" known as waterboarding to determine the answer. One only need look at the names our country will be associated with, and the answer becomes clear.
The caring priest of the Spanish Inquisition used waterboarding. A prisoner in the tender embraces of Stalinist Russia could look forward to a terror dunking. One shouldn't forget that Cambodia's Khmer Rouge used the technique. In the halls of history, the United States of America, the "we don't torture" Americans, the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" Uncle Sams, the "no cruel or unusual punishment" champions of the U S of A, we use waterboarding. We will be placed in history among the luminaries of oppression, brutality and needless slaughter such as Josef Stalin.
If waterboarding isn't torture, then we should apologize to Cambodia for illegally bombing the country during the Vietnam War (something we should do anyway). If waterboarding isn't torture, we should apologize to the Soviet Union for the Cold War. And if waterboarding isn't torture, the Spanish Inquisition should be given its reputation back. After all, these people used waterboarding against a great enemy that threatened them and such harsh techniques were justified until that enemy was defeated.
It is torture, Judge Mukasey. Claiming you can't answer one way or the other because it's a classified technique is legal waffling, considering just how much knowledge the public has of the technique. Refusing to comment affirmatively because to do so would require you as Attorney General to actually prosecute those who ordered and carried out the use of the technique is a gutless, weasel move that speaks of cowardice and systemic corruption. If you as Attorney General would not confirm this technique as illegal and against the tenets of the Constitution, then you are no more effective a replacement for the spineless, mewling twat that was Alberto Gonzales than a cardboard cutout.
The Justice Department has been eaten away from the inside by an institutional cancer, a disease of the heart and mind that has replaced integrity with obedience, politics with justice. The department needs a firm hand to weed out the inbred political incompetence and base corruption and restore one of America's vital government institution. It requires someone who would actually enforce the legal subpoenas issued by the Congress on people like Harriet Miers and Karl Rove, no matter what the White House had to say about it.
But most importantly, the job requires that you take a stand against the vile attacks on America's soul that criminals like George W. Bush, Jr. and Dick Cheney have launched. It requires that you admit that waterboarding is a torture that stains all Americans' hands with blood
Update: I found this fantastic article on waterboarding, written by Malcolm Nance, a former Master Instructor and Chief of Training at the US Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in San Diego, California. This man knows all about torture techniques, as he's trained our soldiers how to resist such techniques for years.
Labels: Bush Administration, Dick Cheney, Fascism, Government Corruption, Presidential Campaign 2008, Raging Douchebag Week, The Stalin Monologues, Torture
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 10:29 AM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
The 60-Vote Fallacy
Posted on
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
by Gary A. Ballard
In today's information-soaked media environment, a meme can gain such a ironclad hold on the imagination of the public with startlingly ease. The mainstream media is the Ebola monkey of viral memes, spreading such fantastic misconceptions as Iraqi WMD with the speed of a Level 4 outbreak. The latest meme to really gain hold in the American political media is what I've termed the 60-Vote Fallacy. It refers to Senate votes and the Democratic majority's attempts to pass a bill forcing the President to end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home, and it's such a simple mangling of the truth.
Senate bills require a simple majority to pass. However, bills can be filibustered, a procedural shenanigan the minority party uses to kill a bill that might pass by simple majority vote. Filibustering consists of talking, and talking and talking, talking so much that the asses of Senators literally fall off and wither up like the dissected segments of an earthworm. A successful filibuster is the nuclear option for minorities, an option scorned by the Republicans when they were in the ascendancy but one which they are all too willing to threaten now that they are in the minority. And in order to defeat a filibuster, the Senate calls a cloture vote, which means that the bill or amendment under debate goes up for an immediate "yay" or "nay" vote. Cloture requires 60 votes to pass, which means 60 votes is required to defeat a filibuster. This is different from the 67 votes needed to overturn a Presidential veto.
The media, in its rush to soundbite the most important news so that it may continue to focus on the inane trivialities of celebrity baby daddy's, has cut to the chase with their Senate coverage lately. They've simplified things for us complete idiots out there. Rather than try to explain what a cloture vote is and how it's used, instead they say that legislation such as that calling for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq has been defeated because the Senate couldn't get the required 60 votes. The media fails to mention, perhaps purposefully, that the bill wasn't actually voted on at all, or that the Republicans who claimed for years that Democratic partisanship was destroying America with filibusters chose to use their filibuster power without actually going through with the filibuster. No, the coverage is dominated by the implication that the Senate Democrats are impotent because they don't have a 60-vote majority.
The media gets it wrong all the time, of course. They are factually incorrect, in so much as the facts they spread do not tell the entire picture and the devil is in the details. But what I find most disturbing is an even more subtle implication that may or may not be an actual Democratic strategy. By repeating this meme over and over on bill after bill, it almost seems as if the Democrats are attempting to gain the same sort of one-party majority in the 2008 elections that the Republicans battered the country with since 2002. It's almost a certainty that the White House will be Democratic in 2008, or at least it should be given the abuses the Republicans have inflicted with that power. By not correcting the mainstream media's mistaken framing of the 60-vote rule, are the Democrats insinuating to the voters that without a 60-vote majority in the Senate, they can't get anything accomplished?
I am wary of any political party which has the kind of rubber stamp majority exercised by the Republican Party since 2002. It is an absolute power that is absolutely corrupting in every sense of the word. While many of my political beliefs fall under the Democratic tent, especially since the hijacking of the GOP by the evangelical moonbats, the very problems inflicted upon the country by the Bush administration have been because of the lack of a check from an empowered minority. I find nothing in any political party that makes me believe the Democrats are above the temptation to rob this country blind should the most important checks and balances be removed. I no sooner want to see America as a one-party Democratic state than I did a Republican one.
Democrats do not need 60-votes to end the Iraq War. They need a backbone. Defunding the war does not require a successful vote at all. It just requires being frank with the American people, and it requires standing up to the Bush junta with purse strings pulled tight. It's high time the Democrats said no to tyrants.
Senate bills require a simple majority to pass. However, bills can be filibustered, a procedural shenanigan the minority party uses to kill a bill that might pass by simple majority vote. Filibustering consists of talking, and talking and talking, talking so much that the asses of Senators literally fall off and wither up like the dissected segments of an earthworm. A successful filibuster is the nuclear option for minorities, an option scorned by the Republicans when they were in the ascendancy but one which they are all too willing to threaten now that they are in the minority. And in order to defeat a filibuster, the Senate calls a cloture vote, which means that the bill or amendment under debate goes up for an immediate "yay" or "nay" vote. Cloture requires 60 votes to pass, which means 60 votes is required to defeat a filibuster. This is different from the 67 votes needed to overturn a Presidential veto.
The media, in its rush to soundbite the most important news so that it may continue to focus on the inane trivialities of celebrity baby daddy's, has cut to the chase with their Senate coverage lately. They've simplified things for us complete idiots out there. Rather than try to explain what a cloture vote is and how it's used, instead they say that legislation such as that calling for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq has been defeated because the Senate couldn't get the required 60 votes. The media fails to mention, perhaps purposefully, that the bill wasn't actually voted on at all, or that the Republicans who claimed for years that Democratic partisanship was destroying America with filibusters chose to use their filibuster power without actually going through with the filibuster. No, the coverage is dominated by the implication that the Senate Democrats are impotent because they don't have a 60-vote majority.
The media gets it wrong all the time, of course. They are factually incorrect, in so much as the facts they spread do not tell the entire picture and the devil is in the details. But what I find most disturbing is an even more subtle implication that may or may not be an actual Democratic strategy. By repeating this meme over and over on bill after bill, it almost seems as if the Democrats are attempting to gain the same sort of one-party majority in the 2008 elections that the Republicans battered the country with since 2002. It's almost a certainty that the White House will be Democratic in 2008, or at least it should be given the abuses the Republicans have inflicted with that power. By not correcting the mainstream media's mistaken framing of the 60-vote rule, are the Democrats insinuating to the voters that without a 60-vote majority in the Senate, they can't get anything accomplished?
I am wary of any political party which has the kind of rubber stamp majority exercised by the Republican Party since 2002. It is an absolute power that is absolutely corrupting in every sense of the word. While many of my political beliefs fall under the Democratic tent, especially since the hijacking of the GOP by the evangelical moonbats, the very problems inflicted upon the country by the Bush administration have been because of the lack of a check from an empowered minority. I find nothing in any political party that makes me believe the Democrats are above the temptation to rob this country blind should the most important checks and balances be removed. I no sooner want to see America as a one-party Democratic state than I did a Republican one.
Democrats do not need 60-votes to end the Iraq War. They need a backbone. Defunding the war does not require a successful vote at all. It just requires being frank with the American people, and it requires standing up to the Bush junta with purse strings pulled tight. It's high time the Democrats said no to tyrants.
Labels: Bush Administration, Dick Cheney, Fascism, Government Corruption, Politics, Presidential Campaign 2008
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 3:12 PM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
43 Senators Who Hate the Constitution
Posted on
Thursday, September 20, 2007
by Gary A. Ballard
A cloture vote was taken in the Senate yesterday on the Habeus Corpus Restoration Act. For those unaware, Habeus corpus is one of the fundamental rights granted in the Constitution, the right for the accused to challenge his detention, be informed of the charges held against him and access to the evidence supporting those charges. It is the very backbone of our criminal justice system. Habeus corpus is so important to a fair system of justice, and so fundamentally ASSUMED by every American citizen that to even consider it as anything other than an unbreakable commandment is un-American.
And yet, there are 43 Senators in the Congress this very day who do not believe it is worth fighting for. Here is a listing from Restore-Habeus.org detailing how each Senator voted on the cloture motion. Keep in mind, a cloture vote is only to allow the bill to go to a final up or down vote. Without passage of a cloture vote, the bill can be discussed and amended until it's dead. Passage of a cloture vote with 60 ayes will break any filibuster. So the passage of the cloture vote by 56-43 is essentially a failure for the bill given the amount of minority opposition, as well as obvious White House opposition.
Feast your eyes upon Senators who do not give two rat shits whether you or anyone else are given the right to challenge unlawful and indefinite detention. I find it particularly galling that Sen. Larry Craig, he of the bathroom foot tapping and quick, cover-me-up guilty plea voted to deny habeus corpus as well. I wonder if his vote would be different were his detainment for men's room shenanigans to last more than a few hours, or to include naked man pyramids. Never mind, he's probably dreaming of that scenario right now.
These fuckers are despicable, and I count my Senators Thad Cochran and Trent Lott among the pack of shiftless shitheels I wouldn't cross the street to piss on were they on fire. Perhaps they should sack their lawyers, since they see no reason to be allowed to challenge criminal charges leveled against them.
And yet, there are 43 Senators in the Congress this very day who do not believe it is worth fighting for. Here is a listing from Restore-Habeus.org detailing how each Senator voted on the cloture motion. Keep in mind, a cloture vote is only to allow the bill to go to a final up or down vote. Without passage of a cloture vote, the bill can be discussed and amended until it's dead. Passage of a cloture vote with 60 ayes will break any filibuster. So the passage of the cloture vote by 56-43 is essentially a failure for the bill given the amount of minority opposition, as well as obvious White House opposition.
Feast your eyes upon Senators who do not give two rat shits whether you or anyone else are given the right to challenge unlawful and indefinite detention. I find it particularly galling that Sen. Larry Craig, he of the bathroom foot tapping and quick, cover-me-up guilty plea voted to deny habeus corpus as well. I wonder if his vote would be different were his detainment for men's room shenanigans to last more than a few hours, or to include naked man pyramids. Never mind, he's probably dreaming of that scenario right now.
These fuckers are despicable, and I count my Senators Thad Cochran and Trent Lott among the pack of shiftless shitheels I wouldn't cross the street to piss on were they on fire. Perhaps they should sack their lawyers, since they see no reason to be allowed to challenge criminal charges leveled against them.
Labels: Bush Administration, Fascism, Government Corruption, Habeus Corpus
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 4:05 PM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
This FEMA Trailer Sure Does Stink
Posted on
Friday, July 20, 2007
by Gary A. Ballard
Something at FEMA stinks. We've known this since 2005, of course, when the bodies of dead New Orleans residents started flowing down Canal Street as the survivors of Katrina were left to boil in the destruction of the Superdome. But since those early days, Americans seem to have assumed that FEMA would take care of the problems, would bring New Orleans back from the brink of destruction, despite all evidence to the contrary. Congress seemed totally uninterested in figuring out how such a tragedy could occur on US Soil, at least until the Democrats regained a majority in the House and Senate. Now we know that the stench coming from FEMA smells like formaldehyde.
That's right, FEMA was providing residents of New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast with trailers so full of formaldehyde, the air was literally killing them. For over a year now, FEMA field staff had let the top brass at the agency know of this problem, and for over a year, their pleas were ignored. Not because there was no evidence, because the one time FEMA actually allowed testing of a trailer under living conditions, the trailer was found to have 75 times more formaldehyde than is allowed in the workplace. After that one test found a positive result, they halted testing. Why? According to Rep. Henry Waxman's statement in the video linked above, because FEMA attorneys didn't want FEMA to have to deal with the issue.
What is it these poor, mostly black homeless bums from New Orleans want? FEMA got them a damn trailer for free. They want to be able to breathe in it? If FEMA let those subhumans breathe in their trailers, FEMA might have to actually clean up their city which is still in ruins. That's like... hard and stuff. Oh and it doesn't enrich Republican donors, or land developers looking to scoop up land on the cheap.
I feel it necessary to point out that the preceding paragraph was written with an overdose of sarcasm. But it really does seem as if FEMA and Homeland Security really does want to exterminate the residents of New Orleans. First, we let them swelter in ungodly heat, flood waters and filth for almost a week claiming that entry to the city was impossible, even when we saw hordes of reporters and actors sweltering alongside the city's residents. Then we discovered that the levees were not only not built to withstand a hurricane of Katrina's strength, but were built incorrectly as well. Next, we found out that a private company charged with rebuilding and upgrading New Orleans' flood-prevention pumps was incompetent and incapable of doing so. And now this. The message is clear. Homeland Security and the Bush Administration don't just dislike poor black people, they are actively engaged in trying to exterminate the poor mendicants.
When do they start sending in the trains to collect the unwashed masses?
That's right, FEMA was providing residents of New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast with trailers so full of formaldehyde, the air was literally killing them. For over a year now, FEMA field staff had let the top brass at the agency know of this problem, and for over a year, their pleas were ignored. Not because there was no evidence, because the one time FEMA actually allowed testing of a trailer under living conditions, the trailer was found to have 75 times more formaldehyde than is allowed in the workplace. After that one test found a positive result, they halted testing. Why? According to Rep. Henry Waxman's statement in the video linked above, because FEMA attorneys didn't want FEMA to have to deal with the issue.
What is it these poor, mostly black homeless bums from New Orleans want? FEMA got them a damn trailer for free. They want to be able to breathe in it? If FEMA let those subhumans breathe in their trailers, FEMA might have to actually clean up their city which is still in ruins. That's like... hard and stuff. Oh and it doesn't enrich Republican donors, or land developers looking to scoop up land on the cheap.
I feel it necessary to point out that the preceding paragraph was written with an overdose of sarcasm. But it really does seem as if FEMA and Homeland Security really does want to exterminate the residents of New Orleans. First, we let them swelter in ungodly heat, flood waters and filth for almost a week claiming that entry to the city was impossible, even when we saw hordes of reporters and actors sweltering alongside the city's residents. Then we discovered that the levees were not only not built to withstand a hurricane of Katrina's strength, but were built incorrectly as well. Next, we found out that a private company charged with rebuilding and upgrading New Orleans' flood-prevention pumps was incompetent and incapable of doing so. And now this. The message is clear. Homeland Security and the Bush Administration don't just dislike poor black people, they are actively engaged in trying to exterminate the poor mendicants.
When do they start sending in the trains to collect the unwashed masses?
Labels: Bush Administration, Corporate Corruption, Dick Cheney, Fascism, Government Corruption, Politics, Privatization
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 3:37 PM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
Preaching Choirs: Vice: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency (Book) Review
Posted on
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
by Gary A. Ballard
Written by Lou Dubose and Bernstein, Vice: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency is a book that manages to both succeed and fail simultaneously. Seeking to pull back the curtain of secrecy on the "shadow government" being run by the vice president, it goes to great lengths to document the unethical and potentially illegal actions of the Office of the Vice President. From the outright illegality of the Plame scandal to the more esoteric procedural wranglings of Cheney's attempts to create an untouchable fourth branch of government that isn't judicial, legislative or executive, the book does a great job of providing what facts it can. And that's where the trouble begins.
You see, the book is exhaustively researched. Dozens of friends, former staffers, legislative enemies past and present are interviewed. Documents are quoted. But as the book itself makes clear, many of the things Cheney has accomplished as vice president cannot be traced back to him or his office. While Cheney's stench permeates most of the policy decisions the Bush administration clings to so fiercely, his fingerprints vanish under close scrutiny. Staffers draft memos and executive orders that mouth the words of Cheney, but without any evidence to show that Cheney actually guided the writer. As far as most of the official records go, Cheney might well have been a ghost in the White House, his invisible hand throttling the Constitution from beyond the grave. As a result, the book does a fantastic job of raising the ire of those already inclined to dislike Cheney and his policies, while not really providing much proof to those who might be neutral or supportive of Darth Veep.
This lack of concrete proof just serves to make the book fail on the most important level a polemic such as this might fail on. It does a great job of preaching to the choir, confirming the beliefs of those who are already against Dick Cheney. But its tone is one of extreme vitriol. The tone alone would be likely to turn off those who might be neutral on the subject prior to reading the book, as it is acerbic in its distaste for the man and his politics. Those readers who might be Republicans willing to listen to potential malfeasance on the part of their Vice will instead be able to paint the book as another "left-wing hit job," and they'd be not far from the truth in that respect. The book most certainly starts with a prejudiced premise, one which I happen to agree with. I am, however, one of the choir in this case. Were I a previous Bush voter, I'd be less likely to see the book in a favorable light. With the disdainful state of political discourse in our country, and the even lower state of media, a book tackling the subject of the Dick with a more even-handed tone might do a better job of stimulating debate as opposed to arguments.
Despite all that, it is a compelling read, one which offers a great deal of "WHUUUUU????" moments from Dick Cheney's past. One of the most memorable occurred in the 1980's, as he and a diplomat visited Russia for nuclear disarmament talks. After a day of talks in which the Russian team seemed genuinely interested in drawing down weapons, Cheney strolls through the city's beautiful scenery with his diplomatic partner. Rather than be awed by the beauty, so rarely seen by Americans in those days, he instead describes the open square as "Ground zero." A telling glimpse into the man's character, this chilling scene speaks of the hypocritical dichotomy of Dick Cheney. A man who took five deferments from the Vietnam War seems to relish the idea of using the men and women of the military in whatever fashion he sees fit.
If you have even the slightest inkling that Dick Cheney perhaps isn't playing with the same rules as other politicians, or that his actions might be harmful to this country, read Vice. If you often refer to Democratic politicians as "the Democrat party" or "left-wing liberals" then you will likely not make it through the first twenty pages. But despite its flaws, it is a book that should have been written years ago, and its shenanigans are the things the mainstream media should have feasted upon for years. I'd give the book 3.5 stars out of 5, 2 stars if you lean Republican.
You see, the book is exhaustively researched. Dozens of friends, former staffers, legislative enemies past and present are interviewed. Documents are quoted. But as the book itself makes clear, many of the things Cheney has accomplished as vice president cannot be traced back to him or his office. While Cheney's stench permeates most of the policy decisions the Bush administration clings to so fiercely, his fingerprints vanish under close scrutiny. Staffers draft memos and executive orders that mouth the words of Cheney, but without any evidence to show that Cheney actually guided the writer. As far as most of the official records go, Cheney might well have been a ghost in the White House, his invisible hand throttling the Constitution from beyond the grave. As a result, the book does a fantastic job of raising the ire of those already inclined to dislike Cheney and his policies, while not really providing much proof to those who might be neutral or supportive of Darth Veep.
This lack of concrete proof just serves to make the book fail on the most important level a polemic such as this might fail on. It does a great job of preaching to the choir, confirming the beliefs of those who are already against Dick Cheney. But its tone is one of extreme vitriol. The tone alone would be likely to turn off those who might be neutral on the subject prior to reading the book, as it is acerbic in its distaste for the man and his politics. Those readers who might be Republicans willing to listen to potential malfeasance on the part of their Vice will instead be able to paint the book as another "left-wing hit job," and they'd be not far from the truth in that respect. The book most certainly starts with a prejudiced premise, one which I happen to agree with. I am, however, one of the choir in this case. Were I a previous Bush voter, I'd be less likely to see the book in a favorable light. With the disdainful state of political discourse in our country, and the even lower state of media, a book tackling the subject of the Dick with a more even-handed tone might do a better job of stimulating debate as opposed to arguments.
Despite all that, it is a compelling read, one which offers a great deal of "WHUUUUU????" moments from Dick Cheney's past. One of the most memorable occurred in the 1980's, as he and a diplomat visited Russia for nuclear disarmament talks. After a day of talks in which the Russian team seemed genuinely interested in drawing down weapons, Cheney strolls through the city's beautiful scenery with his diplomatic partner. Rather than be awed by the beauty, so rarely seen by Americans in those days, he instead describes the open square as "Ground zero." A telling glimpse into the man's character, this chilling scene speaks of the hypocritical dichotomy of Dick Cheney. A man who took five deferments from the Vietnam War seems to relish the idea of using the men and women of the military in whatever fashion he sees fit.
If you have even the slightest inkling that Dick Cheney perhaps isn't playing with the same rules as other politicians, or that his actions might be harmful to this country, read Vice. If you often refer to Democratic politicians as "the Democrat party" or "left-wing liberals" then you will likely not make it through the first twenty pages. But despite its flaws, it is a book that should have been written years ago, and its shenanigans are the things the mainstream media should have feasted upon for years. I'd give the book 3.5 stars out of 5, 2 stars if you lean Republican.
Labels: Bush Administration, Dick Cheney, Fascism, Government Corruption
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 2:28 PM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
A Craven Congress
Posted on
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
by Gary A. Ballard
The Senate has disappointed me once again. We've now had months and months of hearings on the US Attorney firing scandal, including a clueless stooge testifying to his lack of recall about everything to do with his job, a turncoat Jesus-freak "lawyer" pleading the Fifth while showing almost complete ignorance of the law, and story after story painting the whole thing as a political purge by the White House. And yet the Senate still will not exert even the most basic oversight on this government. Today, Senate Republicans, may of whom have called for Attorney General Gonzales' resignation, voted to block a resolution expressing no-confidence in the AG. Yes, a non-binding slap on the wrist can't even be voted on for fear of political retribution.
It's time for this Congress to get some goddamn sack.
My own Senator, Trent Lott, opened his festering gob to offer this gem of Constitutional ignorance.
Actually, Trent, it IS the Congress' job to hold forth on a member of the President's Cabinet when that member is breaking the fucking law. When that Cabinet member has lied to Congress, dissembled, obfuscated and flip-flopped on his and his subordinates' roles in an obviously illegal way, it is exactly the Congress' job to punish that sort of shit. Not doing this job for four years is what lost the Republicans their majority in 2006, it's what got people killed in New Orleans during Katrina, and it's what continues to get our soldiers killed needlessly in Iraq.
The craven nature of politics in this Senate is astounding. This paragraph should get the blood boiling.
That list is full of pussies, if you'll forgive my profanity. That list is full of people who think it's acceptable to say Gonzales should be fired, but won't grow enough of a pair to actually vote on a resolution that puts that belief on Congressional record. Lieberman shows that he is a liar, having pledged to vote with the Democratic caucus despite his "Independent" status. He has consistently voted in lockstep with this White House.
But the worst offenders of craven cowardice in this Senate seem to be coming out of the Democratic majority.
I think it's time the Democrats stop gently nudging the intransigent rock that is President Bush and his cabal, and starts swinging a John Henry-sized sledgehammer. It's time the impeachment process was begun on a great number of administration heavyweights, not the least of which is Gonzales. He has been caught lying to Congress on multiple occasions. One such lie was the claim that he had not spoken with any of the upcoming witnesses in the hearings beforehand. Monica Goodling stated under oath that he did meet with her, to "comfort" her. He's consistently said one thing in press conferences, only to change the story in front of Congress when new evidence came to light. Perhaps the Democrats lack the votes to impeach, or do not want to be seen as the Congressional Republicans were seen after the useless Clinton impeachment.
The difference, of course, is that while Clinton's crime was certainly impeachable, it lacked the true weight of what most reasonable people would consider "high crimes and misdemeanors." If a politically-motivated purge of the nation's prosecutorial vanguard isn't a high crime, I don't know what is. Perhaps lying to the public to get us into a costly, unnecessary war. Maybe even giving good ole boy contracts to corrupt corporate campaign contributors then watching as those contractors defraud the government out of billions of dollars. One might even say that letting an entire major metropolitan area drown while giving sweetheart contracts to contributors who fail to even deliver ice to the evacuees would be a high crime worthy of impeachment.
But in order for that to happen, this Senate, this entire Congress is going to have to grow a pair. You were elected to clean up the shitpool that is the Bush government, by whatever Constitutional means are available. The clock is ticking. Don't waffle about vote counts, don't let the threat of an inevitable veto forestall your efforts. You know the President is going to use every tool at his disposal, including the extralegal ones he makes up on the fly, to cover his own ass. So stop throwing spitballs, and start lobbing Constitutional grenades.
You have the backing of the Constitution and of at least 65% of the American people. Get to work.
Update: Here is a list of those Republicans who did vote against the filibuster, as well as a listing of presidential candidates who did not even vote. Obama, Dodd and Biden didn't even show up to vote, which sorely disappoints me.
It's time for this Congress to get some goddamn sack.
My own Senator, Trent Lott, opened his festering gob to offer this gem of Constitutional ignorance.
Whatever Gonzales may or may not deserve, some Republicans said, it's not the Senate's job to hold forth on a member of the president's Cabinet.
"This is a nonbinding, irrelevant resolution proving what? Nothing," said Sen. Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record), R-Miss. "Maybe we should be considering a vote of no confidence on the Senate or on the Congress for malfunction and an inability to produce anything."
Actually, Trent, it IS the Congress' job to hold forth on a member of the President's Cabinet when that member is breaking the fucking law. When that Cabinet member has lied to Congress, dissembled, obfuscated and flip-flopped on his and his subordinates' roles in an obviously illegal way, it is exactly the Congress' job to punish that sort of shit. Not doing this job for four years is what lost the Republicans their majority in 2006, it's what got people killed in New Orleans during Katrina, and it's what continues to get our soldiers killed needlessly in Iraq.
The craven nature of politics in this Senate is astounding. This paragraph should get the blood boiling.
Among the Republicans voted for the no-confidence resolution were four who
had already called for a new attorney general: Sens. John Sununu of New
Hampshire, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Norm
Coleman of Minnesota. Joining them were Specter and Maine Republicans
Olympia Snowe and Collins.
Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who often votes with the
Democrats, voted no.
...
Those not voting included Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a presidential candidate who had called for Gonzales'
resignation.
That list is full of pussies, if you'll forgive my profanity. That list is full of people who think it's acceptable to say Gonzales should be fired, but won't grow enough of a pair to actually vote on a resolution that puts that belief on Congressional record. Lieberman shows that he is a liar, having pledged to vote with the Democratic caucus despite his "Independent" status. He has consistently voted in lockstep with this White House.
But the worst offenders of craven cowardice in this Senate seem to be coming out of the Democratic majority.
Short of impeachment, Congress has no authority to oust a Cabinet member, but Democrats were trying anew to give him a push.
I think it's time the Democrats stop gently nudging the intransigent rock that is President Bush and his cabal, and starts swinging a John Henry-sized sledgehammer. It's time the impeachment process was begun on a great number of administration heavyweights, not the least of which is Gonzales. He has been caught lying to Congress on multiple occasions. One such lie was the claim that he had not spoken with any of the upcoming witnesses in the hearings beforehand. Monica Goodling stated under oath that he did meet with her, to "comfort" her. He's consistently said one thing in press conferences, only to change the story in front of Congress when new evidence came to light. Perhaps the Democrats lack the votes to impeach, or do not want to be seen as the Congressional Republicans were seen after the useless Clinton impeachment.
The difference, of course, is that while Clinton's crime was certainly impeachable, it lacked the true weight of what most reasonable people would consider "high crimes and misdemeanors." If a politically-motivated purge of the nation's prosecutorial vanguard isn't a high crime, I don't know what is. Perhaps lying to the public to get us into a costly, unnecessary war. Maybe even giving good ole boy contracts to corrupt corporate campaign contributors then watching as those contractors defraud the government out of billions of dollars. One might even say that letting an entire major metropolitan area drown while giving sweetheart contracts to contributors who fail to even deliver ice to the evacuees would be a high crime worthy of impeachment.
But in order for that to happen, this Senate, this entire Congress is going to have to grow a pair. You were elected to clean up the shitpool that is the Bush government, by whatever Constitutional means are available. The clock is ticking. Don't waffle about vote counts, don't let the threat of an inevitable veto forestall your efforts. You know the President is going to use every tool at his disposal, including the extralegal ones he makes up on the fly, to cover his own ass. So stop throwing spitballs, and start lobbing Constitutional grenades.
You have the backing of the Constitution and of at least 65% of the American people. Get to work.
Update: Here is a list of those Republicans who did vote against the filibuster, as well as a listing of presidential candidates who did not even vote. Obama, Dodd and Biden didn't even show up to vote, which sorely disappoints me.
Labels: Bush Administration, Fascism, Government Corruption
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 9:03 AM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
10 Steps to A Freedom-Less America
Posted on
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
by Gary A. Ballard
I realize it's Godwin's Law to invoke Hitler, fascism and the Nazis in any Internet discussion. Such hyperbole generally shuts down all rational discourse left. But this article by Naomi Wolf is a fantastic compiliation of all the reasons one has to ignore Godwin's Law when discussing the American government these days. This article really should not be a reasonable thing, not in the America I know and love. But it is, and that's why it's supremely important for the citizens of these United States to wake up and keep themselves informed.
Labels: Bush Administration, Fascism, Government Corruption
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 3:04 PM
3 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|