I still have my doubts about the American People's ability to accept reality in Iraq. There are two news stories in this area of gullibility and propaganda that allow me to apply this notion to the Iraq occupation. Number one, the New York Times reports today on the apparent efforts of the Bush administration to curry favor with commentators on the Iraq Occupation in order to shore up the public image of their policy. For this article, visit http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24220130. The other article that struck my attention on Iraq was a short article in my local newspaper which summarized an article that recently was released by the National Defense University, a Pentagon Office. Those guys, who are being paid to get it right, rather than coaxed and nearly bribed to get it wrong, had a spin on Iraq that was much more negative. This report was written by Joseph Collins, a former senior pentagon official, and was based in part on interviews with other senior defense offcials who were involved in the prewar preparations. "Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has acheived the status of a major war and a major debacle" states the report. "No one as yet has calculated the costs of long-term veterans benefits or the total impact on service personnel and materiel".
The report continues. "Compounding all of these problems, our efforts there were designed to enhance U.S. national security, but they have become at least temporarily, an incubator for terrorism and have emboldened Iran to expand its influence." The Report blames much of what went wrong after the initial U.S. battlefield victory on Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld bypassed the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and became "the direct supervisor of the combatant commanders". That is a breakdown of the chain of command of a high order. Why did it happen? Politics overtook policy- spin overtook reality. Do you think that this process of spin over reality has ended yet? Think again. Do you accept the Bush and McCain argument that it does not matter how we got here, it only matters what we do next? The past is prologue. Here is my question: do you want the same political party that lied us into this mess to get us out?
When Maliki took it into his head to stomp the Mehdi Army, some here on Gather immediately said yeay, mow 'em down. After twenty lives of U.S. soldiers and an announcement from Sadr that he is considering open warfare, looks like it won't be that easy. Adjust to the new reality in Iraq: we are doing the heavy lifting, but we are not in charge.
Do you think that you are now grown up enough to accept reality? Are you immune to the spin meisters? As I noted in another article this week, 15% of us still think that Barack Obama is a Muslim. By the way, no he is not. There is a new "documentary" film out there in the theaters this week entitled "Expelled: no intelligence allowed". This film argues that Christian conservatives are losing the argument against Evolution because their scientists are being driven out of the academic world. Do I have to explain why that is utter nonsense? Now I am going to have to feel guilty, because I made someone aware of the existence of this film who is actually dumb enough to go out and buy a ticket. Actually, it is worse than that. I find myself noticing things that cause me to doubt the judgment of my fellow voters on just about anything. I find myself reading a Gather article on the idea that compact fluorescent bulbs can cause seizures by virtue of their "flicker"- never mind the fact that recently manufactured bulbs do not have any flicker that is visible to my eye. All the responders to the thread say thanks alot for alerting us to this danger, not where's your scientific study. I also noticed John McCain's nonsensical effort to win political points by arguing that we should eliminate the federal gas tax over this summer as a temporary measure. I have read a couple of economists responses saying gee that makes no sense, as a temporary response to a permanent problem that actually works against two of McCain's other announced goals of attacking the federal deficit and combatting climate change. But it is targeted at Americans who refuse to understand that our oil addiction has consequences, and that is a rich rich target with many votes to be gained.
Sorry about wandering from topic there, bu it has not been a good week in the Human Folly department. Maybe next week something will happen that will serve to restore my faith. Could happen.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 64
Great article.
Surprising to be featured, thought I might get it for the update on the polygamy ranch if anything.
That the Bush administration played this game is no surprise. What was disappointing was how little scrutiny the networks gave the analysts.
Check it out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th
Seriously, thanks for this thoughtful and thought provoking article...
I would just add one thing...To the quote: "No one as yet has calculated the costs of long-term veterans benefits or the total impact on service personnel and materiel," I would just say that a noted economist has, in fact made such a calculation - in fact, two. His latest estimate of the ultimate cost, including veterans' benefits is $3 trillion.
America has gone bankrupt, diplomatically as well as economically, with this war. But a few on or close to Pennsylvania Ave and on the Hill have gotten unbelievably rich on America's back - naive or not - for a few moments of orgasm in bed with special interests, like mad male chimpanzees who just has to have it now.
Now that's from the gut, but I can argue every little nuance of it to the hilt of the empirical world
Bent- money and sex live very close to each other in the human brain. Like you I consider the Bush/cheney habit of creating constituencies for a military industrial complex by spreading a little (or a lot) of cash to be an unhealthy thing for our republic- in fact, the exact thing that Dwight Eisenhower warned against in his farewell speech.
Steve- the networks can share a little blame for this mess. The whole idea of serving as an "embedded" reporter was a bad idea, as it led to a conflict of interest. Is your loyalty to public policy, or to the men/women of your "unit"?
www.juancole.com
If you are interested in going on a 3 trillion-dollar shopping spree, try this site. I think you'll get a kick out of it:
3trillion.org
I took 200 years to grow this nation with the blistered hands, sweating brows and breaking backs of those that truly STILL believe in a better way. It took the Bush administration 8 years to put this nation in the toilet.
Get the plunger. There's a hell of a mess to clean up here.
http://3trillion.org/
I've seen the error and retried and it worked. It's thought-provoking--and funny as hell.
I prefer not to use hyperlinks (or follow them) because I want the actual site to be visible to the reader. Hyperlinks can take you who knows where.
"This film argues that Christian conservatives are losing the argument against Evolution because their scientists are being driven out of the academic world."
And we are supposed to believe you saw this documentary?
Hmm, I find it interesting that you classify scientists as "their's", could this be your way of dismissing anyone 'even a scientist' who would even consider Intelligent Design in the thought process?
Just read Dan E.'s comment to answer that one. No, a good amount of the American people are still taking in the venom of people like Rush Limbaugh and accepting the brainwashing. They are being programmed to think in 7-second sound bytes, accept lies as truth, and think the enemy is another American who has differing opinions from them. They will not think for themselves....they will continue to repeat these trashy slogans and precepts (liberal = communist, elitist/intellectual = bad, war =good). They are truly sheep, following the leaders down this path of divisiveness and hatred. It will be the downfall of America.
As far as who you should listen to, one of the most compelling sources of news is from the soldiers who are on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, and those who have returned from there. A reporter was interviewed on Bill Moyers' Journal this past weekend....she interviewed the soldiers extensively and has been in Iraq since the beginning. According to her, they don't even know WHO they are fighting anymore...and that most of the Iraqis she talks to HATE Americans and want them to leave. The BS you hear from Petreaus is meaningless when you hear things right from the mouths of people who have been there for years, speak to all levels and sects of Iraqis and listen to what the soldiers are saying.
Who is the enemy? According to US soldiers, anyone who shoots at them. They don't care whether its Iraqi militia, Sadr militia, people sick and tired of having their homes occupied by US forces, people who have lost family members to US fighting's "collateral damage", etc. etc etc.
This is senseless violence...and our soldiers know it. They see no improvements, they wake to fight anyone who attacks them every day, not knowing whose side these people are fighting for.....this is the definition of insanity.
And for what? There is no progress in the government, billions of US dollars have been stolen by corrupt leaders, we keep paying family members for people killed in attacks, this is really crazy. Anybody who could defend this insanity is crazy, or is letting themselves be deluded by the propaganda in the US.
Listen to the soldiers, people.
The simple fact that 15% believe Obama is a Muslim is very telling. And it's almost laughable. What is laughable is the fearmongering over flourescent light bulbs. The last time I was pulled over (for speeding - I truly did nothing wrong but it's a long story), I asked the officer why in the world they have to keep those crazy yellow, blue AND red lights going. They were making me ill - but he said they were completely "approved" even though most cities do not have the same horrific lights.
If those lights are ok, then flourescent bulbs are ok.
Sheryl O.
Can you explain how you are any different?
Can you explain how it is that since I understand the biasis of the N.Y. times that your discription of my thinking process is correct? Or is it just an attack on someone who disagrees with you?
Are you a liberal who can see the other side of the story and accept someone elses point of view or a Brain Dead Liberal who can't?
That's a 7-second sound byte if you don't recognize it. It's the "wide sweep" propaganda strategy - including a huge organization and everyone who writes for it under one single banner. The NYTimes has made mistakes, and also done very credible, honest, solid investigative journalism. So have papers that are considered more conservative in leaning.
The "wide swath" tactic is the one that I view with huge suspicion - those kinds of comments belie a total lack of thought and analysis.
As do attacks such as your's.
I think that you are heavily influenced by the spin meisters. They tell you that the NY Times isn't the great newspaper that it is and you believe them. You believe that an intelligent design scientist is on equal footing with the science of evolution. I think you wrote your article for yourself. I don't mean to attack, but I do mean to point out the hypocrisy of complaining about the misunderstandings of others when you so blatantly misunderstand yourself.
(*Ducks* . . . PLEASE don't hit me . . . Puh-leeease!!!!)! Just joshin' ya'
The fact is, you're right. One element of the problem is that people feel they have been slighted in some way when they have been shown to be wrong and consider that as a bad thing and not a learning experience. They feel their intelligence is being threatened . . . or at least challenged. That why Dan felt attacked . . . and by a ( *shudder* ) girl, no less! :)
Excellent Chris! :)
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
""Do you think that you are now grown up enough to accept reality? Are you immune to the spin meisters? "
Just read Dan E.'s comment to answer that one. No, a good amount of the American people are still taking in the venom of people like Rush Limbaugh and accepting the brainwashing"
Not an attack? well I guess we'll have get into that discussion of exactly what the definition of is, is.
"You believe that an intelligent design scientist is on equal footing with the science of evolution."
Joe,
How did you come to that conclusion? And who's complaining? I'm simply asking questions, granted questions that most of the people here in this thread don't want to have to answer but just questions none the less.
Doyle,
"One element of the problem is that people feel they have been slighted in some way when they have been shown to be wrong and consider that as a bad thing and not a learning experience."
Or that they have been slighted in some way, Lets not let narrow mindedness rule out any options just yet.
I will note that the former film is viewed as pretty far from the facts by most scientists, whereas the latter is seen by most scientists as pretty close to the facts.
I believe in civility. I think that Americans should be free to say in public that the universe was created in a week. BUT I do not believe in intellectual relativism. It is an opinion that deserves legal protection, but it does not deserve to take the place of evolution in the national academy of science or even a high school classroom. And I am danged if I am paying 6 bucks to watch two hours of nonsense just to look open minded. I read a review, and that was enough.
Actually I am never going to pay money to see anything with Ben Stein in it, because he is the narrator of "Expelled".
Just to be fair. A paid narrator. Doing a job. This is similar to the generic attack on the entire New York Times based on one example, is it not?
"Or that they have been slighted in some way..."
I was referring to defensiveness when inappropriate so your suggestion does not apply to my comment . . . due to the fact that it might be appropriate given your suggestion.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
It is still a part of the MSM that is completely controlled by those super wealthy interests that own them all, including the NYT.
The NYT is the "lessor of the evils" (by far, but still NOT innocent) ... they are a straw-man constructed in our minds, for the Liberals to "their" voice of truth ... for the Conservatives (like Dan E.) never to be trusted, never to be read even, as the very voice of evil for all on the right ... also meaning that all liberals who trust the NYT do not know the truth (because only FOX is truth for the right) ...
As in all such scheming by our "controllers" above governments even, they use editorial policy to mix truths, half truths and outright lies to best effect to achieve their own most important goals ... the control of our minds ... EVERYTHING they have gained depends upon that ... divide and conquer (control) us the oldest method their is, very effective.
Which further takes me to two recent comments on a thread by Felix that I will here re-post ... because we have both been involved in that NYT article by Barstow:
UPDATE:
Glenn Greenwald
Sunday April 20, 2008 08:14 EDT
Major Revelation: U.S. Media Deceitfully Disseminates Government Propaganda
This morning's "blockbuster" New York Times article by David Barstow, documenting the Pentagon and U.S. media's joint use of pre-programmed "military analysts" who posed as objective experts while touting the Government line and having extensive business interests in promoting those views, is very well-documented and well-reported. And credit to the NYT for having sued to compel disclosure of the documents on which the article is based. There are significant elements of the story that exemplify excellent investigative journalism.
At the same time, though, in light of questions on this very topic raised even by the NYT back in 2003, it is difficult to take the article's underlying points seriously as though they are some kind of new revelation. And ultimately, to the extent there are new revelations here, they are a far greater indictment of our leading news organizations than the government officials on whom it focuses.
In 2002 and 2003, when Americans were relentlessly subjected to their commentary, news organizations were hardly unaware that these retired generals were mindlessly reciting the administration line on the war and related matters. To the contrary, that's precisely why our news organizations -- which themselves were devoted to selling the war both before and after the invasion by relentlessly featuring pro-war sources and all but excluding anti-war ones -- turned to them in the first place.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/20/nyt/index.html
Felix R., Apr 21, 2008, 12:33pm EDT
Very interesting Felix ... (I have still to finish Barstow's article) ... but I have said for a very long time, that ALL of the major media is complicit in deceit about the REAL truths that most impact the majority of us ...
To look at it from the perspective of law enforcement investigation procedures, the suspected criminal (we the people) are enticed by the "carrot" the "good cop" (the NYT) to gain our trust and desire for "someone" to be "on our side" ... then there is the "stick" that is very obviously "not very nice" - "the mean cop", (the FOX media network) ...
But they still both (all) work for the very same people, the "government" that works MOSTLY for the super wealthy ... we are the victims "used locally" where "they" seek our support through lies, in order to victimise the rest of the world (Iraq etc) with our blessings ... IMnsHO.
In the end of time, these truths will become known ...
Jerry Kays, Apr 21, 2008, 5:23pm EDT
Wow. Very provincial, in my opinion. I've seen this before. My father won't watch a Jane Fonda Movie and has missed some great things as a result.
Such a shame you'll miss:
Ghostbusters II
The Boost
Planes, Trains & Automobiles
Ferris Bueller's Day Off
"Family Guy"
"The Drew Carey Show"
"Animaniacs"
"Rugrats"
"Seinfeld"
"Tales from the Crypt"
"The Wonder Years"
"Married... With Children"
"Full House"
"MacGyver"
"Charles in Charge"
AND countless others! Because he took a job you didn't agree with.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Sorry Chris I've been involved in enough conversations with you to understand all to well your close mindedness (this is but another example) and will be as critical as I feel appropriate.
But you just go ahead and stay close minded it just gives me more amunition in exposing liberalism for what it truely is, closed minded and unwilling to see anyother position but their own.
--That's called "peer review."
Graduate students often meet this when they have to argue their theses and dissertations. All theories face vigorous arguments by the best of the best in the various scientific disciplines... otherwise those *theories,* which often constitute a lot of tax dollars, never become a technical part of how humanity moves on.
"That's called "peer review.",
You are correct on that point and if Chris's statement had been correct concerning the premise of the film he would also be correct.
But since Chris is not willing to appear open minded he will never see the film to know exactly what the film is about, thereby he will be sanctioned to relying on what someone else has told him the facts are.
Not yet sure if that's good or bad... but those evangelists that decry evolution really only now have a voice thanks to that sort of science.
And yet I devoutly believe in God.
Go figure...
Two very distinct entities that do not necessarily have to be in contradiction to each other, unless oner's faith is not "faith" but... perhaps a profound lack of it.
Two very distinct entities that do not necessarily have to be in contradiction to each other,"
Ohhh! thems sounds like fighting words in this here land of liberalism.
But I couldn't agree more.
Well, we both know that it primarily has to do with a bunch of neurotransmitter-intoxicated alpha apes scratching each other to death and laying waste their entire communities for a momentary orgasm of dominance over resources and ideas.
However, anyone who bases his faith thusly profoundly lacks even the semblance of any faith.
What is faith?
Well, it certainly can't be quantified in any empirical way.
But that's exactly what many Christian evangelists and Muslims attempt do when they impose their quantification of faith on others.
But again, I would not raise the idiocy of Bush's cowboy war to that level. It's just a bunch of mad alpha males duking it out, and we as good citizens really need to put an end to this mutually assured madness of destruction.
Relax. Nobody is going to prove the nonexistence of God, because proving that is not possible. Let science be science.
Chris,
I wonder how many scientists are Christian? And what do you mean by "let science be science"?
Is it the same as you see science in the global warming regime of science? "we have the answer now stop asking questions"?
Fair enough. MY only point was that the product of an artist is not related to the character of the artist.
"...stay close minded it just gives me more amunition in exposing liberalism for what it truely is, closed minded and unwilling to see anyother position but their own. "
SO TRUE! Not one of those close-minded liberals has ever came out in support of illegal invasions or occupations! NOT ONE! Thank God we have the goose-stepping Booshie backside bussing brigade to show us "Open Mindedness"! LMAO!
"Ohhh! thems sounds like fighting words in this here land of liberalism."
Says you . . . Liberals are much more accepting than you imagine. I happened to agree and have been (from time to time) called a (*GAK*) Liberal.
"And what do you mean by "let science be science"?"
Recommended reading: The Tao of Physics
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
I'd like to make a few observations...
'the Bush administration to curry favor with commentators'
From an article in the Boston Globe ( Jan. 2007):
"No one served up spicier morsels than Cathie Martin, Vice President Dick Cheney's former top press assistant . Martin described the craft of media manipulation -- under oath and in blunter terms than politicians like to hear in public.
Most of the techniques were candidly described: the uses of leaks and exclusives, when to hide in anonymity, which news medium was seen as more susceptible to control, and what timing was most propitious.
Even the rating of certain journalists as friends to favor and critics to shun --"
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/01/28/libby
_case_witness_details_art_of_media_manipulation/
'our efforts there were designed to enhance U.S. national security'
Is this the latest spin? We invaded Iraq to 'enhance U.S. national security'. Iraq was never a threat to our' national security.
Blaming Rumsfeld for how he carried out the invasion and occupation. The point that's missed is that there never should have been an invasion and occupation in the first place.
'...the United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, said today that the US-led invasion was illegal...'
This has been the Senate Democrats spin...how the war has been conducted and how they would have done a better job. Forget the fact that under international law this war of choice is criminal.
" The threatened war against Iraq will be a breach of the United Nations Charter and hence of international law unless it is authorized by a new and unambiguous resolution of the security council. The Charter is clear. No such war is permitted unless it is in self-defense or authorized by the security council.
Self-defense has no application here. Neither the United States nor the UK, nor any of their allies, is under attack or any threat of immediate attack by Iraq.
Nor is there any authority from the security council. Resolution 1441 does not constitute any such authority as the reference to "serious consequences" is not sufficiently precise to justify war. Whatever the US may have wanted, the resolution was deliberately vague because the council had not agreed on the use of force. A new resolution would therefore be required. It would have to be in unambiguous terms authorizing the use of force.
In the absence of such a resolution, the attack would, be unlawful.
...At the Nuremberg trials, the principles of international law identified by the tribunal and subsequently accepted unanimously by the General Assembly of the United Nations included that the planning, preparation or initiation of a war contrary to the terms of an international treaty was "a crime against peace". The tribunal further stated "that to initiate a war of aggression... is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime".
It was for this crime that the German foreign minister Von Ribbentrop was tried, convicted and hanged."
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0310-07.htm
Someone bashes a person over the head with a 2X4 for no good reason. What's the argument against such an act? I would have used a sledgehammer, instead.
'When Maliki took it into his head to stomp the Mehdi Army, some here on Gather immediately said yeay, mow 'em down.'
Boy, are they out of the loop...they obviously don't know Al-Sadr...if there's any mowing to be done...he'll be doing it. Coalition forces won't even engage Al-Sadr's forces mano-a-mano...they know it's a futile effort. They much prefer to send Maliki's rag-tag outfit, while, the coalition bombs away from the safety of the sky.
Who's in charge? Whoever keeps Al-Sadr in check...
"BAGHDAD — Iraqi lawmakers traveled to the Iranian holy city of Qom over the weekend to win the support of the commander of Iran's Qods brigades in persuading Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr to order his followers to stop military operations, members of the Iraqi parliament said.
Sadr ordered the halt on Sunday,..."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/32055.html
The truth is...Bush and the neocons are trying to keep the lid on in Iraq...long enough to get McCain 'the Surge' elected. Whoever wins the results in Iraq will be the same...the lid will come flying off like the lid on a pressure cooker.
The President who will take the blame for having lost the War on Iraq is yet to take center stage...as Dubya rides off into the sunset.
Lastly,
"Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, December 3, 2005; Page A01
The U.S. military command in Baghdad acknowledged for the first time yesterday that it has paid Iraqi newspapers to carry positive news about U.S. efforts in Iraq, but officials characterized the payments as part of a legitimate campaign to counter insurgents' misinformation.
In a statement, the command said the program included efforts, "customary in Iraq," to purchase advertising and place clearly labeled opinion pieces in Iraqi newspapers. But the statement suggested that the "information operations" program may have veered into a gray area where government contractors paid to have articles placed in Iraqi newspapers without explaining that the material came from the U.S. military and that Iraqi journalists were paid to write positive accounts.
...The statement from Baghdad was the first official effort to explain the media initiative after three days of news reports describing efforts by the U.S. military to plant stories in Iraqi media under the guise of independent journalism."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/02/AR2005120201454.html
I've said from the begining that the invasion and subsequent occupation were completely in violation of international, Constitutional and federal law. There is absolutely no way to squirm out of that fact . . . Booshie is and will always be a war criminal . . . whether or not he meets justice.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Sure was Doyle,
Iraq violated the conditions of the cease fire established after the first gulf war Giving the U.S. the right to invade and conquer.... oops I meant liberate.
"Liberals are much more accepting than you imagine."
You mean the liberals here on Gather aren't representative of traditional liberals?
"Perhaps no person on the planet is better equipped to identify and describe our crimes in Iraq than Benjamin Ferencz, a former chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg Trials who successfully convicted 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating death squads that killed more than one million people in the famous Einsatzgruppen Case. Ferencz, now 87, has gone on to become a founding father of the basis behind international law regarding war crimes, and his essays and legal work drawing from the Nuremberg trials and later the commission that established the International Criminal Court remain a lasting influence in that realm.
Ferencz's biggest contribution to the war crimes field is his assertion that an unprovoked or "aggressive" war is the highest crime against mankind. It was the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 that made possible the horrors of Abu Ghraib, the destruction of Fallouja and Ramadi, the tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths, civilian massacres like Haditha, and on and on. Ferencz believes that a "prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity, that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation."
Interviewed from his home in New York, Ferencz laid out a simple summary of the case:
"The United Nations charter has a provision which was agreed to by the United States formulated by the United States in fact, after World War II. Its says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U.N. Security Council.
They can use force in connection with self-defense, but a country can't use force in anticipation of self-defense. Regarding Iraq, the last Security Council resolution essentially said, 'Look, send the weapons inspectors out to Iraq, have them come back and tell us what they've found -- then we'll figure out what we're going to do. The U.S. was impatient, and decided to invade Iraq -- which was all pre-arranged of course. So, the United States went to war, in violation of the charter."
It's that simple. Ferencz called the invasion a "clear breach of law," and dismissed the Bush administration's legal defense that previous U.N. Security Council resolutions dating back to the first Gulf War justified an invasion in 2003. Ferencz notes that the first Bush president believed that the United States didn't have a U.N. mandate to go into Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein; that authorization was simply to eject Hussein from Kuwait. Ferencz asked, "So how do we get authorization more than a decade later to finish the job? The arguments made to defend this are not persuasive."
Writing for the United Kingdom's Guardian, shortly before the 2003 invasion, international law expert Mark Littman echoed Ferencz: "The threatened war against Iraq will be a breach of the United Nations Charter and hence of international law unless it is authorized by a new and unambiguous resolution of the Security Council. The Charter is clear. No such war is permitted unless it is in self-defense or authorized by the Security Council."
http://www.alternet.org/story/38604/
And from another expert...neocon war-hawk, Richard Perle:
"International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."
President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.
But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone..."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/nov/20/usa.iraq1
HELLO!
Right Jerr?
With you as one of it's biggest contributors, it isn't hard to figure out why *chuckle*
Now... what constitutes the classic Republican conservative?
Since before they took office, ie., his campain to become president...
and for Bush himself in his life... Reality itself has not seemed to be of Prime intrest...
Is Truth not the First Causualty of War?
Truth itself has been a causalty since the Run Up to this War!!!
I've been thinking over the Rumsfeld quote about "Sunny Guantanamo..."
I've been to Gitmo... Sunny indeed!!!
Nothing untoward going on in Gitmo???
In 2003, the off duty soldier said otherwise as we sat on the boat in the marina of the MWR Facility on the bay (Moral Welfare and Recreation) to get our boating 'permit' ...
I wrote of it here in 2005... and posted photos here of Gitmo... Yes... It is sunny... and as a marine biologist, I do say it is quite beautiful...
(it was quite hot the day that the polite young army fellow nearly collapsed from dehydration when we lost track of two of our crew in a cactus scrub forest when they were trying to find a rare cactus tree there... He of course was wearing his full fatigues which didn't help the heat thing... He did appreciate the bottles of water we gave him (our dive team mantra was Hydrate or Die)...)
The AP ran two stories on an army paralegal who heard stories of abuses at Gitmo from off duty soldiers... The Pentagon put a 'gag' order on the story and I, personally, haven't heard anything more about it since...
Rumsfeld... Just plain nutty... And a Criminal...
As are the others...
Truth is the First Causalty...
When will this nation come to terms with its Truths???
When there is still time???
Will it be in twenty years when a fellow named something like "Rambo" hits the Fantasy world of the Silver Screen?
I don't think so...
This isn't 'That' Nation anymore...
Most folks DO know the Truth (or what can be known)... AND they are SICK of it!!!
It is the "Vested Intrest" Machine that JUST WON'T LET GO OF THE FANTASY...
Best,
DJE
Unless you're Jerry, then it's whatever you want it to be.
"Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things... stuff happens..."
And 'Stage Manage' , pass off, and press that reality to the Nation, the World, whoever will listen to them...
Unfortunately, a Banner on an Aircraft Carrier at Sunset does not Reality Make...
Neither does whatever explanations might be given afterward...
They Play with 'Reality' as if it is some game to them...
The sick Bastards...
Deniablility ad infinitum remains deniability...
But they have failed to notice that they have become no more than a sad mockery of a Presidency dragging us all into a sad mockery of a Nation...
They have Failed to notice that they have become exposed as nothing more than Poor Slobs in Denial of Painful Truths...
They continue to deny, or 'see it the way they want to' ...
And they become nothing more to themselves than a sad mockery of Humanity...
I was driving behind a truck with an open trailer the other day in traffic with an add on the back for their business. It read:
"Call us for quick Stump and Shrub Removal"
What a Cruel mockery of Reality THAT is!!! If only it were so Easy!!!
Goodbye Ol' Stump Cheney and lil' Shrub Jr. ....
off to the Compost Heap with you!!!
>>off to the Compost Heap with you!!!
Interesting prose, David. I believe jr et al are desperately trying to rewrite history, the old "right" of those who win battles. Let's pray they don't plot out some scary scenario prior to November. The only reason that village idiot won in '04 was because of the paranoia his bunch had generated.
I think your concerns are well founded. No, I know they are. I read in my local paper at least once a week in the Editorials where some one is up in arms about who justified W was and is in all he does and says. Too many drank the kool aid. Or as some have put it "fresh puppies blood".
Even in 04 when the proof was out there that the so called proof was not proof at all. That the administration had sent "expert" after "expert" until they got the "expert" who told them what they wanted to hear. Where as the best of the best they sent in the first few rounds of fact finding missions told them the truth and found themselves suddenly retiring or giving up a 20+ year career devoted to the country for something else. Even when it was clear that someone in the West Wing had revealed Valerie Plame's position with the CIA. Even when it was clear he had gotten us into a quagmire in the middle east, the economy stunk with no real sign of improvement on his horizon, and the warrantless wire tapping, and well it was all out there. But yet too many people still voted for him. Still drinking the kool aid. And things for this administration have not improved. Things for this country have not improved. The economy is still stinking, inflation is still rising, the war that he lied to congress and the citizens about is still on going and with ever changing goals and apparently magically changing reasons why we went in. I heard a reporter on tv a few weeks ago who worked out of Iraq since something like 1996 until recently. He said the majority of the Iraqi citizens want us to leave. He also added that if we were to announce that we were preparing to leave and then started to draw down that the attacks against our men and women there would drastically slow down if not stop all together. Sadam Hussein is not in power there or anywhere else for that matter. There are no WMD's there. They have held elections and voted in a new government and we have trained many of their citizens to act as their police and military. Bin Laden isn't there. And even if he were W has clearly stated that he doesn't care where he is, know watch this swing.
Yet the editorials keep rolling in that just show your concerns are will founded. To top it off not only are they well founded but I have noticed that many people use the term liberal as if it were a bad thing. The terms Liberal and Conservative are simply identifiers of general policy views. Yes there are variations that absolutely are meant to label and insult. Brain Dead Liberal....actually I am used to hearing College-educated-elitist-liberal. Most liberal policies I have read are any thing but brain dead. Or Far right wing evangalical neo con. Which is actually a small portion of the conservatives but just very vocal, and in my own experiences dangerous.
I recall someone asking I wonder just how many scientist are Christian? My first thought is what does it matter? Seriously, is a mechanic questioned about their faith, a cowboy, a butcher, a baker, a candle stick maker are any of them questioned about their faith and does being a Christian somehow make their work/career more important or even better. My other thought is that I have known and met and worked for and read about many scientist who do believe in one of the major faiths...Christian, Judaism, Islam....On a personal note I have yet to meet one who has told me they are an athiest or agnostic. When it comes to the theory of evolution as I understand it ( correct me where I go wrong here David E.) is that is an explanation of how life formed and evolved on Earth, based on observation and findings. Now I (who fall into one of the three major faiths) have never found it to conflict with my faith or belief system. I also do not take the time line to be exact to the minute based on scientific evidence, the fact that this story was passed down orally several generations before being written, translated many times, and the multitude of calendars that have existed in the history of the world thus far. So I dont get all the hoopla, but I know it scares me when a group pops up and not only wants Evolution banned from the schools but also wants to require the theory of creation in the science classroom. It scares me as a citizen, as a parent, and as a human being to see people act the way they do with no thought of how this would effect the generations to come and what would become of true science if we did this? Hasn't this argument gone on too long already? I can understand through studying history and the times of Darwin why people reacted as they did but still........now.............in todays time shouldn't we be a little more enlightened to the process of learning which creates knowledge and leads to more questions and discoveries and more learning? Why would anyone be afraid that learning about a scientists or his findings and theories would lead to anything bad? Why would FAITH have to be threatened by knowledge? I think it is ok to learn facts and history. I think it is ok to listen to reputable scientist without questioning their personal spiritual faith. I am not afraid of knowledge.
I am afraid of this current administration and the horrors they have thrust upon us in the name of lies and deciet and even more afraid of those who follow like sheep in their name instead of stopping, looking, listening and learning and then making a decision based on all the facts. Facts not spin.
Reverend Deb
As to your thoughts on GWB and company, from your mouth to the voters, I hope.
by the Rev. Stuart Taylor
Co-pastor, St. Mark's Presbyterian Church
The following message was delivered at a Christian service in protest of the Iraq war, held at St. Mark's Presbyterian Church on March 16.
Greetings. Where are we in this moment of time? What does it mean that we have gathered this evening? And what are we as people of faith called to do? The Bush administration sent American troops into Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction. They were not there. The President said that Saddam Hussein regime had given help to Al Qaeda, but it had not. The goals of the war have constantly shifted from getting rid of a vicious dictator to spreading democracy. But it has always been about oil.
Our nation was taken to war on the basis of falsehoods. This administration says that the torture of Abu Graib and elsewhere has been the work of a few bad apples whereas in fact abuses were sanctioned at the highest levels of the executive branch in secret memos. The President has stated flatly that all wiretaps of Americans were pursued in legal means but there is evidence that he was repeatedly authorizing wiretaps without warrants in a specific violation of the law.
We know that the financial costs of this venture have been enormous. Billions and billions of dollars that could have been used so many places in our nation and across the world. But as significant as are the financials, the human costs go far beyond that which can be quantified. Here we are in a moment when tens of thousands of US wounded service men and women have had their lives shattered. The military estimates that a third of our returning veterans will have full blown Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The Walter Reed scandal raises the moral question of whether this nation will truly provide the resources necessary for a lifetime of rehabilitation for shattered souls and bodies.
Thirty-one hundred US service men and women have died. Each with a story, each with a family that grieves them. Each with a future that is no more. Furthermore, we cannot begin to comprehend the scale of death injury and suffering being inflicted on the Iraqi people. The number of Iraqi's estimated to have been killed ranges from 58,000 to 665,000.
What does it mean to speak the truth to power in such a moment as we are living in the United States? Speaking truth to power means first of all that the church reclaim its prophetic voice and speak out clearly, authoritatively for peace and for justice. We must return to our radical roots in the historical Jesus and his Gospel of non-violence.
That nonviolence was at the heart of Jesus' message and ministry is clearly demonstrated by the practice of the early church. For 3 centuries following the death and resurrection of Jesus, the early church practiced radical non-violence. For three centuries Christians were virtually unanimous in denouncing Christian participation in warfare. But then came that historic moment for the church when the Emperor Constantine declared Christianity the officially sanctioned religion of the Holy Roman Empire. In a little over a century a transformation took place regarding the church's fundamental stance toward war and violence. Walter Wink writes "Christianity's weaponless victory over the Roman Empire eventuated in the weaponless victory of the empire over the Gospel. No defeat is so well disguised as a victory." There is nothing in our history as a church that has had a more dramatic impact on the gospel of Jesus Christ than this historic moment when the church moved from the margins of society to the center of power. Faithfulness to the Gospel was subordinated to maintaining the strategic interests of the empire.
Now we live in one of those historical moments when as people of faith we need to reaffirm and recommit to the church's prophetic role in society. As US citizens we have a responsibility to put God first. We must never succumb to the idea that God and nation are synonymous. Only God can claim our absolute loyalty. Any state or government that seeks absolute loyalty or unquestioning obedience is idolatrous. We must say no to a form of patriotism that says my country right or wrong.
Our loyalty to our country runs deep in all of us whatever our political persuasion but this loyalty must always be a critical loyalty. Listen to NYU historian Stephen Cohen. "We must say in every way that we can that our country, the United States of America does not have the right, the wisdom or the power to invade and occupy another country, still less an ancient civilization with the ultimate purpose of redirecting that nation. Such a mission will never result in any kind of victory, only the morally toxic political and humanitarian catastrophes that we are witnessing. We must bring the troops home.
It is right to be thinking about our moral responsibility to the Iraqi people. Now that we have created this chaotic catastrophe for them, would it be moral to withdraw? And there are other policy concerns as well. Would a US exit result in a failed Iraqi state that would become a breeding ground for terrorists? It already has become that. The US is discovering about its military occupation in Iraq what many Israeli's are discovering about their military occupation of Palestine. As long as there is a foreign military occupation, the cycle of violence cannot and will not be broken. Widespread violence in Iraq will not end until the US military occupation ends.
A recent cover story of the Nation said the following: "World opinion is against the US escalation in Iraq. The American people are against it. Congress is against it. The Iraqi people are against it. The Iraqi government is against it. Can a single man force a nation to fight a war it does not want to fight, expand a war it does not want to expand? If he can, is that nation any longer a democracy in any meaningful sense? If not, how can democratic rule and the republican form of government be restored? That is the moral question before us as US citizens, and as people of faith. The determined and complete withdrawal of US troops from Iraq is now a moral imperative. – the only way to redeem our nation for its role in the death and destruction of Iraq. The time for political evasions and ambiguities on the part of our government leaders every month that this war continues, more than 3,000 Iraqi's and 100 Americans are likely to die, each new death darkening the stain on America's honor and on the conscience of its true patriots."
In 1967, Martin Luther King's words spoke at Riverside Church, his first address against the war in Viet Nam. His words have never been more relevant. "We still have a choice today: non-violent coexistence or violent co-annihilation." His prophetic call to life and death decisions is once again pressing us to action. It is, now as then, the time to resist the powers of war-making as a solution to human conflict.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was a sermon delivered in Arizona - reproduced in full as there is no copyright claim.
Anti War Sermon