* * political doodle * *

Yeah, it's been a long time. . .

. . . but I had to post this as an addendum to my last post, where my counterpart insisted (in his comments) that the US never tortured. (See comments under Lucille: Another Terrorist Attack? January 24, 2009)

Back in February 2004, the International Committee of the Red Cross gave Bush administration officials a confidential report, in which they reported that US occupation forces subjected Iraqis (that they had arrested without good reason, according to the ICRC) to abuse and humiliation that sometimes was "tantamount to torture" in violation of the Geneva Conventions. Some of this excessive violence even led to 7 deaths, according to the report.

    "[...]persons deprived of their liberty under supervision of the Military Intelligence were at high risk of being subjected to a variety of harsh treatments ranging from insults, threats and humiliations to both physical and psychological coercion, which in some cases was tantamount to torture, in order to force cooperation with their interrogators."

So, John Ennis, I guess not EVERYBODY believed that the US didn't torture. And, since on January 15, 2004, Red Cross President Jakob Kellenberger expressed his concern to Secretary of State Colin Powell about this torture, he - as a member of the Administration - knew as well.

LUCILLE: Another Terrorist Attack?

"Another terrorist attack is going to happen. We feel certain of that." - Ret. General James P. Cullen

That's what retired General James P. Cullen believes. He and about 40 retired military people have been meeting since 2004 to discuss policies directed by the civilian leadership in this country. This group of rear admirals, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs and four-star generals are not likely to be accused of being soft on terrorists. It includes Gen. Harry E Soyster, the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and Rear Adm. John D. Houston.

You'd be in good company if you thought this group has grave reservations about the new Obama presidency.

But you would be wrong.

According to Jim Dwyer in the New York Times, Gen. Cullen has spent the last four years trying to get the secret CIA prisons and the Guantanamo Bay detention camp closed and for the civilian leadership to ban the use of torture in "pursuit of intelligence."

What?

Back in early 2004, Cullen believed that the abuse in Iraq at Abu Ghraib was "the aberrant acts of a few twisted individuals, and a failure of their commanders." But he grew to believe that Dick Cheney's announcement that 9/11 would force the U.S to "work through, sort of the dark side, if you will" was the equivalent of a wink and a nod from the Administration to torture and humiliate at will.

""We knew this was not the military we left. . . people were in the services because they wanted. . . to better themselves and serve their country."

General Cullen and many of his fellow generals and admirals met with every candidate during the last election cycle, with a policy that they wouldn't make any endorsements or publicly support any candidate. Instead, they were determined to convince them that humane treatment of prisoners would not weaken our defense, "but strengthen it."  They know - as we would if the previous administration hadn't so blatantly lied to us - that a real terrorist in detention could quite easily mislead us with intentionally false information or, more likely, say anything under torture just to make it stop.

So, if Ret. General Cullen and his compatriots think another attack is inevitable, why are they against torture (and in favor of President Obama's ban)?

"Another terrorist attack is going to happen. We feel certain of that. It's not going to be because we ended torture. We will get better intelligence without it. And we keep our values."

Better intelligence. That's what we have to look forward to.

Amen to that.

LUCILLE: Yes, I Did!

  Tell me: where can you go where two million screaming, ecstatic people of all races, religions, ethnic groups and ages can inhabit a fairly constricted area without pushing, anger or unkindness? I'll tell you, because I was there - President Barack Obama's inauguration.

Here's what I saw and heard: people, incredibly happy to see George Bush leaving, to see America begin to return to the world. People were smiling, shaking hands. helping each other. They were raptly listening, anxious to not miss a word. They were even willing to let George Bush and Dick Cheney take the stage without giving them the old Bronx cheer. Instead, they cheered - glad to see you go, George! Nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah nah, hey hey hey,  goodbye.

And when our new President spoke, you could hear a pin drop. He spoke to everyone, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, non-believer, reminding us that this country is for all of us, not just followers of Christ. He repudiated Bush's policies - like torture and go-it-alone aggression - and promised that we would rejoin the community of countries. And he told us it wasn't only up to him - that we all had to accept responsibility for where this country will go. Ah! Yes, we were happy to be asked to share the sacrifice - isn't that what being part of America is all about? And, yes, we were all proud - more proud than we'd been in years - to be Americans. We waved our flags, we sang our songs.

And, even with 2 million people and a total of 40,000 troops and police, not one arrest happened.

I went to Washington and saw Barack Obama and the American people make history

Yes, I did.

   

 

 

     

Assessing the Assessors [John Ennis]

This week's Economist assesses the Bush years. It should come as no surprise that it's not positive, seeing as it spent as many sentences discussing the troop surge in Iraq as it does Karen Hughes (one each). But, what really caught my eye was this analysis:

Relentless partisanship led to the politicisation of almost everything Mr Bush did. He used his first televised address to justify putting strict limits on federal funding for stem-cell research, and used the first veto of his presidency to prevent the expansion of that funding. He appointed two “strict constructionist” judges to the Supreme Court, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, turned his back on the Kyoto protocol, dismissed several international treaties, particularly the anti-ballistic-missile treaty, loosened regulations on firearms and campaigned against gay marriage.

Now's not the time to re-debate stem cell research, but if it is a partisan issue, I don't see how keeping taxpayer money out of it is considered a particularly contentious resolution. As for the appointments of Roberts and Alito, they passed the Senate 78-22 and 58-42, respectively. You might argue Alito was close to a party-line vote, but Roberts was not. The idea that Roberts' nomination was an example of undue partisanship is implausible.

Bush "turned his back on the Kyoto protocol" after the Senate had voted 95-0 that they would not ratify it. Is the Economist complaining that only a 100-0 vote would justify Bush's actions?

As for Bush being opposed to gay marriage, so is Barack Obama. Their list of "relentless partisanship" is excessively weak.

The Economist's 3800 word analysis has time for all of the failures, but omits many of the successes. Michael Brown earns inclusion, but Petraeus and Gates don't. It is not a fair assessment.

LUCILLE: Honor and Integrity

Dear Lucille, For the last eight years, President Bush has led our country with firm determination and a steady hand in the face of numerous challenges and crises. He restored honor and integrity to the White House and protected America from another terrorist attack.

I just got this email - with a request for a donation "to keep the Party strong." (Yes, I'm on the GOP email list. It's really been amusing reading their messages throughout the campaign.) So, let's see: that's what we call lack of planning, stubborn dismisal of any facts that contradicted his barely-considered decisions, and abysmal response to the country's worst natural disaster in decades.

Restored honor and integrity? Ask Muhammad Saad Iqbal and the other tortured individuals how "honorable" they think the administration is. And, do they even know the definition of integrity? It's "adherence to moral and ethical principles."

Are they kidding?

Notice, they didn't say that he protected us from any terrorist attacks. If I remember, the US experienced the worst terrorist attack ever on American soil under his leadership. But, gee, give the guy a break.

LUCILLE: American Held Hostage

This is an incredible story. A 25 year-old man from New Jersey was visiting a South American country 6 years ago and got into a bragging session with some American students he was drinking with in a small bar. To impress some of the women, he claimed he was with the CIA, had spent a lot of time in Moscow and was instrumental in some spy activity in Russia. Or, according to his story, it was someone else in the group that was making those claims.
Nonetheless, this boasting caught the attention of some Russian "embassy" workers, who passed the info on to the FSB (successor to the KGB).

The following day he was kidnapped from his hotel room just before dawn. It was January 9, 2002.
What followed is incredible and extremely frightening. 

First, the FSB agents physically abused him in the airport, then they shoved him on a plane, shackled and blindfolded. He was punched, kicked and forced to ride naked. But that wasn't the worst. When they landed in Belarus, he was put into a basement room that was about 6 ft. by 4 ft. and kept there for 92 days. On multiple occasions, he was interrogated for 12 to 15 hours, questioned about his work in Moscow. When he denied ever having been there (because he had not been there), he was tortured with electric shocks and forced to consume liquids laced with drugs.

Then, he was flown to Moscow, where he was kept shackled and handcuffed in a small cage for about a year, and interrogated over and over. Even though he passed their polygraph, they still questioned him about his "spy" work and shifted him from cell to cell every few hours, depriving him of sleep for nearly 6 months.
He became so depressed that he attempted suicide several times and went on three hunger strikes.
He was finally released, flew home and was admitted to a hospital with, among other things, a perforated left eardrum, inflammation of the left external ear canal and inflammation of the left middle ear. He had difficulty walking as well.
He was never found guilty of any crime; in fact, he was never even charged with one.

This is a true story except for one thing: this didn't happen to a guy from NJ. It happened to Muhammad Saad Iqbal from Pakistan. And the perpetrators weren't the Russians and the Belarussians; they was Americans and Egyptians.

Amazing, huh? When you thought it happened to an American, it seemed horrible, didn't it?. How about when you found out that we did it- and allowed the Egyptians to do - those horrible things? Is it any wonder we've lost the respect of the rest of the world?

LUCILLE: Yoo hoo! Anybody there?

No, I'm not remarking on my absence on these pages of late. No real excuse except my real job and my Wii Fit.

I'm commenting instead on the conspicuous absence of late of our illustrius president, George W. Bush Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't he still president until January 20? Where the hell is he?

The economy is tanking, the auto industry is going under, China could pull the pull the financial plug any minute and we're playing a game of "Where's George?" Financial institutions going under? There's George, traveling to South America to meet with leaders who know he'll be gone in less than 90 days. Auto industry screaming for assistance? There's George, clearing brush.

Okay, so maybe he wasn't exactly clearing brush, but has he simply given up on running the country? Of course, everytime he or Paulson do make some sort of public comments on the economy, the stock market takes another nosedive, so maybe we're better off not hearing from him.On second thought, its common knowledge that the only thing worse than a disengaged Bush is an engaged Bush. 

And this isn't the only time he's been accused of being out of touch or asleep at the wheel. Back in 2006 even the GOP was calling him disengaged. In Woodward's last book, he describes George as being completely out of touch about the war and detached; in fact, Bush actually told him that decisions on the war were the responsibility of  Steven Hadley. Imagine; an unelected political appointee with the fate of the Middle East on his hands. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

Oh, and Bush's strategy on Iran? "They're assholes." No, really. That was what he told Woodward his "strategy" was.

On second thought, maybe the best we can hope for is that GWB sleeps through the rest of his term. At least then he can't start another war.

LUCILLE: The McCain Implosion

  By now it's evident to everyone (except maybe John Ennis) that the McCain campaign has been on self-destruct and is failing even in those "safe" GOP states. Not to say he might not win; after all, voter supression and voting machine shennanigans and malfunctions can change the entire landscape. But, I think - and here's my prediction - Obama will win handily, with electoral votes to spare.

But, the point of this post is about John McCain's obvious inablilty to control his own campaign. The manic hopping from one "solution" for the economic meltdown to another (questionable) one; the emphasis on attacking Obama's relationship to Ayers (is this the best he can come up with?) vs. actually telling voters what he'd do as President that differs from what Bush has been doing the last 7 years; the johnny-come-lately realization that the economy isn't "fundamentally sound" as he professed up until the stock market started crashing; the Palin situation - from spending $150,000 to dress their "Joe Six Pack" hockey mom in Paris Hilton attire to the $20,000+ spent in just two weeks to put lipstick on a . . . oh, you know - to her apparent decision to ignore the campaign's direction and take off on her own.

Oh - and the endorsement of McCain by Al Qaeda. Who needs Colin Powell?

Can anyone disagree - other than John - that things are out of control in McCain Land?

JOHN: Everything Will Always Be Bush’s Fault

A couple of weeks back, during the height of the negotiations with Congress over the Treasury bailout plan (the Emergency Economic Stabilisation Act of 2008), the British magazine, The Economist, wrote a scathing indictment of George Bush and his administration. Their argument can best be summed up as: Everything will always be George Bush’s fault. Since we’re going to see more and more of these anti-Bush screeds as his term comes to an end, I thought I’d address the arguments The Economist presented.

It starts by lamenting the failure of Congress to pass the bailout plan  (Congress would pass it on a second vote shortly after this article was written):

PLENTY of people can be blamed for the calamity on Capitol Hill on September 29th.

Don’t be fooled by this start. They’re merely getting a formality out of the way. They know who to blame:

But there is no doubt where the lion’s share of the blame belongs: with George Bush. The dismal handling of the financial crisis over the past fortnight is not only a comment on Mr Bush’s personal shortcomings as a leader. It is a comment on the failure of his leadership style over the past eight years.

In other words, when Congress votes against a bill The Economist wants to see pass, those voting are not responsible, George Bush is.

JOHN: Prison Life in the MSM

If you search the word Guantanamo in Google, you'll get 16.7 million results. If you search the term "Camp Bucca" you'll get 73,600—less than one half of one percent as Guantanamo.

Similarly, since the start of the Global War on Terror (GWOT), the word "Guantanamo" has appeared in 2648 New York Times articles. The words "Camp Bucca" have appeared in 49.

Guantanamo has been operational as a detention center since 2002, but might have been mentioned in the lead-up to its opening. So, the New York Times search above went back to September 12, 2001 just to cover every potential reference. Since the GWOT began 85 months ago, the New York Times runs an article mentioning Guantanono about 31 times a month, or, if you prefer, once a day.

Camp Bucca, has been an American run detention center in Iraq since April 2003—66 months ago. A Times article mentions the Camp roughly every 48 days.