May 24, 2004
Mark His Words
Brig. General Mark Kimmit's reaction to the surfacing of a videotape seeming to demonstrate that the gathering which the "coalition" bombed the shit out of last week was indeed a wedding party -- "There may have been some kind of celebration. Bad people have celebrations, too." -- is the pull-quote of the day (maybe even of the month).
But check out some of Kimmit's other words of wisdom:
• At this point, we have seen really nothing that causes us to change our minds. That's why we need to get as much evidence as possible and hand it to the investigators.
• Day after day after day as we continue to get more evidence in ... it is pretty clear to us that what happened that night -- from after midnight to about 0400 -- that the activities that we saw on the ground were somewhat inconsistent with a wedding party.
In other words, at the time it layed the attack the "coalition" had no idea what was going on at the gathering. (Hell, it even claimed, at the time, that it had blown up a suspected safe house for Syrian fighters.)
Hey, asshole: what the fuck happens if the "investigators" corroborate the survivors' and the videotape's account? Do the 45 people you massacred -- including many women and children -- magically come back to life? No? Then why the fuck didn't you gather your evidence before dropping your bombs?
And what the fuck is "somewhat inconsistent" supposed to mean? That it probably was a wedding party, but we can't be 100% sure yet? That the activities were "somewhat inconsistent" for an American wedding party? Maybe that's because it wasn't an American wedding party. Huhn!
• What we found on the ground and our post-strike analysis suggests that what we had was a significant foreign fighter smuggler waystation in the middle of the desert that was bringing people into this country for the sole purpose of attacking to kill the people of Iraq.
To kill the people of Iraq? The sole purpose? That's the only conceivable purpose for which "foreign fighters" (which even the U.S. military commanders claim to have seen very few of) might enter into Iraq? Not even a stray thought toward attacking the American invaders?
Ooo-kay, dude.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 06:10 PM
| Comments (3)
What is your response to the recent evidence that this war was waged on the basis of "misinformation"?
I wanted to rip the president's head off. Curse him, yell at him, call him a self-righteous bastard (and a lot of other words). I think if I had him in front of me, I would shoot him in the groined area. Let him suffer. And just continue shooting him there. Put him through misery, like he's doing to everyone else. He doesn't deserve any better. -- Sue Niederer, mother of a soldier killed in Iraq
Now, this blog doesn't advocate violence -- against the President, or anybody else. But the chicken-hawks really ought to take note of the very real enmity with which military families hold the Administration. As Niederer later notes, if they're so fucking hot to wage war, "Trade places with the troops over there now. You go over there. You send your children, husbands, wives. Let them come back in a coffin."
May 22, 2004
Quote Of The Moment #0057
What is your response to the recent evidence that this war was waged on the basis of "
I wanted to rip the president's head off. Curse him, yell at him, call him a self-righteous bastard (and a lot of other words). I think if I had him in front of me, I would shoot him in the groined area. Let him suffer. And just continue shooting him there. Put him through misery, like he's doing to everyone else. He doesn't deserve any better. -- Sue Niederer, mother of a soldier killed in Iraq
Now, this blog doesn't advocate violence -- against the President, or anybody else. But the chicken-hawks really ought to take note of the very real enmity with which military families hold the Administration. As Niederer later notes, if they're so fucking hot to wage war, "Trade places with the troops over there now. You go over there. You send your children, husbands, wives. Let them come back in a coffin."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:02 PM
| Comments (2)
George Bush, in a visit to House and Senate Republicans on Thursday, triumphantly announced that it's "time to take the training wheels off" of Iraq. ''The Iraqi people have been in training, and now it's time for them to take the bike and go forward.''
Stay tuned next week as Dubya proclaims the "Iraqi people" capable of wiping their own asses.
Alas, it may be time to put the training wheels back on the President's own addled mind. Despite his oratory having been "interrupted by applause 'probably dozens of times, and several standing ovations'," the events leading up to his Pennyslvania Avenue soujourn just might leave one wondering:
• The head of the Iraqi governing council was blown to smithereens early this week.
• An Iraqi wedding party -- including 15 children and 10 women -- was blown to smithereens by U.S. helicopters, following which the military upbraided critics for their "naivete" while insisting that the choppers had in fact blown up a suspected safe house for Syrian fighters.
• The "coalition" raided neocon-darling-and-heretofore-presumptive-leader-of-Free-Iraq Ahmad Chalabi's whereabouts, "seizing files and computers", and accusing him of having passed U.S. intelligence to Iran. Was it really just last month that Chalabi was receiving $340,000 per month from the American taxpayer? Heh, forget Syria and Iran, Dubya's not finished changing regimes in Iraq yet! He's up to two regime changes so far, and still counting.
• The Washington Post has obtained yet more pictures and videos of those wacky, wacky ne'er-do-well "bad apples" and their Abu Ghraib hijinks. "The new pictures and videos go beyond the photos previously released to the public in several ways, amplifying the overt violence against detainees and displaying a variety of abusive techniques previously unseen."
But never mind that. Thanks to Dubya's masterful stewardship, the brave people of Iraq (and, presumably, Palestine as well) are ready to take up their wings, and the Superbrain can retire to his ranch for several weeks while carving another notch into his magnificently outsized phallus.
Er, George? You absolutely sure you're not still just a fucking dipshit coke-head with connected parents? Because, you know, from where we're sitting, it's not so easy to tell.
Update, 5/22/04: In the few days since his Emancipation Proclamation, Dubya has apparently been stricken with a bit of Empty Nest syndrome; launching homicidal raids in Karbala, Kufa, and Najaf. Don't pack those training wheels into storage just yet.
Additionally, Dubya has demonstrated a personal need of not only metaphorical training wheels, but literal training wheels as well: "President Bush fell off his bicycle Saturday while riding on his ranch, according to White House spokesman Trent Duffy." Talk about Poetic Justice! (And, uh, the President's on vacation again? We were half-joking about the "retiring to the ranch" bit. I mean, god, at least Ronald Reagan pretended to be calling the shots.)
It should be noted, finally, that while we can't help giving Dubya the needle as frequently as humanly possible, the latest developments in Iraq are far from a laughing matter, as Juan Cole concludes:
I said the other day I thought Bush was pushing Europe to the left with his policies. I think he is at the same time pushing the Shiite world to the radical Right, and I fear my grandchildren will still be reaping the whirlwind that George W. Bush is sowing in the city of Imam Husain. I concluded in early April that Bush had lost Iraq. He has by now lost the entire Muslim world.
May 21, 2004
Them Niggers Gonna Fly!
George Bush, in a visit to House and Senate Republicans on Thursday, triumphantly announced that it's "time to take the training wheels off" of Iraq. ''The Iraqi people have been in training, and now it's time for them to take the bike and go forward.''
Stay tuned next week as Dubya proclaims the "Iraqi people" capable of wiping their own asses.
Alas, it may be time to put the training wheels back on the President's own addled mind. Despite his oratory having been "interrupted by applause 'probably dozens of times, and several standing ovations'," the events leading up to his Pennyslvania Avenue soujourn just might leave one wondering:
• The head of the Iraqi governing council was blown to smithereens early this week.
• An Iraqi wedding party -- including 15 children and 10 women -- was blown to smithereens by U.S. helicopters, following which the military upbraided critics for their "naivete" while insisting that the choppers had in fact blown up a suspected safe house for Syrian fighters.
• The "coalition" raided neocon-darling-and-heretofore-presumptive-leader-of-Free-Iraq Ahmad Chalabi's whereabouts, "seizing files and computers", and accusing him of having passed U.S. intelligence to Iran. Was it really just last month that Chalabi was receiving $340,000 per month from the American taxpayer? Heh, forget Syria and Iran, Dubya's not finished changing regimes in Iraq yet! He's up to two regime changes so far, and still counting.
• The Washington Post has obtained yet more pictures and videos of those wacky, wacky ne'er-do-well "bad apples" and their Abu Ghraib hijinks. "The new pictures and videos go beyond the photos previously released to the public in several ways, amplifying the overt violence against detainees and displaying a variety of abusive techniques previously unseen."
But never mind that. Thanks to Dubya's masterful stewardship, the brave people of Iraq (and, presumably, Palestine as well) are ready to take up their wings, and the Superbrain can retire to his ranch for several weeks while carving another notch into his magnificently outsized phallus.
Er, George? You absolutely sure you're not still just a fucking dipshit coke-head with connected parents? Because, you know, from where we're sitting, it's not so easy to tell.
Update, 5/22/04: In the few days since his Emancipation Proclamation, Dubya has apparently been stricken with a bit of Empty Nest syndrome; launching homicidal raids in Karbala, Kufa, and Najaf. Don't pack those training wheels into storage just yet.
Additionally, Dubya has demonstrated a personal need of not only metaphorical training wheels, but literal training wheels as well: "President Bush fell off his bicycle Saturday while riding on his ranch, according to White House spokesman Trent Duffy." Talk about Poetic Justice! (And, uh, the President's on vacation again? We were half-joking about the "retiring to the ranch" bit. I mean, god, at least Ronald Reagan pretended to be calling the shots.)
It should be noted, finally, that while we can't help giving Dubya the needle as frequently as humanly possible, the latest developments in Iraq are far from a laughing matter, as Juan Cole concludes:
I said the other day I thought Bush was pushing Europe to the left with his policies. I think he is at the same time pushing the Shiite world to the radical Right, and I fear my grandchildren will still be reaping the whirlwind that George W. Bush is sowing in the city of Imam Husain. I concluded in early April that Bush had lost Iraq. He has by now lost the entire Muslim world.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 01:24 PM
| Comments (2)
A U.S. aircraft fired on a house in the desert near the Syrian border Wednesday, and Iraqi officials said more than 40 people were killed, including children. The U.S. military said the target was a suspected safehouse for foreign fighters from Syria, but Iraqis said a helicopter had attacked a wedding party.
...
Iraqis interviewed on the videotape said revelers had fired volleys of gunfire into the air in a traditional wedding celebration before the attack took place. American troops have sometimes mistaken celebratory gunfire for hostile fire.
This blog has asked these types of questions before now, but here goes again:
Is that how we treat "suspects" here at home, by blowing them to Kingdom Come? Is there a reason why we don't kill "suspects" here at home without at first ascertaining the validity of the suspicions?
What does it mean for us to declare that we're exporting "American-style democracy" to Iraq? Do we seriously expect Iraqis to be impressed by "American-style democracy", having now viewed it up-close?
May 19, 2004
Kill First, Make Excuses Later
A U.S. aircraft fired on a house in the desert near the Syrian border Wednesday, and Iraqi officials said more than 40 people were killed, including children. The U.S. military said the target was a suspected safehouse for foreign fighters from Syria, but Iraqis said a helicopter had attacked a wedding party.
...
Iraqis interviewed on the videotape said revelers had fired volleys of gunfire into the air in a traditional wedding celebration before the attack took place. American troops have sometimes mistaken celebratory gunfire for hostile fire.
This blog has asked these types of questions before now, but here goes again:
Is that how we treat "suspects" here at home, by blowing them to Kingdom Come? Is there a reason why we don't kill "suspects" here at home without at first ascertaining the validity of the suspicions?
What does it mean for us to declare that we're exporting "American-style democracy" to Iraq? Do we seriously expect Iraqis to be impressed by "American-style democracy", having now viewed it up-close?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:08 PM
| Comments (51)
"In our society, we have a line of decency that should not be crossed -- and that line starts around the waist area."
Quote Of The Moment #0056
"In our society, we have a line of decency that should not be crossed -- and that line starts around the waist area."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 12:05 PM
| Comments (0)
...to get your ass blown off in Iraq. And he's going to scour the country to find that ass.
After issuing stop-loss orders to prevent enlistees from retiring, extending tours of duty time and time again, increasing the frequency of those tours, and borrowing from the Korean garrison, the Bush Administration still doesn't have enough cannon fodder for its Iraq meat-grinding operations.
Now, the Bush Administration is proposing to call upon the IRS to help it "locate out-of-touch reservists":
Those in the Individual Ready Reserve are people who have completed their active-duty tours but are subject to involuntary recall for a certain number of years. For example, a soldier who serves four years on active duty remains in the IRR for another four years. The whereabouts of about 50,000 such veterans are unknown.
And the IRS, under the Pentagon's plan, would hand over their current addresses. Another triumph of small government!
What's truly amazing, though, is the incongruity with the Bush Administration's righteous rhetoric. If the Administration's "War on Terror" (of which, Iraq "was" just "one battle") were as crucially important and momentous as the Administration wants us to believe -- the very existence of Western "civilisation" at stake, yes yes -- you'd think that people would be lining up around the block to take part, right?
That we'd be a nation of Pat Tillmans, the new World War II generation. Instead, we're a nation of fucking chicken-hawks: "Track down and then send the 20-year-old wetbacks, niggers, and hillbillies [who only joined up Uncle Sam in the first place in order to pay for college -- "No Child Left Behind", indeed] to kill and be killed, to torture and be tortured; so long as you don't interrupt my fat-assed lifestyle. God Bless America!, and wake me when it's over."
Uncle Dubya Wants You...
...to get your ass blown off in Iraq. And he's going to scour the country to find that ass.
After issuing stop-loss orders to prevent enlistees from retiring, extending tours of duty time and time again, increasing the frequency of those tours, and borrowing from the Korean garrison, the Bush Administration still doesn't have enough cannon fodder for its Iraq meat-grinding operations.
Now, the Bush Administration is proposing to call upon the IRS to help it "locate out-of-touch reservists":
Those in the Individual Ready Reserve are people who have completed their active-duty tours but are subject to involuntary recall for a certain number of years. For example, a soldier who serves four years on active duty remains in the IRR for another four years. The whereabouts of about 50,000 such veterans are unknown.
And the IRS, under the Pentagon's plan, would hand over their current addresses. Another triumph of small government!
What's truly amazing, though, is the incongruity with the Bush Administration's righteous rhetoric. If the Administration's "War on Terror" (of which, Iraq "was" just "one battle") were as crucially important and momentous as the Administration wants us to believe -- the very existence of Western "civilisation" at stake, yes yes -- you'd think that people would be lining up around the block to take part, right?
That we'd be a nation of Pat Tillmans, the new World War II generation. Instead, we're a nation of fucking chicken-hawks: "Track down and then send the 20-year-old wetbacks, niggers, and hillbillies [who only joined up Uncle Sam in the first place in order to pay for college -- "No Child Left Behind", indeed] to kill and be killed, to torture and be tortured; so long as you don't interrupt my fat-assed lifestyle. God Bless America!, and wake me when it's over."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 12:03 PM
| Comments (2)
Don't know which is the more sickening: the motherfucker who endorses most of the Bush Administration's policies, or the motherfucker who endorses the motherfucker who endorses most of the Bush Administration's policies?
May 18, 2004
Goofus And Gallant
Don't know which is the more sickening: the motherfucker who endorses most of the Bush Administration's policies, or the motherfucker who endorses the motherfucker who endorses most of the Bush Administration's policies?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 09:54 PM
| Comments (0)
Mr. Secretary [Wolfowitz], do you think crouching naked for 45 minutes is humane?" Mr. Reed said.
"Not naked, absolutely not."
Quote Of The Moment #0055
Mr. Secretary [Wolfowitz], do you think crouching naked for 45 minutes is humane?" Mr. Reed said.
"Not naked, absolutely not."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 09:52 PM
| Comments (0)
The following will be submitted to the Seattle Times letters editor. Nothing really so different from what this blogger has written many times in the past. But we'll see if it's "fit to print".
The reactions to the murder of Nick Berg by some letter-writers in the May 13 Times -- "demonic representatives", "nest of rats", "evil militant animals", "rabid dogs", "savages", "exterminate", "non-humans" -- demonstrate their keen knowledge of Nazi history.
But they might do to bone up on some U.S. history as well. To wit, the perpetrators of that murder -- drawn from precisely the same broader group, using precisely the same methods, at the behest of many of the same figures (notably Messrs. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Negroponte, and Libby) that comprise the current Bush Administration -- were originally recruited, trained, and funded by the CIA to participate in its "great game" in Central Asia.
Back then, though, they were not considered sub-human. Indeed, no less than Ronald Reagan himself proclaimed them "the moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers of America."
But of course, we need not look twenty years into the past to discover moral equivalents. The current President of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov, has within his bag of tricks the boiling of prisoners alive. Karimov recently played host to a visit by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, much as Saddam Hussein played host to Rumsfeld lo those many years ago. Karimov is not considered sub-human, but rather an "ally" in the so-called "War on Terror".
Isn't that funny?
May 13, 2004
What Comes Around
The following will be submitted to the Seattle Times letters editor. Nothing really so different from what this blogger has written many times in the past. But we'll see if it's "fit to print".
The reactions to the murder of Nick Berg by some letter-writers in the May 13 Times -- "demonic representatives", "nest of rats", "evil militant animals", "rabid dogs", "savages", "exterminate", "non-humans" -- demonstrate their keen knowledge of Nazi history.
But they might do to bone up on some U.S. history as well. To wit, the perpetrators of that murder -- drawn from precisely the same broader group, using precisely the same methods, at the behest of many of the same figures (notably Messrs. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Negroponte, and Libby) that comprise the current Bush Administration -- were originally recruited, trained, and funded by the CIA to participate in its "great game" in Central Asia.
Back then, though, they were not considered sub-human. Indeed, no less than Ronald Reagan himself proclaimed them "the moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers of America."
But of course, we need not look twenty years into the past to discover moral equivalents. The current President of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov, has within his bag of tricks the boiling of prisoners alive. Karimov recently played host to a visit by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, much as Saddam Hussein played host to Rumsfeld lo those many years ago. Karimov is not considered sub-human, but rather an "ally" in the so-called "War on Terror".
Isn't that funny?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 07:45 PM
| Comments (0)
When was the last time you screened Robert Redford's 1994 movie Quiz Show? A long time ago, right?
Check it out again. Not only has it aged well -- the writing, directing, and acting are still spot-on -- but it's also timelier than ever: the scandal portrayed in the movie eerily parallels the prison-abuse scandal playing itself out even as we speak.
The closing music, "Mack The Knife", feels especially appropriate; as does the movie's tagline: "Fifty million people watched, but no one saw a thing."
Recommended
When was the last time you screened Robert Redford's 1994 movie Quiz Show? A long time ago, right?
Check it out again. Not only has it aged well -- the writing, directing, and acting are still spot-on -- but it's also timelier than ever: the scandal portrayed in the movie eerily parallels the prison-abuse scandal playing itself out even as we speak.
The closing music, "Mack The Knife", feels especially appropriate; as does the movie's tagline: "Fifty million people watched, but no one saw a thing."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:37 PM
| Comments (0)
"...terrorists will change their excuses, or find whatever excuse they can to try to carry out their murderous and evil acts. The terrorists look for all sorts of excuses to try to justify murder and destruction and chaos. There is no justification for the taking of innocent human life." -- Scott McClellan
May 12, 2004
He Said It
"...terrorists will change their excuses, or find whatever excuse they can to try to carry out their murderous and evil acts. The terrorists look for all sorts of excuses to try to justify murder and destruction and chaos. There is no justification for the taking of innocent human life." -- Scott McClellan
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:34 PM
| Comments (0)
Sadoun Dulame read the results of his latest poll again and again. He added up percentages, highlighted sections and scribbled notes in the margins.
No matter how he crunched the numbers, however, he found himself in the uncomfortable position this week of having to tell occupation authorities that the report they commissioned paints the bleakest picture yet of the U.S.-led coalition's reputation in Iraq. For the first time, according to Dulame's poll, a majority of Iraqis said they'd feel safer if the U.S. military withdrew immediately.
A year ago, just 17 percent of Iraqis wanted the troops gone, according to Dulame's respected research center in Baghdad. Now, the disturbing new results mirror what most Iraqis and many international observers have said for months: Give it up. Go home. This just isn't working.
May 09, 2004
Quote Of The Moment #0054
Sadoun Dulame read the results of his latest poll again and again. He added up percentages, highlighted sections and scribbled notes in the margins.
No matter how he crunched the numbers, however, he found himself in the uncomfortable position this week of having to tell occupation authorities that the report they commissioned paints the bleakest picture yet of the U.S.-led coalition's reputation in Iraq. For the first time, according to Dulame's poll, a majority of Iraqis said they'd feel safer if the U.S. military withdrew immediately.
A year ago, just 17 percent of Iraqis wanted the troops gone, according to Dulame's respected research center in Baghdad. Now, the disturbing new results mirror what most Iraqis and many international observers have said for months: Give it up. Go home. This just isn't working.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 11:19 PM
| Comments (0)
"It's not exactly every day that the Pentagon warns military personnel to stay away from Fox News."
Full Disclosure
"It's not exactly every day that the Pentagon warns military personnel to stay away from Fox News."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 09:09 PM
| Comments (0)
From Donald H.'s testimony:
RUMSFELD: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, in recent days there has been a good deal of discussion about who bears responsibility for the terrible activities that took place at Abu Ghraib. These events occurred on my watch. As secretary of defense, I am accountable for them and I take full responsibility.
In the real world (especially the one promulgated by the Republican Party), taking "full responsibility" for a crime means accepting punishment. The Taguba report explicitly references the Geneva Conventions in outlining the crimes committed in the U.S.-run "prison" system in Iraq.
Donald H. Rumsfeld has accepted "full responsibility" for these crimes -- war crimes, that is. Crimes for which responsible parties have in the past been hanged.
This blog is opposed to Capital Punishment. But here we have, by his own admission, a man responsible for the commission of war crimes. Somehow, the debate over whether Rumsfeld should resign, as opposed to being packed off to gaol, seems a little inappropriate.
When somebody admits to having committed a horrifying and brutal crime, it isn't exactly standard operating procedure to say, "Well, thank you for your honesty. Have a nice day."
Okay, well, it kind of is standard operating procedure for white collar criminals, or progeny of powerful people, or Rush Limbaugh. But this is a new era, dammit! We believe in morals, now. We believe in family values, now. We're tough on crime, now. We don't coddle criminals, now. We left all that shit behind when we ran the liberals out of office.
Uh, right?
The Confession
From Donald H.'s testimony:
RUMSFELD: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, in recent days there has been a good deal of discussion about who bears responsibility for the terrible activities that took place at Abu Ghraib. These events occurred on my watch. As secretary of defense, I am accountable for them and I take full responsibility.
In the real world (especially the one promulgated by the Republican Party), taking "full responsibility" for a crime means accepting punishment. The Taguba report explicitly references the Geneva Conventions in outlining the crimes committed in the U.S.-run "prison" system in Iraq.
Donald H. Rumsfeld has accepted "full responsibility" for these crimes -- war crimes, that is. Crimes for which responsible parties have in the past been hanged.
This blog is opposed to Capital Punishment. But here we have, by his own admission, a man responsible for the commission of war crimes. Somehow, the debate over whether Rumsfeld should resign, as opposed to being packed off to gaol, seems a little inappropriate.
When somebody admits to having committed a horrifying and brutal crime, it isn't exactly standard operating procedure to say, "Well, thank you for your honesty. Have a nice day."
Okay, well, it kind of is standard operating procedure for white collar criminals, or progeny of powerful people, or Rush Limbaugh. But this is a new era, dammit! We believe in morals, now. We believe in family values, now. We're tough on crime, now. We don't coddle criminals, now. We left all that shit behind when we ran the liberals out of office.
Uh, right?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 03:28 PM
| Comments (1)
From Donald H. Rumsfeld's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the following exchange between Senator Mark Pryor, and Rumsfeld:
PRYOR: Mr. Secretary, let me say this, that there's been a pattern that I have to bring to your attention from our perspective, and if I can just say this. In the last seven days some of things, some of the revelations that we've heard about Iraq, you know, first, for months and months we've asked, "Do you need more troops inside Iraq?"
And in the last few days, even though you've assured us many, many times and many people at the Pentagon and the White House have said, "No," we now have learned that you do.
Secondly, we've asked for weeks and weeks and weeks, maybe months -- Senator Byrd could probably tell you more than I could about that -- about whether you'll need a supplemental.
And originally, the answer was, "No," at least not until very, very late in the year. And now it appears that you do.
We've been surprised on those two occasions, now we're surprised today.
And, Mr. Secretary, I must tell you that we do not like these type of surprises here in the Congress. And I don't want to sound glib in asking this question, but let me ask: We know the photographs are coming out, but do you anticipate anything else coming out in a relation to this story that we need to know about today?
RUMSFELD: Well, I'm certain there will be. You've got six investigations going on. You can be absolutely certain that these investigations will discover things, as investigations do, and that they'll elevate other individuals for prosecution and criminal matters. And you can be certain that there's going to be more coming out.
With respect to your other comments, I do need to answer this. I mean, the commanders on the ground, from the beginning, asked for and received all the troops they needed, all the troops they wanted, all the troops they asked for they got them.
You're right. General Abizaid called up and said, "Look, the situation in Iraq is difficult. I'd like to keep an extra 20,000 in this crossover period and go from 115,000 to 135,000."
RUMSFELD: And we said, "Yes." And I went to the president and the president said, "Yes." And the senior military adviser, General Myers, said he thought that was correct.
And you say you don't like surprises. My Lord, who likes surprises? Nobody in the world likes surprises.
But the world's not perfect. Facts change on the ground. And when facts change on the ground, commanders tell us. And when commanders tell us, they get the troops they need.
Now, on the budget, you don't like surprises. Well, I don't, either. It happens more troops are needed and more money's needed. And it happens that it's a difficult thing for the military commanders to cash flow, taking out of one account to sustain something that came up that was not anticipated. And so the president said, "Fine."
He didn't want to ask a supplemental. General Myers and I went into him and said, "We think we need one." We think that that's not a good way to manage the Department of Defense by jerking money out of one account and sticking it in another account, trying to get reprogramming authority by the Congress. And we said, "We believe that it's the appropriate thing to do."
He didn't want to do it. He knew what he'd said but he said he'd do it. Now, that's not a surprise, it's just a fact.
To which, Pryor's obvious response should have been something like the following:
Mr. Secretary, based upon what you've just told us, we can draw five possible conclusions.
1. You were lying to us when you told us last Autumn that the $87 Billion "supplemental" would be sufficient to last an entire year.
2. You were lying to us when you repeatedly told us that you wouldn't need more troops or more money.
3. Your staff was incapable of noticing a trend which, if continued, would point up the need for further funding before the year was out.
4. Your staff was aware of the trend, but kept this information from you.
5. There wasn't a "trend", as such. A couple of weeks ago, we were right on budget, now we're suddenly out of cash. "It happens."
The fifth possibility is not only highly dubious, but probably impossible. None of the other four give us much confidence in your abilities.
This followup was so obvious, that it went un-said. Instead:
PRYOR: Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time.
Obvious Followup #0004
From Donald H. Rumsfeld's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the following exchange between Senator Mark Pryor, and Rumsfeld:
PRYOR: Mr. Secretary, let me say this, that there's been a pattern that I have to bring to your attention from our perspective, and if I can just say this. In the last seven days some of things, some of the revelations that we've heard about Iraq, you know, first, for months and months we've asked, "Do you need more troops inside Iraq?"
And in the last few days, even though you've assured us many, many times and many people at the Pentagon and the White House have said, "No," we now have learned that you do.
Secondly, we've asked for weeks and weeks and weeks, maybe months -- Senator Byrd could probably tell you more than I could about that -- about whether you'll need a supplemental.
And originally, the answer was, "No," at least not until very, very late in the year. And now it appears that you do.
We've been surprised on those two occasions, now we're surprised today.
And, Mr. Secretary, I must tell you that we do not like these type of surprises here in the Congress. And I don't want to sound glib in asking this question, but let me ask: We know the photographs are coming out, but do you anticipate anything else coming out in a relation to this story that we need to know about today?
RUMSFELD: Well, I'm certain there will be. You've got six investigations going on. You can be absolutely certain that these investigations will discover things, as investigations do, and that they'll elevate other individuals for prosecution and criminal matters. And you can be certain that there's going to be more coming out.
With respect to your other comments, I do need to answer this. I mean, the commanders on the ground, from the beginning, asked for and received all the troops they needed, all the troops they wanted, all the troops they asked for they got them.
You're right. General Abizaid called up and said, "Look, the situation in Iraq is difficult. I'd like to keep an extra 20,000 in this crossover period and go from 115,000 to 135,000."
RUMSFELD: And we said, "Yes." And I went to the president and the president said, "Yes." And the senior military adviser, General Myers, said he thought that was correct.
And you say you don't like surprises. My Lord, who likes surprises? Nobody in the world likes surprises.
But the world's not perfect. Facts change on the ground. And when facts change on the ground, commanders tell us. And when commanders tell us, they get the troops they need.
Now, on the budget, you don't like surprises. Well, I don't, either. It happens more troops are needed and more money's needed. And it happens that it's a difficult thing for the military commanders to cash flow, taking out of one account to sustain something that came up that was not anticipated. And so the president said, "Fine."
He didn't want to ask a supplemental. General Myers and I went into him and said, "We think we need one." We think that that's not a good way to manage the Department of Defense by jerking money out of one account and sticking it in another account, trying to get reprogramming authority by the Congress. And we said, "We believe that it's the appropriate thing to do."
He didn't want to do it. He knew what he'd said but he said he'd do it. Now, that's not a surprise, it's just a fact.
To which, Pryor's obvious response should have been something like the following:
Mr. Secretary, based upon what you've just told us, we can draw five possible conclusions.
1. You were lying to us when you told us last Autumn that the $87 Billion "supplemental" would be sufficient to last an entire year.
2. You were lying to us when you repeatedly told us that you wouldn't need more troops or more money.
3. Your staff was incapable of noticing a trend which, if continued, would point up the need for further funding before the year was out.
4. Your staff was aware of the trend, but kept this information from you.
5. There wasn't a "trend", as such. A couple of weeks ago, we were right on budget, now we're suddenly out of cash. "It happens."
The fifth possibility is not only highly dubious, but probably impossible. None of the other four give us much confidence in your abilities.
This followup was so obvious, that it went un-said. Instead:
PRYOR: Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 03:03 PM
| Comments (0)
The following appeared in the May 7, 2004 edition of the New York Times:
Correction An Op-Ed article on Tuesday referred incorrectly to the number of members of Congress with children serving in the military in Iraq or Afghanistan. There are at least three members, not one.
Now, don't you feel better?
By God, The System Does Work
The following appeared in the May 7, 2004 edition of the New York Times:
Correction An Op-Ed article on Tuesday referred incorrectly to the number of members of Congress with children serving in the military in Iraq or Afghanistan. There are at least three members, not one.
Now, don't you feel better?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 12:42 AM
| Comments (0)
Then: President Jimmy Carter attempted to resume relations with Vietnam in 1977, declaring that "the destruction was mutual". Talks broke down, however, over the issue of American MIAs and over the promised reparations, especially after the Vietnamese released a copy of Nixon’s secret letter of 1973, which promised aid "without any preconditions". Fearing that reparations would amount to an admission of wrongdoing, Congress added amendments to trade bills that also cut Vietnam off from international lending agencies like the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Normalization of relations was suspended, deepening the economic crisis facing Vietnam in the aftermath of the war’s destruction.
Now: "The only thing worse than being occupied is being an occupier." -- Paul Bremer
May 08, 2004
What A Burden It Is Being White
Then: President Jimmy Carter attempted to resume relations with Vietnam in 1977, declaring that "the destruction was mutual". Talks broke down, however, over the issue of American MIAs and over the promised reparations, especially after the Vietnamese released a copy of Nixon’s secret letter of 1973, which promised aid "without any preconditions". Fearing that reparations would amount to an admission of wrongdoing, Congress added amendments to trade bills that also cut Vietnam off from international lending agencies like the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Normalization of relations was suspended, deepening the economic crisis facing Vietnam in the aftermath of the war’s destruction.
Now: "The only thing worse than being occupied is being an occupier." -- Paul Bremer
Posted by Eddie Tews at 10:44 PM
| Comments (0)
After three-plus years of never having to say it was sorry, never having to acknowledge having made a mistake, never having to listen to "focus groups" when formulating policy, one would have thought that the Bush Administration would finally, now, exhibit some modicum of contrition -- if only for political purposes.
Instead, what has been the Administration's reaction to the Abu Ghraib scandal?
• Insisting that the abuses were localised events, the work of a few bad apples, which does not represent the "99%" of the military which has comported itself with the utmost honor and dignity. This despite the now-infamous (and now widely available) report from on of the military's own generals decrying the systemic and widespread nature of the abuses. And this despite the many testimonials from former detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo evidencing the widespread nature of the Americans' "interrogation" techniques.
• Lecturing "people in Iraq" that they "need to understand" that "what took place in that prison does not represent America that I know," while self-righteously proclaiming that U.S. military "justice" hasn't sunk to the level of Saddam's depravities (there's setting yourself a lofty standard!) -- even while Iraqis themselves attest that, "Saddam Hussein may have oppressed us but he was better than the Americans. They are garbage," and that, "We now look back at Saddam's era with nostalgia. He was a good leader. There was security. We hope he comes back," and that, "I hated Saddam so much that when the Americans came, I viewed them as liberators. I was happy and supported them. But soon it became clear that they are no liberators but occupiers."
• Refusing even to apologise for the indignities. Here's Scottie McClellan explaining, to an unusually hostile White House Press Corps, why not:
Q Scott, getting back to the apology issue that Mark raised, did you mean to say that the President didn't apologize because -- he didn't address that issue because no one brought it up in either interview?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we've already said that we are deeply sorry for what occurred. The White House has already said that, on behalf of the President.
Q There seems to be a sense, among some Arab scholars and Arab diplomats today that from, at the very least, a cultural standpoint, that it would have gone a long way had the President himself apologized. It's, with all due respect, a little bit different than you or Condoleezza Rice or someone else. If the Arab world had heard him -- heard the President personally apologize, it would have gone a long way. Why did he choose not to use those words?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I just told you, the President is deeply sorry for what occurred, and the pain that it has caused.
Q Why didn't he say so himself?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President is deeply sorry for it. And he was pleased to sit down and do these interviews and address the questions that were asked of him.
Q Why didn't he say so himself?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm saying it for him right now, Peter. And Condi Rice said it yesterday. We've already made -- the President --
Q -- wasn't what was --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, but go back to the interview. The President made it very clear that what occurred was wrong, and that it does not represent what America stands for. So he made it very clear in those interviews that it was wrong, that we do not stand for that, and that when we -- when that kind of activity comes to our attention, we take action to address it, and make sure that it doesn't happen again.
Q There's a distinction, Scott.
Q Shouldn't an apology be at the President's forethought, not you saying it?
• Trying to downplay the magnitude of the crimes. In the words of Donald H. Rumsfeld: "I think that -- I'm not a lawyer. My impression is that what has been charged thus far is abuse, which I believe technically is different from torture."
• Apparently determined to prove McClellan's profundity, from the same Press Conference noted above, that, "There are people in this world who are killers," launching its "first major assault against Shiite insurgents" in the hoping "we can put enough pressure on them to break their will to stay in Karbala," while killing 40 people.
• Playing election-year politics even while the world reels in the wake of the torture revelations.
• Refusing to acknowledge the deep wellspring of resentment of the American adventure in Iraq. Let's return to McClellan one last time.
And I would remind you that what we are accomplishing in those countries is providing people with hope and opportunity, and it's going to the root causes of terrorism, which thrives on despair and poverty. And we're working on those fronts to bring about more stability in that region and bring about hope for people in those regions, so that we can win the war on terrorism.
The general impression of the Administration's crisis "management" is that it was too little too late. More like rubbing salt in the wounds, wouldn't you say?
May 06, 2004
Chastened?
After three-plus years of never having to say it was sorry, never having to acknowledge having made a mistake, never having to listen to "focus groups" when formulating policy, one would have thought that the Bush Administration would finally, now, exhibit some modicum of contrition -- if only for political purposes.
Instead, what has been the Administration's reaction to the Abu Ghraib scandal?
• Insisting that the abuses were localised events, the work of a few bad apples, which does not represent the "99%" of the military which has comported itself with the utmost honor and dignity. This despite the now-infamous (and now widely available) report from on of the military's own generals decrying the systemic and widespread nature of the abuses. And this despite the many testimonials from former detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo evidencing the widespread nature of the Americans' "interrogation" techniques.
• Lecturing "people in Iraq" that they "need to understand" that "what took place in that prison does not represent America that I know," while self-righteously proclaiming that U.S. military "justice" hasn't sunk to the level of Saddam's depravities (there's setting yourself a lofty standard!) -- even while Iraqis themselves attest that, "Saddam Hussein may have oppressed us but he was better than the Americans. They are garbage," and that, "We now look back at Saddam's era with nostalgia. He was a good leader. There was security. We hope he comes back," and that, "I hated Saddam so much that when the Americans came, I viewed them as liberators. I was happy and supported them. But soon it became clear that they are no liberators but occupiers."
• Refusing even to apologise for the indignities. Here's Scottie McClellan explaining, to an unusually hostile White House Press Corps, why not:
Q Scott, getting back to the apology issue that Mark raised, did you mean to say that the President didn't apologize because -- he didn't address that issue because no one brought it up in either interview?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we've already said that we are deeply sorry for what occurred. The White House has already said that, on behalf of the President.
Q There seems to be a sense, among some Arab scholars and Arab diplomats today that from, at the very least, a cultural standpoint, that it would have gone a long way had the President himself apologized. It's, with all due respect, a little bit different than you or Condoleezza Rice or someone else. If the Arab world had heard him -- heard the President personally apologize, it would have gone a long way. Why did he choose not to use those words?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I just told you, the President is deeply sorry for what occurred, and the pain that it has caused.
Q Why didn't he say so himself?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President is deeply sorry for it. And he was pleased to sit down and do these interviews and address the questions that were asked of him.
Q Why didn't he say so himself?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm saying it for him right now, Peter. And Condi Rice said it yesterday. We've already made -- the President --
Q -- wasn't what was --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, but go back to the interview. The President made it very clear that what occurred was wrong, and that it does not represent what America stands for. So he made it very clear in those interviews that it was wrong, that we do not stand for that, and that when we -- when that kind of activity comes to our attention, we take action to address it, and make sure that it doesn't happen again.
Q There's a distinction, Scott.
Q Shouldn't an apology be at the President's forethought, not you saying it?
• Trying to downplay the magnitude of the crimes. In the words of Donald H. Rumsfeld: "I think that -- I'm not a lawyer. My impression is that what has been charged thus far is abuse, which I believe technically is different from torture."
• Apparently determined to prove McClellan's profundity, from the same Press Conference noted above, that, "There are people in this world who are killers," launching its "first major assault against Shiite insurgents" in the hoping "we can put enough pressure on them to break their will to stay in Karbala," while killing 40 people.
• Playing election-year politics even while the world reels in the wake of the torture revelations.
• Refusing to acknowledge the deep wellspring of resentment of the American adventure in Iraq. Let's return to McClellan one last time.
And I would remind you that what we are accomplishing in those countries is providing people with hope and opportunity, and it's going to the root causes of terrorism, which thrives on despair and poverty. And we're working on those fronts to bring about more stability in that region and bring about hope for people in those regions, so that we can win the war on terrorism.
The general impression of the Administration's crisis "management" is that it was too little too late. More like rubbing salt in the wounds, wouldn't you say?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:22 PM
| Comments (0)
Consumer groups called for a Congressional investigation yesterday into the death of a cow with symptoms of brain damage at a Texas slaughterhouse last week.
The cow, which staggered and collapsed after passing an initial visual inspection at Lone Star Beef in San Angelo, Tex., was condemned as unfit for human consumption and under federal regulations should have been tested for mad cow disease. Instead, it was sent to a rendering plant to be made into animal food and byproducts.
Now, that sounds like some good eatin'! More:
The consumer groups were reacting to an article published yesterday by meatingplace.com, a meat industry Web site. Citing two anonymous sources, it said it had firsthand knowledge of the events, one in government and one in industry. The article said a federal inspector had started to take a brain sample but was ordered not to by the regional headquarters of the Agriculture Department in Austin, Tex.
Ed Loyd, a department spokesman, said he could not comment on the report.
Unfortunately, the meatingplace.com content is open only to members.
"I Sure Love The Taste Of A Good Burger"
Consumer groups called for a Congressional investigation yesterday into the death of a cow with symptoms of brain damage at a Texas slaughterhouse last week.
The cow, which staggered and collapsed after passing an initial visual inspection at Lone Star Beef in San Angelo, Tex., was condemned as unfit for human consumption and under federal regulations should have been tested for mad cow disease. Instead, it was sent to a rendering plant to be made into animal food and byproducts.
Now, that sounds like some good eatin'! More:
The consumer groups were reacting to an article published yesterday by meatingplace.com, a meat industry Web site. Citing two anonymous sources, it said it had firsthand knowledge of the events, one in government and one in industry. The article said a federal inspector had started to take a brain sample but was ordered not to by the regional headquarters of the Agriculture Department in Austin, Tex.
Ed Loyd, a department spokesman, said he could not comment on the report.
Unfortunately, the meatingplace.com content is open only to members.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:08 PM
| Comments (0)
"Well, if Myers didn't know about it, I didn't know about it. In other words, he's part of the chain -- actually, he's not in the chain of command, but he's a high ranking official. We'll find out." -- The Brain
May 05, 2004
Quote Of The Moment #0053
"Well, if Myers didn't know about it, I didn't know about it. In other words, he's part of the chain -- actually, he's not in the chain of command, but he's a high ranking official. We'll find out." -- The Brain
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:16 PM
| Comments (0)
...as reported by Knight Ridder: "As investigations into U.S. military abuse of Iraqi captives gathered steam, Pentagon officials revealed Tuesday that they have investigated the deaths of 25 prisoners overseas and labeled two of them homicides."
All well and good. Now, how about "investigating" how many Iraqis (including military personnel -- mostly conscripted teenagers) were killed during the bombing? Estimates have it between 20,000 and 50,000, combined. How about an investigation into last month's Fallujah raids, which apparently claimed the lives of at least 600 civilians?
How about "investigating" how many children are killed monthly by unexploded ordnance, or how many people will eventually be killed by the use of radiological munitions?
How about investigating the number of people killed by the Afghanistan adventures? Estimates put it in the range of 20,000 civilians (with, again, lingering effects of cluster bombs and Depleted Uranium).
You know, since they're already in an introspective mood.
Well, As Long As The Pentagon Is "Investigating Deaths"...
...as reported by Knight Ridder: "As investigations into U.S. military abuse of Iraqi captives gathered steam, Pentagon officials revealed Tuesday that they have investigated the deaths of 25 prisoners overseas and labeled two of them homicides."
All well and good. Now, how about "investigating" how many Iraqis (including military personnel -- mostly conscripted teenagers) were killed during the bombing? Estimates have it between 20,000 and 50,000, combined. How about an investigation into last month's Fallujah raids, which apparently claimed the lives of at least 600 civilians?
How about "investigating" how many children are killed monthly by unexploded ordnance, or how many people will eventually be killed by the use of radiological munitions?
How about investigating the number of people killed by the Afghanistan adventures? Estimates put it in the range of 20,000 civilians (with, again, lingering effects of cluster bombs and Depleted Uranium).
You know, since they're already in an introspective mood.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 12:18 PM
| Comments (0)
Iraq: • "It's not that they don't have rights. They have fewer rights [than prisoners of war]." -- Brig. General Janis Karpinski; September 17, 2003
Originally cited in "Is There A 'Mr. Orwell' In The House?"
• "For U.S. soldiers wondering what they should and should not do in their role as occupiers of Iraq, help may be on the way from the Israel Defense Forces." -- September 30, 2003
Originally cited in "Quote Of The Moment #0020".
• The United States yesterday blocked international efforts to allow a United Nations Human Rights Commission investigator of crimes under Saddam Hussein to look at the post-Saddam period.
Diplomats said several countries on the commission wanted the investigator, Andreas Mavromattis of Cyprus, to look at how the U.S. and British were behaving in Iraq and whether they had committed offenses in the war.
The United State's ambassador to the U.N., Kevin Moley, argued that it would be illogical for the investigation to go beyond "the crimes of the regime that has been replaced." -- April 26, 2003
Originally cited in "Crippled Inside".
Afghanistan: • One day, perhaps, there will be an inquiry into Guantanamo. Until then, some of their allegations -- which, it can be assumed, America is likely to deny -- cannot be corroborated. However, many of the experiences they describe, including gunpoint interrogations in Afghanistan and random brutality both there and in Guantanamo, have been related in identical terms by other freed detainees.
...
After 10 days the Red Cross arrived, bringing some improvement and an increase in the water supply. But by now all three were malnourished and suffering from amoebic dysentery. Ahmed says: 'We were covered with lice. All day long you were scratching, scratching. I was bleeding from my chest, my head.' Iqbal adds: 'We lost so much weight that if I stood up I could carry water in the gap between my collar bones and my flesh.'
Prisoners died daily: of the 35,000 originally marched through the desert, only 4,500 were still alive, the three men estimate. All this time they could see American troops 50 metres from their prison wing on the other side of the gates. -- March 14, 2004
Originally cited in "American 'Justice'".
• "Privately, the Americans admit that torture, or something very like it, is going on at Bagram air base in Afghanistan, where they are holding an unknown number of suspected terrorists." -- July 26, 2003
Originally cited in "Another Day, Another Insipid Apologia".
• But unlike the Israelis, for whom moderate physical pressure was open public policy, the new tactics -- whatever they may be -- are being kept secret. The government, in fact, denies it is torturing anyone, insisting that all detainees are being held in a manner consistent with the principles of international law. But what, then, to make of anonymous comments from officials involved in the detentions? One is quoted in the story as saying, "If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job"? Another says that "our guys may kick them around a little bit in the adrenaline of the immediate aftermath" of their capture. And while the government denies that its purpose in transferring prisoners to foreign custody is so that other intelligence services can torture them, still another official says, "We don't kick the [expletive] out of them, we send them to other countries so they can kick the [expletive] out of them." -- December 27, 2002
Originally cited in "Orwell A-Go-Go".
• Those who refuse to cooperate inside this secret CIA interrogation center are sometimes kept standing or kneeling for hours, in black hoods or spray-painted goggles, say intelligence specialists familiar with CIA interrogation methods. At times they are held in awkward, painful positions and deprived of sleep with a 24-hour bombardment of lights — subject to what are known as "stress-and-duress" techniques.
Those who cooperate are rewarded with creature comforts and interrogators whose methods include feigned friendship, respect, cultural sensitivity and, in some cases, money. Some who do not cooperate are turned over — "rendered," in official parlance — to foreign intelligence services whose practice of torture has been documented by the U.S. government and human-rights organizations. -- December 26, 2002
Originally cited in "Orwell A-Go-Go".
Guantanamo: • PROFESSOR RUTH WEDGWOOD (Yale Law School): I don't have any information that there is a set of horror stories about to be unloaded. The US can be held to the standard of the commitment made by the President, which is part of human rights law as well, that you have to treat people humanely. If you talk to individuals, you may discover they have gotten better medical care than they ever dreamed of, they've gained weight, they have been allowed to observe their faith.
MARSHALL: But this is not a holiday camp. There are currently 660 prisoners. None has any idea if they will ever be freed. In the 13 months up to August this year, there have been 32 suicide attempts. Since then, there has only been one further attempted suicide recorded. They have, however, introduced a separate category -- manipulative self injurious behaviour -- SIB. It is applied to individuals deemed to have merely feigned suicide attempts. There have been over 40 SIBs since the summer. This new classification troubles Britain's leading forensic psychiatrist.
DR JAMES MACKEITH (Maudsley Royal Hospital): It is impossible to authoritatively assess attempts at self harm in such a way as to justify confidence that a particular self-destructive act is designed to have a manipulative purpose, rather than a self-destructive purpose.
MARSHALL: It is not a valuable clinical definition, as far as you are concerned.
MACKEITH: It is a new one on me. -- December 23, 2003
Originally cited in "What's So 'Civil' About War, Anyway?".
• A prisoner tried to kill himself again in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where U.S. authorities are preparing for military tribunals to try terror suspects, officials said Wednesday.
Tuesday's attempt was the 29th since the detention mission began 1½ years ago, said spokesman Lt.-Col. Barry Johnson. Most attempts occurred this year, a sign that the indefinite detentions are beginning to take their toll on the prisoners, who have not been formally charged or allowed to see lawyers. -- July 16, 2003
Originally cited in "'Disappeared'".
• They actually said that: "You have no rights here." After a while, we stopped asking for human rights -- we wanted animal rights.
In Camp X-Ray, my cage was right next to a kennel housing an Alsatian dog. He had a wooden house with air conditioning and green grass to exercise on. I said to the guards, "I want his rights," and they replied, "That dog is a member of the U.S. army." -- April 1, 2004
Originally cited in "Quote Of The Moment #0049".
May 04, 2004
Blasts From The Past
Iraq: • "It's not that they don't have rights. They have fewer rights [than prisoners of war]." -- Brig. General Janis Karpinski; September 17, 2003
Originally cited in "Is There A 'Mr. Orwell' In The House?"
• "For U.S. soldiers wondering what they should and should not do in their role as occupiers of Iraq, help may be on the way from the Israel Defense Forces." -- September 30, 2003
Originally cited in "Quote Of The Moment #0020".
• The United States yesterday blocked international efforts to allow a United Nations Human Rights Commission investigator of crimes under Saddam Hussein to look at the post-Saddam period.
Diplomats said several countries on the commission wanted the investigator, Andreas Mavromattis of Cyprus, to look at how the U.S. and British were behaving in Iraq and whether they had committed offenses in the war.
The United State's ambassador to the U.N., Kevin Moley, argued that it would be illogical for the investigation to go beyond "the crimes of the regime that has been replaced." -- April 26, 2003
Originally cited in "Crippled Inside".
Afghanistan: • One day, perhaps, there will be an inquiry into Guantanamo. Until then, some of their allegations -- which, it can be assumed, America is likely to deny -- cannot be corroborated. However, many of the experiences they describe, including gunpoint interrogations in Afghanistan and random brutality both there and in Guantanamo, have been related in identical terms by other freed detainees.
...
After 10 days the Red Cross arrived, bringing some improvement and an increase in the water supply. But by now all three were malnourished and suffering from amoebic dysentery. Ahmed says: 'We were covered with lice. All day long you were scratching, scratching. I was bleeding from my chest, my head.' Iqbal adds: 'We lost so much weight that if I stood up I could carry water in the gap between my collar bones and my flesh.'
Prisoners died daily: of the 35,000 originally marched through the desert, only 4,500 were still alive, the three men estimate. All this time they could see American troops 50 metres from their prison wing on the other side of the gates. -- March 14, 2004
Originally cited in "American 'Justice'".
• "Privately, the Americans admit that torture, or something very like it, is going on at Bagram air base in Afghanistan, where they are holding an unknown number of suspected terrorists." -- July 26, 2003
Originally cited in "Another Day, Another Insipid Apologia".
• But unlike the Israelis, for whom moderate physical pressure was open public policy, the new tactics -- whatever they may be -- are being kept secret. The government, in fact, denies it is torturing anyone, insisting that all detainees are being held in a manner consistent with the principles of international law. But what, then, to make of anonymous comments from officials involved in the detentions? One is quoted in the story as saying, "If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job"? Another says that "our guys may kick them around a little bit in the adrenaline of the immediate aftermath" of their capture. And while the government denies that its purpose in transferring prisoners to foreign custody is so that other intelligence services can torture them, still another official says, "We don't kick the [expletive] out of them, we send them to other countries so they can kick the [expletive] out of them." -- December 27, 2002
Originally cited in "Orwell A-Go-Go".
• Those who refuse to cooperate inside this secret CIA interrogation center are sometimes kept standing or kneeling for hours, in black hoods or spray-painted goggles, say intelligence specialists familiar with CIA interrogation methods. At times they are held in awkward, painful positions and deprived of sleep with a 24-hour bombardment of lights — subject to what are known as "stress-and-duress" techniques.
Those who cooperate are rewarded with creature comforts and interrogators whose methods include feigned friendship, respect, cultural sensitivity and, in some cases, money. Some who do not cooperate are turned over — "rendered," in official parlance — to foreign intelligence services whose practice of torture has been documented by the U.S. government and human-rights organizations. -- December 26, 2002
Originally cited in "Orwell A-Go-Go".
Guantanamo: • PROFESSOR RUTH WEDGWOOD (Yale Law School): I don't have any information that there is a set of horror stories about to be unloaded. The US can be held to the standard of the commitment made by the President, which is part of human rights law as well, that you have to treat people humanely. If you talk to individuals, you may discover they have gotten better medical care than they ever dreamed of, they've gained weight, they have been allowed to observe their faith.
MARSHALL: But this is not a holiday camp. There are currently 660 prisoners. None has any idea if they will ever be freed. In the 13 months up to August this year, there have been 32 suicide attempts. Since then, there has only been one further attempted suicide recorded. They have, however, introduced a separate category -- manipulative self injurious behaviour -- SIB. It is applied to individuals deemed to have merely feigned suicide attempts. There have been over 40 SIBs since the summer. This new classification troubles Britain's leading forensic psychiatrist.
DR JAMES MACKEITH (Maudsley Royal Hospital): It is impossible to authoritatively assess attempts at self harm in such a way as to justify confidence that a particular self-destructive act is designed to have a manipulative purpose, rather than a self-destructive purpose.
MARSHALL: It is not a valuable clinical definition, as far as you are concerned.
MACKEITH: It is a new one on me. -- December 23, 2003
Originally cited in "What's So 'Civil' About War, Anyway?".
• A prisoner tried to kill himself again in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where U.S. authorities are preparing for military tribunals to try terror suspects, officials said Wednesday.
Tuesday's attempt was the 29th since the detention mission began 1½ years ago, said spokesman Lt.-Col. Barry Johnson. Most attempts occurred this year, a sign that the indefinite detentions are beginning to take their toll on the prisoners, who have not been formally charged or allowed to see lawyers. -- July 16, 2003
Originally cited in "'Disappeared'".
• They actually said that: "You have no rights here." After a while, we stopped asking for human rights -- we wanted animal rights.
In Camp X-Ray, my cage was right next to a kennel housing an Alsatian dog. He had a wooden house with air conditioning and green grass to exercise on. I said to the guards, "I want his rights," and they replied, "That dog is a member of the U.S. army." -- April 1, 2004
Originally cited in "Quote Of The Moment #0049".
Posted by Eddie Tews at 08:16 PM
| Comments (0)
• "I'm not changing my mind. We're doing the right thing. We'll always honor those who sacrifice for our freedom. We will not allow them to die in vain. Iraq will be free, and Iraq will be more secure."
• Barney, the President's Scottish Terrier, plays with his golf ball on Tuesday afternoon on the South Lawn. May 4, 2004
(Note that URL: whitehouse.gov/news/relases/.)
Meanwhile, In Dubyaland
• "I'm not changing my mind. We're doing the right thing. We'll always honor those who sacrifice for our freedom. We will not allow them to die in vain. Iraq will be free, and Iraq will be more secure."
• Barney, the President's Scottish Terrier, plays with his golf ball on Tuesday afternoon on the South Lawn. May 4, 2004
(Note that URL: whitehouse.gov/news/relases/.)
Posted by Eddie Tews at 11:31 AM
| Comments (1)
This blog has previously dealt with the absolute absurdity of the unchallengeable supposition that American troops engaged in overseas wars are "defending our freedoms". By this blogger's estimation, such a claim could not reasonably be made regarding any of this country's overseas wars.
But you know who might be "defending our freedoms", even while our fat asses sit on the sofa and imbibe in the likes of Janet Jackson and American Idol? How about the Iraqi resistance?
The resistance has stopped the Empire cold in its tracks. What was expected to be the easiest of routs has instead turned, with head-spinning rapidity, into the stickiest of quagmires.
One year ago, the only talk on the lips of the chicken-hawk elite was, "Who's next?" Should we go after Syria first, then Iran -- or the other way around? Should we pick off Castro before the election, or after? Another try at toppling the democratically elected government of Venezuela?
Now, of course, the only talk is of how well and truly fucked is the occupation of Iraq.
Had the Iraqis lain down in the face of the overwhelming onslaught of the Empire, allowing the United States to then attempt to tighten and extend its grip upon the Middle East, one can assume the Bush Administration would have been emboldened to try the same on the home front following the simple formality of the November '04 plebiscite. Even more eviscerations of civil liberties, even more tax cuts, even more environmental depredations, even more niggers locked up in prison, even more insipid triumphalism.
The Administration instead finds itself embroiled in a seemingly endless series of scandals, and sees its attempts at socio-cultural engineering blocked at many turns while it fights for its very political life.
This is not to say that it won't be able to tighten its grip over the "homeland". The power of the state is still pretty enormous, and if nothing else, the Bush-ites do still control the voting machines.
But one sure couldn't blame members of the Iraqi resistance for replying to this argument by belting out some good old-fashioned Minor Threat:
At least I'm fucking trying What the fuck have you done?
May 03, 2004
They Could Be Heroes
This blog has previously dealt with the absolute absurdity of the unchallengeable supposition that American troops engaged in overseas wars are "defending our freedoms". By this blogger's estimation, such a claim could not reasonably be made regarding any of this country's overseas wars.
But you know who might be "defending our freedoms", even while our fat asses sit on the sofa and imbibe in the likes of Janet Jackson and American Idol? How about the Iraqi resistance?
The resistance has stopped the Empire cold in its tracks. What was expected to be the easiest of routs has instead turned, with head-spinning rapidity, into the stickiest of quagmires.
One year ago, the only talk on the lips of the chicken-hawk elite was, "Who's next?" Should we go after Syria first, then Iran -- or the other way around? Should we pick off Castro before the election, or after? Another try at toppling the democratically elected government of Venezuela?
Now, of course, the only talk is of how well and truly fucked is the occupation of Iraq.
Had the Iraqis lain down in the face of the overwhelming onslaught of the Empire, allowing the United States to then attempt to tighten and extend its grip upon the Middle East, one can assume the Bush Administration would have been emboldened to try the same on the home front following the simple formality of the November '04 plebiscite. Even more eviscerations of civil liberties, even more tax cuts, even more environmental depredations, even more niggers locked up in prison, even more insipid triumphalism.
The Administration instead finds itself embroiled in a seemingly endless series of scandals, and sees its attempts at socio-cultural engineering blocked at many turns while it fights for its very political life.
This is not to say that it won't be able to tighten its grip over the "homeland". The power of the state is still pretty enormous, and if nothing else, the Bush-ites do still control the voting machines.
But one sure couldn't blame members of the Iraqi resistance for replying to this argument by belting out some good old-fashioned Minor Threat:
At least I'm fucking trying What the fuck have you done?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 12:49 PM
| Comments (3)
"Saddam should not have been a hard act to follow." -- Patrick Cockburn
Quote Of The Moment #0052
"Saddam should not have been a hard act to follow." -- Patrick Cockburn
Posted by Eddie Tews at 12:22 PM
| Comments (0)
But what, exactly, was the point of the Abu Ghraib "interrogation" method?
We needn't spend much time in righteous indignation at the incomprehensible sadism of the "interrogators", their trainers, and policy-makers. It's highly likely that any of us, when thrust into the utterly dehumanising environment of military occupation in a foreign and hostile land would be capable of carrying out similar routines.
Anyway, one need only note the indifferent reaction to the high-tech murder of tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands if we include the low-tech murders of the '90s' sanctions regime) of innocent people, including with radiological munitions, cluster bombs, and chemical weapons to recognise that the "civilised world" is in its entirety culturally implicated in the workings of Abu Ghraib and its imperial outpost cousins.
Which is to say that Empire is an ugly business. Our Imperial history is littered with Abu Ghraibs, Guantanamos, My Lais, Hiroshimas, El Mozotes, Christmas Bombings, al-Shifas, Rolling Thunders, and on and on. So long as we demand unfettered access to the world's resources, so long will the histories repeat themselves.
But what, again, was the point of it all? Ostensibly, the "interrogations" were useful in obtaining intelligence data:
"The [Military Intelligence] staffs to my understanding have been giving Graner compliments...statements like, 'Good job, they're breaking down real fast. They answer every question. They're giving out good information.'"
But how "good" was the information, really? One very brief glance at "coalition" casualty totals can reveal that the Iraqi resistance has not been penetrated -- except maybe by the New York Times.
The "good information" obtained by these grisly methods hasn't prevented attacks on "coalition" forces. It hasn't prevented attacks on civilian institutions (which have led to the virtual withdrawal from Iraq of the UN and humanitarian relief organisations). It hasn't prevented terrorist attacks in neighbourhing countries. It hasn't prevented multiple assassination attempts upon Hamid Karzai and Pervez Musharraf, or led to the capture of Osama bin Laden. It most certainly hasn't endeared us to those we have "liberated".
Most egregiously of all, it hasn't prevented continued attacks upon the Iraqi oil infrastructure.
Moreover, if the methods were effective, we could surely expect Donald H. Rumsfeld to condescendingly inform us that the victims are the worst of the worst -- "regime elements and terrorists" -- who would stop at nothing to murder innocent women and children; and that if we weren't torturing them, there, they'd be busy torturing us, here. (Update, 5/3/04: CNN's Wolf Blitzer pursued this very angle in an interview with Seymour Hersh: "Was it useful, though, this kind of -- if there was torture or abuse, these atrocities, did it get information vital to the overall military objective in Iraq, based on what you found out?")
But instead, the President professes dismay at the practices of a few renegade miscreants.
So, we know the methods aren't producing results. The Administration knows the methods aren't producing results. Yet the methods are still employed.
And we can abstract Abu Ghraib to the "War On Terror" generally: bombing, incarcerating, torturing, and pillaging the holy living fuck out of already down-trodden populations objectively does not reduce the likelihood of more terrorist attacks upon American "interests", nor does it reduce the likelihood of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
So again the question: irrespective of their barbaric nature and hypocritical philosophical underpinnings, why in hell are such obviously ineffective methods used?
Bureaucratic inertia? Wishful thinking? Cognitive dissonance? Arrogant incompetence? Armageddon itch?
Or maybe it's simply time to once again bring out the always trustworthy Chewbacca Defense:
Look at me, I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.
And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.
None of this makes sense.
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
May 02, 2004
Not To Be Too Crass About It
But what, exactly, was the point of the Abu Ghraib "interrogation" method?
We needn't spend much time in righteous indignation at the incomprehensible sadism of the "interrogators", their trainers, and policy-makers. It's highly likely that any of us, when thrust into the utterly dehumanising environment of military occupation in a foreign and hostile land would be capable of carrying out similar routines.
Anyway, one need only note the indifferent reaction to the high-tech murder of tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands if we include the low-tech murders of the '90s' sanctions regime) of innocent people, including with radiological munitions, cluster bombs, and chemical weapons to recognise that the "civilised world" is in its entirety culturally implicated in the workings of Abu Ghraib and its imperial outpost cousins.
Which is to say that Empire is an ugly business. Our Imperial history is littered with Abu Ghraibs, Guantanamos, My Lais, Hiroshimas, El Mozotes, Christmas Bombings, al-Shifas, Rolling Thunders, and on and on. So long as we demand unfettered access to the world's resources, so long will the histories repeat themselves.
But what, again, was the point of it all? Ostensibly, the "interrogations" were useful in obtaining intelligence data:
"The [Military Intelligence] staffs to my understanding have been giving Graner compliments...statements like, 'Good job, they're breaking down real fast. They answer every question. They're giving out good information.'"
But how "good" was the information, really? One very brief glance at "coalition" casualty totals can reveal that the Iraqi resistance has not been penetrated -- except maybe by the New York Times.
The "good information" obtained by these grisly methods hasn't prevented attacks on "coalition" forces. It hasn't prevented attacks on civilian institutions (which have led to the virtual withdrawal from Iraq of the UN and humanitarian relief organisations). It hasn't prevented terrorist attacks in neighbourhing countries. It hasn't prevented multiple assassination attempts upon Hamid Karzai and Pervez Musharraf, or led to the capture of Osama bin Laden. It most certainly hasn't endeared us to those we have "liberated".
Most egregiously of all, it hasn't prevented continued attacks upon the Iraqi oil infrastructure.
Moreover, if the methods were effective, we could surely expect Donald H. Rumsfeld to condescendingly inform us that the victims are the worst of the worst -- "regime elements and terrorists" -- who would stop at nothing to murder innocent women and children; and that if we weren't torturing them, there, they'd be busy torturing us, here. (Update, 5/3/04: CNN's Wolf Blitzer pursued this very angle in an interview with Seymour Hersh: "Was it useful, though, this kind of -- if there was torture or abuse, these atrocities, did it get information vital to the overall military objective in Iraq, based on what you found out?")
But instead, the President professes dismay at the practices of a few renegade miscreants.
So, we know the methods aren't producing results. The Administration knows the methods aren't producing results. Yet the methods are still employed.
And we can abstract Abu Ghraib to the "War On Terror" generally: bombing, incarcerating, torturing, and pillaging the holy living fuck out of already down-trodden populations objectively does not reduce the likelihood of more terrorist attacks upon American "interests", nor does it reduce the likelihood of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
So again the question: irrespective of their barbaric nature and hypocritical philosophical underpinnings, why in hell are such obviously ineffective methods used?
Bureaucratic inertia? Wishful thinking? Cognitive dissonance? Arrogant incompetence? Armageddon itch?
Or maybe it's simply time to once again bring out the always trustworthy Chewbacca Defense:
Look at me, I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.
And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.
None of this makes sense.
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 09:34 PM
| Comments (0)
First we had Sesame Street on the Potomac. Now it's Odd Couple on the Potomac:
• "That's how I've always said it," McDermott said yesterday. "I make my pledge to my country and that's the end of it."
• Republicans pounced on the omission. Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, accused McDermott of "embarrassing the House and disparaging the majority of Americans who share the values expressed in the pledge."
• The House's presiding officer Tuesday, Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, said the words "under God" would appear in the Congressional Record of Tuesday's proceedings, regardless of how McDermott had recited the pledge.
• Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, summoned the Seattle Democrat to her office Wednesday to personally scold him for improvising when he led the pledge in the House chamber. ... "You will not hear the pledge made on the floor without the words 'under God'," Pelosi said.
Is there anybody in that fucking city that can act more than ten years old?
Don't Make Me Get Out The Belt
First we had Sesame Street on the Potomac. Now it's Odd Couple on the Potomac:
• "That's how I've always said it," McDermott said yesterday. "I make my pledge to my country and that's the end of it."
• Republicans pounced on the omission. Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, accused McDermott of "embarrassing the House and disparaging the majority of Americans who share the values expressed in the pledge."
• The House's presiding officer Tuesday, Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, said the words "under God" would appear in the Congressional Record of Tuesday's proceedings, regardless of how McDermott had recited the pledge.
• Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, summoned the Seattle Democrat to her office Wednesday to personally scold him for improvising when he led the pledge in the House chamber. ... "You will not hear the pledge made on the floor without the words 'under God'," Pelosi said.
Is there anybody in that fucking city that can act more than ten years old?