Locomotive Mule

Q Before the war, there were estimates coming from the administration that it would cost about $50 billion. Today, if you add everything up, including the amount that we’re going to likely see soon, it will be about $300 billion. What is the White House perspective on why the cost is so much higher than originally anticipated?

MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, you’re talking about a briefing that will be held later today, so I’m not going to get into specific numbers. But we’ve made it very clear from the beginning that we’re going to do everything we can to support our troops as they work to win the war on terrorism. Our troops are on the front lines of the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we are going to do everything we can to make sure that they have the resources they need to complete their mission. And we’ve been very clear that those assessments will be based on the circumstances on the ground.

Q My question is why – even if you take the – whatever it is you’re going to give – don’t even talk about a specific number because no one talks about that – but, just in general, why was it that the idea and the planning seems to be so different than what it actually is now? What do you ascribe that to?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President has talked about that before, Dana. He talked about it on your network just last week in an interview with one of your correspondents. And he’s talked about what we expected would happen and some of the changing circumstances on the ground. War – in a time of war, you have to be prepared for the unexpected and you have to be flexible enough to adapt to circumstances on the ground. And it’s important that you give the commanders on the ground the flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances. And that’s what we will always do. That’s how you are able to succeed and complete the mission.

Q So you didn’t anticipate the insurgency? That’s just the bottom line?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President talked about how, when we went into Iraq, that we didn’t expect that the Iraqi army, under Saddam Hussein, would flee the battlefield like they did and come back to fight another day – they did in large numbers.

Q If you’re talking about a briefing –

MR. McCLELLAN: Hold on, let me go to Terry.

Flee the battlefield? I’m sure they did but Scott fails to mention that we FIRED the entire military and the government apparatus putting 1/2 a million people out of work. As usual when any question gets remotely close to pointing out a mistake or a blatant fuckup, the topic is changed - quickly.

You’d think that a 250 billion dollar discrpency would be worth some discussion, some explanation. Something. All we get is, “well, ya know, things didn’t go exactly to plan….” Yeah, yeah, yah - things seldom go to plan. If I screwed up a budgetary projection this badly (percentage wise) I’d be out in the street. Instead these bastards are rewarded with another term, a bigger job…..

Q Let me try it this way: The changing circumstances you’ve just described have meant the men and women of the American military have had to sacrifice a lot, as has just been pointed out –

MR. McCLELLAN: They have, and their families have, as well.

Q Absolutely. We’re now looking at $300 billion and counting for the cost of this war and operations in Afghanistan. What sacrifice is the President asking the rest of us to make, especially those at the upper-income levels, perhaps, to make, to help shoulder the burden of paying for this war?

MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, the families of those who are on the front line in the war on terrorism are making tremendous sacrifices –

Q Amen.

MR. McCLELLAN: – and we talk about that on a regular basis, and our thoughts and prayers always remain with the families of those who are in harm’s way.

This is about fighting and winning the war on terrorism. We do that by taking the fight to the enemy and staying on the offensive. We also do it by what the President talked about last week in his inaugural address. Advancing freedom is essential to our long-term security. And the broader Middle East has been a dangerous region in the world for too long. We are committed to doing all we can to support efforts in the region to move forward on – to move forward toward a free and peaceful future. That’s why what we’re working to achieve in Iraq is so critical. The stakes are high there. The terrorists recognize how high the stakes are. When you have someone like Zarqawi come out in an audio tape and say that this is an all-out war on democracy, that states how high the stakes are in Iraq.

This is a struggle of ideologies. And there are two very different ideologies, the ideology of hatred and fear and oppression, and the ideology of hope and freedom and opportunity. That’s what we’re working to achieve. And when we have a free and peaceful Iraq, that will be a significant blow to the ambitions of people like Zarqawi.

It’s very curious that the ideology of fear and hatred is not attributed to those in this country that choose to oppress those that have differing points of view. Hope freedom and opportunity? There are millions of Americans who live everyday under oppression and despair.

Q The cost of that struggle, though, it seems the President is willing just to throw onto the debt of the United States, just to increase the debt of the United States, and increase – make permanent tax cuts for the very wealthiest among us –

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let’s separate this out, because these are two different matters.

These are not different matters. $300 billion (off budget) for a war is very relevant to all Americans, wealthy or not. And the fact that the lowest economic classes are bearing the “sacrifices” is unacceptable.
No I don’t want to pay more taxes, nobody does. But those who stand to benefit financially from this should also be the ones to pay for it.

Q Well, money is money.

MR. McCLELLAN: The President – first of all, this is about the safety and security of the American people. And we will do what it takes to win the struggle of ideologies that we are in. This is a struggle of historic proportions. And the terrorists recognize how high the stakes are. You see that every day with what is going on in Iraq. You see that through messages from a terrorist like Zarqawi, who is doing everything he can to try to disrupt the transition to democracy, because he knows that it will be a major defeat for the – his ambitions and the ambitions of those who want tyranny and oppression and fear and chaos.

I thought this was a war over WMDs? When did it turn into an idealogical war?

And in terms of – you’re talking – you brought up the issue of tax cuts. The tax cuts were key to get our economy growing and creating jobs here at home. And that is one of the President’s top priorities here at home. And look at the results. We’ve seen 2.6 million some jobs created over the last year or so here in America because of the policies that we’re pursuing.

And in terms of the deficit, the President has a deficit reduction plan. It’s based on strong economic growth and spending restraint. By taking steps that we have to get our economy growing stronger and creating jobs, we’re also seeing increased revenues coming in. And by working with Congress to exercise responsible spending restraint, we’ve got a plan to cut the deficit in half over the next five years. And we are –

Q That includes the cost of the war and of the Social Security package –

MR. McCLELLAN: – we are on track to meet that goal.

And we’re to believe this?

Q Scott, is Tony Blair right when he says the U.S. has to get on board with the agenda of countries who see climate control as a major priority?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I’m not sure that that’s an accurate way to describe what he’s saying. First of all –

Q How do you interpret it?

MR. McCLELLAN: I mean, climate change is an issue we take very seriously. And in terms of discussing it at the G8, we welcome a discussion of climate change at the G8. For the past two years, the G8 has acted on concrete proposals to address the long-term challenge we face when it comes to climate change. And the President – the President looks forward to working with Prime Minister Blair and other G8 nations to continue to advance the science so that we have a better understanding of climate change, as well as to develop new, cleaner technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

And so we have a number of multilateral and bilateral agreements that we are pursuing on climate change to advance the research and better understand the challenges that it poses. We are also working with a number of those countries to advance technologies, cleaner technologies. Carbon sequestration is something that we have been leading the way on. So –

Q Don’t you think Prime Minister Blair was telling the U.S. that it should change its approach –

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think that there are many areas where we agree on how to move forward on climate change. In terms of the Kyoto Protocol, I mean, our position is very well-known, and it was also a position that was taken in a unanimous vote by the United States Senate, I might point out.

But we are doing a lot to advance the science of climate change, working with the international community and to develop new technologies that will help address the long-term challenge of climate change.

Here’s what Mr. Blair said: “If America wants the rest of the world to be part of the agenda it has set, it must be part of their agenda, too.”

Q Senator Kennedy said that the U.S. should pull back from Iraq and let the U.N. take more of a lead role. What’s your response?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think his views are well-known, Holly. The President’s views are well known, as well.

Q But what about specifically the idea of the U.N. taking a larger role?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President talked with Secretary General Annan last night and the two leaders discussed the importance of the United Nations continuing to play a role in Iraq after the elections. I think our views have been well-known when it comes to the United Nations – and they discussed that last night in their phone call.

Q Just to follow up on that, does the President envision, post-election, a larger role for the U.N. in Iraq than it currently has?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we want – I think that the international community recognizes the importance of doing everything they can to help the Iraqi people move forward as they continue on the path to democracy and a stable and secure future. And I think you see comments coming out of European Union officials talking about how they want to be more involved in helping the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people are going to continue assuming more and more responsibility for their future. They have a sovereign government in place right now. They’re choosing their new government. The Iraqi security forces are continuing to be trained to take more responsibility for providing for their security, and that’s part of our strategy to complete the mission. But, yes, we believe the United Nations has an important role to continue playing in Iraq’s future.

SSDD. Ol’ Scotty just can’t answer the question. I’m very surprised though that he didn’t refer them to the Pentagon or somewhere else.

A Degrading Policy

Washington Post Wednesday, January 26, 2005; Page A20
ALBERTO R. GONZALES was vague, unresponsive and misleading in his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the Bush administration’s detention of foreign prisoners. In his written answers to questions from the committee, prepared in anticipation of today’s vote on his nomination as attorney general, Mr. Gonzales was clearer – disturbingly so, as it turns out. According to President Bush’s closest legal adviser, this administration continues to assert its right to indefinitely hold foreigners in secret locations without any legal process; to deny them access to the International Red Cross; to transport them to countries where torture is practiced; and to subject them to treatment that is “cruel, inhumane or degrading,” even though such abuse is banned by an international treaty that the United States has ratified. In effect, Mr. Gonzales has confirmed that the Bush administration is violating human rights as a matter of policy.

Mr. Gonzales stated at his hearing that he and Mr. Bush oppose “torture and abuse.” But his written testimony to the committee makes clear that “abuse” is, in fact, permissible – provided that it is practiced by the Central Intelligence Agency on foreigners held outside the United States. The Convention Against Torture, which the United States ratified in 1994, prohibits not only torture but “cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment.” The Senate defined such treatment as abuse that would violate the Fifth, Eighth or 14th amendments to the Constitution – a standard that the Bush administration formally accepted in 2003.

But Mr. Gonzales revealed that during his tenure as White House counsel, the administration twisted this straightforward standard to make it possible for the CIA to subject detainees to such practices as sensory deprivation, mock execution and simulated drowning. The constitutional amendments, he told the committee, technically do not apply to foreigners held abroad; therefore, in the administration’s view the torture treaty does not bind intelligence interrogators operating on foreign soil. “The Department of Justice has concluded,” he wrote, that “there is no legal prohibition under the Convention Against Torture on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment with respect to aliens overseas.”

According to most legal experts, this is a gross distortion of the law. The Senate cited the constitutional amendments in ratifying the treaty precisely to set a clear standard that could be applied to foreigners. Nevertheless, Mr. Gonzales uses this false loophole to justify practices that contravene fundamental American standards. He was asked if there were any legal prohibition against U.S. personnel using simulated drowning and mock executions as well as sleep deprivation, dogs to inspire fear, hooding, forced nudity, the forced injection of mood-altering drugs and the threat of sending a detainee to another country for torture, among other abuses. He answered: “Some might . . . be permissible in certain circumstances.”

This is not a theoretical matter. The CIA today is holding an undetermined number of prisoners, believed to be in the dozens, in secret facilities in foreign countries. It has provided no account of them or their treatment to any outside body, and it has allowed no visits by the Red Cross. According to numerous media reports, it has subjected the prisoners to many of the abuses Mr. Gonzales said “might be permissible.” It has practiced such mistreatment in Iraq, even though detainees there are covered by the Geneva Conventions; according to official investigations by the Pentagon, CIA treatment of prisoners there and in Afghanistan contributed to the adoption of illegal methods by military interrogators.

In an attempt to close the loophole, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) sought to attach an amendment to the intelligence reform legislation last fall specifying that “no prisoner shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.” The Senate adopted the provision unanimously. Later, however, it was stripped from the bill at the request of the White House. In his written testimony, Mr. Gonzales affirmed that the provision would have “provided legal protections to foreign prisoners to which they are not now entitled.” Senators who supported the amendment consequently face a critical question: If they vote to confirm Mr. Gonzales as the government’s chief legal authority, will they not be endorsing the systematic use of “cruel, inhumane and degrading” practices by the United States?

The administration is right. It’s just a few “bad apples” that are responsible for the humiliating way in which the U.S. has been treating prisoners and “detainees”. It’s just a few, like the President, his cabinet and his close circle of ‘advisors’. The rest of the ‘em are just following orders or at least principles which have been laid out by these bad apples.

The mere fact that this man is nominated for such a powerful post is repulsive. The fact that he’ll be accepted and actually take office is “unprecedented”.

Are we going to stand by and allow this group of idealogues to continue to shred our civil liberties? Are we going to allow them to lead us into another world war? The rest of the world is not going to stand for it for much longer.

And can Ms. Rice bring some of those allies back into the fold? Will Toni continue to distance himself from George?

Stay tuned. It’s getting more “interesting” by the day…..

U.S. Justifying Abuse of Detainees

NEW YORK, NY – January 26 – The Bush administration contends that no law prevents the Central Intelligence Agency from engaging in inhumane treatment of detainees abroad, Human Rights Watch said today.

In responses to U.S. Senate inquiries, White House Counsel and Attorney General-nominee Alberto Gonzales claimed that the prohibition on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment-enshrined in a treaty the United States ratified in 1994-does not apply to U.S. personnel in the treatment of non-citizens abroad. While asserting that torture by all U.S. personnel was unlawful, Gonzales indicated that no law would prohibit the CIA from engaging in cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment when it interrogates non-Americans outside the United States. The interpretation would permit the CIA to commit in secret detention facilities abroad many of the shocking forms of abuse that took place at Abu Ghraib.

When the U.S. Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification of the Convention Against Torture in 1994, it included a reservation under which the United States defined the prohibited “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” to mean the ill-treatment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. reservation was intended to clarify the kinds of conduct that would be prohibited. Yet Gonzales contends that the reservation also limits the geographic reach of the treaty. He asserts that because the Constitution does not apply to non-U.S. citizens outside the United States, neither does the Convention Against Torture’s prohibition on ill- treatment. This interpretation would mean that U.S. officials interrogating or detaining non-U.S. citizens abroad would be free to engage in cruel and inhuman treatment short of torture without violating the CAT.

Only an evil mind can make these kinds of arguments and sleep at night.

Kucinich: Iraq Elections Will Be A Farce; Closest International Election Monitors Will Get Will Be Amman, Jordan

In the letter, sent today, Kucinich states,

“It is clear, in just five days before the Iraqi elections are to be held, that it will be impossible to conclude anything about the extent to which corruption, voter intimidation or outright fraud will mar the results. The exercise will regrettably be a farce. The results will have no recognized legitimacy whatsoever, and surely do not merit association with the United States’ notions of democracy.

“The elections will not yield certifiable results due to the pitifully small number of election observers, and the total absence of international election observers from the process. Indeed, according to the Washington Post, this is the first transitional election in the past two decades that will not have international election observers touring polling stations. As you know, international monitors have independently observed and evaluated elections throughout the world and have helped to point out when they are fraudulent and when they are legitimate.”

In previous transitional elections across the world, the international community has sent teams of observers to polling sites. International observers have observed recent transitional elections in Nigeria in 1999, Haiti in 1990, East Timor in 2001-2002, and most recently in the second runoff election in the Ukraine.

No international body will have election monitors in Iraq on Sunday. The International Mission for Iraqi Elections, led by Canada’s chief electoral officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, and comprised of less than two dozen election experts from Australia, Bangladesh, Britain, Canada, Ghana, Hungary, Indonesia, Mexico, Panama and Yemen, will monitor the elections, not in Iraq, but instead operate from Amman, Jordan.

“I hope the Administration does not engage in wishful thinking that this farce of an election can beget anything other than farce. What a disservice we do to Iraqis who risk danger to cast their votes or run for office in this irredeemable formality. And what distortion of real democracy is being done in America’s name: It will surely discredit the United States in the eyes of the world,” Kucinich concludes in his letter.

Convoy under a moonless night

DAY 291

Lying on the shoulder of a rutted dirt road winding through an Iraqi village in the dead of the night, aiming an assault rifle at the windshield of an approaching farmer’s truck, smelling the muck from the Tigris River under the stars on the opposite side of the planet from my home, it’s hard not to wonder, between thoughts calculating the various angles and potential trajectories of bullets, just how the hell I ended up here.

I was trained as an engineer, but tonight I’m the point man - when the convoy pulls to a stop, I’m the guy who jumps down from the truck and secures the 100 meters of road ahead of the convoy, with help from two other soldiers. I use a tiny blue-lens keychain flashlight to search the sides of the road for land mines, improvised bombs, artillery shells, stray unexploded mortars or hidden attackers. I hold the light out to one side of my body - the night is inky black, no moon, and the blue light is tempting bait for snipers. I don’t see anything, so I descend the embankment on one side of the road and conceal myself as best I can in a thorny patch of shrubs. The earth is cool in the desert night, and the wet smell of livestock, manure, warm river water and dog lingers in the air. I change the rear sight aperture on my M-16 to the large setting for shooting in the darkness and switch on my night-vision goggles. Everything goes green. The muzzle of my rifle protrudes from the bushes, trained on the bend in the road just ahead of us.

On the opposite side of the road, another soldier is doing the same. He’s lying in the grass on his stomach behind a low sand dune. A sergeant from the equipment platoon crouches on one knee in the middle of the road. We wait in silence.

It’s three in the morning. The only sounds are barking dogs in the distance and the faint howling of desert wolves in reply. Two types are on the road tonight - early rising farmers and Iraqi insurgents. Perhaps three miles away we can see reflected against the night sky the lights from an oncoming vehicle. I switch off my night vision to avoid being blinded. When the vehicle rounds the bend, the sergeant rises to his feet with his weapon pointed not directly at the oncoming vehicle, but close enough to show he means business. With his free hand he flashes a light at the car.

There is a large convoy of U.S. Army vehicles stopped in the road, a platoon of soldiers and several vehicle-mounted weapons, but all the Iraqi driver sees is one blinking flashlight. And he doesn’t see me. I’m on the right side of the road, and when the driver of the little jalopy slows to a stop, his face is in my crosshairs.

He sees the sergeant with the light, who signals for him to cut his headlights and stay where he is parked. I’m waiting for a certain movement - an arm reaching behind the seat, movement of the tarp over the truck bed, a sudden revving of the engine - to fire. The soldier who stops the vehicle is courteous - it’s impolite to point a loaded weapon at a civilian who has committed no crime - but my finger is resting lightly on the trigger, and I’m waiting very patiently, blinking dust out of my eyes.

Finally the convoy mounts up. I stand, emerging from the bushes beside the farmer’s truck. He turns and glares at me. I notice for the first time that he has a small child resting her head on his lap. The other two soldiers take three steps backwards, then turn and climb into the lead vehicle, leaving me alone standing beside the truck.

It must be obvious to the farmer what my role in this little encounter is (Howdy, my name is Seth; I’m just a college student from Austin, I don’t really even like guns, I can’t even bring myself to shoot a deer, but tonight I absolutely guarantee that I will kill you in front of your daughter if you make one false move), but his face betrays no emotion. Doubtless this is routine for him. After all, it’s been 18 months of war for these people.

A pair of headlights flicks on behind me and the first Humvee starts rolling. Then, one-by-one, more headlights switch on, illuminating the road, and the rest of the convoy moves out. The third vehicle slows almost to a stop beside me, and I grasp the door frame and swing myself up into the seat. I slam the door, heavy with homemade steel plates bolted on for protection against machine-gun fire and roadside bombs. I aim my rifle out the window and begin scanning the Iraqi countryside as we bump and rattle down the dirt road alongside the river.

This goes on for hours. The roads are bad and our speed is limited to 30 mph. At intervals the road is stained black and sulfurous yellow from explosions. Hulks of bullet-torn, burnt-out vehicles - Iraqi and American - litter the fields on either side. Over a dozen times the convoy stops, and over a dozen times I dismount and sweep the road ahead of the convoy. The other two soldiers and I find ourselves in many tight spots - literally.

At one point the road is bordered on both sides by high earthen walls scrawled with graffiti, with no cover or concealment available to us at all. I quickly move up another 50 meters to a gap in the wall. There are spent shells littering the road, and they make a metallic tinkling when I accidently scatter them with my boot. I swing my rifle around the corner, sweep the courtyard and take a position behind the doorway where I can cover the road. But now I’m alone with my back exposed to at least five darkened windows that I can’t see into, even with night vision. I move back into the road and get down on one knee, totally exposed.

Waiting in the darkness, I know I should be concentrating on staying alive and protecting the convoy, but for the 10-thousandth time my mind drifts to thoughts of going home. I have three months left on a 12-month tour in Iraq, and Austin is the only thing I think about these days. I don’t think about my old friends anymore - the life I left behind is gone now - but I dream about my parents’ house in the Hill Country, and winter, and how a thin gloss of ice will be on the cedar trees in the woods in the morning, and the little creeks will be frozen …

My thoughts are interrupted by the lights from a pair of approaching vehicles. My shoulder is pressed against the brick wall as the light from the first vehicle’s headlights hits me. The faintest click is heard from the safety switching off on my rifle, and I pray that if we are to be attacked tonight it just not be here, not in this place.

On another occasion my boot slips, and I slide into a culvert, sinking to my knees in reeking stagnant water and farm runoff. I curse myself for making so much noise. By 4 a.m. lights are beginning to illuminate big windows covered by sheets in some of the mud and stucco homes. Behind the drapes I can discern the forms of men in their robes rising to go out to the fields. By this time, little spots of blood are beginning to blot through the knees of my trousers, and I’m wishing I’d bought a pair of kneepads back home. But again, I never dreamed I’d be doing this job.

It’s nearly dawn now, and we’re in the center of the village, where two roads cross beneath the darkened dome of the local mosque, faintly visible against the night sky, a faded teal crown rising above the palms, topped by a large wrought-iron silver crescent, a dull gleaming surrogate for the absent moon. This is the last stop before we head back to camp. The sergeant whispers that it’s Friday, the Muslim Sabbath. I already realize this, and I’m watching my wristwatch, waiting for 5:30 a.m., when the calls to prayer will be sung from the mosque loudspeakers - low, monotone, eerie in the early morning darkness.

5:30 a.m. comes and goes. No sounds at all. This makes me nervous and apprehensive. Ritual prayers are sung from the mosques five times a day, and Iraqis also use the loudspeakers as a kind of public address system, delivering news and messages to the community. The lack of prayers this morning could be due to an impending ambush. American citizens are told by politicians and FOX News that attacks against us are carried out by “foreign fighters,” but it’s a myth, based on a few cases among thousands.

Iraqis always know when an attack is about to occur because they are warned by their fellow villagers planning the attack to stay out of the way. Signs that bullets are about to start flying include a sudden absence of traffic, no lights on in a city, no children in the streets, no animals roaming around or a general sense of unexpected calm. No call to prayer at 5:30 a.m. on a Friday seems to fit the profile. I’m bracing myself, breathing evenly, slowly scanning each window, each wall, each rooftop for the slightest movement. Nothing. Finally, we leave.

Moving fast now - blood-red and orange streaks are visible low on the eastern horizon - we head back to camp and relative safety. We’ve been on the road for six hours. No one says anything, but an uneventful convoy is always an enormous relief. We pull up to the razor wire and concrete blast walls of the front gates, unload our weapons and unstrap our heavy gear. After I drop my Kevlar and ceramic-plate body armor vest and ammunition, I’m about 60 pounds lighter. Before we started yesterday evening, my weapon was surgically clean. Now, as I release the magazine and eject an unused round from the chamber, it’s caked with dirt, a thin layer of the powdery gray dust unique to central Iraq - moondust, we call it. Our convoy commander, a lieutenant, checks us in with the shotgun-wielding gate personnel, and we roll in.

Freed from the burden of wondering if I’ll live through the day - if only temporarily - I inevitably begin to mull deeper questions. The sun is up now, and I can smell smoke from the village fires drifting over the base. Our Humvee is rolling slowly down the main avenue of camp, and I’m dead tired, sprawled out in the back seat. I close my eyes, and I see the faces of all the frightened but defiant drivers I’d watched through the sights of my rifle. I imagine what we must look like to them - armored, gun-toting, begoggled, androidish storm troopers, I’m sure. I remember how the first farmer we’d stopped had his daughter’s sleeping head in his lap, and I remember how he’d rested his large calloused brown hand on her forehead, shielding her eyes so that if she awakened she would not see a creature such as myself rising from the bushes in the night.

I don’t think Iraqis know what this war is about any more than we do. Ernest Hemingway once wrote, “The world is a fine place, and worth fighting for.” True. But I don’t even know for certain who I am fighting against, or why, much less for what, or whom, I am fighting for. To me, this is all cold, professional, mercenary. Soldiers like me go to Iraq because we have no choice. It’s our job. Once we’re here we kill Iraqis to avoid being killed ourselves. There is no righteous anger compelling me to risk my life and kill others, as there would be in a just war. There is not that sense of reluctant duty that allows a soldier to overcome hardship, loneliness and fear like none ever felt before. There is only a moral emptiness that shrouds this graveyard of a desert like a moonless night.

Harp is an economics junior currently serving in the Army Reserves.

Rush tells us that Boxer and Kennedy are showing their true colors in attacking a black woman nominated for high office. He states that they’re showing just how illusory and false the “left” is because they won’t support a black woman.

Never mind that she’s a liar. Never mind that she’s steadfastly refused to answer questions put to her by Senators. Never mind that she’s unwilling to admit that mistakes were made. Never mind that she’s a political hack in an apolitical position. Never mind that she’s flaunted the Constitution in public.

The hubris of the right is unprecedented.

Bush says Social Security shortchanges black seniors

WASHINGTON - Race became a significant factor in the debate over Social Security on Tuesday when President Bush told black leaders that the government retirement program shortchanged blacks, whose relatively shorter life span meant they paid more in payroll taxes than they eventually received in benefits.

Bush’s comments came during a private White House meeting with 22 black religious and business leaders who backed his re-election last year - marking a new line of argument in the president’s attempts to win support for adding worker-owned investment accounts to Social Security.

The conversation demonstrated the White House’s determination to build on outreach efforts to blacks that proved effective in battleground states last year, adding Social Security to a list of moral issues - such as opposition to same-sex marriage and support for faith-based social programs - that Republicans see as providing common ground with black conservatives.

cagey, crafty, cunning, deceitful, delusive, delusory, devious, dishonest, foxy, guileful, insidious, misleading, scheming, shady, shifty, slick, slippery, sly, subtle, treacherous, wily

Just a few of the words that come to mind…

Blair: U.S. Needs to Integrate With World

By ROBERT WIELAARD
Associated Press Writer

January 26, 2005, 1:42 PM EST

DAVOS, Switzerland – British Prime Minister Tony Blair called on the United States Wednesday to take the world’s needs into account when it seeks global support for its actions, and cited climate change as an issue all nations must address together.

“If America wants the rest of the world to be part of the agenda it has set, it must be part of their agenda, too,” Blair told the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos.

Blair pledged to help developing countries reduce pollution and build more environmentally friendly economies.

Blair called for a common agenda worldwide, at the top of which would be cooperation in the fight against terrorism. He also urged that the world’s countries protect human rights and freedom and “when we can, seek to increase the number of people able to live in democracy.”

He dismissed claims that the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq was trying to foist Western-style government on the country in this weekend’s Iraqi elections.

“The notion of democracy being a ‘Western idea’ is a nonsense and mythology as most recently the people of Afghanistan have powerfully demonstrated,” he said.

Could it be that Mr. Blair is beginning to distance himself from ol’ George? Was Bush’s coronation speech too much for him?

Last night I was listening to Tony Snow on the local talk radio station. He was trying to explain to us why our being in Iraq “is a good thing”. One of his points was the fact that “thousands of American businessmen are in the streets of Iraq” because “there’s money to be made there”.

Sure, there’s money to be made. There’s always money to be made in a war. There’s always money to be made anywhere that the entire infrastructure has been eradicated. But why is the fact that “thousands of American businessmen” are present a “good thing”? And who is it good for?

Why aren’t there “thousands of Iraqi businessmen” coursing the streets, establishing Iraqi businesses that may buy/sell American goods? Having American businesses there in lieu of Iraqi businesses cannot, ultimately, be a good thing. Iraqis need to be doing the business of Iraq, not Americans.

If we are seen as running their economy as well as their politics, the resentment will simply become deeper. Furthermore if we allow only those nations which helped us militarily in Iraq to do business in Iraq, the obvious hypocrisy can only weaken our standing the world over.

Greed may be a good thing, but greedy Americans are not always a good thing for America.

Vice President Cheney, Mr. Chief Justice, President Carter, President Bush, President Clinton, reverend clergy, distinguished guests, fellow citizens:
/outlaw
On this day, prescribed by law and marked by ceremony, we celebrate the durable wisdom of our Constitution, and recall the deep commitments that unite our country. I am grateful for the honor of this hour, mindful of the consequential times in which we live, and determined to fulfill the oath that I have sworn and you have witnessed.

At this second gathering, our duties are defined not by the words I use, but by the history we have seen together. For a half century, America defended our own freedom by standing watch on distant borders. After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical - and then there came a day of fire.

We have seen our vulnerability - and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny - prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder - violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat. There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.

It’s hard to argue with this. In essence he’s right and coming from someone like Mahatma Ghandi, I could certainly get behind the idea. But coming from this guy, I find it unnerving. As long as we (America) are feeding the hatred and resentment by our own policies and support for corporatism we have no place, no right to judge the morality or ideologies of others.
The concept that’s most worrisome here is the idea that someone must decide who among us is “decent and tolerant”. I shudder to think that fundamentalist Christians will appoint themselves that role.

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation’s security, and the calling of our time.

Hmmm, calling upon the fathers to justify the sons….

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.

Just how in the hell does he think we’re to do this? Looking at Iraq, I see that we had two options for helping “others to find their voice”. 1) Overthrow the government militarily (as we have done) or 2) covertly subvert the government and install a puppet system (as we have done). Which of these is allowing the people to “find their own voice?”. The only voice I hear from either of these techniques is rather loud and violent.

I suppose we could just fly over nations we don’t agree with and drop enough weapons and supplies to arm the entire populace three times over and then let them make their decisions.

The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America’s influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America’s influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom’s cause.

True, true. The difficulty of the task is not an excuse for avoiding it. But let’s keep in mind that the morality of the task is a reason for avoidance. In a representative democracy, no morally ambiguous task should be undertaken lightly and especially without a significant majority of the citizenry in agreement.

My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats. Some have unwisely chosen to test America’s resolve, and have found it firm.

I find this telling - just several minutes before saying this, he spoke an oath in which he swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. That and that alone is his “most solemn duty”. A duty at which he has to date failed miserably.
Along with Misters Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and Gonzales, this administration has done more to subvert and diminish the Constitution than any other.
No Mr. Bush. Protecting my ass from the “heathen hordes” is not your “most solemn duty”. It’s definitely top ten, but not number one.
Protecting my personal liberties is your most solemn duty.

We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.

We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America’s belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.

Once again it’s hard to argue with this, at least conceptually. But again, who is to decide what’s moral? How can Christians say that “the word of God” is the barometer by which we decide what’s moral when they ignore the first half of the book? Do we blend the Christian ethos with the Jewish and then declare we have a fair, balanced and morally just yardstick?

Unfortunately I fear that we’ll end up at some point where Canadians are considered oppressed because they are “forced” to contribute to socialized medicine.

Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty - though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt. Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.

Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.

Take careful note: “Democratic reformers”. Not theological reformers or socialistic reformers, no, only those with which “we” agree.

The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it.”

Because we may believe this does not give us the right to hasten the fall of these “outlaw regimes”.
And while we’re here, who decides what constitutes an outlaw regime? The chief executive? The Security Council? Congress? I’d think that by definition an “outlaw regime” would be one which flaunts international law and organizations. And from that standpoint, only international law and organizations would have the authority to take action against an “outlaw regime”.

The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side.

Gag me! This from a regime which will not allow dissenters to be seen or heard at his coronation. This from the man who’s sworn to uphold our most basic liberties and on a daily basis has shown himself dedicated to erradicating them.

And all the allies of the United States can know: we honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel, and we depend on your help. Division among free nations is a primary goal of freedom’s enemies. The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies’ defeat.

“You’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror.” – George W. Bush, November 6, 2001

Sounds pretty devisive to me. We “rely on your counsel”? Really?

Today, I also speak anew to my fellow citizens:

From all of you, I have asked patience in the hard task of securing America, which you have granted in good measure. Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill, and would be dishonorable to abandon. Yet because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well - a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.

What great liberating tradition? World Wars I & II? That was personal survival. We have no great traditions in this area. Only chickenshit escapades, dalliances if you will.

A few Americans have accepted the hardest duties in this cause - in the quiet work of intelligence and diplomacy … the idealistic work of helping raise up free governments … the dangerous and necessary work of fighting our enemies. Some have shown their devotion to our country in deaths that honored their whole lives - and we will always honor their names and their sacrifice.

All Americans have witnessed this idealism, and some for the first time. I ask our youngest citizens to believe the evidence of your eyes. You have seen duty and allegiance in the determined faces of our soldiers. You have seen that life is fragile, and evil is real, and courage triumphs. Make the choice to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself - and in your days you will add not just to the wealth of our country, but to its character.

Translation: Please, oh please join up. If I have to start the draft, I’ll have to start shooting Americans and that means my brother will have a hard time gettin’ elected.

America has need of idealism and courage, because we have essential work at home - the unfinished work of American freedom. In a world moving toward liberty, we are determined to show the meaning and promise of liberty.

In America’s ideal of freedom, citizens find the dignity and security of economic independence, instead of laboring on the edge of subsistence. This is the broader definition of liberty that motivated the Homestead Act, the Social Security Act, and the G.I. Bill of Rights. And now we will extend this vision by reforming great institutions to serve the needs of our time. To give every American a stake in the promise and future of our country, we will bring the highest standards to our schools, and build an ownership society. We will widen the ownership of homes and businesses, retirement savings and health insurance - preparing our people for the challenges of life in a free society. By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear, and make our society more prosperous and just and equal.

Okay then.
Agent of my own destiny? Ownership of my health insurance and retirement?
Translation: I’m gonna make it easier for corporations to rip off the little guy.
Further translation: We believe that the liberty enjoyed by all in the eighteenth century is the way is should be. The freedom of the monied class to oppress and exploit (econmically) the lower classes. Yes, you too will be able to run every aspect of your life anyway you see fit. You just won’t be able to do anything but slave away or starve.

George, read Sinclair’s “The Jungle” and tell me that we’re not better off with the twentieth century’s swing toward limited socialism.

In America’s ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character - on integrity, and tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self. That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people. Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before - ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever.

“Tolerance toward others” - Show us how this is done.

I really like the passing reference to the Koran. What about the Torah? What about all the others? This is a transparent reference to “Christian values” while blatantly covering his ass. Tolerance? I’ll not soon be believing that from these people.

In America’s ideal of freedom, the exercise of rights is ennobled by service, and mercy, and a heart for the weak. Liberty for all does not mean independence from one another. Our nation relies on men and women who look after a neighbor and surround the lost with love. Americans, at our best, value the life we see in one another, and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth. And our country must abandon all the habits of racism, because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time.

The unwanted? Could he be refering to orphans? Those lost and unwanted in our society that the bureaucracy make so difficault to embrace and help? I’m thinking not. I choose to believe he’s talking about fetuses only.

How in the hell can he say this before “God and everybody” when he’s on record as being anti-this and anti-that? It’s very telling that he qualified his words about bigotry to racism. I can only venture that other kinds of bigotry are acceptable.

From the perspective of a single day, including this day of dedication, the issues and questions before our country are many. From the viewpoint of centuries, the questions that come to us are narrowed and few. Did our generation advance the cause of freedom? And did our character bring credit to that cause?

These questions that judge us also unite us, because Americans of every party and background, Americans by choice and by birth, are bound to one another in the cause of freedom. We have known divisions, which must be healed to move forward in great purposes - and I will strive in good faith to heal them. Yet those divisions do not define America. We felt the unity and fellowship of our nation when freedom came under attack, and our response came like a single hand over a single heart. And we can feel that same unity and pride whenever America acts for good, and the victims of disaster are given hope, and the unjust encounter justice, and the captives are set free.

We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom. Not because history runs on the wheels of inevitability; it is human choices that move events. Not because we consider ourselves a chosen nation; God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul. When our Founders declared a new order of the ages; when soldiers died in wave upon wave for a union based on liberty; when citizens marched in peaceful outrage under the banner “Freedom Now” - they were acting on an ancient hope that is meant to be fulfilled. History has an ebb and flow of justice, but history also has a visible direction, set by liberty and the Author of Liberty.

When the Declaration of Independence was first read in public and the Liberty Bell was sounded in celebration, a witness said, “It rang as if it meant something.” In our time it means something still. America, in this young century, proclaims liberty throughout all the world, and to all the inhabitants thereof. Renewed in our strength - tested, but not weary - we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom.

May God bless you, and may He watch over the United States of America.

Well. I guess the world is now on official notice: “We’re coming and we have God on our side so you’d just better get over it and let us put in a few McDonalds, WalMarts and StarBucks in now.”

Bleeaacch! I’m pretty sure he’s just tickled pink with this speech. Probably figures he’s already ascended the historical ranks with Kennedy and WIlson. Too bad history will judge him a little differently: The man who hastened and sealed the decline of the United States. The man who brought about the great war between faiths.

Sigh…..

“Saving Social Security is an economic challenge. But it is also a profound moral obligation,” Bush said in his weekly radio address.

Moral obligation? This indicates to me that he’s obviously at it again. He’s lying to me, you and everybody else. When he falls back to ‘morality’ as an argument, hold your kids close and grab your wallet couse he’s gonna fuck ‘em both.

Leahy: Now, as attorney general, would you believe the president has the authority to exercise a commander-in-chief override and immunize acts of torture?
Gonzales: That’s a hypothetical that’s never going to occur, because we don’t torture people. … This president has said we’re not going to engage in torture under any circumstances, and therefore that portion of the opinion was unnecessary and was the reason that we asked that that portion be withdrawn.

Translation: Yes. But as long as you qualify the question with ‘torture’ and the President doesn’t want to go there yet, I’m not gonna answer the question.
Later, Gonzales conceeds:

Gonzales: I do believe there may come an occasion when the Congress might pass a statute that the president may view as unconstitutional, and therefore the president may ignore it.

Translation: The Presidancy has ascended to Emporor and He may do as He deems fit. And although the law applies equally to all, some are more equal than others.

---

We should be learning to “be careful what we ask for” - Ashcroft is an evil man, and as AG he was at the very least, destructive to our civil liberties. But in asking for him to be replaced, we’re gonna get someone who’s not only more ‘evil’ in the sense that he does not view the Constitution as the ultimate law, but ultimately ‘evil’ in that he views the President as above the law - infallible and supreme.

This man is wrong for the job and wrong for the country.

A link I don’t wanna lose:
Baghdad Year Zero

From Whitehouse press briefing 1/12/05

Q The fact that the Iraq Survey Group has now folded up its field operations, can you explain to us if there is any sense of embarrassment or lack of comfort about the fact that after two years of looking, these people found nothing that the President and others assured us they would find?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the President already talked about this last October in response to the comprehensive report that was released by Charles Duelfer at that point. Charles Duelfer came to the White House in December; the President took that opportunity to thank him for all the work that he had done. The two discussed how Saddam Hussein’s regime retained the intent and capability to produce weapons of mass destruction, and they also discussed how he was systematically gaming the system to undermine the sanctions that were in place, so that once those sanctions were eliminated – which was something he was trying to do through the U.N. oil-for-food program – then he could begin his weapons programs once again. And I think the President talked about the other issues back in October. Nothing has changed from that time period.

In other words, no. There is absolutley no embarrassment or ‘lack of comfort’ on their part. Bush knew going in what was not going to be found. Bush lied to us and he does so without remorse. Come on Scott, I know you can say the words.

Q Minority Leader Pelosi has just sent out a statement saying the President owes the American people an explanation for how he was so wrong for so long. Is that –

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, what the President’s focus is on is looking at the recommendations from the independent commission on weapons of mass – on intelligence relating to weapons of mass destruction that he appointed. That commission has continued to do its work; they’ve been meeting with a number of people. And one of the areas that they’ll focus on is the intelligence from Iraq. Their job is to make sure that they take a comprehensive look at our intelligence capabilities because we face many dangerous new threats in this day and age. And it’s vital that Congress and the President have the best possible intelligence to make the necessary decisions to confront the threats that we face.

So the President looks forward to seeing the recommendations from the Silberman-Robb commission when they release those recommendations. And he is committed to acting on those recommendations, to make sure we take steps to improve our intelligence.

In other words, no. Since there’s no embarrassment or ‘lack of comfort’ on Bush’s part, he will never, never, never appologize for getting into a shooting war on false pretenses. He will never, never, never show anything that could be construed as weakness by people as small minded as he is. He will never, never, never back down once a path is chosen. Even if it’s shown to be wrong. Why? ‘Cause God’s on his side.

Judge Rejects Georgia School Board Evolution Stand

ATLANTA (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Thursday ordered a Georgia school district to remove stickers challenging the theory of evolution from its textbooks on the grounds that they violated the U.S. Constitution.

In a ruling issued in Atlanta, U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper said Cobb County’s school board had violated the constitutional ban on the separation of church and state when it put the disclaimers on biology books in 2002.

The stickers read: “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”

This is good news except that it’s just going to escalate the rhetoric and widen the divide. The ACLU and liberals in general are already maligned for “hating God”, this’ll surely ratchet it up even further.

Here’s what I see:

• Liberals seem perfectly willing to allow anyone to worship (or not) as they see fit
• Fundamentalists want to force me to acknowledge the 10 Commandments in publicly funded places
• Liberals appear to place all religions on equal footing, i.e. they’re all treated the same
• Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims seem to think that thir religion is the only one and that all others are to be exterminated or at the very least brought into the fold

Last night’s Scarborough Country was truly scary. The host and several guests were attempting to defend the fact that the founding fathers agreed that God was necessary in daily life and that Presidents who acknowledged their faith were not only to be allowed but encouraged.

In itself, that view is fine with me. But when my President claims that he’s ‘channeling God’ and doing “God’s work”, I get more than a little nervous. He works for me - he’s s’posed to portray the people’s will and beliefs to the world, not necessarily his own. Yet here we are in a war against (ostensibly) terrorists (which just happen to be Muslim fundamentalists) and we’re (that is, Americans as represented by the President) proclaiming that our God is right and their God is wrong.

It’s high time that we as a nation got over the whole “My God” v. “Your God” v. “No God” thing. We need to be big enough to allow that others do not agree with us and they have the right to do so. Trying to force religion of any kind on the unwilling is not only small minded, it’s wrong and probably flies in the face of the very principals being espoused.

We need a new national motto: “All people are created equal, not just native-born, white Americans”.