Year: 2007

Are Hangings and Accidental Beheading a Cover-Up?

Trish

Can this get any worse?

The official video of the hangings showed Hussein’s half-brother lying headless below the gallows, his severed head several yards away

Iraq hanged two of Saddam Hussein’s aides early Monday, and one of the men was decapitated in the process.

The official video of the hangings showed Hussein’s half-brother lying headless below the gallows, his severed head several yards away, The Associated Press reported.

Good Lord.

The new barbarities come as people continue to question the timing of Saddam’s recent hanging, which took place after he was found guilty of a charge that paled in comparison to the biggie — gassing thousands of Kurds. Some observers, such as Ghada Karmi in The Guardian, wonder if the Bush administration wanted to see Saddam die before American support for Iraq’s 1980 — 1988 war on Iran, which took place while Junior’s dad was vice president, could be explored.

But it was also essential to stop him revealing secrets about the west’s past enthusiasm in supporting and arming his regime. Hence he was tried on the relatively minor charge of killing 148 people in the village of Dujail, after a plot to assassinate him. Far better to put him away safely for that rather than risk his exposing western hypocrisy, treachery and double-dealing.

Bush on Saddam’s Execution: ‘I Didn’t Watch the Whole Thing’

Jon Ponder
Sneering at the pleas for clemency from a woman he is about to have executed, George W. Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, “Please — don’t kill me.”

The only unqualified success in Pres. Bush’s misadventure in Iraq is the capture, trial and execution of Saddam Hussein. So it’s odd that he told “60 Minutes” that he couldn’t stomach watching Saddam die:

He said he was discouraged by the handling of Saddam Hussein’s execution, which he saw on an Internet video but stopped watching before the trap door opened under the former Iraqi leader. “I didn’t want to watch the whole thing,” Bush said.

What happened to the macho governor of Texas who, in a 1999 interview with rightwing writer Tucker Carlson, sneered at the clemency plea of Karla Faye Tucker, a convicted murderer whom he had approved for execution:

In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, a number of protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Karla Faye Tucker. “Did you meet with any of them?” I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. “No, I didn’t meet with any of them,” he snaps, as though I’ve just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. “I didn’t meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with Tucker, though. He asked her real difficult questions like, ‘What would you say to Governor Bush?'” “What was her answer?” I wonder. “‘Please,'” Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, “‘don’t kill me.'” I must look shocked — ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel — because he immediately stops smirking.

So George W. Bush has the courage to put a woman to death — and to mock her while he is at it — but is too cowardly to watch a video of the death of a man he toppled a nation to apprehend.

New Poll: The Military Thinks Bush Blows Too

Trish

Bush has never been less popular among American troops, maybe, as Jon pointed out, because he stands in front of them and tells them bold-faced, transparent lies.

No doubt there are other reasons, too, such as demanding they serve…and serve…and serve as he, himself, was never willing to do.

A poll released at year-end by the Military Times shows our soldiers are no longer pickin’ up what Bush is puttin’ down.

Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war

For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president’s handling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, according to the [Dec. 22,] 2006 Military Times Poll.

When the military was feeling most optimistic about the war — in 2004 — 83 percent of poll respondents thought success in Iraq was likely. This year, that number has shrunk to 50 percent.

Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. The president’s approval rating among the military is only slightly higher than for the population as a whole. In 2004, when his popularity peaked, 63 percent of the military approved of Bush’s handling of the war…

Just as telling, in this year’s poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003. That closely reflects the beliefs of the general population today — 45 percent agreed in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll.

The poll was taken before His Assholiness spoke the other day.

Whatever war plan the president comes up with later this month, it likely will have the replacement of American troops with Iraqis as its ultimate goal. The military is not optimistic that will happen soon. Only about one in five service members said that large numbers of American troops can be replaced within the next two years. More than one-third think it will take more than five years. And more than half think the U.S. will have to stay in Iraq more than five years to achieve its goals.

Almost half of those responding think we need more troops in Iraq than we have there now. A surprising 13 percent said we should have no troops there. As for Afghanistan force levels, 39 percent think we need more troops there. But while they want more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly three-quarters of the respondents think today’s military is stretched too thin to be effective.

And they should know. So much for Bush listening to those “boots on the ground.”

Cult of Personality Around Bush Has Broken Down

Jon Ponder

Gene Lyons:

Bush is wrecking the GOP everywhere but in the South.

Although polls show slight majorities favoring impeachment, the votes just aren’t there. Even so, it’s not hard to imagine how it could happen. Because to allow an arrogant, arguably delusional president and his shrinking band of ideologically driven aides to double-down in Iraq, gambling the “lives and sacred honor” of American soldiers to save face in a misbegotten war also would do incalculable harm to the idea of self-government.

To remove Bush, however, Republicans would have to take the lead. As Bush is currently wrecking the GOP everywhere but the Deep South, chances may not be as remote as they seem.

The cult of personality surrounding the White House has broken down. Last November, American voters delivered as clear a verdict on Iraq as an offyear electorate can possibly render. No Democratic incumbent lost anywhere. Yet Bush acts as if it never happened.

Bush Caught Lying to Troops about Escalation Plan

Jon Ponder
Here we have one branch of the Traditional Media reporting the true facts on the ground only to have the elite crew in the White House press corps ignore it when the president lies about these same facts to the very uniformed military personnel he intends to send into harm’s way.

If I’m lying, you’re dying: Pres. Bush was caught rewriting recent history in a speech he gave Thursday to the troops at Ft. Benning, Georgia, some of whom are preparing for their third deployment to Iraq. Here is the transcript of the president’s load of bull:

“The [Iraqi] Prime Minister came and said, look, I understand we’ve got to do something about this violence, and here is what I suggest we do. Our commanders looked at it, helped fine-tune it so it would work. . . .

“The commanders on the ground in Iraq, people who I listen to — by the way, that’s what you want your Commander-in-Chief to do. You don’t want decisions being made based upon politics, or focus groups, or political polls. You want your military decisions being made by military experts. And they analyzed the plan and they said to me, and to the Iraqi government, this won’t work unless we help them. There needs to be a bigger presence. . . .

“And so our commanders looked at the plan and said, Mr. President, it’s not going to work until — unless we support — provide more troops. And so last night I told the country that I’ve committed an additional — a little over 20,000 more troops, five brigades of which will be in Baghdad.”

Meanwhile, back in reality, the facts are quite different. The strategy of escalating the war came from the West Wing, not the Iraqi leadership or Bush’s generals:

[A Washington Post story Wednesday] made it abundantly clear that adding U.S. troops was not an idea that emerged from the American commanders — nor, for that matter, from the Iraqis.

And, as it turns out, two stories in this morning’s New York Times add to the evidence: “A narrative pieced together from interviews with participants and from public testimony suggests that through much of the process, generals who had been on the ground in Iraq during the past year had favored that the new strategy begin with a substantially smaller force than the one that President Bush announced to the nation on Wednesday night. In the end, it was Mr. Bush who appeared to drive his commanders along to the conclusion that more troops were needed.”

Not only were the Iraqis not involved in creating the plan, they are not happy about it, according to another Times report:

So, not surprisingly: “Iraq’s Shiite-led government offered only a grudging endorsement on Thursday of President Bush’s proposal to deploy more than 20,000 additional troops in an effort to curb sectarian violence and regain control of Baghdad. The tepid response immediately raised questions about whether the government would make a good-faith effort to prosecute the new war plan.”

Where was the White House press corps on this? Didn’t anyone in that elite corps of journalists know the facts about the origins of the escalation?

Or maybe the president lies so often, they’re inured to it.

Here we have one branch of the Traditional Media reporting the true facts on the ground only to have the elite crew in the White House press corps ignore it when the president lies about these same facts to the very uniformed military personnel he intends to send into harm’s way.

Your Tax Dollars at Work

Trish

Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) sent an otherwise party line newsletter to constituents this week extolling the boldness of Pres. Bush’s new strategy for Iraq. Yeah, whatever.

But this little tidbit was buried toward the end. Mel congratulated the “city” of Umatilla, Florida’s volunteer fire department for receipt of a nearly $35,000 grant from the Department of Homeland Security.

And they even have a weekly newspaper!

Umatilla calls itself “the gateway to Ocala National Forest” on its website. It’s home to the Florida Black Bear Festival, “a fun and educational event” held each October. Although it was once a citrus-growing area, today you will find, “shops, restaurants, a honey co-op, doctors & dentists, a pharmacy, banks, and a weekly newspaper. Our community also features active civic clubs, churches, a library, exemplary schools and ample recreational activities.”

Its Wikipedia listing said it had a population of 2,214 in 2000 but it grew to 2,502 by 2004.

Martinez issued a press release announcing the grant, which he evidently views as tax money well spent.

“The AFG grant is terrific news for this department in Umatilla. The continued financial support for the men and women who voluntarily serve their communities will aid in the life and property protection services that they provide,” said Martinez.

Surge — Send In the Sick Soldiers

Buck Banks

Trauma ward: George Bush’s plan to pour more troops into Iraq will likely mean sending some soldiers who are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. It’s a recipe for disaster, but can’t be helped because the all-volunteer army ain’t got depth. This is a story the Pentagon does not want you to know:

Between Christmas and New Year’s 2006, five U.S. soldiers committed suicide after being informed they’d been ordered to serve an additional tour in Iraq.

PTSD is an anxiety disorder that can emerge after exposure to a terrifying event or ordeal in which grave physical harm occurred or was threatened. A person experiencing PTSD can lose touch with reality and believe that the traumatic incident is happening all over again.

Pentagon doctors estimate that 12 percent of the 1.5 million veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from PTSD. Newly revised Defence Department guidelines for service-members with “a psychiatric disorder in remission, or whose residual symptoms do not impair duty performance” say they may be considered for duty downrange. It lists post-traumatic stress disorder as a “treatable” problem.

Many believe President George W. Bush’s newly announced plan to send 21,500 additional U.S. soldiers to Iraq will involve the redeployment of soldiers suffering from severe trauma. Press reports indicate Bush wants to implement his “surge” by speeding up previously scheduled redeployments and extending the tours of soldiers already in the field of battle.

That reality has increasing numbers of soldiers taking matters into their own hands.

Between Christmas and New Year’s 2006, five U.S. soldiers committed suicide after being informed they’d been ordered to serve an additional tour in Iraq. In Iraq itself, the military announced on Dec. 30 that soldier Michael Crutchfield of Stockton, California killed himself north of the capital, Baghdad.

Leonard Pitts: Support for Bush’s ‘Surge’ a Matter of Trust

Buck Banks

Nailed it: As usual, columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. sussed out the nagging reason that most of us don’t condone President Bush’s latest plan to fix the war in Iraq — we simply don’t trust the guy who has lied to us, spied on us and proved to be the Worst President Ever.

Bush is a man who has heretofore shown only arrogance in the face of monumental and fatal misjudgments. Now he comes before the country asking us, in effect, to trust him.

I know that we’ve been misled to an awful intersection of history where there are no good options, only options in varying shades of bad. I know how tempting it is to say we ought to wash our hands of this mess and bring our men and women home. I know that it still strikes me as wrong, for reasons both moral and pragmatic, to come in, blow up these people’s country, then walk away and leave them in the rubble.

Most of all, though, I know this: I do not trust my leaders. And politics is not the only, or even the primary, reason. No, at the end of the day, this is a question of character.

From the beginning, the architects of this war have shown a frightening nonchalance toward truth, a troubling willingness to treat fact as optional. Where reality has collided with political expedience, political expedience has invariably won. Where it has been inconvenient, it has been ignored.

It happened when the administration linked Iraq to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks even though one had nothing to do with the other. It happened when the White House used discredited intelligence to make the case for war. It happened when the president dismissed gloomy intelligence reports that did not jibe with his preferred view. It happened when he insisted we ”stay the course” even after it became apparent to everyone with eyes that the course led straight off a cliff.

So now, here comes Bush with sober mien and chastened air asking for one more chance to get it right. And if you sense in this corner a reluctance to comply, well, it has less to do with the merits of his proposed strategy than with the fact that it is his proposed strategy. Bush is a man who has heretofore shown only arrogance in the face of monumental and fatal misjudgments. Now he comes before the country asking us, in effect, to trust him.

You can read the complete column here.

Quote du Jour

Buck Banks

History and the mission of the future no longer mean the struggle of class against class, the struggle of church dogma against dogma, but the clash between blood and blood, race and race, people and people.

— Alfred Rosenberg (1893-1946), German Nazi leader, editor