Iraq Update: Humor Edition, November 06

Let's start off this latest Iraq update with a quick joke.

Q: How many Bush Administration officials does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: There is nothing wrong with the light bulb; its conditions are improving every day. Any reports of its lack of incandescence are delusional spin from the liberal media. That light bulb has served honorably, and anything you say undermines the lighting effect. Why do you hate freedom?

--
Next we seen that veterans are finally laughing in the faces of "Stay the Course"-ites.

PALMETTO -- Republican Vern Buchanan was interrupted by laughter during a debate before a group of veterans Thursday when he insisted that the White House has a strategy for the war in Iraq.

--

Buchanan had objected to Jennings' repeating her frequent charge that the Bush administration doesn't have a strategy for winning the war.

"But there is a strategy and it needs to be flexible," he said.

Some of the veterans started chuckling, and Buchanan had to stop speaking after telling them that he expected the White House would adopt a more flexible strategy.

"I was pretty surprised that there was such a reaction," said Jennings, noting that the audience was asked before the debate to hold applause or any other responses until the end of the debate.

[full story]

--

And if that's not good enough to make you laugh, let's not forget the latest from our Comedian-in-Chief.

SPRINGFIELD, Missouri (Reuters) - President George W. Bush challenged Democrats on Friday to offer their plan for winning in Iraq as he swept across Republican strongholds in the U.S. heartland to try to help his party's candidates survive on Election Day.

Encouraging audience participation from thousands of Republican loyalists at a rally, Bush said Democrats should be asked, "What's your plan?" for winning in Iraq and a host of other national security issues separating the parties.

"What's your plan?" the audience yelled back.

"Truth is the Democrats can't answer that question," he said. "Harsh criticism is not a plan for victory."

[full story]

Umm, I hate to have to point this out, but the first step of the "Democrat Plan" is to fire Donald Rumsfeld. Bush has already refused to do so...so why continue giving suggestions that will be ignored?

You know what a good sign of an idiot is?  Short and selective memory.

After reading Kerry's comments to a GOP audience in Georgia, Bush said Kerry's statement was "insulting and it is shameful. The members of the United States military are plenty smart and they are plenty brave and the senator from Massachusetts owes them an apology." The White House tipped off the networks to when Bush would attack Kerry, so the comments could be carried live and make the evening news.

[full story]

Now we'll head to Iraq itself for a bit and see how things are going.  If you haven't been following this stuff...let's just pick one word..."worse".

BAGHDAD Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki put himself at odds with the American government that backs him on Wednesday, distancing himself from the American notion of a timetable for stabilizing Iraq and criticizing an American-backed raid on a Shiite militia enclave.

Speaking in Baghdad just hours before President Bush gave a news conference in Washington, Maliki tailored his remarks for his own domestic audience, reassuring the millions of Shiites who form his power base that he would not bend to pressure by the American government over how to conduct internal Iraqi affairs.

His comments stood in stark contrast to the message given on Tuesday by the two top American officials in Iraq, General George W. Casey Jr. and Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, who said the timetable for political measures was one the Iraqi government had accepted.

--

Maliki's stance differs sharply from views presented by American officials, who speak of Shiite death squads as an evil equal to that of the Sunni Arab insurgents. But it fits snugly inside the circle of hardening Shiite sentiment that the American military, in keeping full control of security, has not given the Iraqi government full powers to intervene when Sunni militias or insurgents carry out sectarian cleansing.

"Most of the officials feel like their hands are tied," said one Shiite politician, who asked not to be identified because the topic was sensitive. "They can't take critical decisions at critical times."

The politician cited the example of Saab al-Bour, a largely Shiite town with Sunni Arab outskirts northwest of Baghdad, from which hundreds of Shiite families have fled in the past month after attacks by Sunni insurgents. Shiites were "crying for help," he said, but the government could not come to their aid because of confusion over which country's troops were responsible for the area.

Americans have held onto control over security partly because they do not trust that Iraqi forces are up to the job. They also fear selective enforcement by the government in favor of Shiites, who form a large part of Iraq's security forces, particularly its police, whose ranks are infiltrated by militias.

[full story]

BTW, this new "timeline" mentioned above is a much needed change in strategy from the Administration, and one I advocated a couple of years ago.  They still haven't figured out the "conditional" part, but they'll probably get around to it at some point after floundering in the dark for another year or so.

That is...if "Iraq" still exists a year from now.  There have already been calls and legislation proposed to split Iraq into a 3-autonomous section Republic.   It has a good bit of support from the Kurds and the Shia, but isn't liked by the Sunnis or the Americans.

Regardless, we have a new indcation of how bad things have gotten since the Shia started fighting back via a powerpoint slide leaked to the New York Times.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 -- A classified briefing prepared two weeks ago by the United States Central Command portrays Iraq as edging toward chaos, in a chart that the military is using as a barometer of civil conflict.

--

The slide includes a color-coded bar chart that is used to illustrate an "Index of Civil Conflict." It shows a sharp escalation in sectarian violence since the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra in February, and tracks a further worsening this month despite a concerted American push to tamp down the violence in Baghdad.

In fashioning the index, the military is weighing factors like the ineffectual Iraqi police and the dwindling influence of moderate religious and political figures, rather than more traditional military measures such as the enemy's fighting strength and the control of territory.

The conclusions the Central Command has drawn from these trends are not encouraging, according to a copy of the slide that was obtained by The New York Times. The slide shows Iraq as moving sharply away from "peace," an ideal on the far left side of the chart, to a point much closer to the right side of the spectrum, a red zone marked "chaos." As depicted in the command's chart, the needle has been moving steadily toward the far right of the chart.

[full story]

If you take a look at the chart, you'll see one of the biggest issues and the most obvious conundrums about the situation.  On the one hand, the U.S. is counting on the Iraqi Army and Police "standing up" to take over the fight against the militias and insurgency.  The problem?  The Iraqi Army and Police are the militias, and, to a lesser degree, the insurgency.   Both are horribly infiltrated.  So our best hope is rotten to the core.

And speaking of rotten to the core, here's Something Awful's take on the next evolution of military recruiting (done under the guise of public service)

When [the messaging] started again this August I resolved to put a stop to it the only way I knew how: become a nuisance to the school teacher until he or she got the new tech support guy to uninstall MSN. That meant somehow making the teacher think leaving MSN installed on the computer was a bad idea. I didn't really want to get arrested for exposing the kids to porno links or, god forbid, just ask them to uninstall it. I decided on the much more patriotic course of changing my MSN name to Sergeant Haymaker and posing as a particularly unethical recruiter for the United States Marine Corps.

[full story]

Our Vice President (No Heart) Supports Torture and Our President (No Brain) Is a Fool Who Doesn't Read

Let's start this off with the usual White Houst denials of fact.

WASHINGTON — The White House said Friday that U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney was not talking about a torture technique known as "water boarding" when he said dunking terrorism suspects in water during questioning was a "no-brainer.''

Human rights groups said Cheney's comments amounted to an endorsement of water boarding, in which the victim believes he is about to drown.

[full story]

Next we'll look at what the hubbub is about.

In an interview Tuesday with WDAY of Fargo, N.D., Cheney was asked if "a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives.''

The vice president replied, "Well, it's a no-brainer for me but for a while there I was criticized as being the vice president for torture. We don't torture. That's not what we're involved in.''

Now, to put the question in context, you need to know that Cheney was talking to some right-wing radio nutjob. You know the type, they love torture. They love the idea of brown people being drowned and revived and then giving up the next 9/11 plot...just like they saw on 24 the night before. Which is to say, they live in a militarist fantasy world. So Cheney goes to these "friendly" media outlets and reassures the nujtobs, his only surviving support group, that he is, indeed, torturing brown people, and don't let the liberal media tell you otherwise.

There's a bit of wink-wink, nudge-nudge, about the whole deal, but this is pretty solid evidence that not only does the U.S. use this technique to extract information, but that our Vice-President is extremely supportive of its use. When something is a "no-brainer" that means that only a person without a brain wouldn't do it. Hence, Cheney assumes he has a brain, and tortures people. This is much easier for Cheney, as he no longer has a heart.

Bush, on the other hand, certainly has a heart, he just has no brain. Let's take a look at the latest fantasies and revisionist histories coming from our (*scared gulp*) Commander-in-Chief.

“We will win this election because Republicans understand the values and priorities of the American people,” Mr. Bush said. “We’ll win this election because our priorities and our values do not shift with the latest political opinion poll or focus group.”

Don't you just love that false bravado? That sense that our leaders know sooo much more than us, and that Republican priorities (wars, paiges, torture) are really American priorites. Surely this man realizes he is one of the most consistently unpopular Presidents precisely because his values (hate them gays, start them wars, fear them Ayrabs) are NOT shared by most of the American people.

But it gets better (or worse, if you happen to be a citizen here). Bush then goes on to say (regarding Iraq and the WTC).

Mr. Bush was disdainful of Democratic arguments that the war in Iraq has made the United States less safe than before by stoking anti-American resentment, thus creating a breeding ground for terrorists in the Middle East.

“Iraq is not the reason the terrorists are at war against us,” he said. “I would remind the House Democrats our troops were not in Iraq when the terrorists first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993.”

Correct, jackass, our troops weren't in Iraq in '93. But our troops were in Saudi Arabia, after smashing Iraq in '93, as NOTED BY THE PEOPLE WHO ATTACKED US IN '93!!!

I mean, does this guy even read the statements made by our enemies? Does he have any idea what inspires them? I really don't think he does, or perhaps like Cheney, there's one reality he sells to his base and another reality he tries to foister on the rest of us.

I wonder if he would be kind enough to remind House Democrats who it was that attacked us on 9/11 and whether or not it was Iraq (and whether or not he is "dead or alive").

Next we get the other side of his "thinking 'bout terra".

“You do not create terrorists by fighting the terrorists,” Mr. Bush said. “Our goal in Iraq is victory.” That victory will come through a combination of resolve and tactical flexibility, he said, repeating a theme he has often embraced in recent weeks.

This is totally retarded. No, you don't create terrorists by fighting terrorists. No one said that. What many of us said back before the invasion, during the screwing up on the invastion, and WHAT THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES SAID LAST MONTH is that by invading a country that hasn't attacked us, and wasn't a threat to us, WE HAVE CREATED A NEW GENERATION OF TERRORISTS!!

(*big sigh*)

I'm actually kind of surprised he didn't say that we'll defeat the terrorists and accomplish the mission by staying the course and dunking them in water.

These people need to go, and soon.

Pre-Election Bush Bash re: Iraq and War

As something of an aperitif, I offer this Bjork video, which kottke loved so much.

It's quite the story within a story about a story about a book....and stays accessible through it all.

Before we get to the bashing, I just want to address the complaints of some about "bashing Bush" in general. They seem to think that actually laying out complaints is somehow unpatriotic. They seem to think that Bush is undeserving of bashing. They seem to think the U.S. has improved greatly during the 21st century. If any of them read this...realize something...I only bash Bush because of the things he has don and said. There's no other thing to go after him. It's not about who he is, or where he's from...it's about what he has done in office, and to stay in office, that really needs to be addressed.

I think it's important to start off with something like that, because next we move on slightly more serious matters. In this case, a warning from a previous President.

Ike is a bit behind the times however. While he speaks of the "Military Industrial Complex" in this speech, the name has been updated to go along with the times. Nowadays, folks like me call 'em the "Neocon Imperial Militarists" (NIM for short).

This is some pretty serious stuff, and there's a lot more where that came from. Like this excerpt from a speech by General Smedley Butler in 1933. Yes, people have known this for a while. I'm sure I could wander through the annals of military history and find many more examples of soldiers pointing out the often inane aspects of organizaed warfare. Regardess..here's General Butler's take.

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

[full speech]

And since I'm very much into quoting combat veterans in this post, let's take a look at the thoughts of another one. While you haven't heard much from Kevin Tillman before, his brother Pat gained national fame when his death was used as a prop by Bush during the 2004 campaign [1]. Kevin goes on at lengh regarding the situation.

Somehow we were sent to invade a nation because it was a direct threat to the American people, or to the world, or harbored terrorists, or was involved in the September 11 attacks, or received weapons-grade uranium from Niger, or had mobile weapons labs, or WMD, or had a need to be liberated, or we needed to establish a democracy, or stop an insurgency, or stop a civil war we created that can't be called a civil war even though it is. Something like that.

Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is.[2]
--
Somehow back at home, support for the soldiers meant having a five-year-old kindergartener scribble a picture with crayons and send it overseas, or slapping stickers on cars, or lobbying Congress for an extra pad in a helmet. It's interesting that a soldier on his third or fourth tour should care about a drawing from a five-year-old; or a faded sticker on a car as his friends die around him; or an extra pad in a helmet, as if it will protect him when an IED throws his vehicle 50 feet into the air as his body comes apart and his skin melts to the seat.

Somehow the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes.[3]
--
Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an illegal invasion they started.

Somehow faking character, virtue and strength is tolerated.

Somehow profiting from tragedy and horror is tolerated.

Somehow the death of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people is tolerated.

Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution is tolerated.

Somehow suspension of Habeas Corpus is supposed to keep this country safe.

Somehow torture is tolerated.

Somehow lying is tolerated.

Somehow reason is being discarded for faith, dogma, and nonsense. Somehow American leadership managed to create a more dangerous world.

Somehow a narrative is more important than reality.

[read the whole thing, at least one troop would appreciate you taking the time to do so]

We are now, pseudo-officially on a timeline in Iraq.

The top US military commander in Iraq and the powerful American ambassador to the country gave a rare joint briefing in Baghdad today to stress that control of the country was transferring to Iraqis and that the future lay largely in local hands.

The briefing, coming two weeks before the congressional mid-term elections in America, in which the Iraq war has emerged as the defining issue, sought to clarify the US mission in the country and put forward a timeline of political developments that Washington expects Iraqi leaders to achieve within the next 12 months.

Actually, I guess it's more that the Iraqi puppet government is on a timeline. Those who have studied a bit of history regarding the U.S.'s stupid wars know what is happening now is a set up for the next stage of the great game, i.e. passing of the buck on responsibility. It simply couldn't be the people who dreamed up and started this war that were wrong...noo....it was the liberals that didn't support it and the weak-kneed transition goverment that doomed the project to failure.

The sad part is that a whole bunch of people will buy it. How else can this asshat stay stocked wiht oxycontin?

WASHINGTON — Rush Limbaugh has accused actor Michael J. Fox of exaggerating the physical effects of his Parkinson's disease in political ads urging viewers to vote for Democrats in next month's election.

The conservative radio host told listeners Monday that Fox's lurching, palsied movements in a TV ad for Missouri Senate challenger Claire McCaskill were "an act." Limbaugh noted that Fox, a longtime advocate for research on embryonic stem cells, has said he sometimes does not take his medication in order to illustrate Parkinson's severe physical effects. Uncontrolled shaking and stiffness are among the symptoms of the nerve disease.
--
John Rogers, Fox's spokesman, called Limbaugh's remarks "shameful."

It's an appalling, sad statement," Rogers said. "Anybody who understands Parkinson's disease knows it's because of the medicine that one experiences" body movements like those seen in the ad.

Fox, who has had Parkinson's for 15 years, is supporting candidates who would vote to expand research using stem cells from human embryos.

[full story]

It is sad to see someone who (mind boggles) gets respect from a large portion of our population saying such ridiculous things. Also, I hope the Dems keep hammering away at the anti-science, anti-evolution, anti-intelleigence culture that the Republicans brought to Washington. If Alex P. Keaton wants to join in on the bashing, I'm all for it.

UPDATE: Some days I actually have hope.

I said before is, it's like saying a person with cancer is faking it because they lost their hair," Kirby said. "There's no logic to it."

For the last six years, Kirby has watched her husband, Kevin, suffer from Parkinson's. His tremors and twitches are not as severe as Fox's.

Kirby emailed everyone she knows to boycott advertisers of the Limbaugh show, and she took it a step further.

"We've been Republicans, dyed in the wool, forever, and we didn't vote Republican at all this time," Kirby said.

Limbaugh has since apologized for his remarks. But the Kirbys say the damage is done.

[full story]

That's enough about what level of idiot it takes to continue supporting Bush. If there are still a few who don't get it, this next link stands as even more evidence that we are in bad shape...and will get worse if we don't come up with a sane Iraq policy.

Troops With Stress Disorders Being Redeployed
(CBS News) Army Staff Sgt. Bryce Syverson spent 15 months in Iraq before he was diagnosed by military doctors with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and sent to the psychiatric unit at Walter Reed Medical Center, CBS News correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi reports.

"It ended up they just took his weapon away from him and said he was non-deployable and couldn't have a weapon," says his father, Larry Syverson. "He was on suicide watch in a lockdown."

That was last August. This August, he was deployed to Ramadi, in the heart of the Sunni triangle -- and he had a weapon.

He's still there. Under pressure to maintain troop levels, military doctors tell CBS News it's become a "common practice" to recycle soldiers with mental disorders back into combat.

[full story] Cutting corners like this will only lead to another Haditha.

Things are so bad for Bush now, even fate is conspiring to bash him.

Everything seemed to be going wrong for Bush last week, even the metaphors. On the way to the Allen fund raiser, we stopped for a photo op at a picturesque farm stand outside Richmond. There was a pile of pumpkins sitting on a flatbed truck, and both Allen and Bush tried to hoist an aesthetically pleasing pumpkin by the stem. Both stems snapped. "If you break it, you pay for it, Mr. President," said Richard Keil of Bloomberg News, echoing Colin Powell's famous rule at the outset of the Iraq war. Bush didn't seem to get the joke. "I suppose you're right," he said, and tried to buy the broken pumpkin.

[full story]

What's really sad is that the nightmare continues, and Bush is just now realizing how bad it is. Read this and let me know if you can find the Orwellian doublespeak.

Despite conceding painful losses, Bush said victory was essential in Iraq as part of the broader war on terror.

"We're winning and we will win, unless we leave before the job is done," he said.

Bush said that as those fighting American and Iraqi forces change their strategies, the United States is also adjusting its military tactics.

"Americans have no intention of taking sides in a sectarian struggle or standing in the crossfire between rival factions," he said.

[full story]

For those from the 20th Century visiting the 21st, we have an update for you. "Civil War" is now called "Sectarian Struggle". Yes, the alliteration is nice, but it still means countryman killing countryman....and countrywoman and countrychildren. Geez, maybe Bush can use "the google" to figure out WTF is going on in the world...it's worked wonders for me.

Pre-pre-final link: It looks like others have noticed, as I did, that the RNC is now airing Al Qeada Terror™ Brand commericals.

I'm not at all sure terrorists would consider this footage useful for propaganda purposes, but a reasonable case can be made — indeed, has been made — that the latest commercial from the Republican National Committee is far closer to an "enemy propaganda film" than anything we've seen on CNN.

[full post]

Pre-final link: Keith Olbermann also picked up on this obvious meme...and done run with it. Arianna did the same.

Finally...please...suck it up and vote for the Dems.

Bonus: Forward looking link.

Bush faces political nightmare if Democrats win

WASHINGTON, Oct 22 (Reuters) - If Democrats win control of the U.S. Congress in the Nov. 7 election, it would turn the Capitol upside down and create a political nightmare for the already embattled President George W. Bush.

If his Republicans lose the majority, Bush would hear newly empowered calls to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and would suddenly face promised Democratic-led congressional investigations with subpoena power into the unpopular war.

Bush, whose public approval ratings are below 40 percent, would also face Democratic demands he offer "mainstream" rather than "right-wing" judicial nominees if he wants them confirmed.

[full story] This is the hope. There have been so many shady deals and strange b.s. in D.C. that hasn't been investigated while Bush has been in control, it will be nice to see some accountability. Also, I think the last few years have illustrated how one-party control of the country (any country) is not a good thing.

Arrogance and stupidity indeed [4].


--fin--
[1] via fdl via E&P

Mary, the mother, complained to the Post that the government used her son for weeks after his death. She said she was particularly offended when President Bush offered a taped memorial message to Tillman at a Cardinals football game shortly before the presidential election last fall.

[2] This is perhaps the worst part of the situation, and why Bush has been so bad for America, and why...even if Bush recalled the concept of honor and resigned tomorrow...we would still face an uphill climb to get back where from we came.

UNITED NATIONS --Several governments around the world have tried to rebut criticism of how they handle detainees by claiming they are only following the U.S. example in the war on terror, the U.N. anti-torture chief said Monday.

Manfred Nowak, the U.N. special investigator on torture, said that when he criticizes governments for their questionable treatment of detainees, they respond by telling him that if the United States does something, it must be all right. He would not name any countries except for Jordan.

"The United States has been the pioneer, if you wish, of human rights and is a country that has a high reputation in the world," Nowak told a news conference. "Today, many other governments are kind of saying, 'But why are you criticizing us, we are not doing something different than what the United States is doing?'"

[full story]

[3] This phenomenon was noted in a recent post, "Support our Oops". I've got the money quote from Bush here.

[4]

BAGHDAD -- A senior US diplomat said the United States had shown "arrogance" and "stupidity" in Iraq but was now ready to talk with any group except Al Qaeda in Iraq to facilitate national reconciliation.

In an interview with Al-Jazeera television aired late yesterday, Alberto Fernandez, director of public diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department offered an unusually candid assessment of America's war in Iraq.

"We tried to do our best, but I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq," he said.

The sad part? He backed off his truth telling after a call from home mentioned how "truth" went of style around 2000 and "truthiness" is all the rage nowadays.


Ed note: Yea, I've been gone for a while. The problems still remain, but I'm trying to work through them with my hosting company.

UPDATE: What's so funny, Mr. President?

UPDATE: Ever seen a grown man fellate a Vice-President (who likes being compared to Darth Vader?)?

Here ya go.

Can I please have 5 minutes on tape with Cheney? He can be exposed as an evil man in 2 minutes or less, with a couple simple questions. The fact that he talks about "the terrorists" taking actions that could kill hundreds of thousands of people somehow overwhelms the fact that HE HAS TAKEN ACTIONS THAT HAVE KILLED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE.

Neocons believe in the things most of all.
1) Might Makes Right.
2) The Ends Justify the Means.

Once you understand this, you'll know why they are evil. Or, coversely, you can just look at what they've done.

UPDATE: Here's Imus on Limbaugh. Good way to put it.

The Lies of the Bush Adminstration (regarding Iraqi Strategy)

In my various conversations around the globe, I often run into people who think that the Bush Adminstration is like the Washington Administration, and has never told a lie.

Despite showing people video evidence to the contrary, they just can't quite get their heads around the doublespeak.

Oh well, useful idiots abound.
--
[1] Essentially this post is about the triplet "Stay the Course" which was the GOP "strategy" in Iraq (yes, I know, "keep going the same way" is a bloody awful way to run a war, but that's what they picked). That phrase, "stay the course", is no longer polling well, so they decided to stop using it. They also decided that they had never been using it, and anyone who said they did was obviously a "cut and runner".

Ask the Bush Why It's O.K. To Torture

First, the ad.

Then, the latest reason to kick him out.

President George W Bush has signed into law a bill that sets standards for the interrogation and prosecution of foreign terror suspects held by the US.
The law aims to enshrine defendants' human rights, but still restricts their right to challenge their detention.

It follows a Supreme Court ruling in June that military tribunals set up to prosecute detainees at Guantanamo Bay violated US and international law.

A US spokesman said preparations would now begin to try Guantanamo suspects.

At a ceremony in Washington, Mr Bush said it was a rare occasion when a president signed a law that he knew would save American lives.

"I have that privilege this morning," he said, calling the Military Commissions Act "one of the most important pieces of legislation in the war on terror".

[full story]

This is the sad part...he doesn't even realize how he's given our enemies the greenlight to torture, try, and summarily execute American soldiers. The worst part...he's proud of himself for doing so.

At the tribunals, defendants will be allowed to see some - but not necessarily all - of the evidence against them. The law also bars non-US citizens from filing habeas corpus petitions challenging their detentions in federal court.

Civil liberties groups say the law does not guarantee detainees' rights, and legal challenges are to be expected.

The BBC's Jonathan Beale in Washington says that although the law says detainees cannot be subjected to inhumane or cruel treatment, it is not clear which interrogation techniques can still be used.

The US defence department has laid charges against 10 detainees and is preparing to charge about 65 more.

There are about 450 detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison facility on Cuba, according to the Bush administration.

Yes, you read that right. The 385 folks in Gitmo that haven't, and it would seem, won't, be charged with crimes now "officially" (according to U.S. "law") don't have any rights to challenge their internment.

King John is probably jumping for joy, as now hereditary rulers can once again rule the citizens of other countries (and those within their own they deem unworthy) with impunity.

UPDATE: Recently the population of the United States crossed the 300,000,000 threshhold.

Every single one of those citizens should see this latest move as nothing more, and nothing less, than A SLAP IN THE FACE.

UPDATE: KO on this b.s. "Your words are lies, sir." KO does a fairly solid job of pointing out that what Bush said while signing the bill was utter and total bullshit.

Glenn Greenwald does a pretty good job of explaining why 30% of the country still like Bush. Essentially, they are being kept ignorant, like it, and have yet to catapult the propaganda.

I can certainly attest to this general lack of good information on the part of Bush supporters after a conversation I had at the hotel bar last evening. My counter-arguer was not only ignorant of the situation in Iraq and this bill, but wouldn't even listen to simple and basic explanations regarding why I feel the way I do about the direction our country was moving. The general response was "liberals are stupid". Actually, that was the whole argument. To make matters worse, when asked the simple question, "What do you mean by 'liberal'". The definition given was "stupid people".

Finally, and on the same point. Here's what Dennis Hastert had to say about this wholly un-American legislation.

The Democratic plan would gingerly pamper the terrorists who plan to destroy innocent Americans' lives. While House Republicans work to deal with these dangers like establishing Terrorist Tribunals that will prosecute enemies of America, Democrat Leader Pelosi and 159 of her colleagues voted in favor of NEW rights for terrorists.

"The House Democrat Leader does not understand that our fight for freedom does not just happen on the battlefield but also on the floor of the House of Representatives. It should come as no surprise that the Democrats in the House put their liberal agenda ahead of the security of America."

[source]

You know what the really scary part is about the Republican rhetoric surrounding the election? Under the new law, they can actually imprison indefinitely those giving material support to "terrorists", which is exactly what their rhetoric is saying that Democrats are doing. I just hope Denny realizes how hypocritical his statement was, as the law he is touting as a part of the "fight for freedom" does nothing but take freedoms away, and our fight "on the battlefield (of Iraq)" is only accomplishing the mission of spending billions of dollars to create more extremists.

And yes, Hastert is one of those "hims" that needs kicking.

My Government is Full of Terrorists (by their own definitions)

My Way News - Bush Says Democrats Shouldn't Be Trusted

Our President, by his own declarations and new laws, has just declared himself, and the majority of our government, to be terrorists.

"STOCKTON, Calif. (AP) - President Bush, on a campaign swing in the West, is telling voters that the Democratic Party is weak-kneed on national security and shouldn't be trusted to hold the reins of Congress.

'If you listen closely to some of the leaders of the Democratic Party, it sounds like - it sounds like - they think the best way to protect the American people is, wait until we're attacked again,' Bush said Monday at a $360,000 fundraiser in Reno, Nev., for state Secretary of State Dean Heller's congressional campaign.

And if you read the new laws along with the latest National Intelligence Commission's (leaked) National Intelligence Estimate report, you see that Mr. Bush is not "weak-kneed", he is a full-on terrorist.

From the new law.

`(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--

`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

So now we know who needs to go to the tribunal...anyone who helps the terrorists. Remember that bolded part. Now we look at the leaked NIE report.

We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives [1]; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.

- The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement [2]. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate.

- Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness [3]; (2) the Iraq jihad; [4]. (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations [5]; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims.all of which jihadists exploit[6].

Six times the (excerpt of the leaked) report blames the war in Iraq (and neocon policies) for helping the terrorists.

Bush's War in Iraq is....
[1] ...Creating a new generation of terrorists. That's material support.
[2] ...Creating a new, global, generation of terrorists. That's HUGE material support.
[3] ...A demonstration of corruption, injustice and Western domination. All of which lend material support to the terrorist vision.
[4] [ibid]
[5] ...Not working. One could also throw the recent Israeli war on Lebanon in the mix...except it hadn't happened yet when the report was written. Things are worse now, particularly in Lebanon, which had been seeing some progress.
[6] ...Making all Muslims think worse of the U.S. This lends support to terrorists, because as Bush said, "if you are not with us, you are with the terrorists". Bush policy has made it impossible for moderate Muslims to be with "us", and there's only one other choice.

Now we get back to the original story, and some other hypocritical stuff Bush said.

'That's not the way it's going to be under my administration. We will stay on the offense,' the president said. 'We will defeat the enemy overseas so we do not have to face them here at home.'"

First off, where are the signs of progress? The NIE says the reverse is happening. Second off, where is this millions strong Mujaheddin army that is about to invade the U.S. with tanks and choppers? Third off, how is it in any way moral for innocent people to be butchered in Iraq so we can feel free at home?

That third off is almost nonsensical. This "fight them over there" meme is the reason they want to attack us at home. It's not an either/or situation. This fear-mongering, selfish, immoral tripe should be attacked with the utmost fervor. It is, perhaps, the most immoral popular saying in the U.S. since the KKK was sidelined.

Back to the article, and Bush's answer to some of these criticisms.

They are citing a National Intelligence Estimate, which the president has partly declassified, suggesting that the war in Iraq has helped recruit more terrorists.

Bush disputes the claim, saying that if policymakers in Washington become convinced that fighting terrorists creates terrorists, then America will return to a pre-Sept. 11 mentality of waiting to be attacked.

This is another bullshit dichotomy that people let pass. The choice isn't between invasion and isolation. There are ANY NUMBER of actions that fall short of invading another country and forcibly changing their government and culture (which doesn't work, BTW) and not doing anything. Not doing anything was the Bush administrations terror policy from January 20, 2001 until September 11, 2001`.

Then, their terror policy became "invade Iraq".

Now, back to the "who's a terrorist now" question....and the answer: Bill Frist.

QALAT, Afghanistan — U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday that the Afghan war against Taliban guerrillas can never be won militarily and urged support for efforts to bring "people who call themselves Taliban" and their allies into the government.

The Tennessee Republican said he learned from briefings that Taliban fighters were too numerous and had too much popular support to be defeated on the battlefield.

[full story] That "too much popular support" bit is a direct reflection of the bullet points noted in the NIE. It's why Iraq is a total failure (along with a slightly less failed Afghanistan policy). Speaking of Iraq as a total failure. Has anyone else noticed that is the neocons and only the neocons that want the U.S. to stay there?

The Washington Post reports today on two more surveys of Iraqi opinion. First, State Department polling found that "In Baghdad... nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout." Second, PIPA has released the results of its latest round of polling today, which will show that "71 percent of Iraqis questioned want the Iraqi government to ask foreign forces to depart within a year. By large margins, though, Iraqis believed that the U.S. government would refuse the request, with 77 percent of those polled saying the United States intends keep permanent military bases in the country." Third, the Post mentions that "The director of another Iraqi polling firm, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared being killed, said public opinion surveys he conducted last month showed that 80 percent of Iraqis who were questioned favored an immediate withdrawal."

[full story] The Bush administration talking point is that pulling out of Iraq would make the terrorists stronger, leading to that "perceived" victory condition in the NIE mentioned above (very, very few people paraphrasing that bit include the "perceived" in their assessment, they miss that it is about a propaganda victory, not an actual one), however, the poll, and the NIE, say otherwise.

First, the poll.

The PIPA survey also shows that all Iraqi ethnic groups overwhelmingly oppose al-Qaeda, with 94% overall holding an unfavorable view of the jihadists. Those findings further support a point I've been making for a while now, that the prospect of al-Qaeda taking over Iraq in the wake of an American withdrawal is an unrealistic bogeyman which should not guide American decisions its Iraq policy.

Then the NIE.

Concomitant vulnerabilities in the jihadist movement have emerged that, if fully exposed and exploited, could begin to slow the spread of the movement. They include dependence on the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts, the limited appeal of the jihadists radical ideology, the emergence of respected voices of moderation, and criticism of the violent tactics employed against mostly Muslim citizens.

- The jihadists. greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution - an ultra-conservative interpretation of shari'a-based governance spanning the Muslim world is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. Exposing the religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists. Propaganda would help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade.
- Recent condemnations of violence and extremist religious interpretations by a few notable Muslim clerics signal a trend that could facilitate the growth of a constructive alternative to jihadist ideology: peaceful political activism. This also could lead to the consistent and dynamic participation of broader Muslim communities in rejecting violence, reducing the ability of radicals to capitalize on passive community support. In this way, the Muslim mainstream emerges as the most powerful weapon in the war on terror.

That last bolded bit is, BY FAR, the most important part of the document. There, the document is saying, without a doubt, that Bush and Neocon policy is destroying the most potent weapon in the "War on Terror".

They are providing material support to the terrorists by providing robust propaganda opportunities for the enemy, taking actions that align with al-Qa'ida theory, vehemently supporting an invasion that is the biggest reason we are losing the "War on Overwhelming Fear", and alienating the only force that is capable of winning said war.

They are terrorists, and should be tried as such.

Right after we kick them out.

UPDATE: More on the new bill that give Bush all sorts of rights.About the White House Warden.

BURIED IN THE complex Senate compromise on detainee treatment is a real shocker, reaching far beyond the legal struggles about foreign terrorist suspects in the Guantanamo Bay fortress. The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights.

This dangerous compromise not only authorizes the president to seize and hold terrorists who have fought against our troops "during an armed conflict," it also allows him to seize anybody who has "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." This grants the president enormous power over citizens and legal residents. They can be designated as enemy combatants if they have contributed money to a Middle Eastern charity, and they can be held indefinitely in a military prison.

Not to worry, say the bill's defenders. The president can't detain somebody who has given money innocently, just those who contributed to terrorists on purpose.

The fact that "on purpose" is in there should be scary. That's the general equivalent of "thoughtcrime". The action is immaterial, it's what you were thinking at the time that is the crime.

Legal residents who aren't citizens are treated even more harshly. The bill entirely cuts off their access to federal habeas corpus, leaving them at the mercy of the president's suspicions.

We are not dealing with hypothetical abuses. The president has already subjected a citizen to military confinement. Consider the case of Jose Padilla. A few months after 9/11, he was seized by the Bush administration as an "enemy combatant" upon his arrival at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. He was wearing civilian clothes and had no weapons. Despite his American citizenship, he was held for more than three years in a military brig, without any chance to challenge his detention before a military or civilian tribunal. After a federal appellate court upheld the president's extraordinary action, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, handing the administration's lawyers a terrible precedent.
--
But the bill also reinforces the presidential claims, made in the Padilla case, that the commander in chief has the right to designate a U.S. citizen on American soil as an enemy combatant and subject him to military justice. Congress is poised to authorized this presidential overreaching. Under existing constitutional doctrine, this show of explicit congressional support would be a key factor that the Supreme Court would consider in assessing the limits of presidential authority.