Wolfowitz: Je Ne Regrette Rien

Watching the news from Iraq this week and I couldn't help but wonder: is anyone going to pay for these crimes?

How is it that innocent people can die by the hundreds and thousands thanks to policy decisions made by Americans and nobody here is held accountable.

And, no, I do not think that losing Congress or the Presidency amounts to being held accountable for mass carnage.

The worst part is that these people do not even hold themselves accountable. LBJ and McNamara suffered pangs of, I don't know, guilt, shame, anger, regret. Something.

Not this gang.

Interviewed by The Australian while on a visit to Melbourne, Paul Wolfowitz makes clear that, for him, all the war's costs have been outweighed by the accomplishment.

"I think it is worth remembering January 2005. When Iraqis got the chance to vote for the first time, and the enemy threatened death to those who voted, and some said the indelible ink on the thumb may be mark of death, 9.5million Iraqis voted. That said something important."

Maybe it did. It just didn't change anything important, like the slaughter of innocent people.

Iraq is infinitely worse off today than it was before the war. We have, essentially, destroyed a country and, in the process lost 3700 young Americans.

But Wolfowitz, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Perle, Kristol, Feith and the Members of Congress who voted for the war just sail on.

Like Edith Piaf, they have no regrets.

As for the rest of us, we see documentaries about the war. We get angry. And, in my case, I write posts. Big deal.

But few of us really do a goddam thing.

 

 

 

 


Comments (127)

I couldn't agree more with your sentiments here. And while I think that it is our responsibility as Americans to police ourselves and punish these guys and others here like them, I sadly don't see it happening.

One thing that I would love to see is a united world response. If we here do not arrest and put on trial these kinds of criminals then the world should label us a rogue nation or worse and smack travel bans on us and our officials. Basically tell us "hey we don't like you and you're not welcome." And arrest anyone of them that's tied to these horrible crimes if they set foot outside our borders. I know...it's a fantasy land proposition for a plethora of reasons. First and foremost is economics. Tourism and trade would take huge hits and as we all know, money is what makes the sun rise and the world turn. But I'd love to see the world get fed up with our outrageous and at times bloodthirsty behavior and really knock us on our asses for it. After all, the only way American citizens really get their panties in a bunch is if they personally get the screws turned on them. But to be honest, more and more it seems that even then they may not even react. It's just too much of a bother...

They suffer pangs of "Why don't people realize how great we are?"

Seriously, they have convinced themselves that they are heroes, that those who die are pawns and that those who oppose are misguided fools who will one day see the light and apologize.

W. very seriously believes that we'll one day call him a great president and he probably thinks that he'll be around to hear us all apologize.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

avatar


It is in the nature of imperialism that the aggressor is not punished for her crimes. Look at Belgium. They invaded the Congo, exploited her rubber and in the space of 20 years (from 1890 to 1910) the native population was reduced from 20 million to about 10 million. Now that almost counts as genocide.

Yet in 1914 little Belgium was being treated as the poor abused victim of the hated Germans in the American press.

Definitely not fair, but those are the rules of the world.

avatar

Their is something shocking about this post coming as it does just after Al Qaeda slaughtered something like 500 human beings! You are not calling for a doubling of the effort to deal with them, but calling for those who launched a war, against the lawful tyranny of the former government from a 20% minority that tried to hold 80%+ in bondage, to be held to account for liberating those people!

Who could doubt the extreme right wing nature of pseudo leftists ranting on about this revolution! Of course the war was illegal (laws are established by revolutions not the other way round!)

LBJ etc tried to prevent democracy in Vietnam and were soundly defeated yet you compare the liberation of the Iraqi masses with the former attempt to prevent the liberation of the Vietnamese peoples. Sheesh!

If anyone ought to be held responsible it ought to be those that have run US policy since WW2 almost totally rotten to the core.

The people of the ME deserve solidarity and unity in the struggle against oppression. All former US policies of promoting tyranny deserve to be swept into the dustbin of history and the reactionaries passing themselves as 'progressives' with them.

The liberation of the entire region is now on the agenda, starting with the establishment of a Palestinian state and the ending of 40years of a failed war for greater Israel and yet you are not demanding greater effort against the reactionaries but shaking your head and regretting that the monsters have been let loose.

Ah yes tyranny nice and safe hey: don't rock the boat or we could all end like so many slaves that have tried to rebel before us!

I don't think so!

Everywhere the old world is under challenge get used to it.

Patrick

avatar

The US aggression in Vietnam thirty-five years ago wasn't stopped by peace marches or letters to the editor, and in spite of its unpopularity it certainly wasn't ended by the Congress. It only stopped when the troops refused to undertake further offensive action against the citizens of Vietnam. These refusals were punctuated by insubordination, mutinies and fragging.

The government is smarter now. With a volunteer military it is handing out large sums of money for re-enlistments and enlistment referrals, as well as lowering enlistment standards, and is forcing soldiers into longer enlistments. Still, there are troops who understand the wrongness of the war. They need to be supported. IVAW--Iraq Veterans Against the War--is a good place to start.

avatar

I'm sorry Patrick. That wasn't Al Quaeda. That was the Kurds. Your allies, Patrick. They were just engaging in a little urban renewal, opening up more land for good old Sunni Kurds.

avatar

Val you have no evidence for your slur!

Patrick

I appreciate your outrage. It was well expressed. On a positive note, I was heartened by an article in the paper today on administration peace initiatives. It argued or at least claimed that, compared to 2000, we've the advantage now of involvement of Blair in helping to build a Palestianian future and of the Saudis and other Arab nations. It offers hope that, for all the spiral of violence that bolsters political extremism, we may be able to get past the Bush failure of leadership for years here. And a Democratic president is coming soon.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

Veterans for Peace is also a great organization that needs support, and is also a good place to start.

~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity
Where everybody knows your name...
unless you use a pseudonym

avatar

More like Condi Rice is coming!

Patrick

avatar

Let's see now, Patrick claims al-Qaeda did it, but Professor Juan Cole thinks maybe it was done by Sunni Arabs fighting Kurds.

Cole: "Note that first Shiite Turkmen were targeted and now Kurdish Yazidis. They have in common not being Sunni Arabs. My suspicion is that these bombings are not just an attempt to spread fear and intimidation, but are actually part of a struggle for control of territory. The Sunni Arab guerrillas face powerful challenges from Kurds and Shiites with regard to the future of provinces such as Ninevah, Diyala and Kirkuk. A lot of Kurdish police and troops have been deployed in Mosul not far from Tuesday's bombings, and they are seen as among the deadliest enemies by the Sunni Arab guerrillas. Sooner or later, my guess is that the Sunni Arabs will wage a major war with the Kurds over the oil fields of Kirkuk."

Ah, it's a tough choice, but I'll go with Juan Cole on that one.

The "liberation of the Iraqi masses" into an Islamic state allied with Iran? Is this the "noble cause"? Come on Patrick, you can do better than that. The US is fulfilling OBL's dream agenda: (1) We're out of holy Saudi Arabia (2) We overthrew the secular Saddam and (3) Instituted a new religious state in Iraq. Okay, it's Shia and not Sunni like OBL, but we gave him most of what he wanted--and thanks to continued congressional funding we're in it for the long haul. Pity that.

And now "liberation of the entire region"? Hold on tight.

avatar

There are over 150,000 contractors over there, too, doing jobs that were done by the Army a generation ago. Their casualty numbers aren't included in government war death stats.

avatar

I wonder...if someone would have shot Hitler or Goering or Gerbels dead in the years running up to the World war would the Germans have considered them heroes or traitors?
If someone were to assassinate Wolf-a-witch, or Rumsfeld, Feith, Perle etc. would they be heroes for bringing justice to these mass murderers(especially since Cheney has admitted knowing what would happen in Iraq on video before we invaded...and did it anyway) should they be considered heroes or traitors?
Here they aren't even considered criminals but in a world court they would be condemned. We have become so brainwashed by the "America can do no wrong" patriotism that we consider lying us into a war and raping another country political bad judgment.
I have to remind myself that Justice serves at the pleasure of the president.

But Wolfowitz, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Perle, Kristol, Feith and the Members of Congress who voted for the war just sail on.

But they are heroes who have saved the world. They have not avoided committing crimes but have hidden those crimes in some amorphous war-times powers excuse. They are covered by the all-powerful invisible cloak of GWOT. They are really untouchable. The only way to hold them accountable is for the Democrats in the House to gather their courage and impeach.

avatar

I remember hearing a piece on NPR quite a few years ago about Iraq. It was put together when Saddam Hussein was still in power. They talked about how the kids in Baghdad were pretty much like the kids anywhere in the world: cruising the city in their cars, listening to western music and hanging out with their friends. And I remember particularly one interview they did with a group of teenagers they met on the street. These were all apparently happy kids who talked about how they loved Britney Spears and Madonna and whatever else was popular at the time. And I remember one girl--I'll never forget her happy, innocent voice--saying, "We love America! We love America! Why you hate us?"

It was while I was listening to that piece that I realized I was being lied to about Iraq. By my own government. Just like we're being lied to about Iran now. I've often wondered if that girl made it through our Shock and Awe attack and the subsequent violence in her country.

Saddam was a horrible, violent, ruthless leader. But George W. Bush is infinitely worse.

avatar

First note what Valdron said, then consider just how silly this notion of separating Al Qaeda from other Sunni’s that are prepared to conduct such suicide bombings is; Al Qaeda is not targeting Sunni’s. These bombers are all equivalent! As with Japanese Militarism, Italian Fascism and German Nazism it does not much matter. The real question is what side are you on?

‘Sooner or later, my guess is that the Sunni Arabs will wage a major war with the Kurds over the oil fields of Kirkuk.’ Why ought they? If oil revenue sharing is proportional what would they hope to gain but a disproportionate share. How would anyone support a disproportionate share for one ethnic group? South Africa and Israel are the former models but are well out of fashion in the moder era.

Valdron correctly recognized that I support the Kurdish peoples and the Iraqi government against such aggression. Do you?

BTW: Iraq is not an Islamic state allied with Iran, but rather a threat to the Iranian theocracy as democratic elections are looked on with envy by the Iranian people who will overthrow the theocrats. Remember how the police states of eastern Europe infected one another with regional effect. The ME is ripe for revolution.

Patrick

avatar
On August 17, 2007 - 5:10pm patrickm said:

Their is something shocking about this post coming as it does just after Al Qaeda slaughtered something like 500 human beings!

If you CLICK on the link provided by AJ you will see this post by AJ is 'timely' as the article is dated 8/18 Australia time.


He wasn't writing a column on al Qaeda, he was writing about those that got the US into IRAQ not having any regrets regardless of the carnage that is happening and with no end in sight. Maybe tomorrow he'll write about al Qaeda and the 500 dead.

.... the liberation of the Iraqi masses....

I'm not even going to address that piece of nonsense, except to ask one question;

"Hey Iraqi, how is that liberation working out for you?"

... yet you are not demanding greater effort against the reactionaries ...

He's also not demanding an end to world hunger or disease.

"There is something shocking about" your post in that you ignore MJ's point along with perhaps 100,000 Iraqi dead, close to 4,000 dead troops, another 20,000 wounded, many maimed for life, $10 billion per month down a rat hole, much of it corrupted, a military stretched to the limits, a record number of suicides among our troops....and finally; Not one piece of evidence has been uncovered that justified Bush's reasons for invading Iraq. No WMD, no al Qaeda connection, and certainly its been proven that Saddam was no threat to the US.

Would those 500 human beings you care about be dead today if Bush didn't invade Iraq?

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you that you don't post about these points.

avatar

W couldn't care less about his legacy. His only concern is too continue the reign of the oligarchs. Middle East oil and projecting our power there is the prop he needs to hold up the current hierarchy.

avatar

Val,

it used to be Bill Clinton that did all the evil, now its al Qaeda.

Did you notice how the Bush gang and our military rarely, if ever, mention the "insurgents" now, no more talk of civil war, its all al Qaeda now with little snippets about Iran thrown in.

The "Democracies" in Afghanistan and Iraq are frikkin jokes, Potemkin Villages.

"Hey Iraqi, did you vote in the last election?"

'Yes, I did."

"Show me your purple finger"

"I can't, my hand was blown off by a car bomb."

Sad.

avatar

"We have become so brainwashed by the "America can do no wrong" patriotism jingoism..."

FTFY

Hey, we Americans will do whatever it takes, just so long as American Idol isn't on the tube that night. Seriously, no, we won't do anything at all, and the primary reason is that the right wing in this country is so vicious and sociopathic that we are afraid of them. Never forget that about 30% of Americans believe we did the right thing by invading Iraq and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. To them the only good Moslem is a dead one. Great country we have here.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Saddam was supported by about 20% of Iraq. Bush is supported by about 30% of America. See how much better Bush is than Saddam? On any other basis, you are correct.

Hoppy in Sacramento

avatar

Neocons believe and live by the belief that superior people have the right - and the duty - to rule inferior people.

Neocon philosophy echoes the 'apology' delivered by Robespierre to justify the Reign of Terror, "Out of pity and love of humanity, you must be inhuman."

If you want to elicit fits of hysteria among neocons, just suggest to them that their belief system bears an uncanny resemblance to that of their declared enemy, communism, - "The end justifies the means."

avatar

I think the effort in WW2 was worth it and that the effort in Vietnam (when the US was the enemy) was also worth it even though the Vietnamese peoples suffered in their millions because 'the dust wil not vanish where the broom does not reach'.

But you say ‘and finally; Not one piece of evidence has been uncovered that justified Bush's reasons for invading Iraq. No WMD, no al Qaeda connection, and certainly its been proven that Saddam was no threat to the US.’ All true.


Your problem is that you are blind to the real reason the U.S. ruling elite decided to go to war.

Bush is no lefty because he is waging this war in the interests of his class, and it is only incidentally in the interests of the oppressed peoples’ in the Middle East. He has become a progressive-right-winger because history thrust greatness upon him.

He asked the big questions that had to be asked, after 9/11. What more can they do to us? ...Well, Mr. President they will, if not stopped, eventually get hold of a nuke and destroy Washington or some other city.

What strategy must we adopt to defeat them? Mr. President we must set down policies to turn every country in the world into a modern (bourgeois) democracy. If all countries look, and smell like Sweden and France, we will have won. The world needs sewerage systems for the smell, and industrialization for the sewerage systems; it needs education for the industrialization, and it needs basic bourgeois political freedoms to permit the education… We must stop doing what we have been doing for the whole post WW2 period.

We must reverse all our old policies.

These mosquitoes are attacking us because we caused a swamp in the Middle East which breeds them! We must drain that swamp, and then there will be no more mosquitoes. Mr. President there is no other way of winning this war…. (At least that is what I would tell him if I was in the war cabinet)

If you want to think more about the type of issues that I am bringing up then go to

http://www.lastsuperpower.net/
and have a look at the Draining the swamp thread in the forum, or democracy was intended for Iraq

Your ruling class lies to you and has initiated this war for strategic reasons. The US ruling elite sat down after 9/11 and accepted that the former policies of propping up every tyrant and reactionary against the peoples struggle for democracy (while lying about supporting democracy) had resulted in the disaster.

All the former policies have been reversed and democratic revolution is now being supported.

Static thinking is your problem.

The Iraqi people fighting for their liberation against a heavily armed Baathist regime with tanks and artillery helicopter gun ships intact command and control etc would require many more casualties from the side I support. Then at the end of that struggle the enemy could still resort to the type of bombing we see now!!

Patrick

Interesting point hoppy - the whole fear of the right thing.

A thought just flashed through my "it's Friday and I can't wait until 7pm and my first Guinness" mind that is a little disturbing but I still find myself smiling about it. And as a childhood conservative that grew up and found a conscience I think it could be considered ironic.

In my little fantasy I'm the "dictator for the day" here in America. I get to rule on everything. And you know what I do? Why I treat all of the rightwing lunkheads out there that hate anything that's not white, Christian and rich with a drawl and I do unto them everything they bellow about doing unto others. I round them all up. I toss them all in cells and do some alternative forms of questioning. I ban their religion and label it a fascist and terrorist organization and shut that thing down too. And by the time I wake up the next day I find that we all miraculously are getting along much better and not hating or trying to kill or control the entire freaking planet. And I smile a little because it's at that moment I realize just how much fun it could be to scare the bejeezus outta the right using their own devices. And they'd be scared of me too because as a former member of the right...they'd be fully aware of just what I'd be capable of! >:D

avatar

Spot on. I read a great theory a number of years ago about why the US had succeeded in forming a representative democracy and the French had gone the way of the reign of terror. The author linked the French Revolution, Leninism, Nazism as coming out of romantic utopianism. The utopian end justifies the means, and the means then terribly corrupts the utopian end.

The US was more fortunate coming out of the more rational Enlightenment. Gore speaks to that in his "Assault on Reason".

Neocons are corrupt utopians.

avatar

Patrick,

The US military doesn't consider it "silly" to separate the Sunnis from al-Qaeda. The US is now arming Sunnis (former American-killers) in Anbar Province to fight al-Qaeda, who have been killing Sunnis.

Who are you to suggest that the Sunnis shouldn't fight the Kurds? Are you an Arabic-reading expert? What are your qualifications? The Sunnis once ran the country, they have now left the "government", and in a civil war power comes out of the barrel of a gun. (It's US policy also.) Why do think that the Sunnis should trust the Shi'ites? Saudi Arabia certainly doesn't, and so they are supporting the Sunnis too.

Finally, you've got the Iraq/Iran relationship all wrong. Maliki and the Iranian mullahs are as tight as a drum. Iran has been aiding Iraq for at least two years. recent news:// The Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has called for the expansion of ties with Iran, requesting Tehran's cooperation in rebuilding Iraq. In a meeting with Iran's Vice-President Parviz Davoudi on Wednesday, al-Maliki expressed hope that Iranian companies would welcome investments on the fields of energy, industry and commerce.//And Iran just gave Maliki a new Airbus 300 aircraft.

avatar


I have been reading the ravings of Hitchens for a few years now, but this is the first time I have encountered anyone repeating his rants.

Is that you Chris, hiding in there?

avatar

I got more evidence for the Kurds than you got for Al Quaeda, Patrick ol boy.

And it's a well established fact that the Kurds are engaged in good ole ethnic cleansing.

They gots to, you see. They need that oil, and that means all those Turkmen, Assyrians, Sunni Arabs and Yeziday, who might otherwise contest that claim for oil have to be removed, all permanent like, or they'll never have their Greater Kurdistan.

That's how the game is played.

avatar
On August 17, 2007 - 6:51pm patrickm said:


............. the effort in Vietnam (when the US was the enemy) was also worth it even though the Vietnamese peoples suffered in their millions because 'the dust wil not vanish where the broom does not reach'.

"Worth it" to who? To the millions of Vietnamese who suffered? The 58,000 Americans who died and the untold numbers of wounded? To who?

What was the outcome of our war in Vietnam?

What was "worth it"? Worth what? What was gained?

'a broken broom sweeps not clean'.

avatar

The US under Bush is trying to 'drain the swamps' of the Middle East - that is, undermine and overthrow the dictators it has propped up for 60 years - and we should be supporting them, and demanding they do more and go faster.

Sure, Patrick, that's why we're giving all that aid to Saudi Arabia, the Gulf emirates and Egypt, and why we continue to support Jordan and Kuwait.

Horsepucky.

avatar
Saddam was a horrible, violent, ruthless leader. But George W. Bush is infinitely worse.

You're pre empting the Historians. :-)

avatar

I'm afraid I have to disagree with Cole on this one. Look at how the players stack up in this region.

The Sunni Arabs in the region are playing defense, they're being attacked and ethnically cleansed by the Kurds who are making a play for control of strategic and oil producing borderland and mixed areas. The Kurds have American support and pretty much a free hand to do as they like. The Sunni Arabs simply don't have the same strategic advantages.

Instead, the biggest and best card that the Sunnis are able to play is to ally with minority and marginal groups in the area in an anti-Kurdish front. These groups, the Turkmen, Assyrians, Yeziday are all extremely vulnerable, they're small minorities, but they are very well established with long histories in the region. They have nowhere to go. To survive, they need to ally with one of the countries major factions. The Kurds are out to displace them. The Shiites are too remote. That leaves the Sunnis.

Juan Cole is correct that someone is clearing the deck for a Sunni/Kurdish showdown. But it makes no sense for the Sunni to start toasting their natural allies. It makes a lot of sense for the Kurds to clean house.

Sorry, Juan Cole is an invaluable resource and he's definitely the expert. But he called this one wrong.

Oh, and whatever it is, it's not Al Quaeda. Al Quaeda claims its victims, it issues press releases, makes announcements, and goes out of the way to take the credit.

No one is taking credit for this. This is another finger pointing at the Kurds. They can't afford to take credit overtly, it would get them in dutch with their big dog.

avatar
First note what Valdron said, then consider just how silly this notion of separating Al Qaeda from other Sunni’s that are prepared to conduct such suicide bombings is;

I'm sorry Patrick, but that's just self evidently dumb.

‘Sooner or later, my guess is that the Sunni Arabs will wage a major war with the Kurds over the oil fields of Kirkuk.’ Why ought they? If oil revenue sharing is proportional what would they hope to gain but a disproportionate share. How would anyone support a disproportionate share for one ethnic group?

Because the Kurds want an independent state, or as close to independent as they can get. They need those oil fields, they're vital to Kurdish aspirations. And the Kurds aren't interested in sharing. Everyone knows this.

Valdron correctly recognized that I support the Kurdish peoples and the Iraqi government against such aggression.

Glad to hear it. How many American lives will you spend to support the Kurds, because their plans involve Americans dying on their behalf in large numbers for the Greater Glory of United Kurdistan.

BTW: Iraq is not an Islamic state allied with Iran, but rather a threat to the Iranian theocracy as democratic elections are looked on with envy by the Iranian people who will overthrow the theocrats. Remember how the police states of eastern Europe infected one another with regional effect. The ME is ripe for revolution.

Actually, Iraq's ruling political parties, SCIRI and Dawa are closely allied with Iran. Iran gave these parties political asylum during the Saddam era, funded them, and helped arm their militias. Maliki and other Iraqi government figures frequently visit Iran. Basically, once America leaves, Iran will inherit Iraq. Thank Bush for that.

avatar

The representative democracy was so successful that it enslaved nearly half of the population of the south and plunged the country into a civil war that killed more than 10 times what the French terror did.

You call that being more fortunate ??

avatar

The Germans liked Belgium so much they invaded them twice.

avatar

And before them the French, the British, the Dutch, the Danes, the Swedes, etc. etc. Basically, there was a time when they wouldn't let you into Europe if you didn't invade Belgium. It was like part of the membership requirements.

avatar

Patrick:

These mosquitoes are attacking us because we caused a swamp in the Middle East which breeds them! We must drain that swamp, and then there will be no more mosquitoes.

To sound like Goebbels does not help your argument. They are attacking us because we are occupying them.

Now, a linguistic question: If you call those people mosquitoes, what does that make you? A cockroach?

avatar

I'm not sure Vietnam was worth it to America. But I'm not sure what you are saying about Vietnam.

As for the real reason Bush wanted to go to war, that's simple. Oil. Strategic control of Iraq's oil reserves, which would mean strategic control of the entire Persian Gulf, intimidation of Iran, breaking the back of OPEC, and using domination of the planet's key resource to ensure America's economic and political hegemony indefinitely.

None of this crap about liberating people, bringing forth the revolution, or any of that. Free people have a disconcerting habit of acting in their own interests, rather than how you want them to act. Dictators are always much safer.

As for whether Democracy was ever intended for Iraq, that's a dubious proposition at best, considering the maneuvering to put Ahmad Chalabi in power.

avatar

Everywhere the old world is under challenge get used to it.

A few hundred, or a few thousand, random murders does not a new world order make.

We've had serial killers with three-figure body counts. Somehow, our Republic still managed to survive.

About three thousand people died during the 9/11 terrorist attacks. During that same year, over 50,000 people in the United States died in car crashes.

The terrorists simply are not a substantial threat to our way of life. We need to treat this as an international law enforcement issue against a handful of rogue murderers, not declare war against the entire Islamic world.

Patrick

Just a point about "draining swamps" - it is highly recommended that you have some people involved that know a thing or two about say the ecosystem in the swamp and something about the other life forms that live in the swamp that may be harmed if you just go a-draining things. Oh yeah and it might also be helpful if you knew exactly where you were "draining" all that swamp to because that guy living next door might not take too kindly to finding all that swamp in his backyard tomorrow...

You see the leaders in our country and the vast majority of all of those rabid pundits and think-tank dregs operate on little more then opinion and prejudice. I'm reminded of that Jon Stewart segment - They don't know Dick. They've been disastrously wrong on so many things so very often that I'm surprised we don't simply do the exact opposite of whatever they say. I'd be willing to bet things would improve all over the world dramatically in one week if that's what we started doing.

Patrick, Up until now I occasionally have troll-rated you because of your mindless quotings of neo-con talking points. 

I am beginning to rethink some things; I realize that you may not be an actual troll, but instead that you are one sick puppy.  I won't gointo all of your rantings, but the Vietnam bullshit just stands out. 

According to you, we LOST Vietnam because of lack of support for the powers that be, etc, right?  So, that means we lost.  We went in (theoretically) to keep it from going Communist.  Well, we LOST, but lo and behold, Vietnam isn't communist; we do business with them on a daily basis. 

So, if our 58,000 young men an women, and the untold millions of Vietnamese hadn't died, how would things be different? (Since we LOST, and they trade happily with us, how would things be different if we had WON?)  But don't lose that thought of the 58,000 and untold millions who died -- who of them might have been a real leader?  Who of them might have made this world a better place?  (If the coward chickenhawks Bush and Cheney had stepped up to the plate and NOT survived Vietnam, I am CONVINCED  the world would be a better place, but that is another argument entirely.) 

Hell, China isn't even communist any more.  Why?  Because they caught on to the idea of capitalism.  Yea US!  We taught China so well that they are poisoning our pets and children in the name of capitalism! 

You paranoid sociopaths have to get over the idea that WE know best! You paranoid sociopaths have to get over the idea that the end justifies the means!  You paranoid sociopaths have to get over the idea that the love of, and the act of making money is the root of all happiness!

And, Patrick,  you really need to check yourself in to a major mental health facility!  Trust me, I am a nurse, and I know pathology when I see it.

Jan

avatar

Jan according to me the Vietnamese people won (and I supported them! The US ruling class had it's ass kicked soundly. The lives lost were because of US aggression on the part of 'nice' liberals like Kennedy.

Now take a deep breath and stop jumping to the conclusion that I would believe that "the act of making money is the root of all happiness"

Patrick

avatar

There is one important thing we can all do. It seems very small and insignificant, but if you don't do it, you shouldn't be offering your 2 cents worth on these blogs because it isn't worth that much. Write to your congressman and both senators and tell them how you feel about it. Blog readers can't vote on anything that isn't on a referendum.

avatar

killing "wogs" is the oldest sport in the history of amerika.

it is the amerikan birthright, so to speak.

and it started at the outset of the round-eye, big nose invasion of this hemisphere.

and none of the homicidal gangsters have ever paid any penalty. why? because amerikans like to kill those that they think to be untermenschen.

what is novel in this latest episode of mass murdering of "wogs" is that those who were victims[aka "wogs"] of mass murdering in europe 65 years ago are now the proponents of mass murdering[genocide].

in a very real sense, the amerikan mass murdering of middle eastern "wogs" has been instigated by those who you might have thought would be opposed to "genocide"....the religious victims of the thousand year reich - jews.

when i think of israel, i think of amerika from 1865-today. amerika's motto: "the only good indian is a dead indian".

in israel today, the motto is: "the only good palestinian[non-jew] is a dead palestinian."

before your very eyes, a pogrom is being pursued.

the israeli objective, financed and armed by the united states of amerika, is to eliminate all non-jews from the middle east.

a startlingly similar objective to ah's.

Feed The Snake Its Own Tail

The lame and crippled democracy of Iraq is not even as noble as the Mob with the guillotine was at the dawn of the French Revolution, and this is now four plus years out. Yet this is the best reason this revisionary can offer for his miserable failure as Assistant Secretary of Defense; and it is most assuredly a revised vision of the Iraq War by Wolfowitz. In a May 2003 interview with Sam Tannenhaus from Vanity Fair, Wolfowitz expressly ruled out freeing the Iraqi people as a justification for bleeding American Soldiers in Iraq. Trouble is that:

There Were No WMDs
There Were No WMD Production Facilities
There Were No Ties Between Saddam and al Qaeda
The Threat Was Not Imminent
There Was No Gathering Storm

What else is left but to claim that this bloodbath of ethnic purges, which far surpasses even the most bloated estimates of Hussein's killing fields; that this pillaging of the American treasury, which in comparison gives the Oil for Food Scandal an aura of a two-bit grifter's scheme, is a worthy outcome for his dream's obscene manifestation in reality.

Feed the snake his own tail. Make him choke on his own words. What could be more appropriate to this end than a dish served off of the DoD's own servers?

United States Department of Defense News Transcript
Presenter: Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz - Friday, May 9, 2003
Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Interview with Sam Tannenhaus, Vanity Fair

The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but...there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two...

To wrap it up.

The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there's the most disagreement within the bureaucracy, even though I think everyone agrees that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we've arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his UN presentation.

[. . .]

...I took a very different view of what the argument that removing Saddam Hussein would destabilize the Middle East. I said on the record, I don't understand how people can really believe that removing this huge source of instability is going to be a cause of instability in the Middle East.

I understand what they're thinking about. I'm not blind to the uncertainties of this situation, but they just seem to be blind to the instability that that son of a bitch was causing. It's as though the fact that he was paying $25,000 per terrorist family and issuing regular threats to most friendly governments in the region and the long list of things was of no account and the only thing to think about was that there might be some inter-communal violence if he were removed.

The implication of a lot of the argumentation against acting -- the implication was that the only way to have the stability that we need in Iraq is to have a tyrant like Saddam keeping everybody in check -- I know no one ever said it that way and if you pointed it out that way they'd say that's not what I mean. But I believe that really is where the logic was leading.

The north of iraq was not under Saddam's control, but was intead under Kurdish control, and protected by US/UK/French Over-Flights. "this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his UN presentation" was a one-legged Baghdad Hospital guest at Saddam's behest, who had lost his leg in Afghanistan fighting against American forces, btw. This was before he became Iraq's Qaeda One. Is there anything at all in this analysis that was correct?

avatar

There was no waffling back then, they went for the mussels in Brussels.

avatar

Trust me, I don't know what I'm talking about on this subject which is why I deferred to Juan Cole.

I take your point on the Yezidi, but there's this from wikipedia [I know]:

It is alleged by some[attribution needed] that during the regime of Saddam Hussein, Yazidis were considered to be Arabs and maneuvered to oppose the Kurds, in order to tilt the ethnic balance in northern Iraq,[citation needed] but this cannot be entirely substantiated. It is known, however, that the Yazidi's unique identity, despite being culturally Kurdish, was in fact used by the Baathist regime to isolate one from the other. However, both groups fought against Baathist troops, often in joint Peshmerga units. Since the 2003 occupation of Iraq, the Kurds want the Yazidi to be recognized as ethnic Kurds to increase their numbers and influence.

avatar

I generally defer to Cole myself. But in this case we have an unattributed massive bombing right in the middle of a zone of Kurdish expansion? Who is kidding who?

The Yazidi are part of an ongoing regional contest.

Not in any sense useful--except perhaps as a kind of personal therapy.  This kind of screed convinces no one, and adds nothing to the discourse.  America with the k, been there, done that: how sixties .  It didn't do any good back then, either, -- saved no lives, preserved no integrity, stopped no atrocities.  Maybe then, too, it served as a kind of personal therapy. 

"Wogs" which has a specific corrupt meaning but an English one, brought in for who knows what reason. 

MJ offers an elegiac piece, an apology for those complicit in destroying Iraq from one who was not, and this kind of thing cheapens and debases it, and diverts attention from the atrocity which is Iraq to no purpose.  How many Iraqis are saved by the Israel-Palestine analogy?  There will be plenty of times to take this conversation down that road when MJ chooses to begin it in that direction.  It will be microseconds now before persons here will be tossing Nazi and Fascist at each other.  Thanks for nothing.

aMike

We don't mind:  we're used to it.  Happens all the time, and we're far less sensitive than the economists are.  :-)

aMike

avatar

amike, I happen to believe that we need a shot of "therapy" now and then. A wake-up call, with lots of caffeine. Hot, straight and black, no cream or sugar please, and hold the fancy rhetoric.

One can make the case that the Iraqis, the poor shot-at Iraqis, are our Palestinians. Albert Champion makes that argument. We are, as he indicates, doing the bidding of the Israelis in the Middle East, and that includes a lot of killing.

Fellow bloggers, I support Albert Champion. Bring on the 0's and 1's. I look forward to them.

avatar

Much as I agree with the general sentiment and believe the war to be illegal, and the inner administration circle involved directly in its prosecution to be criminals, I would like to leap to the defence of Edith Piaf.

The whole point about the song is the recognition of her own frailties, her successes and failures, good and bad, loves lost. She blames no one but herself, and would live her life the same (maybe?).

"Je repars à zéro..." and, the final line, "Aujourd'hui, ça commence avec toi!" affirming her appreciation of and attachment to her fans.

She rises far above the GWB's and the non-apologetic neo-cons of this world who are too cowardly to openly declare their real agenda.

[If accents don't print: "Je repars a zero..." and "Aujourd'hui, ca commence avec toi!"]

avatar

Somebody at the DOD must have left that interview up to show what the dumb, ignorant, self-righteous, flaming a**hole sounded like in his drivel from 2003.

Understatement of the 2003 interview by Wolfie:

...there might be some inter-communal violence if he (Saddam) were removed.

avatar

Patrickm, how many active duty military tours have you or your fellow geo-political analysts at lastsuperpower spent 'draining' the 'mosquito swamp' in the Middle East? Bush and Wolfowitz aren't draining a swamp but creating a super sized one.

In the fifth year, are the mosquitoes diminishing or proliferating, has the draining process become plugged up with dead bodies? At half a trillion and counting, all paid for by the USA, how long do smart guys like you think we can afford to keep playing plumber in what used to be Iraq?

avatar

I wonder if it has struck anyone else just how handy al Qaeda and their atrocities have been to the fortunes of Bush Inc.'s gang of Neo-Cons.

I’m sure it's just an innocent symbiotic relationship that finds al Qaeda doing just what Bush Inc’s policy makers need an enemy to do…and so on cue…

avatar
If you want to elicit fits of hysteria among neocons, just suggest to them that their belief system bears an uncanny resemblance to that of their declared enemy, communism, - "The end justifies the means."


Hell, some of them were once Communists and/or the children of Communists, of the Trotsky sort mind you. I'd say they were Trotsky's revenge on the world's people.

Ouch...that one made my eyes sting! LOL

avatar

Thanks for clarifying this. Being related to a fabulously successful economist I have evidence to the contrary. Aside from Krugman and a few here (and there) I would have used the term "sensitive" to describe an economist's acute ability to squeeze a buck.

The aforementioned explained that while historians are mainly "alpha" economists are primarily "numeric", boasting that they use the whole keyboard to advance their position.

When this person can drop a million on a flat in town as a convenience for late night business, it's hard to argue.

avatar
Pseudo says:

"There Were No WMDs
There Were No WMD Production Facilities"

Oh yeah? Well, well, he did have Weapons of Mass Destruction related aspirations.

-George Bush

(smirk)

avatar

For me, the worst of the war criminals is the guy General Franks called "the stupidest fuck on earth,"  Doug Feith.

And where is he today?  Teaching at Georgetown University.

This is a metaphor for the decline of America.  Kissinger wanted to go back to Harvard after leaving the State Dept, but couldn't because Harvard said no (the university feared riots).  Kissinger, of course, was a big Harvard prof before going into government and, despite a later career as a war criminal, was a distinguished academic.  Yet HU said "no."

Now I know Georgetown aint Harvard.  But it's a Jesuit school.  Jesuit!  And it welcomes not just a war criminal but a fool with no credentials.  And it does so knowing that in these days, the students will just go along.

The Feith appointment at Georgetown is the single most disturbing move of any of the Iraq war criminals.  Georgetown!  Society of Jesus!  War criminal Douglas Feith!  St. Ignatius of Loyola must be spinning. 

 

avatar

aMike is fined $10.00 for forcing me to go to the dictionary to look up the word "elegiac," and finding this :

Etymology: Late Latin elegiacus, from Greek elegeiakos, from elegeion

1 a : of, relating to, or consisting of two dactylic hexameter lines the second of which lacks the arsis in the third and sixth feet.

(*&&^%$#@

:-)

avatar

Hector

My wife and I went last evening to see Charles Ferguson's extraordinary film, "No End in Sight". I'd add just one friendly amendment to jophusa's (in my view) importantly correct suggestion: When you write to your representative and senators, urge them to see "No End in Sight". This week. And to pay attention, and to watch it through to the film's last words, from a US Marine who strkes me as an extraordinary human being.

avatar

"The liberation of the entire region is now on the agenda"

Oh, Jesus Christ. Finish junior high school first and then we'll talk. America is not somehow inherently on the good side simply by virtue of being America. We're the good guys when we act like the good guys. When we launch unprovoked "Shock and Awe" terrorist attacks on other nations and make alliances with guys like Musharraf, then we're the bad guys. Right now, in America, the biggest battle is the battle to capture and bring to justice the people who subverted our constitution and our democracy in order to launch an evil, ill-advised and illegal preemptive military action against a sovereign nation that had not attacked us or threatened to attack us (except in the criminally-paranoid minds of our neocon friends in power).

You must have some neighbor kids somewhere who need to be "liberated" from their mean mother or something, don't you? Have at it, hero. See you when you get out of jail.

avatar

Yeah - makes me think of all those swamps that were drained in Florida from 1920-1970. As a result of which vast areas of the state are turning into deserts and in many cases collapsing into sinkholes. Requiring a huge program to refill as many of the swamps as possible.

sPh

avatar

Howard will have a 1500 word essay on this word posted by this afternoon ;-)

sPh

The worst part is that these people do not even hold themselves accountable. LBJ and McNamara suffered pangs of, I don't know, guilt, shame, anger, regret. Something.

What does Madeline Albright feel for the sanctions regime that made this invasion, if not inevitable, much more likely?

When you can write the script you do have the possibility of a symbiotic relationship that flowers. Imagine how effective a boogie man under the bed can be if used properly. It isn't like you have to worry about the boogie man actually coming out and refusing your script.

You might want to give a little thought to the close business relationship between the Bush's and the bin Ladens, and to the way Osama had such an easy time avoiding capture or killing by US forces.

Hoppy in Sacramento

avatar

"inevitable, much more likely?"

Who believes the invasion of Iraq was inevitable or much more likely? Certainly not Cheney who was pontificating against overthrowing Saddam, not only in 1992, but as late as 2000.

What made the invasion of Iraq inevitable?

avatar

sphealey,

HAHAHAHHAHHAHAHA

That's our Howard! :-)

avatar

The Bush enabler, John Yoo, is teaching Law at Berkley.

How the f**k did that happen?

Bush: "John, I need a legal opinion allowing me to create concentration camps."

Yoo: "Comin' right up Chief."

avatar

Ward Churchill was fired for his irresponsible comments regarding 9/11 and "little Eichmanns." (Officially, he was fired for academic misconduct, but no one can actually be naive enough to believe this cover story.)

Why shouldn't John Yoo be fired for his equally loathsome (and far more influential) defense of the Divine Right of Presidents and his encomiums to torture?

avatar

The appointment of George W. Bush to the Presidency?

Let's go in the wayback machine:

"Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out!"

or even further back:

"To be successful, you've got to be a war President."

avatar
lacks the arsis in the third and sixth feet.

a fancy way of saying that 6 people kick you in the arsis but #3 and #6 miss their target.

As distinct from the understanding of the sense of humor of computers, recognized by really good computer scientists and engineers: "If you ever encounter a computer with feet, never bend over near it."

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

avatar

The mind of Wingnutus Limbaughtomi: nothing bad is the fault of The Decider because we voted for him, ergo, blame the Iraq fiasco on Madeline Albright and her boss, Bill Clinton.

When I saw the title didn't know whether MJ knew the reference to Piaf's song until I read further.

I thought it an insult to link the too-tender-hearted Piaf in anyway with the ones Kurt Vonnegut accurately described as psychopaths.

Glad to see you stepped up to defend her -- and much better than I could have.

 

avatar
How is it that innocent people can die by the hundreds and thousands thanks to policy decisions made by Americans and nobody here is held accountable.

One of the consequences we are paying for a representative for of government is, by allowing our servants in Washington more and more power, we have inadvertantly given them the ability to setup a separation... wall... between them and the common folk.

This last little ethics bill passed by Congress is a good example. Any punishment involved with ethics violations will be burdoned by lobbiests, not congressmen. This was not a function of party. Both Reps and Dems agreed to this.

Exactly the same thing is occurring when one (or many) in charge decides it is to our benefit to attack another country, or assassinate a leader. they are pretty much exempt from consequences of thieir actions.

In essence, what has happened over a length of time is that we have come to a point in our history that the ONE major difference between our "democracy" and a dictatorship is that a dictator can have consequences (hanging), whereas in our "democracy", the only repercussion is that the important people committing the attrocities might be voted out and become less important.

The end result of this, of course, is an end to democracy and freedom and the full circle back to dictatorship. We are quickly seeing this occur. Although the rhetoric from above continues to be fear of external forces (terrorists), their actions tell an exact opposite story.

We have no border walls. Whether or not you believe we should have border walls, the powers to be have not erected them. If there was any concern for their (or our) lives at all, the 1st thing which would have occurred after 9/11 would have been border control. Instead, crowd control (a means of protecting them from us) has been enhanced. If you take a good look at the spying, secrecy, hiring of hundreds of thousands of more folks with weapons and arrest powers... notice the guards at Social Security office, mental health offices, other government buildings? These are all means of separating and protecting government employees and offricials from the disgruntled crowds, not terrorists.

I keep hearing about being in the Mideast because of oil..

This is nonsense. We are in the mideast to to support those who desire power, to stay in power. Today it's oil and defense contractors (guess how many congessmen and senators have defense contractors working in their districts?. Tomorrow, it will be something else. If it were oil, how's this for a scenario. We take $200 billion from our defense budget. This would cut our budget in half so we would only be spending about 1/4 of the world's defense budgetinstead of 1/2.

This much money would allow ALL of our homes in the United States to be completely self sufficient in 8 years. We could be putting electricity back into the grid to supply industry, and we could most likely be producing our own hydrogen at home for our automobiles. Our savings could be spent growing our economy.... End of oil problem.

This will never happen because oil is not our problem... The people we have given power to will keep their power at all costs. The two parties yell and scream at each other at times, but there is no way the Dems or Reps will allow anyone else but them in charge... and "We the "People" will continue to put them back into power... in the false belief that "they" will save us from "those bad guys". IMHO

I wouldn't rule out some historical parallel. After failing in a coup in still-French Algeria, the Foreign Legion's 1st Parachute Regiment sang it, on their way to barracks where their unit was to be dissolved in disgrace.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

There's also the little problem that all the things I think of right away -specifics edited -- are all quite felonious.

I've been trying to stimulate y'all to the hard work of building a long-term civil movement of resistance, yet getting far few takers than total mis-understanders on the blog comment wires.

So it's not fear of the right-wing sociopaths in themselves, it's more the fear of the severe legal consequences, the disruption to the family and stability I have invested in the reality of my private life, and the fact that my daily habits are so pacificist and oriented towards fulfilling my obligations to my three jobs, at age 56, that to actually take steps in the directions of my war-like thoughts would completely overturn most of my carefully-constructed infrastructure of mental stability.

So although I know most everything necessary to be the leader of the underground army, in reality it cannot happen.

Yet I imagine a young person with little to lose ... Is America is so stable, that we are not five to seven years from some severe social strife?? (And I would definitely predict at least localized conflict if civilized systems fail to keep delivering food to the cities, anytime in the next generation or so.) Are we really that much more stable than say, Yugoslavia in 1985 or Northern Ireland in 1965?

Rating: Hilariously funny, yet more than a little dismissive of the complexity of the great wheel of all human history ...