Are the architects of the War on Terror in trouble

[mattp]

Scooter Libby’s trial begun this week, and his lawyer said in an opening statement that he has been set up as the fall guy, to protect others in the Bush administration from being exposed in their efforts to retaliate against Joseph Wilson for his criticism of the administration’s lying about one of their main justifications for invading Iraq.

 

A “senior Pentagon official” (a deputy assistant secretary of defense) who said lawyers offering free legal services to U.S. held captives in Guantanimo Bay were unethical and called for corporate executives to “make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms” is in trouble and may possibly face disbarment in connection with his remarks made on January 11.

 

Today’s newspaper headlines include the apology from the Prime Minister of Canada, offered to the man seized at a N.Y. airport and sent to Syria to be tortured based on his being falsely named as a terrorism suspect (Maher Arar). The U.S. has never acknowledged it made a mistake in the case, but this certainly comes as an embarrassment.

 

Today’s paper also reports that Italy has seized a CIA agent’s villa and may indict 26 Americans and five Italian intelligence officials on criminal charges in connection with illegal renditions of terrorist suspects. The paper says former CIA station chiefs in Rome and Milan are included in the list.

 

The Army said on Friday that the only U.S. military officer charged with a crime in the Abu Ghraib scandal will be court martialed on eight charges, including cruelty and maltreatment of prisoners.

 

It looks like Congress is going to pass a “non-binding” resolution critical of President Bush’s plan to escalate the war in Iraq, and the only question appears to be just how strongly to word it.

 

Congress has the support of the American public here and, faced with the last five years’ news about how how our government has been lying to us and how the U.S. military and intelligence communities have been violating our own laws, the Geneva Conventions, and plain old human decency, the American public may finally be getting the idea that all of this reflects poorly on America and that the long-term consequences of disillusionment with America and with democracy here and abroad could be disastrous.

 

Meanwhile Bush remains defiant, saying he is the decider and Secretary of Defense Gates says that those who support the Congressional pending legislation are giving comfort to our enemies. Are they digging themselves a deeper hole?

 

Is there hope that we have leaders in this nation who are capable of turning some of this around? It is possible that we might see more than just a few hands being slapped, isn't it?

[Dechristo]

Don't get your hopes up. This situation, despite your assessment (perhaps), isn't as cut & dry as My Lai.

 

Many in the position to prosecute these offenses are cognizant the saw they create to use on others' necks may, in turn, be used to cut the limbs on which they perch.

[mattp]

Actually, I think “this situation” is far worse than My Lai. It looks as if it has all been much more deliberate and moreover it has been widely known, though downplayed, for a couple of years. Lastly, a large segment of the American public has been willing to either ignore or endorse it.

 

However, that is not my main question here. My question is whether there may be hope that out of all of this we will actually commit to a new course of action in the pursuit of domestic and international security.

 

The news is staggering. The general public believes the war in Iraq was badly conceived and that it has been a disaster. The number of stories about heavy handed interrogation, kidnap, torture, and murder are growing. So too are those about how administration officials have not only twisted the intelligence, but lied to the American public and the world over and over again on a wide variety of issues related to national security and terrorism.

 

A year ago, Bush started out his SOU speech with five minutes on 911 and Afghanistan feeding into Iraq in such a way that it sounded as if he was saying that Saddam attacked us. He wouldn’t dare try that now. Certainly the administration is finding their backs against the wall.

 

I believe that our “ends justify the means” and “with us or against us” approach to the war on terror has seriously eroded our sense of self worth as a nation and our ability to conduct foreign policy around the world. This has been and will for years to come be a big disaster for us. Holding those responsible for it publicly accountable may not be an essential part of changing course, but it would certainly be an important part of changing course in a manner that says to the world and to ourselves that we won’t let it happen again.

 

[Crux]

Yes, there is reason for hope. We do have leaders who are inclined to seek justice and restore America to a respectable place in the free world, but sadly the popular support from Americans is not really there yet. I cite as evidence of American complacency the fact that no petition distributed by representatives to voters in order to garner attention in Congress has gathered so much as 100,000 supporters -- a number that seems almost paltry to me in a nation of over 300 million. (Ted Kennedy, for example, despite his presumably substantial base, has been able to boast only 70,000 signatures from the public in support of his bill to hold Bush accountable for future spending in Iraq.)

 

Two years ago it appeared evident there might be two events by which the American public could be awakened: One, investigations by Congress had to expose facts about the Bush administration that are outrageous enough to defy containment by Congress or the media. Two, legal actions taken by influential nations of the free world had to take a severe turn against the Bush administration. Both of those events are now taking place.

Edited January 28, 2007 by Crux

[chucK]

Rove to give sworn testimony?

 

More inquiry on Bushco misuse of intelligence in rush to war?

 

Could get interesting!

[Dechristo]

My question is whether there may be hope that out of all of this we will actually commit to a new course of action in the pursuit of domestic and international security.

No matter who is at the helm and sentiments of officers and crew, turning a battleship requires time.

 

 

The number of stories about heavy handed interrogation, kidnap, torture, and murder are growing.

Agreement by leaders to the conduct of war is easy and practiced - even by children in the play of board games. To expect absolute compliance by those actively defending and taking lives is fantasy.

 

 

So too are those [stories] about how administration officials have not only twisted the intelligence, but lied to the American public and the world over and over again on a wide variety of issues related to national security and terrorism.

It's interesting to reflect upon how different, from today to just a few decades ago, the change in awareness of the general public of the events in our world. In this Age of Information, one may place hope in the widespread disemenation of information once held fast in boardrooms and the backrooms of governmental offices to allow the general public, armed with what was once priviledged information, to make more informed choices. Although, this is undeniably a powerful new tool, it cannot be doubted it is just as powerfull a tool of misinformation. The location of truth seems cryptic as ever.

 

A year ago, Bush started out his SOU speech with five minutes on 911 and Afghanistan feeding into Iraq in such a way that it sounded as if he was saying that Saddam attacked us. He wouldn’t dare try that now. Certainly the administration is finding their backs against the wall.

Where/what is "the wall"? Other than legal conviction (which, I believe, is a pipedream), "the wall" is only the room where a new strategy is formed for the sale of an agenda and the purchase of power. Cynical? Yes. Can noble magnanimity gain traction in an environment where nothing moves without the exchange of favors?

 

 

Holding those responsible for it publicly accountable may not be an essential part of changing course, but it would certainly be an important part of changing course in a manner that says to the world and to ourselves that we won’t let it happen again.

 

Sadly, no matter the repercussions of the perceived manifestation of justice served in our time, there is no guarantee that it won't "happen again". Perhaps trite, but World War One, was "the war to end all wars". Regardless, of the specifics of deceits and manipulations presently that precipitate our role in world conflict, can there be any doubt these pathologies were/are/will be instrumental and present in mankind's gait? We are deep in our understanding of the world we live in. We are as shallow as ever in our understanding of the world within us.

 

[mattp]

You are not just cynical Dechristo but maybe defeatist, too. I can't quite understand everything you wrote, but it sounds as if the general thread is that you see no point in even asking our government to respect international law, human rights, or any standard of human decency:

 

- the soldiers are going to commit mayhem anyway, so you can't blame that on those who may have ordered them to do it,

- there is no way to ever know whether our leaders lied or broke laws anyway, so why ask,

- wars have always been this way and always will

- the administration is under no particular pressure to change anything, and

- even IF somebody wanted to change our overall posture or tactics, it would take so long to make any changes that it wouldn't be worth it.

 

Sad.

 

[Dechristo]

seeing that you prefer to assume the most extreme interpretation possible (not plausible, but possible), I'll defer post space to those who receive some enjoyment from discussion with you.

 

It's ironic that you seem to propose a better world through diplomacy and yet, personally, practice the opposite.

[mattp]

I must admit that I struggled with your post, DeChristo, but that was my best guess as to what you meant. I posted what I interpreted in order to allow you to clarify or correct where I may have misunderstood. Otherwise, I would simply have replied: you seem to be saying "why bother," and it sounds as if you are not only cynical but defeatist.

 

Care to explain what you may actually have meant if it was in fact something different? Rather than "why bother," do you mean you think not only might I be wrong about some details but the main gist of what I observe has not happened? Or maybe you support the policies behind these events?

 

What does your reply here have to do with my central points"

 

Question: Is there hope that we have leaders in this nation who are capable of turning some of this around? It is possible that we might see more than just a few hands being slapped, isn't it?

 

and

 

I believe that our “ends justify the means” and “with us or against us” approach to the war on terror has seriously eroded our sense of self worth as a nation and our ability to conduct foreign policy around the world. This has been and will for years to come be a big disaster for us. Holding those responsible for it publicly accountable may not be an essential part of changing course, but it would certainly be an important part of changing course in a manner that says to the world and to ourselves that we won’t let it happen again.

 

 

... I've set forth my postition here. I honestly don't quite understand what you may be getting at if it is not what I thought it was.

 

[Dave_Schuldt]

I don't care if Scooter walks, far more importhant is the slime that oooozes out in nice bite size chunks every day. It's a compicated mess but worth a look. The big question is who will this take down.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I must admit that I struggled with your post, DeChristo, but that was my best guess as to what you meant. I posted what I interpreted in order to allow you to clarify or correct where I may have misunderstood. Otherwise, I would simply have replied: you seem to be saying "why bother," and it sounds as if you are not only cynical but defeatist.

 

Care to explain what you may actually have meant if it was in fact something different? Rather than "why bother," do you mean you think not only might I be wrong about some details but the main gist of what I observe has not happened? Or maybe you support the policies behind these events?

 

 

His post was clear to me.

 

[mattp]

I agree, KK, he certainly made some points clear. But I had to work at it a little and was left with questnons. For example, I'm still am not sure he thinks the greater access to information we now have is a good or bad thing in that paragraph about board rooms and such.

 

The truth is a cryptic as ever, he says, and he seems to be saying that we can't believe what we think we know about what has taken place over the last five years. I'm sure that is true, but how does this argue for or against taking any particular view of what we think we know?

 

To make it even more concrete, let's take something we think we know. Might he or someone else argue, as Fairweather tried to other day, that we cannot believe all the reports about how the Bush team tanked the outgoiong Clinton team's anti-terrorism efforts or that Bush got a memo warning that a terrorist strike in the US was coming and took no action in response? DeChristo didn't say anything about this issue, I know, but it is the kind of information I thnnk he is referring to where he says that all of this information can be used falsely. Would this be a known unknown or an unknown known?

 

His post seems to generally say it is naive to hope for any real change in policy, but he doesn't really say what he thinks about those policies. Take another example: he says soldiers on the front line will always employ the ruthless tactics of war. However, does he believe that it was only the front line who got out of line at Guantanimo or Abu Ghraib or at the secret prisons where we send terrorists for rendition? I think it is a "known" that Mr. Rumsfeld tacitly if not expressly approved these programs and it has hurt the reputation of the US as the "good guys" and such broad use of these tactics probably does more harm than good.

[Doug]

Originally Posted By: mattp

A year ago, Bush started out his SOU speech with five minutes on 911 and Afghanistan feeding into Iraq in such a way that it sounded as if he was saying that Saddam attacked us. He wouldn’t dare try that now. Certainly the administration is finding their backs against the wall.

Where/what is "the wall"? Other than legal conviction (which, I believe, is a pipedream), "the wall" is only the room where a new strategy is formed for the sale of an agenda and the purchase of power. Cynical? Yes. Can noble magnanimity gain traction in an environment where nothing moves without the exchange of favors?

 

I think the wall is the stranglehold that the Republican party has had over thecountry in the last past few years. If they fuck up the war in iraq any further, they will not come back to signficance for years to come, or until Obama gets a blow job in the oval office. In its current form, if the Republican party were to implode it wouldn't bother me one bit.

Edited January 28, 2007 by Doug

[Crux]

The CCR claims it can prove Rumsfeld personally authorized the torture of Mohammed AlQatani and in November it petitioned the German Federal Prosector to press the case for formal prosecution. The German court has previously denied a venue for trial of this case on the grounds that the U.S. can reasonably be expected to provide appropriate intervention on its own. But since that reply from the German court, the Republican dominated U.S Congress in 2006 retroactively legalized torture and the respective crimes alleged to have been committed. Enter now Italy, which may be explicitly taking a stand and thereby bringing still more attention to the unresolved matter. With international attention increasingly focused on the alleged war crimes, and with the preponderance of evidence already in the public domain, maybe the Germans will take an active interest now and prosecute. I think such an event would clarify things for all but the most willfully confused.

 

[marylou]

Matt, I think you missed a couple of other things:

 

There are around 400 people being illegally detained at Gitmo, where apparently living conditions have become even worse. Those detainees have now been held for FIVE YEARS without being charged of a crime.

 

The botched and circuslike executions (revenge killings) of Saddam and those other two guys. Oh, yeah, during Sunni holy days.

[RedNose]

It's never gone over my head that for the last 5 years some of you here have done little more than lay blame at the governments feet, the militaries feet, and just about everyone in between.

 

Never really taking stock of the fact or totally ignoring the fact there is indeed an enemy out there that would like nothing more than to walk right in here and put all preconceptions of your civil rights to rest under Ashura law. For instance, you mourn the souls at Gitmo, yet I rarely hear you make mention of bringing the killers of Nick Berg to justice.

 

I read you discussing situations in Iraq in the same vein you throw out My Lai, yet you make no mention of the abduction and murders of American soldiers, contractors, aid workers, rights groups, and Iraqi civilians. You've forgotten your history, the ghosts of Malmedy rest knowing they were avenged through unconditonal victory.

 

You rest on a distorted viewpoint, and the agenda falls in line with the party. You desire for the Clinton dynasty to continue with all the abject failings that administration heaped down on us, inadvertantly leading to the current situation. Yes, Clintons foreign policy bordered on ineffectual appeasement, while gathering economic incentives that gave America it's first real taste of Corporate Alice in Wonderland at a national level. In the Looking Glass that is time, the fantasy has become the horror.

 

Smaller government, ineffective intel services cut by Clinton, military downsized by Bush 1 in the wake of Gulf War 1 "Victory". Wake up to the reality again. Cold War over, the new era of conflict ushered in. The draft has been blowing in the window for 30 years, trace it's origins. Beirut, Israel, Egypt, Somalia, Syria, France, the US, the waste of the UN.

 

Unless you devote at least some of your obvious energy to finding a solution, which doesn't involve the wholesale selling out of American foreign policy, and has at least an iota of rigid backbone in the best Winston Churchill manner, you are going to find yourself watching your crown of thorns poking into your cerebral cortex as you watch American power and influence decline. You cannot weigh on the side of left for too long without upsetting right, and vice versa. Both sides hold equal blame in this debacle. Don't allow your voice to be drowned out again, like it has been the past 5 years. The Neocons demonstrated the fault of marching blindly to the party line. As a democrat do not let your real fears of a changing world be masked by the curtain pulled over your eyes. The threat is within AND outside.

 

Unless we agree on some things, it will more than likely fall into the laps of later generations to deal with outright defeatist attitudes, or blind nationalistic rhetorics. Neither promotes true justice or the spirit of unity we so badly need.

 

Does anyone believe that the current administration did a bang up job? No, of course not, they are failing us, but it is my belief that turning the US into Pelosistan is an equally disguisting proposition. Until middle ground can be reached, until we can all come together, this country will continue to falter and sputter under the weight of it's own inadequate leadership.

 

Are the architects of the war in trouble? Of course they are. Is the new leadership going to rectify? Of course they won't. They are yin to the yang that got us into this shit sandwich to begin with.

 

(Written and Reprinted by permission of author)

[Dechristo]

I read you discussing situations in Iraq in the same vein you throw out My Lai, yet you make no mention of the abduction and murders of American soldiers, contractors, aid workers, rights groups, and Iraqi civilians.

 

My Lai was brought up in reference to the responsibility and culpability of leaders.

[JosephH]

...you here have done little more than lay blame at the government's feet...

 

The war in Iraq is and was owned 100% by this administration and the neocons. Period, end of story. There are no good options and never were - that's why Bush Sr. didn't take baghdad, he knew it would lead to the disaster and consequences we now face.

 

...there is indeed an enemy out there ...

 

Yes, but the fools we have allowed to acquire power over the past six years have done far more damage to our nation than any terrorist ever could - in fact, the administration's draconian and opportunistic neocon responses to 9/11 have in many ways simply been finishing the job OBL started in terms of undermining our democracy.

 

...inadvertantly leading to the current situation..

 

More neocon and rightwing claptrap meant to deflect sole responsibility for the war in Iraq. By and large it was our increasing infatuation with technology led to the deprication of human intelligence.

 

...wholesale selling out of American foreign policy..

 

That is exactly what this administration has done at every turn.

 

...at least an iota of rigid backbone in the best Winston Churchill manner...

 

The administration and the administration carefully crafted a war policy and approach the explicitly assured the American people that absolutely nothing would be demanded of them - particularly backbone and sacrifice.

 

...Both sides hold equal blame in this debacle...

 

Nothing could be a greater lie than this...

 

 

The entire monologue posted above is exactly the sort of sad disingenuous neocon and rightwing pablum that's being promoted to help them avoid standing up like men, accepting responsibility for their actions, and cleaning up their own mess. The new congressional leadership has no authority to make political or military policy and shouldn't. They should provide the president whatever he asks for to conduct the war in Iraq with the sole public request that he resolve the matter by the end of his term. The American public should not be shielded from the harsh consequences of bad decision making by an imperial-minded executive. That Ford shielded us from the consequences of Nixon's abuse of executive power very much led to the rise of the current administration. Pain is part of the learning process, the people who twice voted for these fools should not be spared the consequences of those decisions.

 

 

[Dechristo]

There are no good options and never were - that's why Bush Sr. didn't take baghdad, he knew it would lead to the disaster and consequences we now face.

 

Ostensibly, was it not because the UN article didn't allow for this?

[RedNose]

JH, of course those are valid points, but I also think you partially missed the point, because it was not a partisan argument placing blame.

 

Nonetheless, didn't the democrats vote in favor of the war as well, or did I miss something? They then hold equal blame since they are supposed to be participating in government. Likewise, the 'fools' who voted twice for Clinton should be held accountable. After all, it is partiallty the previous administrations failings that led up to the catalysts that led us into conflict to begin with.

 

As far as cleaning up messes, does cutting and running, sound like clean up to you? Furthermore, if you think that was neocon speak, well you must have missed the rally, because that was moderate conservative speak. Get it right.

 

[RedNose]

There are no good options and never were - that's why Bush Sr. didn't take baghdad, he knew it would lead to the disaster and consequences we now face.

 

Ostensibly, was it not because the UN article didn't allow for this?

 

It was because Bush Sr. had the common sense to listen to better men than himself which is where his son has failed time and time again.

[Dechristo]

There are no good options and never were - that's why Bush Sr. didn't take baghdad, he knew it would lead to the disaster and consequences we now face.

 

Ostensibly, was it not because the UN article didn't allow for this?

 

It was because Bush Sr. had the common sense to listen to better men than himself which is where his son has failed time and time again.

 

are you referring, in the Bush Sr. instance, to the UN?

[JosephH]

JH, of course those are valid points, but I also think you partially missed the point, because it was not a partisan argument placing blame.

 

No, it's an incredibly blatant partisan argument using all the classic neocon and rightwing assumptions and accusations as it's base. That you conisder it anything else other than rightwing escapist propaganda says volumes about the fact that they are still as capable of manipulating you with as ever.

 

Nonetheless, didn't the democrats vote in favor of the war as well, or did I miss something? They then hold equal blame since they are supposed to be participating in government. Likewise, the 'fools' who voted twice for Clinton should be held accountable. After all, it is partiallty the previous administrations failings that led up to the catalysts that led us into conflict to begin with.

 

That Bush 'inherited' this mess is the essential rightwing propaganda that still attempts to blame the clintons for the world's ills. It is pathetic at pretty much every level.

 

As far as cleaning up messes, does cutting and running, sound like clean up to you?

 

Cutting funding for the war would be an ignorant path for the democrats. But neither that nor a troop increase of 200k is going to change the destiny of Iraq. This administration squandered every opportunity - political and military - to enhance our security at home and abroad after 9/11. Both sides need to clearly understand that at this point there are no solutions to what is now Iraq - it was a mistake no one can unmake and we will not escape the consequences of our actions. The new congress has no authorization to make political or military policy and should not attempt to interfere with those that do or they will be linked to the result.

 

Furthermore, if you think that was neocon speak, well you must have missed the rally, because that was moderate conservative speak. Get it right.

 

Oh, so there are now 'moderate conservatives' again? How convenient for you all - can't ditch the uniforms fast enough no doubt. That is pure rightwing Rovian trash of the lowest kind and, yes, it will be somewhat effective on a few clueless and embarrased redstaters who are also looking to escape any responsibility, but it will not staunch the flood of deserters from the republican party or the blood that invariably flows from such words. It says that the rightwing, after six years of chickenhawks ranting about 'showing a little backbone' and the coming up the 'courage to do the right thing' - like accepting responsibility for their actions - are still resolutely the last ones prepared to do either.

[RedNose]

Own Voice:

 

Dems and Republicans both suck. Are we not allowed to quote here?

 

===============================

 

You have good points, but I think the tone needs to step down a bit.

 

I have read 2 of your totally opinionated postings, and yes these are simply YOUR opinion based on current party doctrine. Opinion you clearly state as fact, but to my ears comes across as self righteousness. So now that we have a clear understanding on one another, let's continue on.

 

The democrats have sat by like sheep, and the bully republicans have indeed squandered the whole freak show. So which one is better and HOW? The reds do need to step up and say "We suck", because everyone who knows anything knew they were screwed walking into Iraq with 130K instead of 500K. Which if your self righteous reading comprehension had taken note, I said was caused by the BUSH era downsizing post Gulf War 1, as well as Clinton's yellow escape from Somalia which gutted the NCO corps who no longer wished to serve under that president.

 

Also, the young warhawks on the ground level knew it was going to turn into a knuckledragging suckfest. But damn man, take some responsibility yourselves.

 

I don't see blues running the roads in Iraq, or climbing ghars in Afghanistan, and everything back home is still all FUBAR so how are the dems so superior? I mean do most people even REALLY know there is a war on? How has it affected your day to day commute? Your eating habits? Your social life? Have you had to stop climbing because all the mountain passes up near Mt Hood are mined and covered by snipers?

 

You are free to speak your opinion, same as me, but let's discuss the playing field.

 

Fact, based on your credentials listed in your profile, I assume you have no military background, federal law enforcement, or political experience base to speak from do you? I could be wrong.

 

Fact, you have never been to any of the middle eastern countries. And if you have they were not hostile at the time. I could be wrong.

 

Fact, you have never worked in government?

 

If so, and you have, correct me if I am wrong. I am happy to acknowledge that experience.

 

I bring these facts to light because once again you are stating the BLUE PARTY LINE, which is equally offensive to...how did you put it? "Embarrassed Redstaters". The BPL is equally disdainful as the current administrations screw-ups. Don't underestimate the fact that redstaters hate bluestaters almost as much as they terrorism. Fact is they view you as a significantly less honorable enemy from within. If you take an objective look at the whole Democrat versus Republican thing, within the framework of a VERY young nation, you see all the makings of a good Shiite, Sunni civil war.

 

Honestly I find it amusing that I am even here discussing this with you, because I can see your entire argument is centered on some kind of angry center. Portland seems to have you wrapped up pretty tight, and this is the "Power Base" you will exist in.

 

My backbone? I have my spine in the thick of the mix where it has been for many years.

 

(Reprinted via permission of the author)

[Off_White]

Reads like Adamson, but you should use your own voice.