U.S. Administration as Animal House?

"I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part."

Just plug in Iraqis for Germans...9/11 for Pearl Harbor...Cheney for Bluto...Bush for Otter.. Congress for Boon and D-Day...

D-day: War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.
Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter: Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.
Bluto: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough...the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go!
[Runs out, alone, then returns.]
Bluto: What the fuck happened to the Delta I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh? "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble." Well just kiss my ass from now on! Not me! I'm not gonna take this. Wormer, he's a dead man! Marmalard, dead! Niedermeyer...
Otter: Dead! Bluto's right. Psychotic, but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.
Bluto: We're just the guys to do it.
D-Day: Let's do it.
Bluto: LET'S DO IT!

"Hey, NIE-der-mey-er!"...er, I mean... "Hey, Ah-ma-DIN-e-jad!" ...er, uh...what the Hell... "Bring 'em on!"

A rhetorical question: Don't our brave troops deserve better?...

Canada’s Move to Restore Rights

Editorial,NY Times Published: February 27, 2007

The United States was not the only country to respond to the horror of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks with policies that went much too far in curtailing basic rights and civil liberties in the name of public safety. Now we see that a nation can regain its senses after calm reflection and begin to rein back such excesses, but that heartening news comes from Canada and not the United States.

Canada’s Supreme Court has struck down a law that the government used to detain foreign-born terrorism suspects indefinitely — employing secret evidence and not filing charges — while orders to deport them were reviewed. The law was actually passed in 1978, but was primarily employed to detain and deport foreign spies. After the 2001 attacks, the Canadian government began using it aggressively to hold terrorism suspects, claiming that it was an important tool for keeping Canada safe.

That is just the sort of argument the Bush administration used to ram the excesses of the Patriot Act and the 2006 Military Commissions Act through Congress, and offered as an excuse for other abusive policies, like President Bush’s illegal wiretapping of international calls and e-mail.

The Canadian justices rejected their government’s specious national security claim with a forceful 9-to-0 ruling that upheld every person’s right to fair treatment. “The overarching principle of fundamental justice that applies here is this: before the state can detain people for significant periods of time, it must accord them a fair judicial process,” Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote.

The contrast with the United States could not be more disturbing. For More: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/opinion/27tue1.html?th&emc=th

God save the prince: British royals serve as our U.S. elite does not

I really could not have put this any better. Where is the common sacrifice of the United States' leaders? Answer: Nowhere to be found.

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The British are not like Americans. Prince Harry, third in line to the British throne, will serve a combat tour in Iraq starting in a few months.

The British royal family -- as Americans will be reminded again in the Academy Award consideration of "The Queen," a story from the life of Queen Elizabeth II -- spends a certain amount of time in military dress gear, on horses, frequently in red uniforms with lots of medals.

What is less well known is that generally at least the men have had formal military training, and some of them have experience in combat, most recently Prince Andrew in the British-Argentine Falklands war. Queen Elizabeth herself as a princess served as an ambulance driver and mechanic in London during World War II, when the Germans were raining bombs and rockets on the British capital.

Now, Prince Harry, or, more exactly, Cornet (second lieutenant equivalent) Henry Charles Albert David Mountbatten-Windsor, Prince of Wales, will go to Iraq as an officer of the Blues and Royals Regiment of the Household Cavalry, in command of an armored reconnaissance unit. His unit uses lightly armored vehicles, obviously vulnerable to improvised explosive devices and explosively formed projectiles, so this is the real thing.

The contrast with the military record (or nonrecord) of the American president and vice president and their offspring is hard to miss.

Smearing Like It's 2003

By E. J. Dionne Jr. Monday, February 26, 2007; Page A15

Even as jurors pondered whether Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff should be convicted for lying about what the Bush administration did to smear one of its critics, there was Cheney accusing another adversary of doing the work of the terrorists.

The fabricate-and-smear cycle illustrated so dramatically during the case of I. Lewis "Scooter'' Libby explains why President Bush is failing to rally support for the latest iteration of his Iraq policy. The administration's willingness at the outset to say anything, no matter how questionable, to justify the war has destroyed its credibility. Its habit of attacking those who expressed misgivings has destroyed any goodwill it might have enjoyed. Bush and Cheney have lost the benefit of the doubt.

Yet Cheney has learned nothing and forgotten nothing. His latest demon is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom he accuses of validating al-Qaeda's objectives.

"Al-Qaeda functions on the basis that they think they can break our will,'' Cheney told ABC News on Friday by way of explaining his earlier attack on the speaker. "That's their fundamental underlying strategy, that if they can kill enough Americans or cause enough havoc, create enough chaos in Iraq, then we'll quit and go home.''
Cheney added: "And my statement was that if we adopt the Pelosi policy, that then we will validate the strategy of al-Qaeda. I said it, and I meant it.''

No doubt he did, and those words illustrate the administration's political methodology from the very beginning of its public campaign against Iraq. Back in 2002 and early 2003, it browbeat a reluctant country into this war by making assertions about an Iraqi nuclear program that proved to be groundless and by inventing ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda that didn't exist.

Then, once our troops were committed, anyone who had second thoughts could be trashed and driven back as a pro-terrorist weakling. The quagmire would be self-perpetuating: Once you checked in, you could never leave.

The evidence presented at the Libby trial has demonstrated how worried Cheney was that this scheme could unravel. Thanks to Patrick Fitzgerald, the painstaking prosecutor, we know that Cheney was beside himself over former ambassador Joseph Wilson's July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed article undercutting the administration's claim that Saddam Hussein had sought nuclear materials in Niger.

Whatever the jury decides, Fitzgerald has amply demonstrated that Cheney directed Libby to destroy Wilson's credibility, partly by leaking that his wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, was a CIA operative who had suggested Wilson was well qualified to investigate the claims in Niger. For Libby, Fitzgerald said in closing his case, Valerie Wilson "wasn't a person. She was an argument, a fact to use against Joe Wilson.''

Libby-Cheney apologists have argued over and over that Cheney had a right to be angry because Wilson said that Cheney had sent him to Niger. But Wilson said no such thing. In his New York Times piece, Wilson wrote only that he had been "informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report.'' That was true.

The attack apparatus has now turned on Fitzgerald, whose record is that of a thoroughly nonpartisan prosecutor. Fitzgerald's perjury rap against Libby, Cheney allies say, is a cheap attempt to criminalize politics.

Really? Here's what Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) had to say about perjury: "Lying under oath is an ancient crime of great weight because it shields other offenses, because it blocks the light of truth in human affairs. It is a dagger in the heart of our legal system, and indeed in our democracy. It cannot, it should not, it must not be tolerated.''

Ros-Lehtinen made that statement not about Libby, but to justify the impeachment of Bill Clinton back in 1998. I have no idea where she stands on the Plame-Wilson case. But it's certainly amusing that so many who were eager to throw Clinton out of office for perjury and obstruction of justice when he lied about sex are now livid at Fitzgerald for bringing comparable charges in a controversy over the rationale for war. Do they think sex is more important than war?

Whatever price Scooter Libby pays, the country is already paying for the divisive practices of a crowd that wanted to go to war in Iraq in the very worst way -- and did exactly that. As a result, we confront the mess in Baghdad and the continued threat of terrorism as an angry, polarized nation.

Tony Snow for President? Read on

Oh... and Like ABC's Nightline... Snow and PA Republicans Deemed it Important to Read the names of the Iraq War Dead

Interesting facts to look up. Is Tony Snow being groomed as a future Republican candidate/golden boy? Senate, then President? Has any other press secretary been so visible in partisan campaigning?

And what about his visit this week to Greensburg, PA (see below) where, in addition to being touted as the successor to John Warner as Senator from Virginia, he also was present for a reading of names of soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Does anyone remember the furor caused by the very same reading on ABC's Nightline with Ted Koppel in 2004? So when is reading the names seen as being a traitor? And when it is not?

Excerpt:

Snow gives pep talk to Republicans here
Friday, February 23, 2007By James O'Toole, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

"I'm going to give you a pep talk,'' White House Press Secretary Tony Snow pledged as a banquet hall of Republicans, sorely in need of one, welcomed him warmly last night.

After a grim election season for the GOP nationally and locally, the former Fox News broadcaster urged about 600 Republicans -- the largest turnout in recent memory for the party's annual Lincoln Day dinner -- to stand by their party principles in the face of political setbacks and the affects of a war whose unpopularity he acknowledged even as he defended its goals and promise.

Near the beginning of the evening, state Sen. Jane Orie, R-McCandless, struck a somber note as she read the roll of service members from Allegheny County who have given their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq. Alluding to the litany of names later, Mr. Snow praised their sacrifice and said of them, "That's not a roster of wasted lives ... that's a roster of people who remind us of why we should be proud.''

In introducing Mr. Snow, the former congresswoman tried to return the favor by touting him as a candidate for the U.S. Senate in Virginia after the retirement of Sen. John Warner. As he left the dinner early, rushing to a flight back to Washington, Mr. Snow offered a "Shermanesque'' dismissal of that possibility while saying he hadn't decided on a path for his post-White House career.

(go to http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07054/764409-85.stm for rest of article)
and... as you may remember, below...

Names of U.S. war dead read on ‘Nightline’
Storm over TV station group’s decision not to air show

Updated: 8:51 p.m. ET May 1, 2004

LOS ANGELES - There was no music, no graphic flourishes. Name followed name, photo followed photo, with two Americans’ pictures on the screen at any given moment. Some of the 721 faces looked determined. Others were smiling.

Friday night, Ted Koppel solemnly read aloud the names of American soldiers killed in the Iraq war during an unusual edition of ABC’s “Nightline.”

Uproar over list
The presentation seemed to occupy the calm eye of a storm stirred up by soldiers’ relatives, media watchdogs and Sen. John McCain after a TV station group announced its refusal to air the ABC News program, accusing it of having an anti-war slant.

When the names had been read, Koppel closed by saying, “Our goal tonight was to elevate the fallen above the politics and the daily journalism ....”

By The Associated Press, via Pittsburgh Tribune ReviewFriday, April 30, 2004

"I think it's intellectually dishonest to deny the partisan nature of this broadcast," said Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center. "Of course, it's partisan! What's the purpose? There's only one goal in mind: It's to turn public opinion against the war."

"I think it's probably fair to say that 'Nightline' is against this war in Iraq," political pundit Fred Barnes agreed.

"Koppel is drawing from a Vietnam analogy," added Barnes on Fox News Channel. "The country in 1969 was turning against the Vietnam War."

MediaSearch http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040507.asp

Meanwhile, Fox News Sunday moderator Chris Wallace, a former fill-in host for Nightline, conducting interviews to promote his own Sunday tribute to what soldiers in Iraq have accomplished, charged that “The Fallen” Nightline “came out” as a political statement.

"I'll take Ted at his word that ABC did not intend it as a political statement or a ratings stunt," says Wallace.

"But when you look at all the factors -- the one-year anniversary of President Bush declaring major combat over, the fact the U.S. has just had a rough stretch there, all the promotion he did for it -- I think it came out that way."

Rupert Murdoch Admits Fox News Tried to Lead US Into War - No News is Fox News? - but Propaganda May Be

Former Yankees Great Hank Bauer dies - the definition of bravery and sacrifice, in war and peace

Hank Bauer - former Yankee and former Orioles manager - died today. Below is but a PART of his obituary, but a very important part. It tells of the sacrifices the most important Americans made during World War II, a time apparently the opposite of today. (A follow up after the obituary) It reads, in part, as follows:

Bauer enlisted in the Marines shortly after Pearl Harbor and saw action in a number of battles in the Pacific, including Okinawa and Guadalcanal, according to Hall of Fame archives. He earned two Bronze Stars and two Purple Hearts.

Bauer was wounded at Okinawa, hit in the left thigh by shrapnel in his 53rd day on the island.

"We went in with 64 and six of us came out," Bauer said.

After he was discharged, Bauer signed with the Yankees minor league affiliate at Kansas City and after two .300 seasons there, he moved to New York in 1948. A year later, Casey Stengel became the manager and Bauer moved into the lineup as the Yankees began their run.

In World War II, everyone sacrificed for a war that brought together all Americans in courage, not fear. Famous baseball players took detours from careers that offered them fame and money and enlisted to serve their country. So did famous actors and sons and daughters of the rich and famous. They united under FDR who said, "All we have to fear is fear itself." And they left successful careers and dear families to ALL serve their country, rather than talk about how others should fight a war FOR them. One, was my father, who drove the landing ducks at Omaha Beach on D-Day.

In current times, we are pushed into war, not lead, by a President who provokes us to "Fear everything" and offers division among the population, rather than unity. He is rallied around by pundits who call themselves newspeople, yet do no investigative reporting, only regurgitation of party lines. Our "leaders" and pundits and their children lead pampered lives, and sit back as others fight for them. Yet they call for more battle. I speak, of course, of the Iraq War, not the war with Al Qaeda, who now comfortably reside in Pakistan, untouched.

My father, who served proudly, always told me to beware of, as he said it, "The guys who say, 'let's you and him fight.' " Well, through fear, our current politicians continue to say "Let's you and him fight," while they sit back and stoke the fire of that fear in our citizenry, allow their former companies to cash in on that fear, and spare their own children the indignity of seeing the battlefield for what they told us all is a necessary war.

Our personalities of today who call for war do not follow in the footsteps of honorable men like Hank Bauer, and enlist themselves to go and fight what they call the necessary war. They say, "Let's you and HIM fight."

In the last real necessary war, men like Hank Bauer (and women) gave up their lives of privilege, showed bravery, and united together and allowed others to unite behind them, never questioning what made America great.

Thank God for people like Hank Bauer, and let's hope that our current Hank Bauers in Iraq and Afghanistan will either be honored by our President and politicians by calling for like sacrifices of all of our citizenry, including their own families, or that our Hank Bauers be spared an unnecessary war by someone who prefers to say, "Let's you and him fight." God rest Hank Bauer, an honorable man.

It's the War, Senators - NY Times Editorial

It is not an inspiring sight to watch the United States Senate turn the most important issue facing America into a political football, and then fumble it. Yet that is what now seems to have come from a once-promising bipartisan effort to finally have the debate about the Iraq war that Americans have been denied for four years.

The Democrats’ ultimate goal was to express the Senate’s opposition to President Bush’s latest escalation. But the Democrats’ leaders have made that more difficult — allowing the Republicans to maneuver them into the embarrassing position of blocking a vote on a counterproposal that they feared too many Democrats might vote for.

We oppose that resolution, which is essentially a promise never to cut off funds for this or any future military operation Mr. Bush might undertake in Iraq. But the right way for the Senate to debate Iraq is to debate Iraq, not to bar proposals from the floor because they might be passed. The majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, needs to call a timeout and regroup. By changing the issue from Iraq to partisan parliamentary tactics, his leadership team threatens to muddy the message of any anti-escalation resolution the Senate may eventually pass.

As it happens, the blocked Republican alternative, proposed by Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, itself represents an end run around the Senate’s constitutional responsibilities. The rational way to oppose cuts in funds is to vote against them, if and when any ever come before the Senate. Mr. Reid should not be shy about urging fellow Democrats to vote against this hollow gimmick, which tries to make it look as if the senators support Mr. Bush’s failed Iraq policies by playing on their fears of being accused of not supporting the troops.

America went to war without nearly enough public discussion, and it needs more Senate debate about Iraq this time around, not less. The voters who overturned Republican majorities in both houses last November expect, among other things, to see energized Congressional scrutiny of the entire war — not just of the plan for an additional 21,500 troops but also of the future of the 130,000 plus who are already there.

Another Republican resolution, proposed by Sen. John McCain, gives the appearance of moving in that more promising direction by ticking off a series of policy benchmarks and then urging the Iraqi government to meet them. But listing benchmarks is one thing. It is another to spell out real consequences for not meeting them, like the withdrawal of American military support. Instead of doing that, the McCain resolution hands an unwarranted blank check to Mr. Bush’s new Iraq commander, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus. It breathtakingly declares that he “should receive from Congress the full support necessary” to carry out America’s mission.

Frustrated by the Senate’s fumbles, the House plans to move ahead next week with its own resolution on Mr. Bush’s troop plan. When the Senate is ready to turn its attention back to substance again, it should go further.

Senators need to acknowledge the reality of four years of failed presidential leadership on Iraq and enact a set of binding benchmarks. These should require the hard steps toward national reconciliation that the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki continues to evade and that the White House refuses to insist on.