NOTE: I've edited this from yesterday's original--removed some unneccessary whining about the press and tightened things up a bit.
A couple of days ago dozens of men in new Iraqi police uniforms walked into the Finance Ministry in the Green Zone (Correction: The Ministry is NOT in the Green Zone) , walked out with five Britons and drove off in their new police SUV’s without any interference.
Much of the press coverage (mostly from AP and Reuters) reads like this…
“Hundreds of Iraqi and U.S. troops cordoned off sections of Baghdad's Sadr City slum early Wednesday and conducted a series of raids in an apparent effort to find five British citizens” (emphasis added).
This terminology reminded me of the original reporting of the four Blackwater "contractors" who were ambushed. mutilated and strung up on a bridge in Fallujah 3 years ago.
"U.S. officials said the civilians were killed in a grenade attack by suspected insurgents.." (CNN May 6 2004)
It eventually transpired that the "civilians" weren't hired for their truck-driving skills--they were actually ex-US military providing armed escort with licence to kill and total immunity from military, national and international law--hardly the definition of a "civilian" by anyone's standards.
So as the press is once again demonstrating a complete lack of curiosity I thought I'd dig a little deeper.
You’ll note from the press reports that the abductees are being generally referred to as “citizens”. In one or two instances it has been noted that 4 of the 5 were “security guards” working for an outfit called GardaWorld.
(Now I know things are pretty bad in Iraq, but to have four security guards protecting one individual inside the Green Zone? Is that extravagant, or sensible? In this instance apparently it’s neither.)
GardaWorld is the “Global Risk Security Group” of Garda World Security Corporation which, judging by its company literature is pretty impressed with itself and insists we should be impressed too.
It is one of many “security “ firms operating in Iraq, like the US-based Blackwater, Titan, CACI, ESS, Triple Canopy, Fluor. the UK–based Aegis and others.
Garda however is Canadian which is interesting because the Canadian government stayed out of the “coalition of the willing” in Iraq, as did Chile--which I mention because Blackwater has employed a couple of hundred Chileans in Iraq following which Chile passed a law making it illegal for ex-military to participate in conflicts without government sanction.
Canada apparently has no such law and it is unlikely the current PM and Bush admirer Stephen Harper would sign such a thing willingly.
(RedTory's post Canada's 'Global Risk' Mercenaries has more background on Garda and some salient questions)
There are some significant differences between Garda and Blackwater, but some notable similarities too.
Blackwater was founded by Erik Prince, a Navy SEAL who interestingly was also heir to an auto-accessory manufacturing fortune. Prince leveraged his wealthy family’s political contacts as well as his own military connections to establish a private paramilitary training facility in North Carolina in 1997.
Garda started out in 1995 as a general security firm providing cash-handling and office security and expanded into investigations and risk-management.
Blackwater (whose "vision" is to "support security, peace, freedom, and democracy everywhere") has become the largest and best-equipped mercenary force in the world thanks to the privatizing, militaristic Bush administration.
Garda meanwhile, dominated by sales and marketing entrepreneurs, expanded more through ordinary commercial acquisitions but just lately acquired Kroll Security International and thus a significant entry into the lucrative personal security business thriving in Iraq.
Aside from the cash-cow that is Iraq, there’s one other thing that these two companies share—a religious element.
Blackwater is infused with conservative religious purpose (neatly summed by founder Erik Prince's blurb of a book called "Christian Fatherhood: The Eight Commitment's of St. Joseph's Convenant Keepers" which he said "provides men with the basic training they need to complete their mission") . And Garda seems to have a religious connection of its own; on its website it proudly states that it is “the recipient of The Foundation for Relief and Reconciliation in the Middle East (FRRME) 2007 Prize for Peace in the Middle East.”
The FRRME is chaired by Lord Carey a former Archbishop of Canterbury and compared to US religious poobahs, Carey is practically the antichrist—he allowed women to be ordained in the Anglican church, prefers talking to Muslims instead of bombing them and though he thinks homosexuality is a sin he seems to have no problem with gay civil unions (but “marriage” is verboten).
Now this “Peace Prize” wasn’t presented in a church or the FRRME’s UK headquarters or Garda’s HQ in Montreal--it was presented in a ceremony in the Pentagon!
“GardaWorld has provided an outstanding service to every aspect of our work in Iraq and in reality is the biggest contributor to our efforts of peace-making.” (said the President of FRRME Rev. Canon Andrew White).
The FRRME’s mission apparently is to expunge religious violence and intolerance--so they pal-around with the Bush administration and his Christian soldiers in the military? Well good luck with that whole combating religious violence and intolerance thing!
I call bullshit on that—they’re just profiting off the Iraq like everyone else. Where do they get the money to hire their security in Baghdad? (yes, they are there in the Green Zone being protected by private guards and the US military—not by God!)
So why should the US risk its soldiers to recover a handful of abducted British citizens provided by a Canadian company doing business in the middle of a warzone?
Because the US government is in the corporate religious war business now and it needs to look after its own—not its own citizens or citizen soldiers, but the contractors and middlemen that keep the business going.
P.S.
For more on the nexus of war, business and religion I recommend Blackwater by Jeremy Scahill.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
At Least You've Got Your Health
For no good reason apparently I just haven't gotten myself together to post for a while. Though my individual efforts have no influence on important matters, the collective efforts of regular bloggers have changed our world. So it's back on the horse again, as it were.
As Shakespeare wrote in Henry the Fifth:
"And gentlemen in England now a-bed shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks that fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."
So it is with blogging methinks....ahem...
No battle was won that e'er was fought by those that sat in silent thought
Their counsel kept as secret treasure for fear of being held to measure,
The gold of silence oft is a weight when last unpursed is spent too late
To change the trade thus far agreed nor satisfy each trader's need.
For to the bold go victor's spoils, and so to them go victim's oils.
Sorry, I got carried away there...anywhoo....
Michael Moore’s latest ‘opinion-reportorial’ on US health care, Sicko, may actually have the same kind of impact that “An Inconvenient Truth” has.
Here’s a personal comparison of the UK’s National Health System and the US “system”.
I was born at home (whilst the house was still being built, actually)—no hospital visit necessary, just the attendance of a midwife.
Even though my father was a manager at BOAC his pay was miserable and we led a frugal life (especially compared to today--we didn’t get a car until I was eight and then it was the cheapest—a Mini-Van). Mum got a job then. We got our first TV when I was ten (1970). My clothes were all hand-me-downs until I was 11. I got my first (and only) new bike at 13.
But of all the things my parents struggled to afford, health-care was never a problem thanks to the National Health Service.
We had regular checkups at school (not just for lice or “nits” but general health too), and doctors would make house-calls on request. From one of these my eldest brother was found to have a problem which further examination showed to be a hole in his heart.
He spent two weeks at Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital where he was operated-on in one of the first heart surgeries of its kind (this was in 1964). It didn’t cost my parents a penny.
When I was 13 I jumped-off a moving train (out of perceived necessity, not for a dare) fractured my skull and spent two of my seven days in hospital unconscious, all at no cost beyond the normal automatic NHS contributions.
In my second year in the US my throat began to feel tender and it was painful to swallow. It got so bad I could only eat soup and yoghourt, and I was running a temperature.
I was earning $4 an hour (no health insurance of course) and knowing the cost of health care I kept working and hoped my condition would just go away (I’d never had anything worse than a cold before).
Luckily for me a regular customer at my store was a male nurse who worked at Bellevue Hospital. He noticed my throat was swollen, gave me an impromptu exam right there and then literally dragged me up the block to the E.R., telling me not to worry about the expense.
It turned out I had a temperature of 104 and a virulent form of strep-throat. Fascinated interns made notes whilst the ENT specialist stuck me with an antibiotic and told me my throat was so swollen that I would otherwise have been dying from asphyxiation within an hour. The diagnosis and cure had taken about an hour altogether and totaled a week’s wages for me.
Years later working as a cabinetmaker my hand slipped into a table-saw blade. I broke two fingers and the tip of one of them was not-very neatly split laterally for about ½ an inch under the nail. The doctor took off the nail, washed out the wound, closed it up with five stitches, put my nail back on and as a precaution against infection recommended I stay for two days on an antibiotic drip. I was put on a gurney for no obvious reason and whilst an available bed was being looked-for I was wheeled into a supply closet where I was re-discovered six hours later.
I compare that to when as a 14 year-old I accidentally sliced the top of my thumb off; I got sixteen stitches from an ex-seamstress Indian nurse and, job done, was sent home immediately. My thumb looks normal, my left index finger looks odd and the bill for my saw accident was $2000. Worker’s compensation covered the cost of my saw incident, but of course the contribution went up by 40%.
The last six weeks of my mother’s life were spent in hospital; a week in the ICU and then under constant care, attached to various necessary life-sustaining tubes (but no major machinery). Again, the NHS took care of everything, we had no forms to fill-out or bills to pay.
The UK’s NHS was established as a flexible investment in the public and the future. Basic nationwide health-care serves both moral and practical needs. A healthy society is a stable and productive society. It is high time that the US realized that the notion of the individual as the salient characteristic of this nation’s identity is a myth, and a destructive one at that—and I think that’s the psychology behind many of the US’s problems.
The US as a nation needs to understand that it has a responsibility to care for its own. It needs to grow up. It has to apply it’s founding humanistic values on a nationwide scale by taking care of the poor and downtrodden, of being neighbourly and pitching-in and working hard in the present to make a better future. A real national health system would be about as democratic and American as it gets.
As Shakespeare wrote in Henry the Fifth:
"And gentlemen in England now a-bed shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks that fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."
So it is with blogging methinks....ahem...
No battle was won that e'er was fought by those that sat in silent thought
Their counsel kept as secret treasure for fear of being held to measure,
The gold of silence oft is a weight when last unpursed is spent too late
To change the trade thus far agreed nor satisfy each trader's need.
For to the bold go victor's spoils, and so to them go victim's oils.
Sorry, I got carried away there...anywhoo....
Michael Moore’s latest ‘opinion-reportorial’ on US health care, Sicko, may actually have the same kind of impact that “An Inconvenient Truth” has.
Here’s a personal comparison of the UK’s National Health System and the US “system”.
I was born at home (whilst the house was still being built, actually)—no hospital visit necessary, just the attendance of a midwife.
Even though my father was a manager at BOAC his pay was miserable and we led a frugal life (especially compared to today--we didn’t get a car until I was eight and then it was the cheapest—a Mini-Van). Mum got a job then. We got our first TV when I was ten (1970). My clothes were all hand-me-downs until I was 11. I got my first (and only) new bike at 13.
But of all the things my parents struggled to afford, health-care was never a problem thanks to the National Health Service.
We had regular checkups at school (not just for lice or “nits” but general health too), and doctors would make house-calls on request. From one of these my eldest brother was found to have a problem which further examination showed to be a hole in his heart.
He spent two weeks at Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital where he was operated-on in one of the first heart surgeries of its kind (this was in 1964). It didn’t cost my parents a penny.
When I was 13 I jumped-off a moving train (out of perceived necessity, not for a dare) fractured my skull and spent two of my seven days in hospital unconscious, all at no cost beyond the normal automatic NHS contributions.
In my second year in the US my throat began to feel tender and it was painful to swallow. It got so bad I could only eat soup and yoghourt, and I was running a temperature.
I was earning $4 an hour (no health insurance of course) and knowing the cost of health care I kept working and hoped my condition would just go away (I’d never had anything worse than a cold before).
Luckily for me a regular customer at my store was a male nurse who worked at Bellevue Hospital. He noticed my throat was swollen, gave me an impromptu exam right there and then literally dragged me up the block to the E.R., telling me not to worry about the expense.
It turned out I had a temperature of 104 and a virulent form of strep-throat. Fascinated interns made notes whilst the ENT specialist stuck me with an antibiotic and told me my throat was so swollen that I would otherwise have been dying from asphyxiation within an hour. The diagnosis and cure had taken about an hour altogether and totaled a week’s wages for me.
Years later working as a cabinetmaker my hand slipped into a table-saw blade. I broke two fingers and the tip of one of them was not-very neatly split laterally for about ½ an inch under the nail. The doctor took off the nail, washed out the wound, closed it up with five stitches, put my nail back on and as a precaution against infection recommended I stay for two days on an antibiotic drip. I was put on a gurney for no obvious reason and whilst an available bed was being looked-for I was wheeled into a supply closet where I was re-discovered six hours later.
I compare that to when as a 14 year-old I accidentally sliced the top of my thumb off; I got sixteen stitches from an ex-seamstress Indian nurse and, job done, was sent home immediately. My thumb looks normal, my left index finger looks odd and the bill for my saw accident was $2000. Worker’s compensation covered the cost of my saw incident, but of course the contribution went up by 40%.
The last six weeks of my mother’s life were spent in hospital; a week in the ICU and then under constant care, attached to various necessary life-sustaining tubes (but no major machinery). Again, the NHS took care of everything, we had no forms to fill-out or bills to pay.
The UK’s NHS was established as a flexible investment in the public and the future. Basic nationwide health-care serves both moral and practical needs. A healthy society is a stable and productive society. It is high time that the US realized that the notion of the individual as the salient characteristic of this nation’s identity is a myth, and a destructive one at that—and I think that’s the psychology behind many of the US’s problems.
The US as a nation needs to understand that it has a responsibility to care for its own. It needs to grow up. It has to apply it’s founding humanistic values on a nationwide scale by taking care of the poor and downtrodden, of being neighbourly and pitching-in and working hard in the present to make a better future. A real national health system would be about as democratic and American as it gets.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Noodling on Goodling
The consensus is that Monica Goodling is the key witness to the US attorney firings. Judging by the way she went to ground immediately the scandal broke she’s probably not psychologically very well-equipped to parry the questions she’ll be asked by the Judiciary Committee (and it seems not professionally well-equipped either) but it will depend on where she can draw her strength from—Jesus, I suppose.
Gonzalez might offer her some kind of support but although he hasn’t been fired his word doesn’t have authority now and even some of the Republicans can’t stomach him anymore, nor Sampson and McNulty who are similarly damaged goods.
Moreover Eric Lipton at the NY Times reports various former and current DOJ officials citing Goodling for her inappropriate moralistic, political and religious vetting of job candidates (whom she was often also not professionally qualified to judge).
With no-one rushing to her defense, Monica seems isolated. No doubt there will be some Republicans on the committee who will paint her as a victim, which was her very first defense in pleading the Fifth—but that will be largely moot given her new immunity status.
So where do Monica’s loyalties ultimately lie? And where do Bush’s, Rove’s and Gonzalez’s loyalties lie? Given their self-supporting nature and their own smug sense of immunity they may have chosen just to sit back and watch, confident that they can handle any fallout whether Monica takes one for the team or spills the beans.
If Monica really has been thrown to the wolves and goes with full disclosure, she may find the retribution from Rove worse than any punishment she might take from keeping her mouth shut and being held in contempt. And if she thinks Jesus can save her…well good luck with that Ms.Goodling.
PS
Speaking of Jesus, some tool deposited this little pile of flaming “Christian” poop in my Prince Harry post comments after nearly two weeks of inactivity there.
“Does he like girls to? You peasents in Isles are so quiant...I guess all the manly types migrated to American and saved you ass during serveral wars.Did you ever pay us for that?”
Apparently this commenter is convinced that people of his ilk are in danger of being turned gay—this is the only subject he has written about on his own blog. Obsessive, that’s what it is. Odd that he should feel the need to comment on my blog when I have yet to write anything about gays at all (oh, except for my riff on Mark Foley who is of course Christian and Republican and hates gays too because they always seem to be sticking their cocks in his mouth, or something like that). What with these types being so connected to God and Jesus I have to wonder why God or Jesus just can’t fix the problem? Maybe God needs an incentive from this guy—like maybe if he was prepared to sacrifice his son or something?
Gonzalez might offer her some kind of support but although he hasn’t been fired his word doesn’t have authority now and even some of the Republicans can’t stomach him anymore, nor Sampson and McNulty who are similarly damaged goods.
Moreover Eric Lipton at the NY Times reports various former and current DOJ officials citing Goodling for her inappropriate moralistic, political and religious vetting of job candidates (whom she was often also not professionally qualified to judge).
With no-one rushing to her defense, Monica seems isolated. No doubt there will be some Republicans on the committee who will paint her as a victim, which was her very first defense in pleading the Fifth—but that will be largely moot given her new immunity status.
So where do Monica’s loyalties ultimately lie? And where do Bush’s, Rove’s and Gonzalez’s loyalties lie? Given their self-supporting nature and their own smug sense of immunity they may have chosen just to sit back and watch, confident that they can handle any fallout whether Monica takes one for the team or spills the beans.
If Monica really has been thrown to the wolves and goes with full disclosure, she may find the retribution from Rove worse than any punishment she might take from keeping her mouth shut and being held in contempt. And if she thinks Jesus can save her…well good luck with that Ms.Goodling.
PS
Speaking of Jesus, some tool deposited this little pile of flaming “Christian” poop in my Prince Harry post comments after nearly two weeks of inactivity there.
“Does he like girls to? You peasents in Isles are so quiant...I guess all the manly types migrated to American and saved you ass during serveral wars.Did you ever pay us for that?”
Apparently this commenter is convinced that people of his ilk are in danger of being turned gay—this is the only subject he has written about on his own blog. Obsessive, that’s what it is. Odd that he should feel the need to comment on my blog when I have yet to write anything about gays at all (oh, except for my riff on Mark Foley who is of course Christian and Republican and hates gays too because they always seem to be sticking their cocks in his mouth, or something like that). What with these types being so connected to God and Jesus I have to wonder why God or Jesus just can’t fix the problem? Maybe God needs an incentive from this guy—like maybe if he was prepared to sacrifice his son or something?
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Prince Harry
It seems Prince Harry’s planned deployment to Iraq is being “reviewed”.
The recent US “surge” has had no more effect than to redistribute the violence and possibly made the situation more volatile; the British who have served in the southern region around Basra have had 11 killed so far this month.
The recent US “surge” has had no more effect than to redistribute the violence and possibly made the situation more volatile; the British who have served in the southern region around Basra have had 11 killed so far this month.
Sir John Nott, Conservative defence secretary during the Falklands War, told BBC Radio 4's The World at One that he was opposed to [The prince’s deployment ]
"The danger is that Prince Harry will be hazarding the lives of other soldiers and young officers and I think that's not right."
"The danger is that Prince Harry will be hazarding the lives of other soldiers and young officers and I think that's not right."
Sir John said the issue of Harry's deployment was different from his uncle's [Prince Andrew] because the war in Iraq was "much more fraught".
"There was complete public support for the Falklands campaign, there certainly isn't for Iraq," he said.
"It raises political and constitutional issues. The situation in Iraq is clearly extremely difficult, particularly with armoured cars."
Despite all its faults, the majority of the British public still holds the monarchy very dear—it is part of British identity, for better or worse.
As a political issue I’d estimate the British would be extremely pissed-off if Harry, who has consistently said he wants to serve with his fellow soldiers in Iraq, wasn’t allowed to go.
They majority is against the war but they can still support an individual’s service, just as so many do here in the US.
Indeed the Royal family is not supposed to be a political institution itself, that’s one major reason why it is maintained. Another major reason is that the Monarchy is supposed to serve the nation---and serving in the Army is a way for Harry to do that, and as a good soldier he wants to serve with his troops and his mates.
His status as a prince is frankly not as significant to the fabric of British society as Sir John Nott would like to think—he’s not the direct heir to the throne (he’s third in line). If he were killed or injured he would suffer no more than others who have served, and whose deployments were never tempered by political concerns for their well-being.
It would be altogether better if the British would end their participation in this illegal occupation and save Harry and everyone else from maintaining it.
But if Harry is a competent soldier then external politics should not prevent him from doing his duty, otherwise what’s the bloody point of Prince Harry’s military service in the first place?
They majority is against the war but they can still support an individual’s service, just as so many do here in the US.
Indeed the Royal family is not supposed to be a political institution itself, that’s one major reason why it is maintained. Another major reason is that the Monarchy is supposed to serve the nation---and serving in the Army is a way for Harry to do that, and as a good soldier he wants to serve with his troops and his mates.
His status as a prince is frankly not as significant to the fabric of British society as Sir John Nott would like to think—he’s not the direct heir to the throne (he’s third in line). If he were killed or injured he would suffer no more than others who have served, and whose deployments were never tempered by political concerns for their well-being.
It would be altogether better if the British would end their participation in this illegal occupation and save Harry and everyone else from maintaining it.
But if Harry is a competent soldier then external politics should not prevent him from doing his duty, otherwise what’s the bloody point of Prince Harry’s military service in the first place?
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Scandals Ain’t What They Used To Be.
The most obvious scandal that comes to my mind regarding Eisenhower’s administration was Joe McCarthy’s Un-American Activities Committee hearings (he didn’t actually create the Committee, but he came to dominate it), wherein his methods of investigation and rabid zeal became a farce and led to the writing of the 5th Amendment.
For Kennedy it seems the major scandal was the Bay of Pigs invasion; an ideologically driven, misguided and impractical covert “regime change” scheme concocted and cocked-up by rabid CIA executives, but nonetheless “green-lighted” by Kennedy. Kennedy’s infidelity didn’t really come to light until sometime after his assignation.
Johnson’s most obvious political crisis revolved around the blatant lying of his Defense Secretary Robert McNamara regarding progress in Vietnam (there was none) and draft-avoidance by the rich and well connected.
Nixon inherited the shambles of Vietnam and escalated US involvement to include chemical warfare and secret incursions into Cambodia, to no clear effect. Continued draft-dodging and especially inadequate care of veterans also made headlines, as did the shootings of student protesters at Kent State. But the biggest scandal was of course “Watergate” when, charged with lying to Congress, obstructing justice, subverting the Constitution, money-laundering and being complicit in a burglary Nixon resigned as he was about to be impeached.
As an interim president Gerald Ford didn’t have the time or the personality to get into much trouble but his pardon for Nixon was met with howls of discontent—not least because he was pardoned Nixon for his presumed (and very evident) guilt, even though he wasn’t actually convicted.
Carter’s inability to stem the increasing cost of gasoline due to actions by OPEC made him unpopular, and the antics of his boozy brother Billy were an embarrassment but it seems the disastrous attempt to rescue the American hostages of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard brought him down.
Reagan’s claim to fame was of course the Iran-Contra affair. In an attempt to release American hostages held by pro-Iranian forces in Lebanon, Reagan’s administration sold weapons to Iran even though any such trade had been made illegal. Worse still the money from those sales was then used to provide weapons to the Nicaraguan Contra rebels to help them overthrow the popular Sandinista government--which had seized control after the US had stopped subsidizing the previous president, Somoza, due to American public disgust with the US supporting a brutal “anti-communist” dictator. Obstruction of justice demonstrably occurred when Fawn Hall was found to have shredded pertinent documents.
Reagan first lied about the existence of the program, then blamed it all on subordinates and then in an address to the nation admitted to some kind of brain-fart about the scheme, basically claiming that somehow he didn’t know what he was doing! But the powers that be decided not to impeach to avoid “another Watergate”.
By that decision a new standard of accountability and scandal was now set.
Ex-chairman of the RNC, vigorous defender of Nixon and Reagan’s Vice President swore he was “out of the loop” regarding Iran Contra and so with an apparently clean record succeeded Reagan as the 41st President. He managed to avoid any major scandals s until the end of his Presidency when he pardoned half a dozen people involved in Iran-Contra most notably Caspar Weinberger whose indictment stated that he had records of Bush’s active participation in Iran-Contra after all. As Weinberger was indicted but still awaiting trial, Bush pardoned him for crimes he hadn’t yet been proven to have committed—ergo Bush’s pre-emptive pardon made Weinberger both guilty and innocent at the same time (and therefore Bush implicated himself in lying to Congress about his own involvement too). But before that can of worms could be opened Bush Sr. failed to get re-elected because of the recession he’d inherited from Reagan’s “voodoo economics” (Bush’s own critical description of Reagan’s “supply-side economics”) about which he had done nothing. Once again the powers that be decided to ignore the whole matter to spare the public any further disillusionment about politics and the Presidency.
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993 the Republicans had already begun to label him “slick Willie”—an allusion to his charm and salesmanship that would take-on a different meaning in the popular consciousness later-on.
In the 1994 midterm elections the Republicans won majorities in the House and the Senate and beginning in 1995 began an aggressive examination of Clinton’s present and past, following an impressive list of allegations that included crooked land-deals, cronyism, rape, drug dealing and even murder, all of which were intensely investigated and dismissed for lack of evidence or found to be utterly false. Nonetheless one line of investigation did bear fruit and after two years and almost fifty-million dollars of public expense it was discovered that Bill Clinton had been receiving extra-marital blowjobs during office hours from Monica Lewinsky. Clinton lied under oath about the sexual relations and although the House voted for impeachment he was acquitted by the Senate, a decision most likely influenced by public opinion which presented the majority view that Clinton’s personal peccadillo hadn’t affected his performance in office and that all the investigations—especially the Lewinsky case---had been a waste of time and money.
Despite being faced with opposition majorities in both House and Senate for over half of his tenure he averaged approval ratings between 50 to 60 percent and left the office with a 68% approval rating—beating the much vaunted Ronald Reagan by a couple of points.
So let us review shall we?
Eisenhower apparently didn’t break any laws, but he supported McCarthy’s actions in general. A new civil-rights amendment was introduced in reaction to the abuse of political power. Eisenhower was not directly involved in McCarthy’s abuse of power.
Kennedy approved a disastrous anti-communist adventure but was basically vindicated in the Cuban missile crisis and was given a pass by the press for his infidelity and become a martyr due to his assassination.
Johnson maintained the deceits about Vietnam and added to them but was never called to account.
Nixon broke several laws and subverted the Constitution. He resigned before being impeached, delaying conviction.
Ford secured Nixon from ever being brought to trial by preemptive pardon.
Reagan illegally sold arms to a declared terrorist state and from the proceeds illegally armed murderous opposition to a popular government, and lied about all of it. Yet despite having clearly broken several laws, Reagan was never held to account.
George Bush Sr. maintained the “pass” given Reagan for four years and then by pardoning half a dozen convicted and/or indicted Iran-Contra participants by implication pardoning Reagan and most extraordinarily himself—thereby rendering himself, his colleagues and Reagan from any possible indictment, let alone prosecution.
Clinton was charged with multiple and very serious crimes but was found guilty only of lying about his sexual conduct.
So, going by my (admittedly incomplete) summaries where does George W. Bush, the 43rd President stand?
He wasn’t elected in 2000.
He took no action against Al-Qaeda for the bombing of the USS Cole which left 17 sailors dead.
He let his VP secretly collude with the oil industry to dictate the nation’s energy policy without public review.
He ignored over 50 warnings of terrorist attacks which were realized on 9/11, breaking his oath to defend the United States of America.
He secretly ordered mass surveillance of US communications, breaking the FISA law and in contravention of the 2nd Amendment and thus lied under oath about upholding the Constitution—another illegal act.
Going to war on false pretenses, intimidation of OMB staff, planting stories in the “free press”, intimidation of science staff, intimidation of the DOJ, using uniformed military for political rallies, using the Secretary of State as a campaign aide, leaking a covert CIA agent’s name, not keeping records, torturing civilians, incarceration without charge trial or representation, suspending Habeas Corpus, ignoring international treaties (illegal)---I could go on, and on and on and on and on and on and on…
Nixon was investigated over Watergate and faced impeachment.
Reagan was investigated over Iran Contra and got off scott-free.
George H.W. Bush was never investigated over Iran Contra and basically pardoned himself, just in case.
Clinton was investigated over Whitewater, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, the Travel
Office, faced impeachment only overlying about blow-jobs, and was acquitted.
And George W. Bush? Not one investigation….NOT ONE!!!
I tell you, scandals ain’t what they used to be!
For Kennedy it seems the major scandal was the Bay of Pigs invasion; an ideologically driven, misguided and impractical covert “regime change” scheme concocted and cocked-up by rabid CIA executives, but nonetheless “green-lighted” by Kennedy. Kennedy’s infidelity didn’t really come to light until sometime after his assignation.
Johnson’s most obvious political crisis revolved around the blatant lying of his Defense Secretary Robert McNamara regarding progress in Vietnam (there was none) and draft-avoidance by the rich and well connected.
Nixon inherited the shambles of Vietnam and escalated US involvement to include chemical warfare and secret incursions into Cambodia, to no clear effect. Continued draft-dodging and especially inadequate care of veterans also made headlines, as did the shootings of student protesters at Kent State. But the biggest scandal was of course “Watergate” when, charged with lying to Congress, obstructing justice, subverting the Constitution, money-laundering and being complicit in a burglary Nixon resigned as he was about to be impeached.
As an interim president Gerald Ford didn’t have the time or the personality to get into much trouble but his pardon for Nixon was met with howls of discontent—not least because he was pardoned Nixon for his presumed (and very evident) guilt, even though he wasn’t actually convicted.
Carter’s inability to stem the increasing cost of gasoline due to actions by OPEC made him unpopular, and the antics of his boozy brother Billy were an embarrassment but it seems the disastrous attempt to rescue the American hostages of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard brought him down.
Reagan’s claim to fame was of course the Iran-Contra affair. In an attempt to release American hostages held by pro-Iranian forces in Lebanon, Reagan’s administration sold weapons to Iran even though any such trade had been made illegal. Worse still the money from those sales was then used to provide weapons to the Nicaraguan Contra rebels to help them overthrow the popular Sandinista government--which had seized control after the US had stopped subsidizing the previous president, Somoza, due to American public disgust with the US supporting a brutal “anti-communist” dictator. Obstruction of justice demonstrably occurred when Fawn Hall was found to have shredded pertinent documents.
Reagan first lied about the existence of the program, then blamed it all on subordinates and then in an address to the nation admitted to some kind of brain-fart about the scheme, basically claiming that somehow he didn’t know what he was doing! But the powers that be decided not to impeach to avoid “another Watergate”.
By that decision a new standard of accountability and scandal was now set.
Ex-chairman of the RNC, vigorous defender of Nixon and Reagan’s Vice President swore he was “out of the loop” regarding Iran Contra and so with an apparently clean record succeeded Reagan as the 41st President. He managed to avoid any major scandals s until the end of his Presidency when he pardoned half a dozen people involved in Iran-Contra most notably Caspar Weinberger whose indictment stated that he had records of Bush’s active participation in Iran-Contra after all. As Weinberger was indicted but still awaiting trial, Bush pardoned him for crimes he hadn’t yet been proven to have committed—ergo Bush’s pre-emptive pardon made Weinberger both guilty and innocent at the same time (and therefore Bush implicated himself in lying to Congress about his own involvement too). But before that can of worms could be opened Bush Sr. failed to get re-elected because of the recession he’d inherited from Reagan’s “voodoo economics” (Bush’s own critical description of Reagan’s “supply-side economics”) about which he had done nothing. Once again the powers that be decided to ignore the whole matter to spare the public any further disillusionment about politics and the Presidency.
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993 the Republicans had already begun to label him “slick Willie”—an allusion to his charm and salesmanship that would take-on a different meaning in the popular consciousness later-on.
In the 1994 midterm elections the Republicans won majorities in the House and the Senate and beginning in 1995 began an aggressive examination of Clinton’s present and past, following an impressive list of allegations that included crooked land-deals, cronyism, rape, drug dealing and even murder, all of which were intensely investigated and dismissed for lack of evidence or found to be utterly false. Nonetheless one line of investigation did bear fruit and after two years and almost fifty-million dollars of public expense it was discovered that Bill Clinton had been receiving extra-marital blowjobs during office hours from Monica Lewinsky. Clinton lied under oath about the sexual relations and although the House voted for impeachment he was acquitted by the Senate, a decision most likely influenced by public opinion which presented the majority view that Clinton’s personal peccadillo hadn’t affected his performance in office and that all the investigations—especially the Lewinsky case---had been a waste of time and money.
Despite being faced with opposition majorities in both House and Senate for over half of his tenure he averaged approval ratings between 50 to 60 percent and left the office with a 68% approval rating—beating the much vaunted Ronald Reagan by a couple of points.
So let us review shall we?
Eisenhower apparently didn’t break any laws, but he supported McCarthy’s actions in general. A new civil-rights amendment was introduced in reaction to the abuse of political power. Eisenhower was not directly involved in McCarthy’s abuse of power.
Kennedy approved a disastrous anti-communist adventure but was basically vindicated in the Cuban missile crisis and was given a pass by the press for his infidelity and become a martyr due to his assassination.
Johnson maintained the deceits about Vietnam and added to them but was never called to account.
Nixon broke several laws and subverted the Constitution. He resigned before being impeached, delaying conviction.
Ford secured Nixon from ever being brought to trial by preemptive pardon.
Reagan illegally sold arms to a declared terrorist state and from the proceeds illegally armed murderous opposition to a popular government, and lied about all of it. Yet despite having clearly broken several laws, Reagan was never held to account.
George Bush Sr. maintained the “pass” given Reagan for four years and then by pardoning half a dozen convicted and/or indicted Iran-Contra participants by implication pardoning Reagan and most extraordinarily himself—thereby rendering himself, his colleagues and Reagan from any possible indictment, let alone prosecution.
Clinton was charged with multiple and very serious crimes but was found guilty only of lying about his sexual conduct.
So, going by my (admittedly incomplete) summaries where does George W. Bush, the 43rd President stand?
He wasn’t elected in 2000.
He took no action against Al-Qaeda for the bombing of the USS Cole which left 17 sailors dead.
He let his VP secretly collude with the oil industry to dictate the nation’s energy policy without public review.
He ignored over 50 warnings of terrorist attacks which were realized on 9/11, breaking his oath to defend the United States of America.
He secretly ordered mass surveillance of US communications, breaking the FISA law and in contravention of the 2nd Amendment and thus lied under oath about upholding the Constitution—another illegal act.
Going to war on false pretenses, intimidation of OMB staff, planting stories in the “free press”, intimidation of science staff, intimidation of the DOJ, using uniformed military for political rallies, using the Secretary of State as a campaign aide, leaking a covert CIA agent’s name, not keeping records, torturing civilians, incarceration without charge trial or representation, suspending Habeas Corpus, ignoring international treaties (illegal)---I could go on, and on and on and on and on and on and on…
Nixon was investigated over Watergate and faced impeachment.
Reagan was investigated over Iran Contra and got off scott-free.
George H.W. Bush was never investigated over Iran Contra and basically pardoned himself, just in case.
Clinton was investigated over Whitewater, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, the Travel
Office, faced impeachment only overlying about blow-jobs, and was acquitted.
And George W. Bush? Not one investigation….NOT ONE!!!
I tell you, scandals ain’t what they used to be!
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Schumer Nails Gonzo
Close to the end of AG Gonzalez's testimony....
Schumer summarized Gonzale’s testimony, saying that he had failed the three criteria or tests by which his testimony was expected to be judged today by the committee…
Gonzo responded that the allegations to which he was being subjected required proof, and the onus of proof (against Gonzo) lay with the committer---i.e. innocent until proven guilty—fair enough one might think…BUT…)
Schumer responds that the hearing is not a court of law (something Gonzalez should know of course—my interjection) and that it is about why the USAs were fired…the onus (says Schumer) is on Gonzalez to provide clear justifications for their firings —professional performance— for which he has failed to provide any clear evidence, and especially when the evidence (evaluations and prosecution records) contradict Gonzos public justifications for firing them.
No response from Gonzo.
Schumer summarized Gonzale’s testimony, saying that he had failed the three criteria or tests by which his testimony was expected to be judged today by the committee…
Gonzo responded that the allegations to which he was being subjected required proof, and the onus of proof (against Gonzo) lay with the committer---i.e. innocent until proven guilty—fair enough one might think…BUT…)
Schumer responds that the hearing is not a court of law (something Gonzalez should know of course—my interjection) and that it is about why the USAs were fired…the onus (says Schumer) is on Gonzalez to provide clear justifications for their firings —professional performance— for which he has failed to provide any clear evidence, and especially when the evidence (evaluations and prosecution records) contradict Gonzos public justifications for firing them.
No response from Gonzo.
NRA: Never Responsible for Actions?
Was there really anything remarkable about the Virginia Tech shootings other than the death toll?
Deadliest Mass Shootings (10 or more dead) in Western Democracies
1966-2002
26 Apr 2002 Erfurt, Germany16 + 1 Legal guns, pistol club member
27 Sep 2001Zug, Switzerland 14 + 1 Legal guns, licensed pistol owner
29 Jul 1999Atlanta, GA, USA 12 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
20 Apr 1999 Littleton, CO, USA 13 + 2 Not legal guns
28 Apr 1996 Port Arthur, Australia 35 Not legal guns
13 Mar 1996 Dunblane, Scotland 17 + 1 Legal guns, pistol club member
16 Oct 1991 Killeen, TX, USA 23 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
13 Nov 1990 Aramoana, New Zealand 13 + 1 Legal guns, licensed gun owner
18 Jun 1990 Jacksonville, FL, USA 9 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
06 Dec 1989 Montreal, Canada 14 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
19 Aug 1987 Hungerford, England 16 + 1 Legal guns, pistol club member
20 Aug 1986 Edmond, OK, USA 14 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
18 Jul 1984 San Ysidro, CA, USA 21 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
01 Aug 1966 Austin, TX, USA 16 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
Philip Alpers, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA
Judging from these statistics ‘Guns don’t massacre people; people who legally own guns do’ (usually).
Now it is perfectly possible to buy a gun sane and then become mentally unbalanced later and go on a rampage, so there’s no preventing that whilst guns are legally available.
In the case of Virginia Tech, the shooter was apparently demonstrably mentally unbalanced and a recorded risk according to police records which, had a background check been run and professional competency applied there ought not to have been a gun sale. That wouldn’t necessarily have prevented Cho-Seung–Hui from mass murder, but it would have made things more difficult.
Last I checked their website, the NRA is waiting “for all the facts” before making any comment. How very ‘responsible’ of them. The most salient fact at the moment is that Seung –Hui was able to buy a gun without a background check that could have revealed he was a risk. The legislation allowing him to do that was the result of lobbying efforts by the NRA who are of course headquartered in Virginia.
Whilst the NRA remains silent for the moment, the apologists (who never apologize) have already come out with guns blazing (pun intended).
A favorite argument is that if guns were allowed on campus the students could have fought back. So if all students carried guns any argument or even the sense of a threat could be settled with a shooting. Brilliant! It was the easy availability of guns that allowed Seung-Hui to begin killing.
People who kill either themselves or others with guns are gun-owners (legal or illegal), DUH! It is the purpose of a gun to facilitate killing.
The self-defense argument doesn’t wash either. At least as many people get killed when defending themselves with guns as those who don’t and as often as not bystanders get wounded and killed too.
Most gun-owners don’t intend to kill but they must certainly entertain the possibility that they will use their gun—why own one otherwise? And those citizens who do decide for whatever reason, to kill, use guns to do so more than any other means. Why? Because they are effective and easily available, more so in some states such as Virginia, then others.
I can’t see any practical way to eliminate private gun-ownership completely in the interests of general public safety given the huge numbers of guns already in circulation. But the constant lobbying by the NRA to make guns as easily available as possible guarantees that their illegal use is more prevalent than needs be and that many of the deaths that result are in part the NRA’s responsibility.
Deadliest Mass Shootings (10 or more dead) in Western Democracies
1966-2002
26 Apr 2002 Erfurt, Germany16 + 1 Legal guns, pistol club member
27 Sep 2001Zug, Switzerland 14 + 1 Legal guns, licensed pistol owner
29 Jul 1999Atlanta, GA, USA 12 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
20 Apr 1999 Littleton, CO, USA 13 + 2 Not legal guns
28 Apr 1996 Port Arthur, Australia 35 Not legal guns
13 Mar 1996 Dunblane, Scotland 17 + 1 Legal guns, pistol club member
16 Oct 1991 Killeen, TX, USA 23 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
13 Nov 1990 Aramoana, New Zealand 13 + 1 Legal guns, licensed gun owner
18 Jun 1990 Jacksonville, FL, USA 9 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
06 Dec 1989 Montreal, Canada 14 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
19 Aug 1987 Hungerford, England 16 + 1 Legal guns, pistol club member
20 Aug 1986 Edmond, OK, USA 14 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
18 Jul 1984 San Ysidro, CA, USA 21 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
01 Aug 1966 Austin, TX, USA 16 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
Philip Alpers, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA
Judging from these statistics ‘Guns don’t massacre people; people who legally own guns do’ (usually).
Now it is perfectly possible to buy a gun sane and then become mentally unbalanced later and go on a rampage, so there’s no preventing that whilst guns are legally available.
In the case of Virginia Tech, the shooter was apparently demonstrably mentally unbalanced and a recorded risk according to police records which, had a background check been run and professional competency applied there ought not to have been a gun sale. That wouldn’t necessarily have prevented Cho-Seung–Hui from mass murder, but it would have made things more difficult.
Last I checked their website, the NRA is waiting “for all the facts” before making any comment. How very ‘responsible’ of them. The most salient fact at the moment is that Seung –Hui was able to buy a gun without a background check that could have revealed he was a risk. The legislation allowing him to do that was the result of lobbying efforts by the NRA who are of course headquartered in Virginia.
Whilst the NRA remains silent for the moment, the apologists (who never apologize) have already come out with guns blazing (pun intended).
A favorite argument is that if guns were allowed on campus the students could have fought back. So if all students carried guns any argument or even the sense of a threat could be settled with a shooting. Brilliant! It was the easy availability of guns that allowed Seung-Hui to begin killing.
People who kill either themselves or others with guns are gun-owners (legal or illegal), DUH! It is the purpose of a gun to facilitate killing.
The self-defense argument doesn’t wash either. At least as many people get killed when defending themselves with guns as those who don’t and as often as not bystanders get wounded and killed too.
Most gun-owners don’t intend to kill but they must certainly entertain the possibility that they will use their gun—why own one otherwise? And those citizens who do decide for whatever reason, to kill, use guns to do so more than any other means. Why? Because they are effective and easily available, more so in some states such as Virginia, then others.
I can’t see any practical way to eliminate private gun-ownership completely in the interests of general public safety given the huge numbers of guns already in circulation. But the constant lobbying by the NRA to make guns as easily available as possible guarantees that their illegal use is more prevalent than needs be and that many of the deaths that result are in part the NRA’s responsibility.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Hello, Imus Be Going
Cute un-nappy-haired virgin Tennessee Vols celebrate their Championship win over Rutgers 'Scarlet Letters'
(photo Jim Isaac-Getty Images)
MSNBC Imus in the Morning, April 4, 2007
McGUIRK : They [Tennesee] beat Rutgers by 13 points.
IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and –
Meanwhile in the New York Times, reporter Jere Longman writes: “The taller Lady Vols (34-3) dominated the offensive boards and defeated Rutgers (27-9) at its own game-- a hounding, trapping defense that disrupted the Scarlet Knights into 20-for-49 shooting and forced 18 turnovers”
While back at MSNBC….
McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos.
Cut back to the NY Times: "The defeat ended an inspiring season for the young Scarlet Knights, who began 2-4, lost access to their locker room and practice gear, then recovered to reach the title game."
And then cut back to Imus…
IMUS: That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna tell you that now, man, that's some -- woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like -- kinda like -- I don't know.
From the NYT's Longman I learn that Rutgers historical resilience and tenacity couldn’t overcome Tennessee’s drive and height advantage.
From Imus I learn that the Rutgers players are tattooed whores who don’t have straight hair and that “the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute”.
Cute virginity-powered ball-handling skills overwhelm the rough. hardocre efforts of the so-not-cute nappy-haired Scarlet Whores of Rutgers. Note the Rutgers players streetgang-inspired tattoos!(Photo: Suzy Allman, New York Times)
Hmmm…let’s try it again with a different sport.
McGUIRK: They [Dallas Cowboys] beat the Chicago Bears by 13 points.
IMUS: That's some rough guys from Chicago. Man, they got tattoos
McGUIRK: Some hard-core rent-a-fag street meat gay gang..
IMUS: That's some bikini-waxed rentboys there. I'm gonna tell you that now, man, that's some -- woo. And the guys from Dallas, they’re handsome, you know, so, like -- kinda like -- I don't know.
Do you see?
All Imus needed to do was to promise to apply similar insight to other sports and he could have kept his job! Fair and balanced!
Then the only reason to fire him from his position as a sports commentator/analyst/pundit would be that he’s fucking useless at it!
Be that as it may, what relevant insights into the championship game in particular and Women’s NCAA Basketball in general were McGuirk and Imus imparting to the sports fans?
Apparently Rutgers lost because they had that characteristically African-American “nappy” hair (including their white teammates) and probably spent more time getting tattoos and turning tricks than practicing their skills, and thus were no match for the Tennessee Vols who had more manageable hair, who weren’t whoring around, and who were simply more attractive.
So... convenient keratin and cutaneous care combined with chastity and cuteness equals Championship!
Oh and don’t be from New Jersey either (even if you aren’t from New Jersey but just study there, don’t tell anyone otherwise you will be an automatic loser).
Although the press is concentrating on the inherent racism of Imus’s remarks I think they are slicing this incident too finely.
Don Imus is simply a bigot, and despite the philosophical aspirations of the founding principles of this nation (not immediately practiced of course, but built-upon through amendments to the Constitution) a consistent record of bigotry allowed Don Imus to make what most of us consider a fortune. His broadcast bigotry may be gone for the moment, but many still remain to legitimize bigotry in all its aspects.
How sweet it would have been to have seen Imus actually face these young women of Rutgers, attended by a crowd, under the glare and lights of the press, repeat his words to their faces and then have 198-pound 6’-4” Rutgers center Kia Vaughan punch him in the face in recompense for his remarks?
McGUIRK: Don, that hard-core nappy-haired ho kicked you to the curb!
IMUS: Nnnngh..urrgh..doc-tor…eearrgh!
Oh Imus, you were always a hack and a bigot and though you still have your fans they like you have exhausted themselves and they can;t protect you anymore. Bye, Don--like the bigotry you've helped to maintian all this time, you really must be going.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
On Cowards and Calumny
My previous post featured my impressions of the Little Green Footballs community's interest and attitude toward the conduct of UK Marines and sailors regarding their surrender/abduction/capture, their captivity and the circumstances surrounding their release.
To my surprise one "Nomenovum" --presumably from the LGF community-- left a comment to which I have chosen to reply in this post. I've copied most (but not all) of his comments here and responded accordingly to his statements and the points raised. The few omissions from his original text are simply for the sake of space--his full original comment is maintained in the orignal post comments of Are the British Now "The French"?
I'm afraid this posted ia a bit disjointed and rambling, but that's because of the source material--its more more coherent from "Do you remeber what happened..." (about one screen scroll)....
So here goes....
Nomenovum: "Ah! The old "chickenhawk" calumny. It always works. It is the zenith of cheap red herrings."
I assume you are equating “chickenhawk” to the phrase “The Fighting 101 Keyboarders”. And wouldn't the nadir of cheap red herrings be more apropos? But I digress....
“The fact of the matter is, you have no evidence that the LGF posters are cowards; however, we have plenty of hard evidence that the UK sailors and Marines are.
I didn’t write that “the LGF posters are cowards”.
But you can reasonably argue that I called a sizeable contingent of LGF commenters “cowards” without actually using the term.
No doubt there are some regulars to LGF who are in the military, some who have served and can speak with a degree of authority on aspects of the military that I, who has never served, and other LGF regulars who have never served, cannot.
And the same holds true of those blogs where the commenters consensus is that there’s nothing noble left in the Iraq occupation or “strategy”, or “mission”.
What really irks me is that there seem to be so many commenters on LGF that are so adamant in demanding that the US military keep fighting in Iraq because of what? Because of terrorists? Because the US aren’t quitters? Those seem to be the general arguments.
These arguments however ignore how totally half-arsed this Iraq adventure is. If this really is all about defending the US and the world against a global threat—as in WWII—then why aren’t we all getting drafted, if it's that important? Why isn’t industry mobilized? Why isn’t Bush burning the midnight oil instead of lounging around his fake ranch two months out of the year?
There were all kinds of reasons why the US went into Iraq and it had damn-all to do with the threat of “terrorism” as was claimed.
But this is the argument than many LGF commenters seem to cling to: “We are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here!”.
Well, with the world’s most powerful military fighting them over there, we don’t seem to be making much progress do we?
Let ‘em come over here! We should have the home-ground advantage and 300 million privately owned guns. Then we can all sacrifice for the great cause and take pride in it rather than put the entire responsibility for our nation’s and the worlds salvation on 100,000 regular troops and 50,000 dedicated part-timers from the National Guard. Right?
"I find it hard to believe that a man as intelligent as you cannot imagine why someone like me or an LGF commenter may not be in the armed forces of the United States.."
Well thanks for the “intelligent” compliment, but if that’s how I appear it would be more due to a combination of experience, study, inquisition and the use of logic rather than an accidental excess of neurons.
But to answer what you “find hard to believe”;
I can easily imagine why “someone like you” or a regular LGF commenter may not be in the armed forces—because so many commenters a) don’t use the military vernacular and expressions that appear on actual milblogs and other published accounts from serving soldiers and b) because so many commenters demonstrate such spectacular ignorance of basic military functions and protocols. And so few exhibit any knowledge of military history, which is something that any soldier is encouraged to at least be aware of and that one would expect the ordinary trooper to at least have a natural interest in--or so I assume.
Do you remember what happened when US Marines in Lebanon were attacked with a truck bomb?
Nothing happened, except that President Reagan pulled them out of there immediately.
Shouldn’t they have stormed out of the compound guns blazing? Why didn’t they? Because they were cowards? NO!
It’s because to have done so would have been futile and it wasn’t part of their mission.
Mission discipline is an essential demand of the military—apparently you and your “go down with guns blazing” buddies don’t seem to know that—and that’s another indicator that so many of the LGF commenters are just ignorant war-junkies baying for blood and sacrifice from the comfort of their own homes.
To quote the great General Patton (not known for being a liberal) “the idea is not to die for your country, it’s to get the other poor bastard to die for his!”—but apparently a lot of LGF commenters wouldn’t agree. They seem to want to continue the war and have the soldiers die so to preserve their own freedom to not do the same.
"It simply defies logic to think that a non-military man calling a Marine a coward makes the accuser himself a coward"
So, for a civilian to call a Marine a coward would make the civilian a coward because the civilian doesn’t intentionally risk his life, whereas the Marine does?
So a civilian is in no position to question a Marine’s heroism and call him a coward because the civilian isn’t willing to do what a Marine does, right? And therefore the civilian would be a coward in accusing a Marine of being a coward; so who would want to call attention to their own cowardice, right?
Well, as a plethora of LGF commenters who certainly don’t appear to me to be serving military (for reasons I’ve already explained—style, ignorance and probability being major factors, not to mention having the time during the day to comment) and that the majority of the comments I read (about 100 out of the 600-plus) described the captured British personnel as cowards and thought they should have started a firefight from their dinghy even though they were outgunned........we must then both agree that some of the LGF commenters would in all probability be the exact self accusing cowards you identify—non-military calling Marines cowards.
And yet your logic, apparently, dictates otherwise—all those calling the British Marines cowards must therefore be military men, and therefore no LGF civilian commenter has cried “coward” because logically they simply wouldn’t. Hmmmm… fascinating!
But enough of tortured logic , let’s move on
"But never mind. You seem to have forgotten that it is the job of a Marine (or sailor or soldier) to be brave in the face of danger, to resist coercion, and not to lie about their country when faced with the prospect of incarceration by mad Iranians. "
Really? Where the hell is all that written down? Are you quoting from any official manual?
What if a Marine or sailor or soldier is faced with the “prospect of incarceration” by mad Syrians, or North Koreans?
What if the Iranians or Syrians or North Koreans are reasonable instead of mad?
And it seems you are saying (because this is all about the Iranians capturing British military personnel) that the Brits “lied about their country” at the “prospect of incarceration”.
Gosh! Were you there when this happened? Did the Brits tell the “Mad Iranians” that Britain was actually a philosophical construct in the 8th dimension and was ruled by peaceful jellyfish as soon as the mad Iranians warned them that they might be taken prisoner? I'm guessing they didn't.
Lied about their country?!!! Really! Where do you get this stuff from? Oh, let me guess....
It is my understanding (through years of actual study of military matters and having talked to actual POW’s and a variety of experienced officers (rather than just masturbating to the Military Channel on cable) that a Prisoner of War is expected to do his or her best to a) survive, b) assist fellow captives to survive, and then if possible, c) to confound and annoy the enemy whilst in captivity.
What YOU have forgotten, or rather IGNORED is that the UK ISN”T AT WAR WITH IRAN! NEITHER IS THE US! ERGO the Brits WEREN’T POWS! ERGO the Geneva Conventions you so misguidedly quote DON’T APPLY! Despite the involvement of military personnel the issue was an international, civil, diplomatic and legal issue, NOT a military one.
Furthermore you also forget or ignore that these Marines and sailors are given RULES OF ENGAGEMENT and that what military personnel are supposed to do above all is FOLLOW ORDERS!
Their orders were to search ships for “contraband” and it is highly unlikely that such a patrol, especially in this area would be given license to engage in “free-fire” when challenged.
For the Brits to have fired before they were fired upon, given that they WEREN’T AT WAR, would have been a violation of their ROE and and a damn good excuse for the Iranians to respond in kind and then-some and the whole thing could have literally blown-up—which is exactly what a bunch of the dimwits at LGF were keen to see happen.
If only the Brits had panicked, we could have had another war! Fantastic! Just what this country and the world needs!
I don’t contest your negative opinion (and those of so many others I read on LGF) out of a blind devotion to my fellow Brits, but because I have an appreciation of such matters that you apparently don’t.
I grew up with terrorism, thanks to the IRA and intransigence from the UDA and the British Government. I got to see some of bloody results first-hand.
My father was held prisoner of the PLO for two days but they let him go, and he negotiated the release of prisoners on B.O.A.C VC10 (G-ASGN) at Dawson’s field in Amman in 1970—look it up, the first triple-hijacking.
Was my father a coward for not wrestling a gun from one of his captors and starting a fight? Are you calling my father a coward? He saved people’s lives by being smart and sticking to his mission objectives.
I was in Beirut in the late summer of 1974 and saw the Syrian tanks lined up just yards from me on the border, waiting, and watched as the Palestinian fedayeen took potshots at the Israeli RF-4 Phantoms otherwise unchallenged roaring overhead at 500 feet, photographing the city in preparation for the coming war, and I had to dodge a couple of firefights that opened up on the streets of Beirut between gangs of Phalangists and Palestinians, before the shit really hit the fan in 1975.
Face it:
Afghanistan was pitched as a surgical strike against Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and as strategic effort to bring democracy and stability to that country to deny a haven to terrorists and serve as a model to the region.
Well. Bin Laden is still at large, Al Qaeda still functions, the Taliban have returned, there is no functioning democracy and no stability—after five years.
Iraq was pitched as a surgical strike against Hussein and against Al Qaeda, and as an even more important strategic effort to bring democracy and stability to that country, to deny a haven and possible support to terrorists and to serve as a model to the region.
Well, Hussein’s now dead, the country is leaderless and there’s no-one power to bargain-with, threaten or cajole.
The “government” can’t govern, the US invasion and occupation has attracted terrorists and encouraged radical Islamists all over the world, the US hasn’t won any hearts and minds and it has made no tangible progress; thousands of Iraqis have been incarcerated without real evidence, tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed by the US for sure, hundreds of thousands have been killed overall by local factions—what is there to show for all this, four years, nearly 3300 US dead and $600 billion spent? Where indeed is the good news?
And you and the LGF regulars have your panties in a bunch because a handful of British military had the sense not to trigger another war, one that the same people who “managed” the Afghanistan and Iraq disasters are now itching to wage and that you support? How many wars do you want to lose? Do you really think they’ll finally get it right with Iran?
"Nice twist, though, making this episode another opportunity to bash the United States. The country must have done you great wrong. I am curious to know why you haven’t taken up Aeneas’s suggestion."
Nope, I’ve had a quite decent time here in the US. But which United States are your referring to? The one that does include me, born of American parents, lived-here over half my life? Or the one that excludes me, the one that fits only your view of what Americans are and what America should be? Apparently you have exclusive rights to criticize? You should read the Constitution and the writings of Washington, Jefferson, Adams—you know the guys who defined modern Democracy and this nation?
"The evidence is quite persuasive that most, if not all, of these fifteen are cowards. They certainly shamed Great Britain. They embarrassed themselves and their comrades. They made me embarrassed for them. You should be embarrassed to have such pitiful men fighting for your native land. It was shameful. It does no good to call their critics cowards themselves because it does nothing to change the evidence before your eyes."
See the evidence before your eyes and save your embarrassment for yourself, for your ignorant support of a policy that has corrupted a once great military and that has abused American troops in equipment, in their mission, in the care of the wounded and in honoring the dead of two wars concurrent wars with no improvement in the political, social or military conditions on the ground, and for your ignorance–fueled denigration of these allies who didn’t sacrifice themselves to the bloodthirsty, xenophobic, jingoistic, hegemonistic ambitions you seem to think is America’s “manifest destiny”.
The British embraced that notion and over 400 years created the world’s greatest empire, which took only 50 years and two major wars to collapse. Things move a lot faster these days. Think about it.
Oh and should any US troops have the misfortune of being captured, why don't you teach a lesson to the cowardly limeys and demand that the US troops recieve the same treatment from their captoirs that the US offers its captives--waterboarding, sleep deprivation, beatings, hypothermic manipulation, sexual humilation, all that good stuff--you know, so you have something to be really proud of?
To my surprise one "Nomenovum" --presumably from the LGF community-- left a comment to which I have chosen to reply in this post. I've copied most (but not all) of his comments here and responded accordingly to his statements and the points raised. The few omissions from his original text are simply for the sake of space--his full original comment is maintained in the orignal post comments of Are the British Now "The French"?
I'm afraid this posted ia a bit disjointed and rambling, but that's because of the source material--its more more coherent from "Do you remeber what happened..." (about one screen scroll)....
So here goes....
Nomenovum: "Ah! The old "chickenhawk" calumny. It always works. It is the zenith of cheap red herrings."
I assume you are equating “chickenhawk” to the phrase “The Fighting 101 Keyboarders”. And wouldn't the nadir of cheap red herrings be more apropos? But I digress....
“The fact of the matter is, you have no evidence that the LGF posters are cowards; however, we have plenty of hard evidence that the UK sailors and Marines are.
I didn’t write that “the LGF posters are cowards”.
But you can reasonably argue that I called a sizeable contingent of LGF commenters “cowards” without actually using the term.
No doubt there are some regulars to LGF who are in the military, some who have served and can speak with a degree of authority on aspects of the military that I, who has never served, and other LGF regulars who have never served, cannot.
And the same holds true of those blogs where the commenters consensus is that there’s nothing noble left in the Iraq occupation or “strategy”, or “mission”.
What really irks me is that there seem to be so many commenters on LGF that are so adamant in demanding that the US military keep fighting in Iraq because of what? Because of terrorists? Because the US aren’t quitters? Those seem to be the general arguments.
These arguments however ignore how totally half-arsed this Iraq adventure is. If this really is all about defending the US and the world against a global threat—as in WWII—then why aren’t we all getting drafted, if it's that important? Why isn’t industry mobilized? Why isn’t Bush burning the midnight oil instead of lounging around his fake ranch two months out of the year?
There were all kinds of reasons why the US went into Iraq and it had damn-all to do with the threat of “terrorism” as was claimed.
But this is the argument than many LGF commenters seem to cling to: “We are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here!”.
Well, with the world’s most powerful military fighting them over there, we don’t seem to be making much progress do we?
Let ‘em come over here! We should have the home-ground advantage and 300 million privately owned guns. Then we can all sacrifice for the great cause and take pride in it rather than put the entire responsibility for our nation’s and the worlds salvation on 100,000 regular troops and 50,000 dedicated part-timers from the National Guard. Right?
"I find it hard to believe that a man as intelligent as you cannot imagine why someone like me or an LGF commenter may not be in the armed forces of the United States.."
Well thanks for the “intelligent” compliment, but if that’s how I appear it would be more due to a combination of experience, study, inquisition and the use of logic rather than an accidental excess of neurons.
But to answer what you “find hard to believe”;
I can easily imagine why “someone like you” or a regular LGF commenter may not be in the armed forces—because so many commenters a) don’t use the military vernacular and expressions that appear on actual milblogs and other published accounts from serving soldiers and b) because so many commenters demonstrate such spectacular ignorance of basic military functions and protocols. And so few exhibit any knowledge of military history, which is something that any soldier is encouraged to at least be aware of and that one would expect the ordinary trooper to at least have a natural interest in--or so I assume.
Do you remember what happened when US Marines in Lebanon were attacked with a truck bomb?
Nothing happened, except that President Reagan pulled them out of there immediately.
Shouldn’t they have stormed out of the compound guns blazing? Why didn’t they? Because they were cowards? NO!
It’s because to have done so would have been futile and it wasn’t part of their mission.
Mission discipline is an essential demand of the military—apparently you and your “go down with guns blazing” buddies don’t seem to know that—and that’s another indicator that so many of the LGF commenters are just ignorant war-junkies baying for blood and sacrifice from the comfort of their own homes.
To quote the great General Patton (not known for being a liberal) “the idea is not to die for your country, it’s to get the other poor bastard to die for his!”—but apparently a lot of LGF commenters wouldn’t agree. They seem to want to continue the war and have the soldiers die so to preserve their own freedom to not do the same.
"It simply defies logic to think that a non-military man calling a Marine a coward makes the accuser himself a coward"
So, for a civilian to call a Marine a coward would make the civilian a coward because the civilian doesn’t intentionally risk his life, whereas the Marine does?
So a civilian is in no position to question a Marine’s heroism and call him a coward because the civilian isn’t willing to do what a Marine does, right? And therefore the civilian would be a coward in accusing a Marine of being a coward; so who would want to call attention to their own cowardice, right?
Well, as a plethora of LGF commenters who certainly don’t appear to me to be serving military (for reasons I’ve already explained—style, ignorance and probability being major factors, not to mention having the time during the day to comment) and that the majority of the comments I read (about 100 out of the 600-plus) described the captured British personnel as cowards and thought they should have started a firefight from their dinghy even though they were outgunned........we must then both agree that some of the LGF commenters would in all probability be the exact self accusing cowards you identify—non-military calling Marines cowards.
And yet your logic, apparently, dictates otherwise—all those calling the British Marines cowards must therefore be military men, and therefore no LGF civilian commenter has cried “coward” because logically they simply wouldn’t. Hmmmm… fascinating!
But enough of tortured logic , let’s move on
"But never mind. You seem to have forgotten that it is the job of a Marine (or sailor or soldier) to be brave in the face of danger, to resist coercion, and not to lie about their country when faced with the prospect of incarceration by mad Iranians. "
Really? Where the hell is all that written down? Are you quoting from any official manual?
What if a Marine or sailor or soldier is faced with the “prospect of incarceration” by mad Syrians, or North Koreans?
What if the Iranians or Syrians or North Koreans are reasonable instead of mad?
And it seems you are saying (because this is all about the Iranians capturing British military personnel) that the Brits “lied about their country” at the “prospect of incarceration”.
Gosh! Were you there when this happened? Did the Brits tell the “Mad Iranians” that Britain was actually a philosophical construct in the 8th dimension and was ruled by peaceful jellyfish as soon as the mad Iranians warned them that they might be taken prisoner? I'm guessing they didn't.
Lied about their country?!!! Really! Where do you get this stuff from? Oh, let me guess....
It is my understanding (through years of actual study of military matters and having talked to actual POW’s and a variety of experienced officers (rather than just masturbating to the Military Channel on cable) that a Prisoner of War is expected to do his or her best to a) survive, b) assist fellow captives to survive, and then if possible, c) to confound and annoy the enemy whilst in captivity.
What YOU have forgotten, or rather IGNORED is that the UK ISN”T AT WAR WITH IRAN! NEITHER IS THE US! ERGO the Brits WEREN’T POWS! ERGO the Geneva Conventions you so misguidedly quote DON’T APPLY! Despite the involvement of military personnel the issue was an international, civil, diplomatic and legal issue, NOT a military one.
Furthermore you also forget or ignore that these Marines and sailors are given RULES OF ENGAGEMENT and that what military personnel are supposed to do above all is FOLLOW ORDERS!
Their orders were to search ships for “contraband” and it is highly unlikely that such a patrol, especially in this area would be given license to engage in “free-fire” when challenged.
For the Brits to have fired before they were fired upon, given that they WEREN’T AT WAR, would have been a violation of their ROE and and a damn good excuse for the Iranians to respond in kind and then-some and the whole thing could have literally blown-up—which is exactly what a bunch of the dimwits at LGF were keen to see happen.
If only the Brits had panicked, we could have had another war! Fantastic! Just what this country and the world needs!
I don’t contest your negative opinion (and those of so many others I read on LGF) out of a blind devotion to my fellow Brits, but because I have an appreciation of such matters that you apparently don’t.
I grew up with terrorism, thanks to the IRA and intransigence from the UDA and the British Government. I got to see some of bloody results first-hand.
My father was held prisoner of the PLO for two days but they let him go, and he negotiated the release of prisoners on B.O.A.C VC10 (G-ASGN) at Dawson’s field in Amman in 1970—look it up, the first triple-hijacking.
Was my father a coward for not wrestling a gun from one of his captors and starting a fight? Are you calling my father a coward? He saved people’s lives by being smart and sticking to his mission objectives.
I was in Beirut in the late summer of 1974 and saw the Syrian tanks lined up just yards from me on the border, waiting, and watched as the Palestinian fedayeen took potshots at the Israeli RF-4 Phantoms otherwise unchallenged roaring overhead at 500 feet, photographing the city in preparation for the coming war, and I had to dodge a couple of firefights that opened up on the streets of Beirut between gangs of Phalangists and Palestinians, before the shit really hit the fan in 1975.
Face it:
Afghanistan was pitched as a surgical strike against Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and as strategic effort to bring democracy and stability to that country to deny a haven to terrorists and serve as a model to the region.
Well. Bin Laden is still at large, Al Qaeda still functions, the Taliban have returned, there is no functioning democracy and no stability—after five years.
Iraq was pitched as a surgical strike against Hussein and against Al Qaeda, and as an even more important strategic effort to bring democracy and stability to that country, to deny a haven and possible support to terrorists and to serve as a model to the region.
Well, Hussein’s now dead, the country is leaderless and there’s no-one power to bargain-with, threaten or cajole.
The “government” can’t govern, the US invasion and occupation has attracted terrorists and encouraged radical Islamists all over the world, the US hasn’t won any hearts and minds and it has made no tangible progress; thousands of Iraqis have been incarcerated without real evidence, tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed by the US for sure, hundreds of thousands have been killed overall by local factions—what is there to show for all this, four years, nearly 3300 US dead and $600 billion spent? Where indeed is the good news?
And you and the LGF regulars have your panties in a bunch because a handful of British military had the sense not to trigger another war, one that the same people who “managed” the Afghanistan and Iraq disasters are now itching to wage and that you support? How many wars do you want to lose? Do you really think they’ll finally get it right with Iran?
"Nice twist, though, making this episode another opportunity to bash the United States. The country must have done you great wrong. I am curious to know why you haven’t taken up Aeneas’s suggestion."
Nope, I’ve had a quite decent time here in the US. But which United States are your referring to? The one that does include me, born of American parents, lived-here over half my life? Or the one that excludes me, the one that fits only your view of what Americans are and what America should be? Apparently you have exclusive rights to criticize? You should read the Constitution and the writings of Washington, Jefferson, Adams—you know the guys who defined modern Democracy and this nation?
"The evidence is quite persuasive that most, if not all, of these fifteen are cowards. They certainly shamed Great Britain. They embarrassed themselves and their comrades. They made me embarrassed for them. You should be embarrassed to have such pitiful men fighting for your native land. It was shameful. It does no good to call their critics cowards themselves because it does nothing to change the evidence before your eyes."
See the evidence before your eyes and save your embarrassment for yourself, for your ignorant support of a policy that has corrupted a once great military and that has abused American troops in equipment, in their mission, in the care of the wounded and in honoring the dead of two wars concurrent wars with no improvement in the political, social or military conditions on the ground, and for your ignorance–fueled denigration of these allies who didn’t sacrifice themselves to the bloodthirsty, xenophobic, jingoistic, hegemonistic ambitions you seem to think is America’s “manifest destiny”.
The British embraced that notion and over 400 years created the world’s greatest empire, which took only 50 years and two major wars to collapse. Things move a lot faster these days. Think about it.
Oh and should any US troops have the misfortune of being captured, why don't you teach a lesson to the cowardly limeys and demand that the US troops recieve the same treatment from their captoirs that the US offers its captives--waterboarding, sleep deprivation, beatings, hypothermic manipulation, sexual humilation, all that good stuff--you know, so you have something to be really proud of?
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Are the British Now "The French"?
Little Green Footballs is logging some pretty impressive comment figures (500-600) on their posts about the contingent of British sailors and marines held captive for two weeks by the Iranians (compared to say 200-300 on other issues).
Some comments were relatively circumspect, there were plenty of irrelevant ramblings and some flame-wars as one might expect from any large blog thread. I didn’t have the patience to determine the majority viewpoint.
However there was a large contingent of the “Fighting 101 Keyboarders” who charged the British sailors and Marines as cowards and traitors for not fighting to the last man (or woman), and interestingly for not being abused-enough in their captivity to justify their televised “confessions”.
By the action or inaction of a mixed group of sailors and Marines on what was a maritime policing mission, members of the Fighting 101st are convinced the entire British military are cheese-eating surrender monkeys.
Following that logic, the entire US military is really a bunch of closeted homosexual rapists, murderers and torturers (as evidenced by Abu Ghraib, Al-Haditha, Guantanamo and various internment camps in Afghanistan—not to mention all the renditions that have taken place). But of course the fighting 101st doesn’t quite see it that way.
According to the fighting 101st this ad-hoc team of military personnel functioning as customs agents should have opened fire, and damn the facts that they faced overwhelming force, had nowhere to run, weren’t at war with Iran and were in no position to start one.
It is true that a soldier’s lot is essentially to fight and if necessary die for an objective. But each objective has a conjoined practical and political component in time of war—cities for example may be overrun or pounded into oblivion not for military gain but for significant political advantage. What possible advantage would have been gained by these British sailors and marines escalating a small confrontation into an excuse for open war?
But open war is what the fighting 101st want—not that they themselves will serve, nor that they expect to suffer the consequences. As they sit behind their keyboards they accuse others of cowardice and desertion, not recognizing their own.
To them, what is great and good in the world is strictly American and what’s American is defined by them exclusively. Everyone else who doesn’t subscribe to their view is “French”—even, it seems, the British.
Some comments were relatively circumspect, there were plenty of irrelevant ramblings and some flame-wars as one might expect from any large blog thread. I didn’t have the patience to determine the majority viewpoint.
However there was a large contingent of the “Fighting 101 Keyboarders” who charged the British sailors and Marines as cowards and traitors for not fighting to the last man (or woman), and interestingly for not being abused-enough in their captivity to justify their televised “confessions”.
By the action or inaction of a mixed group of sailors and Marines on what was a maritime policing mission, members of the Fighting 101st are convinced the entire British military are cheese-eating surrender monkeys.
Following that logic, the entire US military is really a bunch of closeted homosexual rapists, murderers and torturers (as evidenced by Abu Ghraib, Al-Haditha, Guantanamo and various internment camps in Afghanistan—not to mention all the renditions that have taken place). But of course the fighting 101st doesn’t quite see it that way.
According to the fighting 101st this ad-hoc team of military personnel functioning as customs agents should have opened fire, and damn the facts that they faced overwhelming force, had nowhere to run, weren’t at war with Iran and were in no position to start one.
It is true that a soldier’s lot is essentially to fight and if necessary die for an objective. But each objective has a conjoined practical and political component in time of war—cities for example may be overrun or pounded into oblivion not for military gain but for significant political advantage. What possible advantage would have been gained by these British sailors and marines escalating a small confrontation into an excuse for open war?
But open war is what the fighting 101st want—not that they themselves will serve, nor that they expect to suffer the consequences. As they sit behind their keyboards they accuse others of cowardice and desertion, not recognizing their own.
To them, what is great and good in the world is strictly American and what’s American is defined by them exclusively. Everyone else who doesn’t subscribe to their view is “French”—even, it seems, the British.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
