Op-Ed
The media spectacle that John McCain made of himself in Baghdad on
April 1 was yet another reprise of a ghastly ritual. Senator McCain
expressed “very cautious optimism” and told reporters that the latest
version of the U.S. war effort in Iraq is “making progress.”
Three years ago, in early April 2004, when an insurrection exploded in numerous Iraqi cities, U.S. occupation spokesman Dan Senor informed journalists: “We have isolated pockets where we are encountering problems.” Nine days later, President Bush declared: “It's not a popular uprising. Most of Iraq is relatively stable.”
For government officials committed to a war based on lies, such claims are in the wiring.
When Defense Secretary Robert McNamara visited Vietnam for the first time, in May 1962, he came back saying that he’d seen “nothing but progress and hopeful indications of further progress in the future.”
Three years ago, in early April 2004, when an insurrection exploded in numerous Iraqi cities, U.S. occupation spokesman Dan Senor informed journalists: “We have isolated pockets where we are encountering problems.” Nine days later, President Bush declared: “It's not a popular uprising. Most of Iraq is relatively stable.”
For government officials committed to a war based on lies, such claims are in the wiring.
When Defense Secretary Robert McNamara visited Vietnam for the first time, in May 1962, he came back saying that he’d seen “nothing but progress and hopeful indications of further progress in the future.”
"The Army has yet to provide the family with a copy of the original narrative required by Army Regulation to support the award of the Silver Star."
The simplest truths bedevil chronic liars, even those with multibillion-dollar budgets. So as the family of Pat Tillman, the former Arizona Cardinal football player who enlisted in the Army shortly after 9/11 and died as the result of friendly fire in Afghanistan three years ago, stand their ground with quiet dignity and insist only on a true accounting of what happened to him, I ponder the phenomenon of a society in a state of arrested development.
Who would have guessed that the war on terror and its vast supporting infrastructure — indeed, the whole conspiracy of militarism — depend at some core level on a 10-year-old boy in combat boots, pointing his toy gun at the air and making shooting noises? The Bush administration's war on terror is a children's crusade, or the facade of one: unsullied valor in the service of freedom.
The simplest truths bedevil chronic liars, even those with multibillion-dollar budgets. So as the family of Pat Tillman, the former Arizona Cardinal football player who enlisted in the Army shortly after 9/11 and died as the result of friendly fire in Afghanistan three years ago, stand their ground with quiet dignity and insist only on a true accounting of what happened to him, I ponder the phenomenon of a society in a state of arrested development.
Who would have guessed that the war on terror and its vast supporting infrastructure — indeed, the whole conspiracy of militarism — depend at some core level on a 10-year-old boy in combat boots, pointing his toy gun at the air and making shooting noises? The Bush administration's war on terror is a children's crusade, or the facade of one: unsullied valor in the service of freedom.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is right to point Unitary Executive George W. Bush toward a copy of the Constitution. The President (should Bush care to resume that legal role) is permitted to veto bills but not to write them. In particular, the President cannot rewrite legislation after it has been voted on and before he signs it. Nor can any member of Congress.
Bush's longstanding habit, of course, has been to rewrite laws after he signs them, by the use of "signing statements." This is also completely unconstitutional. And it is, I think, his most likely course of action with the "supplemental" war bill – assuming the Democrats don't weaken it. He wants the money without delay, and he knows the Democrats and the media will avert their eyes from any signing statement. However, he does not want the media to report that he signed a bill containing a withdrawal deadline – even an unenforceable one. So, he may veto as promised.
Bush's longstanding habit, of course, has been to rewrite laws after he signs them, by the use of "signing statements." This is also completely unconstitutional. And it is, I think, his most likely course of action with the "supplemental" war bill – assuming the Democrats don't weaken it. He wants the money without delay, and he knows the Democrats and the media will avert their eyes from any signing statement. However, he does not want the media to report that he signed a bill containing a withdrawal deadline – even an unenforceable one. So, he may veto as promised.
Seventy-one members of Congress, all Democrats, most House Members, two Senators, belong to the Congressional Progressive Caucus. For a couple of years now, the CPC has had a staff person. More recently it created a website http://cpc.lee.house.gov
Since most of the positions generally labeled progressive are backed by either a majority or a large minority of Americans, it certainly seems useful to have at least a small minority in Congress pushing for them. If anything good is ever to come out of Congress, this seems a likely source for it.
The CPC operates from within the Democratic Party, and that party is now in the majority. So, the question arises: what influence does the CPC have with the rest of its party or with Republicans, and what goals will it attempt to achieve?
Since most of the positions generally labeled progressive are backed by either a majority or a large minority of Americans, it certainly seems useful to have at least a small minority in Congress pushing for them. If anything good is ever to come out of Congress, this seems a likely source for it.
The CPC operates from within the Democratic Party, and that party is now in the majority. So, the question arises: what influence does the CPC have with the rest of its party or with Republicans, and what goals will it attempt to achieve?
If you could secretly tell a magic genie "Yes" and receive a million dollars but cause the deaths of a million people you've never met in China, would you say No? This is no longer just a philosophical brain teaser. The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote Friday morning on funding for a war that has already caused the deaths of possibly as many as a million Iraqis. Some of the money might very well go to funding an attack on another nation (Iran). Many members of Congress are expected to vote Yes in order to keep their committee chairmanships, or in order to receive funding for projects in their districts, or in order to receive assistance or not face opposition in their next reelection campaigns. Among the most principled few who are holding out and voting No, some of them are encouraging others to vote Yes.
I think Karl Rove should be permitted to testify to Congress in private, without taking any oath, and without any record being kept of what he says. I had hoped we could avoid the indecency of having to spell out the reason why, but apparently we can't. So please remember this and then never say it aloud again: he wants to lie. Sssshhh. There, we said it. And you're making it very difficult for him, and that's not very nice or respectful.
As I was walking across Memorial Bridge a young man I know ran up to me.
He's a veteran of this war and a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War.
After saying hello and a few words, he burst into tears. He said he had
just been spat on, and it had just hit him what that meant. The people
who spat on him were part of a relatively tiny group of pro-war
demonstrators. The young man I was talking to did not spit back at them.
He joined a group of other vets for peace and led the march to the
Pentagon nonviolently.
The leaders of the marches for peace care what the war supporters think of them. The reverse is also true. The pro-war demonstrators were not executives of weapons and oil companies cynically promoting their own profits. Many of them were aging veterans of a previous war that had sent them into the horrors of death and violence for previous power and profit motives that they do not want to think about.
The leaders of the marches for peace care what the war supporters think of them. The reverse is also true. The pro-war demonstrators were not executives of weapons and oil companies cynically promoting their own profits. Many of them were aging veterans of a previous war that had sent them into the horrors of death and violence for previous power and profit motives that they do not want to think about.
The Supplemental spending bill proposed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi funds the war. It gives Cheney and Bush roughly another $100 billion. And you can be quite sure they will spend it as they choose, which may include attacking Iran. In fact, a measure in the bill requiring Bush to get Congress's approval before attacking Iran (an attack that would violate the US Constitution and the UN charter) has been removed.
The bill also requires Iraq to turn much of its oil profits over to foreign corporations. This illegally rewards the Bush and Cheney gang for their illegal war.
Beyond that, the bill does a number of things to nudge Bush in the direction of limiting the war, but most of them are for show.
The bill also requires Iraq to turn much of its oil profits over to foreign corporations. This illegally rewards the Bush and Cheney gang for their illegal war.
Beyond that, the bill does a number of things to nudge Bush in the direction of limiting the war, but most of them are for show.
It began with that monstrous young man so evil we needed to blindfold him and strap him to a board, that confusing young man who looked like Christ but cast us in the role of crucifiers, that treasonous young man who brought dark and heathen evils across linguistic and cultural borders and brought torture onto the list of accepted government actions.
They just wanted to protect the sanctity of the vote. That’s the administration’s pious explanation for why they fired eight U.S. Attorneys who were Republican enough for Bush to have appointed them in the first place.
"The president recalls hearing complaints about election fraud not being vigorously prosecuted and believes he may have informally mentioned it to the attorney general,” explained White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.
How could you question such a laudable goal?
Of course the justifications keep shifting, as with the Iraqi war. First it was the general performance of the prosecutors. Then a preference for specific replacements. Now it’s concern for the democratic process.
"The president recalls hearing complaints about election fraud not being vigorously prosecuted and believes he may have informally mentioned it to the attorney general,” explained White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.
How could you question such a laudable goal?
Of course the justifications keep shifting, as with the Iraqi war. First it was the general performance of the prosecutors. Then a preference for specific replacements. Now it’s concern for the democratic process.