As I wrote previously:

We still wallow in our self-centerism and selfishness, while hypocritically congratulating ourselves at being "good guys" who walk on the bestest of moral high grounds.

Well, let us take a hard, painful look at what we truly are:

The increasing erosion of our constitutions, civil rights and democracies as they are being gradually subjugated by Authoritarian Security Surveillance States. The bloating no-fly lists and terrorist watch-lists. The continuing inhumane and barbaric renditions, "enhanced interrogations" and indefinite detentions - of children, teenagers and adults alike. The continuing standing of Military Commissions, which are nothing more than politically-driven, rigged, kangaroo courts. The seemingly unending wars of choice and occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq - both based on lies to justify a vengeance operation for 9/11 and the securing of foreign oil resources. The ever mounting toll of civilian deaths, displaced refugees and soldier casualties.

This is the overall state of things today with regards to our so-called "Western civilization" - especially with regards to the U.S.A., the U.K. and Canada.

Through it all, much of the currently occurring discourse and debating on these above-mentioned, self-evident evils deal largely with semantics and quaint legalese gymnastics in order to defend and justify not only their perceived necessity, but to actually establish, maintain, or cement, their legality as well.

In other words:

We justify breaking laws, war crimes and atrocities because, goshdarnit, we're the good guys and therefore we only do what is necessary - and consequently we can do no wrong.

Nor can our friends do any wrong, because, you know, if we're the good guys, then so are our friends.

But all those who are not our friends, well ... they should be denounced and prosecuted for the same things that we are doing - but since we're the good guys, we can be excused because we are doing those things in good faith. So, there.

(...)

Then again, I should not be surprised that we claim to hold onto noble principles, and congratulate ourselves for this, yet nevertheless dismiss said principles whenever we feel threatened.

After all, are we not still in the habit of proudly claiming our adherence to high ideals while we summarily ignore them for the sake of convenience, of expediency?

(...)

Overall, such rank hypocrisy on our part, such repugnant self-delusions about our grandeur, our goodness, our moral high ground, borders on the pathological.

We have a long way to learn the simple truth that holding on to noble principles is worth nothing unless we steadfastly hold them closer to our hearts and minds whenever we are tempted to ignore them - regardless of the reasons, the justifications or the opportunities, to dismiss them.

Claiming the moral high ground means that you stay on said moral high ground - through thick and thin, through rain or shine, through beautiful or stormy weather.

In short: any justification to not prosecute war crimes is as fundamentally wrong morally as it is arrogantly callous and uncivilized - at the very least.

Besides - if you don't prosecute war crimes committed by some people, what standing do you have in prosecuting such crimes committed by others? And that is not taking into account that the direct consequence of such double standards provides anyone (specious) justifications/excuses aplenty to reject such proceedings.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot ... twice over.

You know, folks - there is a word which describes such behavior accurately: incompetence.

(Cross-posted from APOV)

Last month's raid by U.S. special forces within Syria's undisputed, internationally recognized borders was but a small tip of a terribly sizable iceberg.

For perhaps a very first time, such an illegal military activity on the part of the U.S. within the ludicrous, broad context of the Global War on Terror(TM) put a bright, glaring and galling spotlight on the Bush Doctrine in action - especially its inherently criminal, destructively arrogant and short-sighted incompetent nature.

Then again, such a raid was not really surprising. For more than two years now, there has been numerous confirmed reports of instances whereby the U.S.-led N.A.T.O. ISAF in Afghanistan have bombed border villages within Pakistan and despite Pakistan's protestations - again, going against every precept of international laws with regards to the sanctity of borders and the sovereignty of nations.

Similarly, there has been numerous rumors, or at least as-yet-to-be fully confirmed reports, concerning secret U.S. "black ops" being run within Iran's borders - also for the better part of two years now, at least.

Well, it would seem that the complete extent of such Bush Doctrine-justified black ops is finally beginning to emerge - and such truth is every bit as outrageous as it is downright ugly (emphasis added):

US military conducts a dozen secret strikes in four years: report

US special forces have conducted about a dozen secret operations against Al-Qaeda and other Islamic militants in Pakistan, Syria and other countries under broad war-waging authority given them by the administration of President George W. Bush (...).

(Unnamed senior US officials) said the authority was contained in a classified order signed by then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld in early 2004 with the approval of President Bush.

The order gave the military permission to attack Al-Qaeda and other hostile targets anywhere in the world, even in countries not at war with the United States, without any additional approval (...).

Under this authority, a Navy Seal team raided a suspected Islamic militant compound in the Bajaur region of Pakistan in 2006 (...).

Another raid was conducted by US special forces in Syria last October 26 in cooperation with the Central Intelligence Agency (...).

There is no information about the remaining secret military strikes, but officials made clear the list of targets did not include Iran (...) however, US forces had carried out reconnaissance missions in Iran using other classified directives.

About a dozen additional operations have been canceled in the past four years because they were deemed too risky, too diplomatically explosive or relied on insufficient evidence (...).

Before the 2004 order, the Pentagon needed to get approval for missions on a case-by-case basis, which could take days (...) but Rumsfeld was not satisfied with the status-quo and pressed hard for permission to use military power automatically outside the combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan (...).

(The) 2004 order identifies 15 to 20 countries, including Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and several other Persian Gulf states, where Al-Qaeda was believed to be operating or had sought sanctuary.

Not the best way to make friends, let alone inspire and spread goodwill, eh?

(Rogue Nation, anyone?)

Ah yes, that is the Bush Doctrine in action without a shadow of a doubt - including the typical landmarks of incompetence-driven arrogance, delusional (and false) moral high ground, and slavish need for expediency.

In other words - this is the exact, same mode of (non)thinking which ended up justifying renditions, indefinite detentions, torture, military commissions and indiscriminate domestic spying.

Indeed - upon closer reading of the Bush Doctrine, we even find the very same contorted and mendacious "double-speak" used in claiming that torture, renditions and indefinite detentions remained respectful of the Geneva Conventions, except this time around with regards to "respecting international laws" and other such quaint ideals. To whit (emphasis added):

(...) For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.

We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction—weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.

(...) The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction— and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.

The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world’s most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather. We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our actions.

Translation: we do what we feel needs to be done, and us alone, regardless of the previous thinking about sovereignty and international laws which we still respect. Trust us.

Or: do as we say, not as we do.

Reminds you of many, many other things, no?

But the galling irony, especially in light of such blatant unilateralism, lies with the following "noble" statements of principles in that very same Bush Doctrine (emphasis added):

No doctrine can anticipate every circumstance in which U.S. action—direct or indirect—is warranted. We have finite political, economic, and military resources to meet our global priorities. The United States will approach each case with these strategic principles in mind:

• The United States should invest time and resources into building international relationships and institutions that can help manage local crises when they emerge.
• The United States should be realistic about its ability to help those who are unwilling or unready to help themselves. Where and when people are ready to do their part, we will be willing to move decisively.

To which one can only reply: Afghanistan? Iraq? Pakistan? Syria? And who else?

And to this, one must never fail to remind (lame duck) President George W. Bush of his own words in order to expose his demonstrated shameless hypocrisy in such matters, as in pretty much everything else - to whit:

"We build a world of justice, or we will live in a world of coercion. The magnitude of our shared responsibilities makes our disagreements look so small."

President Bush
Berlin, Germany
May 23, 2002

Justice.

Coercion.

Shared responsibilities.

One can't help but be reminded again of renditions, indefinite detentions, torture, military commissions, using military as police and indiscriminate domestic spying.

All of which, in turn, brings me back to the Q&A at the top of this post.

So thank you, President Bush, for making our world a definitely more dangerous and unstable one for decades henceforth.

May you and your infamous Doctrine be forever condemned and reviled by the present generation and all those to come thereafter.


(Cross-posted from APOV)

Article I
Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq;

Article II
Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression;

Article III
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War;

Article IV
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States;

Article V
Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression;

Article VI
Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114;

Article VII
Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War;

Article VIII
Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter;

Article IX
Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor;

Article X
Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes;

Article XI
Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq;

Article XII
Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources;

Article XIIII
Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other Countries;

Article XIV
Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency;

Article XV
Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq;

Article XVI
Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors;

Article XVII
Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives;

Article XVIII
Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy;

Article XIX
Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to "Black Sites" Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture;

Article XX
Imprisoning Children;

Article XXI
Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government;

Article XXII
Creating Secret Laws;

Article XXIII
Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act;

Article XXIV
Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment;

Article XXV
Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens;

Article XXVI
Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements;

Article XXVII
Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply;

Article XXVIII
Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice;

Article XXIX
Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965;

Article XXX
Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare;

Article XXXI
Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency;

Article XXXII
Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change;

Article XXXIII
Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911;

Article XXXIV
Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001;

Article XXXV
Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders.

And thus these have been entered in the records of Congress.


(Cross-posted from APOV)

This is what the worse President ever had to say on his launching of this little trip:

"I'm looking forward to meeting with our friends and allies. We've got strong relations in Europe, and this trip will help solidify those relations. And we got a lot to talk about".

On the menu, we have:

- Afghanistan;
- the economy;
- Iran;
- Middle East peace talks.

Now, I will not delve into (once again) why Bush and his administration have zero credibility with regards to these issues.

But I will give you another fine example as to why he and his administration simply can not be taken seriously about anything: the Bush administration is blackmailing Iraq into accepting its long-term military occupation plans - by holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq’s money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

And for good measure, here's another example: the U.S. has pulled out of the United Nations' Human Rights Council unless specifically compelled to attend - citing the Council's stance on relations between Israel and Palestine.

On a related note, the President of Israel has been urging Bush to attack Iran.

And Bush, the saber rattling-in-chief on Iran, says he wants to discuss sanctions against this country with his European "friends and allies" while on this "farewell tour" of his?

It is no wonder, then, that increasing numbers of people in European countries see the United States as a "force for evil in today’s world".

It is likewise no wonder, then, that Bush is considered a disgrace among long-time allies of the U.S.A.

And it is no wonder, then, that many European countries have begun to "look beyond Bush".

Think about it: the President who was chiefly responsible for the worsening of relations between the U.S. and the European Union still thinks that he has "friends and allies" over there, no doubt expecting to be taken seriously and be welcomed with open arms.

As someone else wrote:

To say Europeans will welcome U.S. President George Bush on his farewell visit to Europe next week would invite a charge of verb-abuse. Welcome is hardly the word. But they will be glad to see the back of him.

Like a man drowning in a tsunami of his own making, Bush is desperately seeking any life-line, real or imagined, to save his legacy.

Why, he continues to envision a distant future in which Iraq is a peaceful democracy, Palestinians live side-by-side and hand-in-hand with Israelis and terrorism is a thing of the past - all thanks to his policies.

But the harsh truth of the matter is that President George W. Bush and his administration constitute a failed presidency - and a criminal one at that - built on lies, mendacity, arrogance and incompetence.

And only fellow incompetents, ever eager to emulate him and his administration, keep supporting him and singing his praises - like these folks, I am ashamed to say (being Canadian and all).

Consequently, Bush's "farewell tour" constitutes nothing more than a pathetic exercise of deluded and inflated self-importance - one last tired, asinine "mission accomplished" phony parade towards irrelevance and the ash heap of History.

Seeing "the back of him" won't come soon enough - because it is in fact some four years too late, at the very least.


(Cross-posted from APOV)

High-level U.S. officials intervened to make sure Maher Arar was sent to Syria instead of Canada because they feared the porous border would not keep him "from returning to the United States for nefarious purposes," according to a previously secret internal U.S. probe released yesterday.

Richard Skinner, head of internal investigations at the Department of Homeland Security, also told a congressional hearing yesterday that he was reopening the probe into Mr. Arar's deportation because new classified information had been received in recent weeks that cast doubt on the conclusions that exonerated U.S. officials for sending him to Syria.

"We have reopened our review into the Mr. Arar matter because, less than a month ago, we received additional information that contradicts one of the conclusions," Mr. Skinner told the committee hearing.

Well, well, well ... a cover-up of fear-, paranoid- and incompetence-driven mistakes and expediency-hasted malicious intent, which included the interventions of "high officials" in the White House? Who could have ever even suspected something like this? Yeah - right (emphasis added):

The report is heavily redacted and paints an incomplete but compelling picture of high-level intervention that overruled the assessments of anti-terrorism agents, ignored warnings that Mr. Arar would likely be tortured in Syria and ran roughshod over legal safeguards in a rush to get him on a chartered plane out of the country before the deportation could be stopped.

(...) The U.S. report released yesterday shows a U.S. database flagged border agents that Mr. Arar was flying to New York, dubbing him "armed and dangerous" and a "special interest" alien. Yet after being initially detained and interrogated by a special Joint Terrorism Task Force agency at the airport, they concluded they "had no interest in Arar as an investigative subject."

What reversed that conclusion was the still obscure high-level meeting on Friday, Oct. 4, 2002, when senior officials in Washington determined that not only would Mr. Arar be removed from the United States, but he would be sent to Syria and imprisoned, not allowed to return to Canada. Larry Thomson, then the acting attorney-general, signed an order that rejected Mr. Arar's request to return to Canada because it would be "prejudicial to the interest of the United States."

Got it? What we have here yet once again is more of the Bush administration legalese maneuvering to circumvent/bypass due process, all in order to act according to their petty, paranoid fears.

In the end, Mr. Arar's always-consistent account of those events which lead to his rendition to Syria (instead of deportation to Canada) is finally being vindicated (emphasis and links added):

The timeline revealed in yesterday's U.S. report is broadly consistent with a chronology Mr. Arar has posted on his website and the findings of a Canadian government commission led by Mr. Justice Dennis O'Connor.

(...) The U.S. report finds that the circumstances of Mr. Arar's detention, from being taken into custody while changing planes at New York's John F. Kennedy airport on Friday, Sept. 27, 2002, until his removal to the Middle East, on Tuesday, Oct. 8, was "questionable," but not clearly illegal.

The report notes, Mr. Arar could have been sent to several places. "Canada was also an option and would have been a more efficient country of return both logistically and economically," it said.

(...) Arrested while passing through the United States to Canada, Mr. Arar was taken from JFK airport and sent directly to a "special handling unit" at a detention centre. The isolation "contributed to his difficulties in obtaining counsel and advice on his immigration case," the report finds.

And the rest, as they say, is history:

Sept. 27, 2002: The Immigration and Naturalization Service scuttles a plan to send Maher Arar to Switzerland, the country he had last transited through on his journey from Tunisia to Canada. The FBI manoeuvres to keep him from calling the Canadian consulate so it can investigate.

Oct. 1: The INS says it gives Mr. Arar a form indicating he has five days to respond to his removal, but the urgency of the matter is never clearly communicated.

Oct. 3: A Canadian consular official visits Mr. Arar in custody.

Oct. 4: Mr. Arar, a dual Syrian-Canadian citizen, requests he be sent to Canada, and expresses fears about torture in Syria. U.S. officials decide they would prefer to send him to the Middle East.

Oct. 5: An immigration lawyer visits Mr. Arar and recalls him being "emotional and distraught." The lawyer does not know he has only one day left to respond to a bid to remove him from the United States.

Oct. 6: At 5 p.m., officials leave messages notifying Mr. Arar's lawyers that an important hearing for him is about to take place. The messages are left on their office voicemails during the weekend. At 9 p.m., officials begin a six-hour interview with Mr. Arar. They leave unpersuaded that he is at risk of torture in Syria, even though other officials have already concluded that he very much is.

Oct. 7: The acting U.S. Attorney-General turns down Mr. Arar's request to return to Canada as "prejudicial to the interest of the United States" because of the "porous" border.

Oct. 8: Mr. Arar is taken out of his cell and brought to a private jet. En route, he is served with a form declaring him permanently inadmissible to the United States.

And thereafter he was renditioned to Syria, where he was tortured.

Maher Arara was denied American justice in 2006 when he sought compensation from the U.S. government for his mistreatment. The main reason cited by the judge who dismissed Arar's lawsuit was "the need for national security and secrecy".

Except that secrecy here was used to cover-up wrongdoing.

Considering that the truth is finally coming out, I wonder if Mr. Arar now has grounds to appeal this unjust and near-sighted 2006 decision or to re-initiate a lawsuit based on these "new findings".

Maher Arar already got Canadian justice - and deservedly so.

He may yet get American justice as well.

At least, I do hope so.


(Cross-posted from APOV).

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended tough interrogation techniques for terrorism suspects approved by the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11, saying they were necessary to protect America from new attacks.

In her most extensive public comments about how the administration dealt with detainee interrogations in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, and the anthrax attacks that followed, Rice insisted the methods of questioning complied with both U.S. law and treaty obligations.

But she acknowledged that those rules had since changed and that the United States was a "different place" then, adding that the administration's top priority at the time had been preventing new attacks and not necessarily observing fine legal points.

"The fact is that after Sept. 11, whatever was legal in the face of not just the attacks of Sept. 11, but the anthrax attacks that happened, we were in an environment in which saving America from the next attack was paramount," Rice said.

"But even in that environment, President Bush made clear that we were going to live up to our obligations at home and to our treaty obligations abroad," she told an audience (...).

Rice noted that legal restrictions on the treatment of detainees had evolved significantly between 2002 and 2003, when administration officials had allowed harsh techniques, including one that some believe to be torture, and the passage in 2005 of the Detainee Treatment Act that prohibits cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

"Now, there has been a long evolution in American policy about detainees and about interrogations," she said. "We now have in place a law that was not there in 2002 and 2003."

"So the ground is different now," she said.

Oh, really?

We have gone from due process, habeas corpus, the 4th amendment and upholding the Geneva Conventions, to extraordinary renditions, indefinite detentions, loss of habeas corpus, torture, military commissions and the shredding of the Geneva Conventions.

That is not "evolution", but rather devolution pure and simple - and having made all of these savage grotesqueries legal after the fact (or through signing statements) only cemented the reality of this rapidly downward spiraling fall to perdition and utter perversion of every single tenet of morality, civil liberties and human rights.

Regardless of whatever typical double-talk, double-thinking, legalese theorycrafting-in-an-echo-chamber Madam Rice offers and which, in essence, admits on the one hand "to Hell with the law and international conventions" while, simultaneously on the other, offering disassembling platitudes regarding the respect for laws and international conventions.

To this effect, there is one, single account on which Madam Rice spoke factually: the "ground" is indeed definitely different now than before 9/11.

Let me count the ways:

1) Extraordinary renditions: Yes, now that they have been exposed and decried, that should be the end of it and we all should move along, right? Well, how about some justice for all those who were victims of such barbarous crimes (like this guy, for instance, who got Canadian justice but not American justice)? How about some trials for the perpetrators of these same crimes, including those who devised and came up with such callous disregards for basic due process, justice and civility? Oh, right - they have all been exonerated by law after the fact and if any other country in the world should decide to do the right and just thing and put such bastards on trial, well ...

Regardless, if you think that extraordinary renditions are over and done with - then guess again ...

2) Indefinite detentions: thanks to the gutting of habeas corpus, these are legal now and, apparently, retroactively at that. Why, even children and teenagers ("child soldiers") are fair game (take this one, as but one example). And if you think only "terrorists" and "unlawful combatants" constitute the sole targets of such detentions, then guess again one more time (emphasis added):

With the approval of Congress and no outcry from corporate media, the Military Commissions Act (MCA) signed by Bush on October 17, 2006, ushered in military commission law for US citizens and non-citizens alike. While media, including a lead editorial in the New York Times October 19, have given false comfort that we, as American citizens, will not be the victims of the draconian measures legalized by this Act — such as military roundups and life-long detention with no rights or constitutional protections— Robert Parry points to text in the MCA that allows for the institution of a military alternative to the constitutional justice system for “any person” regardless of American citizenship. The MCA effectively does away with habeas corpus rights for “any person” arbitrarily deemed to be an “enemy of the state.” The judgment on who is deemed an “enemy combatant” is solely at the discretion of President Bush.

(...) While it is true that some parts of the MCA target non-citizens, other sections clearly apply to US citizens as well, putting citizens inside the same tribunal system with non-citizen residents and foreigners. Section 950q of the MCA states that, “Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter [of the MCA] who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission.” In Section 950v, “Crimes Triable by Military Commissions” of the MCA seems to specifically target American citizens by stating that, “Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.” “Who,” warns Parry, “has ‘an allegiance or duty to the United States’ if not an American citizen?”

Besides allowing “any person” to be swallowed up by Bush’s system, the law prohibits detainees once inside from appealing to the traditional American courts until after prosecution and sentencing, which could translate into an indefinite imprisonment since there are no timetables for Bush’s tribunal process to play out.

(...) “Under the cloak of setting up military tribunals to try al-Qaeda suspects and other so-called unlawful enemy combatants, Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress effectively created a parallel legal system for ‘any person’— American citizen or otherwise — who crosses some ill-defined line.”

And on a related note:

8 million Americans are now listed as potentially suspect;

U.S. residents in military brigs? Govt says it's war;

U.S. planning big new prison in Afghanistan.

Welcome to the land of liberty and the pursuit of happiness ... but don't you fret - apparently, being a detainee is pretty much like living in a frathouse ...

3) Torture: whether you call it "frathouse pranks", "enhanced interrogation techniques", "water treatment" or "waterboarding", torture has been going on, and is still going on - even after the revelations of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. In fact, many detainees have actually been tortured to death. Even children and teenagers ("child soldiers" and civilians) have been likewise tortured. Why, torture has become so mainstream that the U.S. is now in the business of torturing for, or helping in doing so ... other countries like China! Thanks to another of Bush's signing statements, the new motto is: "torture - it's not only legal, it's all good".

There is no going deeper into the pit of savagery and perversion here, folks. This is the very bottom, the lowest of the lowest, level of inhumanity.

No civilization allowed here - when the debate is about the efficiency and validity of torture in getting solid intelligence and confessions, as things are now, instead of being about the inherent immoral nature of torture, then you know you have lost any semblance of human rationality and grace.

Case in point.

4) Military tribunals: as pretty much anyone who deals with reality suspected, if not predicted, these tribunals are nothing more than rigged, show trials held behind closed doors. Military lawyers are pressured/harassed by their superiors to either prosecute maliciously or not defend their clients to the best of their abilities - and if they chose the high road, they will suffer the consequences. Even military judges are fair game to this effect.

And even if you are lucky enough to be finally cleared of all charges, you are either stranded as a "no land's man" or kept indefinitely as a "guest" nevertheless because, well, the Bush administration feels like it.

These tribunals are about getting results and giving way to political convenience. This is not due process and definitely not justice - this is all about the rule of whim of the moment.

Banana Republic, anyone?

And I am not even getting into the gutting of FISA and all that illegal domestic spying stuff - except to strongly suggest to those who still think that "it's all good and it can't be abused" to, well, guess yet again - I offer one small example to this effect.

So yes indeed - the "ground" is definitely different now than before 9/11: America, its constitution, its republic and its moral standing have become as ruined as the ashes, dust, rubble and metal scraps of the towers of the World Trade Center.

In this respect, I wrote the following recently:

I humbly assume that I will be forgiven if I do not appreciate the "courageous" work done over the last seven years by the Bush administration and its cheerleading supporters - because from where I stand, they have spat upon and irreversibly sullied every precept of human dignity, of human respect, of Humanity, which used to be held as unassailable and uncompromising, sacrosaint values.

And it doesn't matter however much they try to justify/legalize/spin their actions - for indeed, nothing justifies indefinite detention, secret tribunals and torture.

Nothing.

Period.

And yet, and yet ...

It. Was. Necessary.

I think we've been handed the perfect excuse to justify *anything*, thanks to Madam Rice - just let your imagination - or inner savage, rather - run wild with it.

Because that's what has been happening with regards to human decency and human rights over the last seven years or so.

Vive la civilization, eh?

In the end, all I can do is dare to hope that the presumptive Democratic nominee for President of the United States of America, Sen. Barack Obama, will seize the moment and the time to unequivocally renounce again all these affronts to, and perversions of, justice and human rights - and consequently renew his pledge to right such immoral, inhumane wrongs once and for all.

To paraphrase what he has so eloquently said:

America, this is your moment. This is your time. Your time to turn the page on the policies of the past.

Now, that is something that is truly necessary ...


(Cross-posted from APOV)

I have felt much "sympathy" for President Bush when he declared that he wished he was standing alongside soldiers in Afghanistan and/or Iraq; I was especially "misty-eyed" when I heard that he keeps making great sacrifices for the Global War on Terror(TM), such as "feeling for the fallen soldiers' and putting aside golfing.

I have likewise felt much "empathy" for John McCain and Joe Lieberman, who keep beating the drums of war - increased troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as waging war aginst the evil Iranian Regime.

As a Canadian, my chest swelled with patriotic "pride" when Prime Minister Harper announced his vague plans to invest greatly in our military, if only because "if you want to be taken seriously in the world, you need the capacity to act".

And then ...

Then I remembered this:

"Ignorance breeds fear. Fear fosters hate. In turn, hate leads inevitably to violence (...) when will we acknowledge the fact, once and for all, that it is the incompetents among us who consistently promulgate violence as a solution for anything, to everything? (...) we must strive to forget nevermore that rationalizations supporting the use of violence - other than the need for the rightful exercise of self-defense when set upon by a genuinely clear, present and immediate danger - invariably constitute deceitful fabrications meant to conceal, disguise or justify incompetence ... including our very own for embracing such mendacity."

For indeed, we have much to atone for giving into fear following 9/11 - as this video illustrates:

Which, in turn, made me remember this:

"So - what exactly happened on the day after the fateful and tragic morning of 9/11?

We lost and the terrorists won.

Right there and then.

Whatever else has happened in the (seven) years which followed to this day merely constitutes the gradual and methodical enactment of the terms of our surrender.

No more, no less."

We have allowed bona fides incompetents to run our governments, to represent "us".

We have allowed ourselves to be enthralled by the fearmongering, the hatemongering and the cries for blind vengeance bellowed by false patriots, making us forget what true patriotism is and what it means.

Consequently, this is the price exacted from us when we entrust governance to incompetents:

And this is the price the incompetents that we've entrusted have exacted from "them":

All of this also reminded me of one of Ghandi's quotes:

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?"

Along the way, we have forgotten what true leaders are all about:

"What is power?

We all know the saying: 'Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. However, how many among us actually realize that this adage is nothing more than an excuse for incompetence in wielding, or exercising, power?

For it is a fact that those individuals who are 'corrupted' by power are inevitably revealed at their core to be selfish, greedy, covetous, paranoid or fearful. Consequently, these use power expediently as a tool for the wasteful satisfaction of their every whim, want and need, or as a weapon to aim recklessly at their outwardly-projected inner demons.

In short: only incompetents abuse power.

Why is this so? Because, their petty minds are blind to the principle that factual power constitutes that which serves not only to better our own personal lives, but to improve those of others as well. We are indeed the keepers of our brothers, our sisters, our families, our relatives and our neighbors: this is a plain and simple verity, which also happens to define the very essence of Humanity.

It is not coincidence that incompetents invariably forget - or deny - such a fundamental truth."

Whether we like it or not, whether we accept it or not, this much remains true: all that blood is on our hands.

If only because we have met the enemy, and the enemy is ourselves.

We The People - this is what it has, and always has been, about. In a democracy, it is the electorate who holds all the keys and guard all the doors - provided that the citizens actually live up to their responsibility.

We are the ones who have broken the "contract between citizens and their government" because, in essence, we surrendered to fear, hate and desire for blind vengeance, all the while thinking that somehow our vigilance and implication had become optional with regards to our own governance.

My only remaining hope lies with the possibility that it is not too late, that we may yet veer off the road to perdition upon which we are fast riding on and take another, more enlightened, one.

After all, are our noble precepts of democracy, liberty, human rights and peace nothing but empty, boastful, self-gratifying and hypocritical shams?


(Cross-posted from APOV)

One last time in this series, I offer you the Eight Principles of Incompetence:

Zeroth Principle: Incompetence is driven by intellectual sloth.

First Principle: Incompetence surrounds itself with incompetence.

Second Principle: Incompetence is ethics-impaired.

Third Principle: Incompetence abhors transparency and accountability.

Fourth Principle: Incompetence does or says anything to defend itself.

Fifth Principle: Incompetence always supports incompetence.

Sixth Principle: Violence is the last refuge of incompetence.

Seventh Principle: Incompetence is nothing but consistent with itself.

Incompetents are ruled by expediency - driven by intellectual sloth, they seek the easiest routes to achieve whatever objectives they have set out to accomplish. To them, the end justifies the means - which include (of course) lying, cheating, or simply bending/twisting/ignoring the rules (or the law), all the while making perfectly quaint rationalizations, as well as giving themselves a deluded moral high ground (or authority), to justify their wrongdoings.

Furthermore, everything is about spin and truthiness, but never about facts and truth, where incompetents are concerned. It matters more for them to appear competent and "on top of things" (Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans, anyone?) than actually doing something to correct/remedy their incompetence.

Even worse: when caught with their lies and wrongdoings, incompetents will simply deny their lies and further disassemble - in an obvious attempt at mudding the issue, at sowing confusion and thus fostering uncertainty. Aided and abetted by an equally intellectual sloth-driven incompetent media (more on this here), the politics of ignorance, fear, violence (war) and expediency rule the day.

For it is the incompetents among us who consistently promulgate violence as a solution for anything, to everything - especially when they themselves are gripped by fear.

And when such people constitute key government policy-makers, secretaries/ministers and executive Presidents/Prime Ministers, then a democratic society is doomed to slide slowly but surely into authoritarianism.

Why? Because only incompetents abuse power.

Which, of course, brings me to the matter of Richard (Dick) B. Cheney, Vice-President of the United States of America.

The man who established a de facto co-Presidency or, as I prefer to call it, the Office of the Unitary Regency.

For the last seven years are indeed the grand canvas of Dick B. Cheney, concealing himself all the while behind his Puppet President, George W. Bush.

Here are some salient items to support this point:

Right from the beginning, Cheney and Bush reached a "special understanding" with regards to the responsibilities and roles of the "Vice-Presidency";

Cheney not only chose himself as Bush's running mate, but he likewise gathered his own Cabal in addition to have had a heavy hand in picking the President's Men;

Cheney had his own spies, his modus operandi always being "never leave tracks";

Cheney has ever been completely involved in the formulation and execution of policy - in fact, Cheney held the true executive power in the shaping of policies or in the making of decisions, whether openly or through duplicity, and with the "approval" of Bush;

On the tragic day of September 11, 2001, Cheney was swiftly rushed to the White House bunker, advising Bush from there while the President did the runaround in Air Force One - Cheney even gave authorizations to shoot down "hostile aircrafts" while the President was "away";

After the 9/11 dust settled, it was Cheney - not Bush - who ended up being secured in an "undisclosed location", in order to remain so for long periods of time, out of public view;

Cheney always gets the last word before Bush made any "decision";

Cheney shaped foreign policy (Iraq, Iran), anti-terrorism policy, homeland security (the Patriot Act, the Military Commission's Act, the Catastrophic Emergency Presidential Executive Order, the Protect America Act, as obvious examples), domestic initiatives, energy policy, environment policy and economic policy;

Cheney literally ran National Security;

Cheney has been, all along, the driving force behind the White House policy of global warming denialism;

Cheney was the chief promulgator and instigator of the policies of torture and indefinite detentions;

When the 9-11 Commission received testimony from Bush: A) Bush and Cheney testified together; B) the Bush-Cheney testimony was not under oath; C) there were no records kept of their testimony; and D) said testimony occurred behind closed doors;

During the run-up to the Iraq War, who else but Cheney made that infamous speech to the Nashville convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, thus marking at the time the first major statement from the White House regarding the Bush-Cheney administration’s Iraq policy (including the WMDs hype - which he orchestrated);

Cheney was the chief promulgator of the (non-existent) linkage between Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda and 9-11 - in fact, he has kept on harping this lie over and over again (how often has he gone on Meet The Press to pass on his talking points in favor/support for the Iraq occupation?) - even to this very day;

Cheney has been approving secret intelligence operations against Iran;

Cheney shaped SCOTUS by vetting nominees;

Etc., etc., etc.

It is well known that Dick B. Cheney is an ardent proponent of the Unitary Executive Theory. This is quite understandable, considering his own demonstrated authoritarian streak. But what really let loose Regent Cheney as we have come to know him in the last seven years was the primal fear he has been living under since that fateful day of September 11, 2001. In his own words (emphasis mine):

"In a sense, 9/11 changed everything for us. 9/11 forced us to think in new ways about threats to the United States, about our vulnerabilities, about who our enemies were, about what kind of military strategy we needed in order to defend ourselves." - 12/22/2003;

"I believe in a strong, robust executive authority and I think that the world we (now) live in demands it." - 12/20/2005;

"I do believe that especially in the day and age we live in, the nature of the threats we face, the President of the United States needs to have his constitutional powers unimpaired, if you will, in terms of the conduct of national security policy." - 12/20/2005;

"Either we're serious about fighting the war on terror or we're not. Either we believe that there are individuals out there doing everything they can to try to launch more attacks, try to get ever deadlier weapons to use against us or we don't. The President and I believe very deeply that there is a hell of a threat." - 12/20/2005;

"Given modern technology, given the development of the extremist Islamic movement, if you will, given their desire to get their hands on ever deadlier technology to use against us and their willingness to strike virtually any place in the world, it's foolish for people to think we can walk away from a situation like Afghanistan or Iraq and be secure in own homes. We've learned on 9/11 in the United States that that's really not the case." - 02/23/2007;

"Clearly, our administration has been dominated by the events of 9/11 and the aftermath. That has clearly become front and center in terms of our concerns and we spend our time, how we spend our resources." - 02/23/2007;

"(The terrorists are) still out there trying hard, but it has been over five years now. And we have disrupted attempts to launch further attacks against the United States. And that's not been an accident -- a whole raft of strategies and policies behind that in terms of being aggressive, going overseas, going after the terrorists and terror-sponsored states; the measures we've taken at home to improve our security arrangements, to reorganize our intelligence capabilities, to establish our Terrorist Surveillance Program and financial tracking programs, other things that we've been able to do that have helped us (...)" - 02/23/2007;

"I think the thing that some people mistake for, or categorize as "Cheney's changed" sort of analysis, is 9/11. And 9/11 did have, I think, a remarkable impact on the threat to the United States on what we were required to deal with as an administration. I deal with it every day. I look at the intelligence reports every day." - 04/14/2007.

Dick Cheney did change profoundly after 9/11 - those who knew him came to hardly recognize him anymore. However, 9/11 was merely an excuse for him to fully unleash his incompetence:

We all know the saying: 'Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. However, how many among us actually realize that this adage is nothing more than an excuse for incompetence in wielding, or exercising, power?

For it is a fact that those individuals who are 'corrupted' by power are inevitably revealed at their core to be selfish, greedy, covetous, paranoid or fearful. Consequently, these use power expediently as a tool for the wasteful satisfaction of their every whim, want and need, or as a weapon to aim recklessly at their outwardly-projected inner demons.

In short: only incompetents abuse power.

Why is this so? Because, their petty minds are blind to the principle that factual power constitutes that which serves not only to better our own personal lives, but to improve those of others as well. We are indeed the keepers of our brothers, our sisters, our families, our relatives and our neighbors: this is a plain and simple verity, which also happens to define the very essence of Humanity.

It is not coincidence that incompetents invariably forget - or deny - such a fundamental truth.

Combine this to the inherent petty arrogance and vanity of incompetents (i.e. they are right because they think so, and they confirm it to themselves), as well as their primal fear of being exposed for what they are, one understands why incompetents surround themselves with like-minded incompetents.

All of this put together also explains four other observations with regards to the behavior of incompetents:

1) discussions among incompetents invariably constitute echo chambers of self-gratifying reinforcements of opinions, reasonings and/or justifications (regardless of however much factless and paranoid fantasy-based such opinions might be based upon to begin with);

2) any "consensus" achieved among incompetents constitute the opinion(s) of those who argue the most forcefully/loudly - and not of those who offer the most valid and fact-based arguments;

3) incompetents prefer to do whatever they do under the cover of concealment and/or secrecy, abhorring transparency and accountability;

and, directly à propos to the subject at hand herein, 4) incompetents not only need to have absolute control over everything, but greatly admire such authoritarian behavior in others (which they view as "true" leaders).

Hence, thanks in large part to his forceful personality, coupled with the veritable nexus of incompetence that was the White House, begining with George W. Bush, Cheney acted like a bona fides authoritarian Regent, imposing an atmosphere of intimidation in the White House whereby dissenting opinions means dismissal, experts are routinely dismissed as not credible and "inconvenient" facts are dismissed - if only because Cheney convinced himself that he is right.

And the weaker-willed incompetents surrounding him - from Bush to Rumsfeld to Rice to Powell, et al. - acted as echo chambers and followed suit.

For indeed, every single "talking point" (i.e. enacted policy) we've ever heard out of the White House, especially with regards to Iraq, Iran, torture, FISA, and so on, has originated from Regent Cheney and his office. Even after said talking points were shot down and left for dust, only one person has ever continued to keep them alive: Dick. B. Cheney.

Again, a few examples:

The good old (and proven false) "al Qaeda-Saddam Hussein-Iraq" link (see Part II of this series) - guess who still claims this to be true?

Bush accuses Democrats of allowing FISA to expire (02/16/2008) - guess who keeps on pushing the same fallacy?

Bush advances a new justification for staying in Iraq: preventing al Qaeda from acquiring control of Iraqi oil (03/18/2008) - one guess who came up with this?

Bush advances a newer new justification for the Iraq war: Iran (04/14/2008) - care to guess who had already laid this one out and has kept at it all along?

(By the way: George W. Bush never professed any belief in, let alone displayed knowledge of, the concept of the Unitary Executive prior prior to 2001 (to my knowledge), until he got "educated" on this concept only after he became Regent Cheney's mouthpiece and Puppet - but I disgress)

Hence, Cheney reasons, decides and decrees - and thus all must obey and follow suit, because he is right damn it, regardless what reality says otherwise.

And recognized as a "true leader" by his fellow incompetents , follow suit Bush and the rest of the White House did.

Why, to this day he is still admired for his authoritarianism ... by other incompetents, that is (two examples here and here).

In this respect, Cheney's arrogance and vanity know no bounds - typical of incompetents - and which are quite eloquently crystallized by this simple, dismissive interrogative of his: "So?"

Or, let us hear it from his own words:

"At times, you must feel like you’re at the center of events, but no one’s really paying attention to you. You understand the world better than anybody, but no one wants to hear it. Now you know exactly what it’s like to be Vice President."

Alternately, let us remember also the justifications which were first parotted out of the White House (but came from him) concerning the accountability of his office:

It "is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch", and thus is not obligated to account for anything, to anyone.

The same kind of echo chamber legalese gymnastics as used to justify torture, the gutting of habeas corpus, illegal electronic surveillance, gutting of the 4th amendment, the Patriot Act, the Military Comissions Act and the Protect America Act - among numerous "accomplishments".

All because incompetents strive to operate in secrecy, are morally and ethics impaired, and abhor transparency and accountability.

Above all, they need to be in complete control not only of their fellow incompetents surrounding them, but especially of everyone else - those that are susceptible to question them. In other words:

Incompetents do not realize their own incompetence (intellectual vanity, remember?) and rarely recognize de facto competence in others. In addition, the incompetent distrusts anyone who shows signs of actual competence, should he/she somehow recognize it, because competents not only make the incompetent look bad, but are most likely to question him/her. Furthermore, incompetents find security and comfort in echo chambers - consequently, loyalty to self, as well as to same ideology/beliefs/party, overrides all considerations in the incompetent's petty mind (i.e. cronyism rules). To this effect, incompetents will seek to bring all those around them to their level. Therefore, incompetents are always surrounded by like-minded, and likewise, incompetents. In addition, in this context, incompetence always rewards incompetence. Some call this "functionning inside the bubble". I call it "herd mentality".

Fear.
Need for expediency.
Lack of morals and ethics.
Vanity and arrogance.
Lack of responsibility.
Denial of mistakes.
Duplicity.
Mendacity.
Denial of reality.
Rejection of accountability.
Authoritarianism.
Abuse of Power.

Incompetence.

Thus I give you Dick Cheney and his incompetent followers in the White House - including his own Puppet President, George W. Bush -, resulting in the last seven years of disastrous wars, legalized torture, gutting of the constitution, secret military tribunals, legalized (illegal) electronic surveillance, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc. - including a potential war with Iran.

But I also give you the Congress of 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006, as well as all those in the traditional media who have cheered on or played the conspicuous "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" monkeys, along with all those other supporters, allies and enablers of the Cheney-Bush regime.

One can only expect that such confluence of incompetence elected to office again and again constitute an anomaly which will be recognized as such by historians of tomorrow.

One can only expect that the American people have learned, once and for all, to recognize incompetence and that, from now on, will never hesitate to act swiflty to dismiss out of office said incompetence.

But when one observes the current "free ride" given to the Joe Liebermans and John McCains of the land, one wonders with dread whether the lessons have been truly learned indeed.

For in the end, the real buck stops with We The People.

Mea culpa, mea culpa vox populi - as I have come to say all too often over the last seven years ...


(Cross-posted from APOV)

Once again, the Eight Principles of Incompetence:

Zeroth Principle: Incompetence is driven by intellectual sloth.

First Principle: Incompetence surrounds itself with incompetence.

Second Principle: Incompetence is ethics-impaired.

Third Principle: Incompetence abhors transparency and accountability.

Fourth Principle: Incompetence does or says anything to defend itself.

Fifth Principle: Incompetence always supports incompetence.

Sixth Principle: Violence is the last refuge of incompetence.

Seventh Principle: Incompetence is nothing but consistent with itself.

Incompetents are intellectual sloth- and fear-driven, in addition to being morally hypocritical and ethics challenged, as well as hopeless slaves of expediency. That is why incompetents will cheat, lie, misuse, "back stab" and abuse anything and everything in order to get their way - all the while making perfectly quaint rationalizations, as well as giving themselves a deluded moral high ground (or authority), to justify their wrongdoings. In other words:

Incompetents will do and say anything to defend themselves and other incompetents, including disassembling, obfuscating, lying and blaming others (...).

They lie, they misrepresent, they use decoy arguments and make ad hominem attacks. For them, the use of duplicity, of secrecy, of arguments of (non-existent) conspiracy, of fact (and non-fact) selectivity/cherry-picking, of quacks/fake experts, as well as putting forth logical fallacies, are simply means to an end.

For incompetents, everything is about spin and truthiness - never about facts and truth. Even when they are blatantly caught, incompetents continue to react and reason with their intellectual sloth-driven infantile/adolescent immaturity - they will deny that they did anything wrong or that they have lied, then they will blame/attack (read: character assassinate) their "accusers". I call this: "Lie and Cry".

Let us now take another look at the justifications put forth by the Bush administration for the Afghanistan war, as laid out by President Bush's address on October 7, 2001 (emphasis mine):

"On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against Al Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime (...).

I gave Taliban leaders a series of clear and specific demands: Close terrorist training camps. Hand over leaders of the Al Qaeda network, and return all foreign nationals, including American citizens unjustly detained in our country.

None of these demands were met. And now, the Taliban will pay a price."

Hence why the war in Afghanistan is deemed to this day a "just" war, meant to capture/destroy al Qaeda (especially their leader Osama bin Laden), the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks.

Putting aside the fact that the Taliban was never a terrorist organization to begin with, here are some interesting, seldom known, truths concerning the Taliban's "refusal" to hand over bin Laden:

a) From September 28 to October 4, 2001, the Taliban negotiated and agreed to extradite bin Laden to Pakistan in order to place him before an international tribunal, with the court free to decide whether to try him on the spot or hand him over to America - but Pakistan President Musharraf killed the deal in the end;

b) In the morning of October 7, 2001 (a few hours before Bush's address and the beginning of the war), the Taliban offered to try bin Laden themselves - but the White House rejected the offer;

c) On October 14, 2001, the Taliban offered to hand bin Laden over to the U.S., provided that proof was shown that he was responsible for 9/11 - but this offer was likewise flatly rejected by the White House.

Ergo: in its (incompetent) desire to rush into war, the White House effectively lied about the Taliban's refusal to hand over bin Laden in order to cover up ... their desire to rush into war.

As for the hunt/capture/killing of Osama bin Laden? As we know all too well, such primary purpose - the very raison d'être for the Afghanistan war launched seven years and a half ago - has ever remained an "on and off" affair meant to be "turned on" for nothing more than keeping political support for the Global War on Terror(TM)when said support is perceived as wavering. A few quotes as cases in point:

Hunt is "on":
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - Pres. G.W. Bush; 09/12/2001;

"We made it very clear we want Osama bin Laden (...)" - Vice-Pres. R.B. Cheney; 12/09/2001;

"We are going to continue the hunt for Osama bin Laden (...) I'm quite certain that we will get Osama bin Laden." - Sec. State C. Rice; 03/17/2005;

"We have got US forces on the hunt for not only Bin Laden but anybody who plots and plans with Bin Laden." - Pres. G.W. Bush; 03/01/2006;

"We've been looking for (bin Laden) for some time." - Vice-Pres. R.B. Cheney; 01/24/2007.


Hunt is "off":
"(...) He’s not the issue." - Pres. G.W. Bush; 02/05/2002;

"I truly am not that concerned about him." - Pres. G.W. Bush; 03/13/2002;

"The goal has never been to get bin Laden." - Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. R. Myers; 04/06/2002;

"bin Laden doesn’t fit with the administration’s strategy for combating terrorism." - Pres. G.W. Bush; 09/14/2006;

"He’s not the only source of the problem, obviously(...)" - Vice-Pres. R.B. Cheney; 09/10/2006.

In essence, bin Laden is a de facto bogey man who's existence is reminded only when deemed politically convenient. Why? Because these people need to cover-up their utter incompetence and therefore rely on hype, fearmongering, cherry-picked facts (and non-facts) and outright lies in order to get, and keep, everybody else "on board" with them. I even suspect that in their intellectual sloth- and fear-driven petty minds, they actually come to believe their own tall tales - because, in their self-deluded vanity and arrogance, they are right.

Case in point with this excerpt of Donald Rumsfeld appearing at Meet The Press on December 02, 2001 (links and emphasis mine):

Russert: The search for Osama bin Laden. There is constant discussion about him hiding out in caves, and I think many times the American people have a perception that it's a little hole dug out of a side of a mountain.

Rumsfeld: Oh, no.

Russert: The Times of London did a graphic, which I want to put on the screen for you and our viewers. This is it. This is a fortress. This is a very much a complex, multi-tiered, bedrooms and offices on the top, as you can see, secret exits on the side and on the bottom, cut deep to avoid thermal detection so when our planes fly to try to determine if any human beings are in there, it's built so deeply down and embedded in the mountain and the rock it's hard to detect. And over here, valleys guarded, as you can see, by some Taliban soldiers. A ventilation system to allow people to breathe and to carry on. An arms and ammunition depot. And you can see here the exits leading into it and the entrances large enough to drive trucks and cars and even tanks. And it's own hydroelectric power to help keep lights on, even computer systems and telephone systems. It's a very sophisticated operation.

Rumsfeld: Oh, you bet. This is serious business. And there's not one of those. There are many of those. And they have been used very effectively. And I might add, Afghanistan is not the only country that has gone underground. Any number of countries have gone underground. The tunneling equipment that exists today is very powerful. It's dual use. It's available across the globe. And people have recognized the advantages of using underground protection for themselves.

I still remember to this day this interview because, as I watched it, I kept thinking that somehow someone had slipped hallucinogenics in my coffee, making me experience an alternate reality whereby pure fiction is not only discussed as reality, but that high officials of the White House actually confirm such paranoid fantasies as reality.

That was when I had begun to understand that I was witnessing utter incompetence in action: all that mattered was that people support the war in Afghanistan (a war to cover-up their incompetence in not heeding the alarm bells signaling for an al Quaeda strike on U.S. soil, thus likely preventing 9/11) and, consequently, any lie, obfuscation, conflation, fearmongering or outright fantasy constituted acceptable means to A) make the "deciders" appear serious, competent and deserving of trust; and B) keep the hype going to sustain a frenzied support for the "deciders" (some George Orwell, anyone?).

Because - once again - everything is about spin and truthiness, never about facts and truth, where incompetents are concerned. It matters more for them to appear competent and "on top of things" than actually doing something to correct/remedy their incompetence.

So, what of Osama bin Laden, nowadays? Well, without any competent strategy to this effect, let's just say that the hunt for bin Laden will be a long one and leave it at that.

Or, as President George W. Bush proclaimed recently: "He'll be gotten by a president".

Thus, after seven and a half years in Afghanistan, all we ended up with is a quagmire with no end in sight - all the while having ignored the real problem: Pakistan.

Nevertheless, Afghanistan has been a big success in the minds of the incompetents in the White House.

But, and again as we know all too well, things worsened with regards to the so-called Global War on Terror(TM) - for shortly after the onset of the Afghanistan war quickly came the justifications of the Bush administration to go to war with Iraq. And there, the lies, obfuscations, disassembling and truthiness were offered profusely - just a few examples (emphasis mine):

On Iraq's WMDs:
Vice-President Dick B. Cheney (August 26, 2002): "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

President George W. Bush (October 7, 2002): "The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror (...) (The Iraqi regime) has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons. It is rebuilding the facilities used to make those weapons (...) Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program (...) (Saddam) is seeking nuclear weapons (...) he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon."

Vice-President Dick B. Cheney (March 17, 2002): "But we do know, with absolute certainty, that (Saddam) is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon."

Condoleeza Rice (September 8, 2002): "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (November 14, 2002): "Well, we know that Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons. And we know he has an active program for the development of nuclear weapons."

Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (January 29, 2003): "(Saddam's) regime has the design for a nuclear weapon; it was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

State Secretary Colin Powell (February 6, 2003): "(Iraq's programs to create WMDs) are a real and present danger to the region and to the world."

Vice-President Dick B. Cheney (March 16, 2003): "(Saddam's) had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

President George W. Bush (March 17, 2003): "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."


On al Qaeda, 9/11, Saddam Hussein/Iraq links:
Vice-President Dick B. Cheney (August 26, 2002): "It is a certainty that the al Qaeda network is pursuing such (weapons of mass destruction), and has succeeded in acquiring at least a crude capability to use them. We found evidence of their efforts in the ruins of al Qaeda hideouts in Afghanistan (...) containment is not possible when dictators obtain weapons of mass destruction, and are prepared to share them with terrorists who intend to inflict catastrophic casualties on the United States (...) Deliverable weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terror network, or a murderous dictator (Saddam Hussein), or the two working together, constitutes as grave a threat as can be imagined."

National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice (September 26, 2002): "There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented; there clearly is testimony that some of the contacts have been important contacts and that there's a relationship here."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (November 14, 2002): "Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years, or a week, or a month, and if Saddam Hussein were to take his weapons of mass destruction and transfer them, either use them himself, or transfer them to the al Qaeda, and somehow the al Qaeda were to engage in an attack on the United States, or an attack on U.S. forces overseas, with a weapon of mass destruction you're not talking about 300, or 3,000 people potentially being killed, but 30,000, or 100,000 of human beings."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (January 29, 2003): "The (Iraq) regime plays host to terrorists, including al Qaeda (...)"

State Secretary Colin Powell (February 6, 2003): "Al Qaeda continues to have a deep interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction (...) I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to Al Qaeda."

President George W. Bush (March 18, 2003): "(...) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations (Iraq), organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

President George W. Bush (May 1st, 2003): "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 (...) The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more."

(More "on the record" quotes can be found here, here, here and here)

Hence, what we got was the exact same modus operandi, but incredibly worse.

Of course, every single one - think about it: every single one! - of those claims were proven as empty of substance and reality as they were completely false.

That is why the justifications for the Iraq war were changed retroactively - from regime change to bringing democracy and freedom to the Middle East (domino theory, anyone?) to preventing al Qaeda from acquiring control of oil resources.

(And in the end, it does not matter if the true justification was oil, and only oil - because this further underlies the Principles of Incompetence!).

Thus we got the Iraq war, the second/concurrent quagmire with no end in sight.

And as in the case of Afghanistan, the Iraq venture has been a big success in the minds of the incompetents in the White House.

What are incompetents to do when they are revealed for the incompetents that they are, when they are confronted with their very own mendacious words?

First, they deny their exagerations, their cherry-picking of facts, their fearmongering, their hype and their lies. A few examples:

Bush rejects Saddam 9/11 link;

Rumsfeld denies making claims Iraq had WMDs (see above);

President George W. Bush denies he'd ever said he wasn't worried about Osama bin Laden (see above);

Dick Cheney Denies "Last Throes" comment (see this);

Rice heatedly defends her integrity on Iraq claims (see above);

Bush denies torture claims at CIA-run facilities (see Part I on this series);

Bush: "We’ve never been 'Stay The Course'" (see here);

Etc., etc., etc.

Second, they blame others for misquoting them, or for taking their words out of context, or for seeking to make cheap political attacks. Better yet: they simply blame others for their own failures - I could provide here examples of these, but they are far too numerous where this administration, as well its allies, supporters and enablers, are concerned - as we have come to know all too well.

And in the end, incompetents deny reality because they are too busy creating their own in their petty, deluded minds.

Unfortunately, reality does not care one bit about the delusions of incompetents and has this nasty knack of biting them in the arse - sooner or later.

But what terrible, wasteful damage incompetents do nevertheless.

In the meantime, the drums of war keep on beating the exact same way as for Afghanistan and Iraq - this time with Iran as the target, in what I have come to dub Operation Enduring Propaganda.

All of which once again illustrate clearly what incompetence is all about:

(They) are often deluded by intellectual vanity and invariably become slaves of expediency. Furthermore, everything is about image and appearance, instead of substance. Truthiness, instead of truth. All of these characteristics underlie incompetence - whether as nations, as communities, as citizens, as blue-collar/white-collar workers, as parents, and/or as thinking, reasoning human beings. In short, intellectual sloth transforms any adult person who is guilty of it into an irresponsible and reactionary child or adolescent, who lives only in the “now” while remaining blind to “yesterday” and “tomorrow". Such a person thus becomes incompetent - in dealing/composing with reality, or in at least trying to understand it (...).

As long as incompetents do not acknowledge their affliction with intellectual sloth, they will stubbornly refuse to change. Some people call this hubris. To this effect, incompetents are known to repeat the same mistakes again and again, because of their arrogance and utter fright at being exposed for what they truly are - and thus, they find themselves unknowingly enacting Franklin's, and/or Einstein's, very definition of insanity, which is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Fear.
Need for expediency.
Lack of morals and ethics.
Vanity and arrogance.
Lack of responsibility.
Denial of mistakes.
Duplicity.
Mendacity.
Denial of reality.

Incompetence.

Thus again I give you President George W. Bush and the whole of his administration, resulting in countless thousands of deaths, increased instability in the Middle East and terrorism ever on the rise.

That, and three trillion dollars wasted (see what you can buy with that insane amount of money here).


(In Part III: "control, control, control" - or be questioned, exposed and held accountable)


(Cross-posted from APOV)