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)

Here are a few samples of those "good Americans" attending McCain-Palin rallies:

(h/t)


(h/t)

Obama's a terrorist.
Look at his name and bloodline.
Obama hangs out with terrorists.
Obama supports terrorism.
Commie fagots!
European socialists. Go home!
Obama should die!

And one could go on and on and on ...

The hateful, hatefilled Ann Coulters, Michelle Malkins et al. of the land are certainly cackling their asses off these days.

I'll let Glenn Greenwald's words speak for a while here, since they echo my opinion/analysis exactly (emphasis added):

(...) the McCain/Palin ticket is now relying almost exclusively on some of the ugliest and most outright dangerous character smears seen in a modern presidential election (...)

Just look at the videotapes of the angry, hateful hordes attending these rallies — screaming that Obama is a socialist; that he’s both a Muslim and a terrorist as proven by his “bloodline” and his name; that his supporters are “commie faggots”; that he’s guilty of treason; underscored by increasing racial invective and even punctuated in one case by a call from an audience member for someone to be killed. These aren’t just isolated individuals; these sentiments are common at these rallies and becoming increasingly virulent and enraged — at the rallies and otherwise:

A billboard in West Plains, Mo., showing a caricature of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama wearing a turban has caused quite a stir in town.

The sign, located south of West Plains on U.S. 63 across from the Dairy Queen, says: “Barack ‘Hussein’ Obama equals more abortions, same sex marriages, taxes, gun regulations.”

And worst of all, all of this rage and this innuendo is taking place in the most volatile climate of all — one of severe economic distress and anxiety — and these mobs are increasingly becoming convinced, because the Right and the McCain/Palin campaign is leading them to believe it, that this economic crisis is the fault of the black candidate — Obama — for making banks give mortgages to racial minorities. As an email printed just now by Jonah Goldberg put it — defending someone at a McCain/Palin rally today who screamed he was “very angry” at Obama the “socialist”:

He, and the rest of the conservatives in this country are sick and tired of being taken for granted, having our money stolen by the government and given to lazy, ungrateful people who don’t contribute or produce (or often, aren’t even citizens) anything.

This is what happens when you stoke the fury and resentments of people looking for scapegoats and work them into a blind rage. And they didn’t just pop up and start believing this. They’re saying this because the core premise of the McCain/Palin campaign has become that Barack Hussein Obama is a Terrorist-sympathizer, being funded by secret Arab sources, who hates the military and the troops. As McCain now asks in his most sinister tone in every speech: Who is the real Barack Obama? As National Review’s illustratively deranged Andy McCarthy put it: ”Someone is either a terrorist sympathizer or he isn’t; someone is either disqualified as a terrorist sympathizer or he’s qualified for public office.”

Look at those videos linked above if you haven’t seen them (this one, this one and this one). Is there anything even remotely comparable taking place at Obama rallies? Are the accusations against McCain even arguably similar to the Right’s relentless and self-evidently dangerous depiction of Obama as a military-hating, subversive Muslim and Terrorist? What do we do with Terrorists and traitors — or, in the past, with those wanting to take over the U.S. with a secret socialist agenda? We kill them. If that’s what Obama is, if that’s what hordes of enraged right-wing mobs are becoming convinced of and having those passions stoked, then what should be done to Obama — just merely defeat him in the presidential campaign?

(...) Everyone can see with their own eyes: over the last two weeks, we have witnessed some of the ugliest and most dangerous attacks by any presidential campaign that one can recall — not from surrogates or from shadowy groups but from the candidates themselves and their campaign. The most hated, despised thing one can be in the U.S. is a “terrorist,” followed closely by ”traitor” and, in many circles, “Muslim.” The McCain/Palin ticket’s prime strategy now is to win by scaring Americans into believing that Obama — the first black candidate with a viable chance to become President in our country’s history — is all of those things. There just is nothing comparable to that.

Actually, there is something quite comparable to what McCain-Palin are doing: the run-up to the Iraq war.

Indeed, let us not forget that Bush-Cheney et al. shamelessly exploited the ignorance, fear and anger of Americans following the 9/11 attacks, using the same tactic of "nebulous" linkage between Saddam Husein and bin Laden, along with lies about WMDs, in order to stir up fervor in favor of a U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Furthermore, the consequently stoked anger, rage and hatred reached such levels that anyone who dared to offer logical and fact-based dissenting arguments against the validity and righteousness of such a war of choice was swiftly accused of being a traitor, a terrorist-sympathizer, a Muslim-lover - along with the habitual anti-American, commie and coward epithets. Thus many voices were silenced (one example here) not only by the corporate media which was too eager to jump on the band wagon of hate, but likewise by journalists all-too-cowardly refusing to call such dangerous frenzy for what it was, instead safely hiding under the banner of "journalistic balance" and consequently contributing in distorting the truth.

The same scenario was more or less repeated in the 2004 elections - especially with regards to the swiftboating of John Kerry and him (along with Democrats) being portrayed as "soft on terrorism". Again, too many journalists decided that "balance" subordinated truth because it insulated them from charges of "bias" - thus contributing in granting legitimacy to such mendacity.

Just like what is going on presently.

Nonetheless, it is a truism that what McCain-Palin are doing goes much further beyond what Bush-Cheney and Co. did during the run-up to the Iraq war and the 2004 elections.

Any competent politician would have never gone where McCain-Palin are going. That is because a competent politician would have chosen to err on the side of responsibility, foreseeing the inherent dangers in exploiting ignorance in order to stoke fear and anger to such levels, thus choosing the preservation of relative civil/social peace over blind political ambitions.

In other words: putting the country first.

But of course, McCain-Palin are not competent politicians - or human beings, in this respect. As I wrote previously (emphasis added):

History dresses an extensive list of charismatic, decisive and righteous Leaders. However, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of these have consistently proven to be fearful, petty, power-hungry, or violence-prone, authoritarians. To them, the end ever justified the means, as they disguised their incompetence with grandiose ideologies, wrapping themselves in religious, nationalist or racist flags of intractable absolutism, and using their deceitful siren song to stir passion, loyalty and even fanaticism - all in order to gather sizeable followings of narrow-minded, hate-filled, or warmongering, underlings. It is no wonder that people have suffered, one way or another, each time such a Leader rose to prominence.

From the beginning of his presidential campaign, all McCain has been doing is chant the mantra that he has a record, that he knows how to do this (or that), that he knows how to catch bin Laden, that he knows how to win wars - and yet never offer even a shred of what he would actually do.

That is because he is seeking to exploit the mis- or non-informed public in order to cover-up his 26+ years of shady dealings, lies and flip-flopping. Why? The reason is simple: he sees himself at having been denied the Presidency back in 2000 and his blind ambition, if not actual greed for power, will not be denied this time around. Hence, he has been playing the card of "elder statesman leader" (an authoritarian one at that) while hoping it would be sufficient to win over the largely misinformed/uninformed American electorate.

In his mind, he probably has come to believe his own delusions and lies to this effect. That is why the "that one" incident from the last presidential debate is quite significant. Let us see it again:

From my (ahem) point of view, McCain is not being a bigot or anything of the like. Rather, he is showing his frustration at the public for not embracing him lovingly and unconditionally as he has come to expect - look at his demeanor, hear his tone of voice; this is a man frustrated by unrequited love trying to convince his paramour that "that one" she is interested in is no good, as opposed to himself.

So now the scorn would-be lover is doing eveything he can to demonize his rival in the eyes of his paramour - with the help of his "friends".

John McCain seeks the Presidency not to serve, but just for the satisfaction of achieving this level of power. The same as George W. Bush.

And Sarah Palin is no better - remember which vice-president she remembers the most? George H. W. Bush. Why? Because he was afterwards elected President - he "moved on up". And remember her Freudian slip?

Therefore, the McCain-Palin ticket is driven first and foremost by pure, unadulterated ambition and incompetence - how else can you accuse the "other camp" of wrongthinking/wrongdoing exactly what you are wrongthinking/wrongdoing (one recent example here) and still look at yourself in a mirror? Consider their current dangerous strategy and what I previously wrote:

It never ceases to amaze me to what levels of utter irrationality the fundamentalists, neocons and other right-wing madhaters are willing to descend into.

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.

And this "end" is the following: to promulgate, support and defend their beliefs or their ideologies.

Truth be told: these are the only things that truly matter to them.

(...) Why else would they use the politics of fear, ignorance and lies?

All the lies and distortions of the truth by McCain, Palin and surrogates, even McCain's own wife, constitute merely the means to and end - and the consequences be damned as long as the end is achieved: winning the prize.

This has nothing to do with serving one's country.

However, this has everything to do with the Eight Principles of Incompetence (emphasis added):

Zeroth Principle: Incompetence is driven by intellectual sloth.

Intellectual sloth is a human character flaw. It pushes any person who is afflicted by it to wallow in ignorance, finding security in absolute ideologies, philosophies of thoughts, tenets of faith or various dogmas, without seeking to understand them fully or even less to question them. A person afflicted by intellectual sloth is constantly in search of the quick-and-easy and instant gratification. Incidentally, a person afflicted by intellectual sloth is egocentric and selfish, even greedy, in his/her immature search for facility and instant gratification. Furthermore, such a person refuses to accept any fact of reality which confronts, rattles, or even invalidates, the comfort of one's “convictions”. To this effect, such a person will be arrogant, if not contemptuous, towards anything and anyone that confronts his/her ignorance generated by intellectual sloth" (...) one who is afflicted with intellectual sloth is often deluded by intellectual vanity and invariably becomes a slave 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.

First Principle: Incompetence surrounds itself with incompetence.

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" (especially in the context of the Fifth Principle).

Second Principle: Incompetence is ethics-impaired.

Consider the characteristics bestowed upon incompetents by their intellectual sloth, as outlined in the Zeroth Principle, along with the following: 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. Indeed, icompetents cheat, lie, misuse, "backstab" and abuse anything and everything in order to get their way - and they always make perfectly quaint rationalizations, as well as giving themselves a deluded moral highground (or authority), to justify their wrongdoings. In other words, incompetents are morally hypocritical and ethically impaired, because of their intellectual sloth-driven reasoning/emotional immaturity, egocentricity, intellectual vanity/intolerance, and slavery to expediency.

Third Principle: Incompetence abhors transparency and accountability.

When you take into account the Zeroth, First and Second Principles, it becomes self-evident as to why incompetents prefer to do whatever they do under the cover of concealment and/or secrecy ... and thus why they abhor transparency and accountability. Not surprisingly, whistleblowers, which are inherently viewed as "traitors", constitute a veritable danger in the intellectual sloth-driven paranoid, petty minds of incompetents.

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

Because of the previous four principles, incompetents never take responsibility for their wrongdoings, or those of other incompetents within their "circle". To whit: incompetents will do and say anything to defend themselves and other incompetents, including disassembling, obfuscating, lying and blaming others. 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".

Fifth Principle: Incompetence always supports incompetence.

Because of the "herd mentality" of incompetents (see First Principle above), they will always support and/or rabidly defend other incompetents - after all, in the incompetent's paranoid and petty mind, if one of his/her "kin" is allowed to be exposed, then surely he/she would be next! Consequently, incompetents use profusely the Fourth Principle (above) whenever other incompetents require support, protection or defense. Caveat: because of their inherent intellectual sloth-driven mendacious nature, incompetents have no qualms turning against another incompetent, should this poor sap be utterly (and hopelessly) exposed - as a result, other incompetents will use (again) the Fourth Principle profusely to "distance" themselves from another such "terminally-besieged" incompetent individual.

Sixth Principle: Violence is the last refuge of incompetence.

Along with the Zeroth Pinciple above, consider the following: intellectual sloth reaps ignorance. In turn, ignorance festers fear which, as we know all-too-well, acts as a powerful motor in driving irrational thinking and actions. Furthermore, fear is quite expert in the exercise of nullifying any semblance of intellectual and emotional maturity in people – in other words, fear transforms a supposedly adult (and thus mature) person into an irresponsible, reactionary, judgement-impaired, and comfort-craving, child or adolescent - one who searches for easy and absolute answers. And such intellectual sloth, through the fear which it causes in those people afflicted by it, eventually brings in turn the incapacity (or lack of willingness) to deal face-to-face with the unknown and the uncertain. Thereafter, the table is set at last for intolerance and hate to arise: the eternal and real justifications (although never self-admited) behind violence in any of its shapes or forms. In other words: ignorance breeds fear. Fear fosters hate. In turn, hate leads inevitably to violence. It is invariably the incompetents among us who consistently promulgate violence as a solution for anything, to everything.

Seventh Principle: Incompetence is nothing but consistent with itself.

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.

You can return to everything being said and done by the McCain-Palin ticket - from Palin's religious convictions, her silly lies/exagerations about her record and experience, to claims that Obama wants to raise taxes on everybody, to "suspending the campaign", to every flip-flop about the economy and the bailout (and pretty much everything else), to "troopergate", to "voting against funding troops", etc., etc. etc. - and there you will find the Principles of Incompetence in action.

Which brings me back (finally) to the current McCain-Palin smearing campaign against Barack Obama, exploiting the intellectual sloth-driven incompetence that is characteristic of their "base" (see videos above), if not actually of too many Americans out there.

Because of their own incompetence, McCain-Palin just do not see where their current reckless fueling of fear and anger can lead. Perhaps they don't even care at all.

But the axiom remains: ignorance breeds fear. Fear fosters hate. In turn, hate leads inevitably to violence.

And this is the consequence of allowing dangerous incompetents like McCain-Palin do what they are currently doing, of remaining largely silent (cowarly or approvingly) in loudly decrying and denouncing their current strategy: it has now become almost inevitable that the Sixth Principle of Incompetence will be enacted by someone, somewhere, somehow.

On that fateful and tragic day, should it ever come (and I still hope that such never happens), John McCain, Sarah Palin and the rest of their campaign staff will have to be indicted for conspiracy to incite murder.

Period.

And if I could, I would then be the first to slap the cuffs on and throw their collective criminal asses in jail to rot for a long, long time.

John McCain and Sarah Palin: you have been put on notice to cease and desist - I strongly suggest that you heed such notice, if only to spare your pathetic, selfish, greedy and immoral persons from suffering the consequences of your dangerous incompetence.


(Cross-posted from APOV)

Here's a little something I wrote a while back and which bears repeating yet again:

Intellectual sloth reaps ignorance. In turn, ignorance festers fear which, as we know all-too-well, acts as a powerful motor in driving irrational thinking and actions. Furthermore, fear is quite expert in the exercise of nullifying any semblance of intellectual and emotional maturity in people – in other words, fear transforms a supposedly adult (and thus mature) person into an irresponsible, reactionary, judgement-impaired, and comfort-craving, child or adolescent. One who searches for easy and absolute answers (...) And such intellectual sloth, through the fear which it causes in those people guilty of it, eventually brings in turn the incapacity (or lack of willingness) to deal face-to-face with the unknown and the uncertain. Thereafter, the table is set at last for intolerance and hate to arise: the eternal and real justifications (although never self-admitted) behind violence in any of its shapes or forms.

(...) 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.

When Georgian armed forces bombed and entered the de facto (but still largely unrecognized) independent republic of South Ossetia, it was nothing more than an expedient exercise at re-asserting Georgian governance of the region despite having declared itself autonomous and independent some eighteen years ago (i.e. since 1990-1991). It was not the first time that S. Ossetians and Georgians had come to blows - nonetheless, the underlying reason for such conflict remained the same: Georgians simply refused to accept Ossetian independence. Once again, one nation (or empire) refused to acknowledge the aspirations of another, consequently resorting to force in order to "solve" the issue. In between, and very much not surprisingly, Ossetian separatists resorted to terrorism against Georgians, the age old (and all too often demonstrated) ineffectual approach to win one nation's independence from another.

That's the Sixth Principle of Incompetence largely at work here, on both sides of the equation. However, the greater onus lies with Georgia, especially when considering the Georgians' own (successful) aspirations of becoming independent from the former U.S.S.R. and, mainly, Russia.

Georgians should have known better how to react vis à vis Ossetian separatism, showing empathy and understanding in light of their own aspirations and achievement at independence, instead of initially falling swiftly into reactionary, violent territorialism - thus creating a downward spiral of Georgian-Ossetian violence (does this reminds you of anything else?).

But that is incompetence for you.

In turn Russia, a military superpower by any definition, has fared equally incompetently. Evidently fueled by still lingering dreams of empire (after all, it was not even twenty years ago the the old U.S.S.R. and Soviet Bloc disintegrated), Russia has kept meddling in the Ossetian-Georgian conflict. Hence when Georgia entered S. Ossetia last August 7th, Russia was quick to enter the embattled independent republic in turn. With claims of "helping to defend S. Ossetia" notwidtstanding, Russia nonetheless engaged in an expedient exercise of the use of force not only to "secure" S. Ossetia (in truth for itself), but obviously to also retaliate at the same time against Georgians for having separated from Russia to begin with. Since Georgia's declaration of independence in 1991, tensions between Russia and Georgia have ever been high and close to the breaking point of war.

Yet now war it is - with civilians (Georgians and S. Ossetians) paying the price, as usual.

And not surprisingly, Russia is slow (loathe? Too proud?) to leave Georgia, despite pledges of doing so.

Hence once again - what we have here is the Sixth Principle of Incompetence largely at work.

Then there is the U.S. - what can one say of the dizzying flurry of bold and firm statements condemning Russia (and Russia alone) in the last two weeks? A few examples:

"But the message is sent: I, Vladimir Putin, and Russia can do whatever we want to do, and you can’t stop us because we have the oil." - Bill O'Reilly;

"Russia is a state that is unfortunately using the one tool that it has always used, that will make it – that – when it wishes to deliver a message, and that’s its military power. That’s not the way to deal in the 21st century." - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice;

"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations." - Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ);

"For anyone who thought that stark international aggression was a thing of the past, the last week must have come as a startling wake-up call." - Sen. John McCain (R-AZ);

"(...) we have reached a crisis, the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War. This is an act of aggression." - Sen. John McCain (R-AZ);

"Russia no longer shares any of the values and principles of the G-8, so they should be excluded." - Sen. John McCain (R-AZ);

"Russian actions, in clear violation of international law, have no place in 21st century Europe (...) We must remind Russia's leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability and peace of that world." - Sen. John McCain (R-AZ);

"This should be unacceptable to all the democratic countries of the world, and should draw us together in universal condemnation of Russian aggression." - Sen. John McCain (R-AZ);

"Military force will not resolve this dispute. The only viable long-term solution is international mediation and peacekeeping." - Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen J. Harper;

"Georgia is a sovereign nation, and its territorial integrity must be respected (...)" - President George W. Bush;

"With its actions in recent days, Russia has damaged its credibility and its relations with the nations of the free world. Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century. Only Russia can decide whether it will now put itself back on the path of responsible nations or continue to pursue a policy that promises only confrontation and isolation." - President George W. Bush.

Now replace "Georgia" with "(a few choices among so many: Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq)", and "Russia" with "U.S.A.", and then you get - you guessed it - that same old Sixth Principle of Incompetence.

Not taking into account the sheer incompetence-driven hypocrisy likewise at work here.

Hence the conclusion that Russia has acted as responsibly, as a superpower, as the U.S. have been (and still are) acting.

In other words - the bottom line remains: incompetence all across the board.

And I, for one, am getting rather sick and tired of this same old song being played over and over again.


(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).

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)

Let us re-visit the main justifications/objectives for the Afghanistan war, which began in October 2001:

1) Defeat the Taliban;
2) Defeat al-Qaeda;
3) Bring freedom and democracy to Afghanistan.

Over the span of seven years since this war began, major combat operations have kept on going and going in Afghanistan - despite the proclamation in May 2002 that major combat operations were over and in the face of repeated claims that this war has been a big success.

Defeat the Taliban? Whether fueled by drug trade or corrupted misappropriations of U.S.A. funds to Pakistan (!), the Taliban insurgency shows no signs of wavering - not only in the South of Afghanistan where it has been most active but slowly spreading to the North of the country as well - all the while profiting from Pakistan's ineptitude (or incompetence, or fear?) to deal with them on their own side of the border. Just recently, Pakistan released a senior Taliban leader on his pledge to cease attacks in Pakistan - proving once again that Pakistan looks out for itself first and foremost, despite being a much touted "ally against terrorism". In the meantime, there have been repeated calls to negociate with the Taliban, going as far as to promise them a significant presence in the Afghanistan government - with the tacit approval of the U.S.A., Canada (for which the Afghanistan war has pretty much become its war) and other N.A.T.O. allies. Why, even after a much publicized recent attack by the Taliban on Afghani officials and foreign dignitaries (of which the Afghani government had been warned about), Afghani President Hamid Karzai went as far as to demand that N.A.T.O. "leave the Taliban alone" in order to stop "undermining negociations" with them! And guess what? N.A.T.O. forces are apparently following suit by putting the word out to Taliban fighters that they want to talk!

"If we don't succeed in Afghanistan, the Taliban will return" indeed. Interestingly, many Afghanis are not unhappy to see the Taliban returning!

Yes siree, the Taliban has lost - definitely.

(To learn more about the Taliban and "how much" they know about us and hate our freedoms and whatnot, I strongly suggest that you to read/watch the series Talking to the Taliban, via Red Tory: part I, II, III, IV, V, VI and VII - but I disgress).

Defeat al-Qaeda? Osama bin Laden got away and is still in hiding, along with most of the al-Qaeda leadership, quite alive and well - thank you very much. In the meantime, Pakistan is once again of little help here - not only are bin Laden and al-Qaeda hiding in Pakistan, Pakistan freed suspected al-Qaeda members in 2006, whereas al-Qaeda funding keeps going through Pakistan. At one point, Pakistan even "lost" the trail of bin Laden - and recently, Pakistani President Musharraf declared that Pakistan was "not particularly looking" for him. All well and good, considering that al-Qaeda presumably assassinated opposition leader and staunch al-Qaeda opponent Benazir Bhutto, while continuing to cause much chaos in Pakistan alongside Taliban fighters. And through it all, the now-infamous "on and off" hunt for bin Laden by the U.S.A., Canada and other N.A.T.O. allies still goes on (or not) ... in Afghanistan! No wonder such a wild goose chase will be a very long one ...

Meanwhile, al-Qaeda keeps fighting alongside the Taliban in the continuing insurgency in Afghanistan, and is poised to launch more terrorist attacks around the world ... from Pakistan. That, in addition to the fact that al-Qaeda continues to be a source of inspiration for would-be extremists - especially in Iraq.

Yes siree, al-Qaeda is on the run - definitely.

Bring freedom and democracy to Afghanistan? Yes, there have been some positive steps towards democracy in Afghanistan - but such gains are far from being faits accomplis. Rampant corruption and the booming drug trafficking (and the Drug Lords behind it) are but two of the prevailing problems which keep undermining said gains. The biggest problem of them all lies with the remaining powerful, brutish Warlords. Although having been elected in 2004, President Karzai holds power in Kabul only ... with the consent of said Warlords who hold power practically everywhere else in the country, thanks to more short-sighted, expedient incompetence on the part of the Bush administration. It doesn't help either when one of the Warlords declares allegiance to Osama bin Laden. And Karzai's government remains hardly stable, thanks to the ongoing insurgency. Last, but not least, what of the Afghani women? Little has changed since 2001 and things are in fact worsening in this respect, while laws are slowly but surely returning to the "old style" Taliban ones. On a related note, freedom of the press is not that free just yet and is likewise worsening - all of this thanks to seven years after Afghanistan's liberation from the "Taliban Regime".

Yes siree, the Afghanis have freedom and democracy - definitely.

So all in all, after looking closely at the main justifications/objectives for the war in Afghanistan and how "successfully" they have been achieved, it is safe to conclude that for all the boasts from the Bush administration, as well as those coming from Canada's Harper government (and from the British, and the Australians, and the French, and so on and so forth), soldiers and civilians have been dying in Afghanistan over the last seven years for absolutely nothing.

But we know all too well why we've arrived to this point, which is more or less right back where the Afghanistan war began on all accounts, despite all the empty rhetoric of touting all the progress achieved "over there": botched pre-war planning, botched post-war planning and the disastrous diversion of the Iraq war.

This war is indeed a veritable catalogue of errors.

No wonder Afghanistan is a quagmire. No wonder it's damn hard work. No wonder the situation is grim. No wonder the Afghanistan "mission" is in trouble, if not actually in crisis. No wonder Afghanistan has been assessed as a 30-years long marathon "mission" while we keep running in circles.

For indeed, each one of the prime justifications/objectives for the Afghanistan war have now been either completely disavowed ("defeat the taliban"), more or less abandoned ("defeat al-Qaeda"), or outrightly dismissed/ignored ("bring freedom and democracy"), by the very same people who have been pushing and supporting said justifications and this war.

In essence, the core-reasons for going into Afghanistan are being put aside in lieu of political salvage operations of appearances - with the price continuing to be exacted with the lives of N.A.T.O. soldiers and Afghan civilians in the meantime.

To put it in other words: people and soldiers have been dying over the last seven years for nothing more than what in the end has amounted to a needless and ludicrous political exercize on the part of incompetent "deciders" as their response to 9/11.

The idea of military intervention as the crux of the strategy behind the Global War on Terror(TM) was wrong-headed to begin with and has proven itself to be wrong-headed ever since - if only because one does not wage war on a method/technique of fighting. In this respect, it is now safe to say that the Global War on Terror(TM) has been a colossal failure so far, in addition to fostering more terrorism and extremism than prior to its implementation.

And Afghanistan will forever constitute grave testimony to that effect.

Hip, hip, hooray.


(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)