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)

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)

By way of introduction, I offer 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.

Let us now dissect the now infamous February 7, 2002 National Security torture policy memo signed by President George W. Bush (pdf here), begining with its first point (links and emphasis mine):

1. Our recent extensive discussions regarding the status of al Qaeda and Taliban detainees confirm that the application of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949 (Geneva) to the conflict with al Qaeda and the Taliban involves complex legal questions. By its terms, Geneva applies to conflicts involving "High Contracting Parties" which can only be states. Moreover, it assumes the existence of "regular" armed forces fighting on behalf of states. However, the war against terrorism ushers in new a paradigm, one in which groups with broad, international reach commit horrific acts against innocent civilians, sometimes with the direct support of states. Our Nation recognizes that this new paradigm -- ushered in not by us, but by terrorists -- requires new thinking in the law of war, but thinking that nevertheless be consistent with the principles of Geneva.

This very first point in the President's memo fully illustrate how intellectual sloth-driven incompetents reason:

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 (...).

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,

Putting aside Bush's demonstrated desire to rush to war, what essentially were the so-called "complex" legal questions mentionned in this first point of the President's memo? A) The USA is not bound by international obligations to Afghanistan because it is a "failed state" and, therefore, the War Crimes Act of 1984 and the Geneva Convention do not apply to prisoners from the Afghanistan conflict (pdf); B) the Geneva Convention does not apply to al Qaeda or Taliban prisoners - however, the possibility of U.S. officials being subject to prosecution for violating U.S. and international laws if the Geneva Conventions are applied is quite likely (pdf); and C) there are "reasonable factual grounds" to determine that members of the Taliban captured in Afghanistan are not entitled to prisoner of war (POW) status under the Geneva Convention (pdf).

You will notice that the fear-driven thinking outlined in Bush's memo is quite simplistic and superficial, involving essentially any reason ("reasonable factual grounds") deemed good enough to justify putting aside the Geneva Conventions. Hence, why consider such facile deliberations (i.e. "Taliban are not a real goverment", "terrorists are bad people", "Afghanistan is a failed state, so ... it is not a High Contracting Party", "we now have a new paradigm", "we need new thinking in the law of war", etc.) as "complex legal questions"? Because of the (then) definite possibility that Congress, or Senate or both, could (but never did) decide that the Geneva Conventions and War Crimes Act apply regardless - ergo: these questions were at the time deemed "complex" because of the possibility for punishment involved.

These people were frightened by the unexpected and were panicking, hell bent on not only getting base vengeance but likewise on preventing another terrorist attack at any price (except for their own petty hides).

Unfortunately, Congress and Senate ended up following suit - sadly enough.

Let us now go the point 2 of the President's memo (links and emphasis added):

a. I accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice (pdf) and determine that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world because, among other reasons, al Qaeda is not a High Contracting Party to Geneva.

b. I accept the legal conclusion of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice (pdf) that I have the authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the United States and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise that authority at this time. Accordingly, I determine that the provisions of Geneva will apply to our present conflict with the Taliban. I reserve the right to exercise this authority in this or future conflicts.

c. I also accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice (pdf) and determine that common Article 3 of Geneva does not apply to either al Qaeda or Taliban detainees, because, among other reasons, the relevant conflicts are international in scope and common Article 3 applies only to "armed conflict not of an international character".

d. Based on the facts supplied by the Department of Defense and the recommendation of the Department of Justice (pdf), I determine that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants and, therefore, do not qualify as prisoners of war under Article 4 of Geneva. I note that, becauee Geneva doee not apply to our conflict with al Qaeda, al Qaeda detainees also do not qualify as prisoners of war.

In essence, what we have here are further circular justifications in order to claim the "high legal ground" in nullifying Geneva and the War Crimes act. The problem, of course, is that all of this convenient reasoning rests upon the house of cards foundation principle that "Afghanistan is a failed state" and that the war on terror is "international in scope". Indeed - the Taliban was the de facto government of Afghanistan (and treated as such by U.N. agencies) with defined borders - hence, an actual High Contracting Party. Furthermore, Taliban fighters fit to a tee the definitions of Articles 4A.1, 4A.2 and/or even 4A.3 of Geneva. But since "Afghanistan is a failed state", as the reasoning went, this consequently gave carte blanche in the incompetent minds of Bush and Co. to simply say that none of this "nice" stuff applied to either the Taliban or al Qaeda.

In addition, notice the contradictions between points b and c/d with regards to the application (or not?) of Geneva to Taliban fighters.

Notice as well the recurrent "among other reasons" justification in the memo - as much as a nebulous "anything fit in" box, or reasoning device, also very typical of intellectual sloth-driven incompetents.

But then, there was still the problem of Article 3 of Geneva on the treatment of prisoners, whether they be POW's or not. Once again, the simplistic reasoning was to simply call them all "unlawful combatants" and thus have one's hands clean - right?

Wrong. Because of Article 5 of Geneva (emphasis added):

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

So in other words: already there and then, President Bush had made himself judge and jury to determine in advance, and without even holding a single "competent tribunal" to this effect, that all prisoners (Taliban or otherwise - in Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere else) were unlawful combatants, period.

And there we see the arrogance and vanity which go hand in hand with incompetence:

Incidentally, a person guilty of 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.

Hence, it was this very dynamic which lead from "we must get vengeance for 9/11" to "Afghanistan is a failed state anyway" to "anyone around the world who fights against us in our war on terror is by definition an unlawful combatant - because we say so".

It was that same dynamic which made Bush proclaim (in b) "I choose not to exercice my self-determined constitutional right to suspend Geneva at this time, but reserve the perogative of doing so at any time and in any other conflict".

This, if anything else, underlies the sheer arrogance of the President and all of his staff - including their utter incompetence:

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".

And this is exactly what these people did: they spent countless hours of performing legal gymnastics, bouncing them back and forth at each other in an echo chamber, in order to arrive at legal conclusions which, then, they decided now constituted laws of the land.

They came up with legal theories which they automatically assumed as valid, lawful realities because they themselves agreed with these - and thereafter acted accordingly.

In other words: they were right because they thought so, and confirmed it to themselves.

Which, finally, brings us now to points 3 and 4 of Bush's memo (emphasis mine):

3. Of course, our values as a Nation, values that we share with many nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment. Our Nation has been and will continue to be a strong supporter of Geneva and its principles. As a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.

4. The United States will hold states, organizations, and individuals who gain control of United States personnel responsible for treating such personnel humanely and consistent with applicable law.

(Point 5 of the memo reiterates point 3 and point 6 delegates the implementation of the directives to the Secretary of Defense - at the time, Donald Rumsfeld).

Like true incompetents, they sought to preserve the image of legality (national and international) and adherence to the principles of Geneva with bold (but in effect empty) proclamations to this effect - hypocrisy at best, mendacity at worse ... and, actually, both.

Furthermore, the use of the expression "to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity" constitutes a veritable incompetence-reasoned "back door" to allow torture, thinking that none would be the wiser while at the same time convincing themselves that their hands were clean - all despite the glaring, morally humane fact that torture is torture, not counting their obvious wrongdoings of abuse of powers that they were comitting.

And on top of it all, they thereafter proclaim that they will hold everyone else to the letters of the Geneva conventions, in effect forbidding anyone of indulging in similar legal exercices as they have just done.

In short: "do what we say, not what we do".

That is, once again, insufferable arrogance combined with a pathological lack of morals and ethics - the lot of incompetents:

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.

Incompetents 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.

Fear.
Desire for vengeance.
Need for expediency.
Lack of morals and ethics.
Vanity and arrogance.

Incompetence.

Thus I give you President George W.Bush and the whole of his administration, resulting in this fateful February 7, 2002 National Security memo which allowed torture by the United States of America.

(In Part II, mendacity will play the lead role)


(Cross-posted from APOV)