Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/002176.php on line 106

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/002176.php on line 106
July 28, 2005
War and War

George W. Bush approves of torture. He thinks it's a good thing. He wants the USofA to be known as the kind of dangerous enemy who will torture you if they catch you.

(Well? What else are we to read from the news that he will veto a much-needed bill simply because it contains anti-torture provisions?)

The soldiers fighting, suffering, and living with the consequences of life-or-death decisions in Iraq deserve so much better than this White House.

Bob Herbert gets it. And he says it out loud. It's the oil, stupid.

Elsewhere, in the 'well, duh' category:

An independent panel headed by two former U.S. national security advisers said Wednesday that chaos in Iraq was due in part to inadequate postwar planning.

But this confuses me:

"A dramatic military victory has been overshadowed by chaos and bloodshed in the streets of Baghdad, difficulty in establishing security or providing essential services, and a deadly insurgency," the report said.

I'm not sure where the "dramatic" military victory happened. Anyone care to enlighten me? Are we talking about the carefully staged scene of the statue toppling? Is it that bit of made-for-TV 'drama' they're referring to? At what point did the situation change from a "dramatic" victory to the chaos we've been watching? Five minutes later? Two days? Of course, my memory isn't good, but I recall the stories about looting, murder, and general chaos that broke in what seems like hours after that little piece of propaganda.

Let's face it. The Bush Administration planned the killing part. They planned nothing else. I doubt if they could have withdrawn the USofA's troops immediately without the whole situation deteriorating into a disaster.

I am, at best, lukewarm on the subject of John Roberts. Not his Bench record, which is skimpy, but his previous history as a corporate/Republican tool mouthpiece. And most especially his connection with the group that upheld the mock trials at Guantanamo. His history doesn't prove much, but it's suggestive.

Posted by AnneZook at 07:43 AM


Comments