Republicans Would be Complaining About the Same Things if a Democrat was in Office

O RLY???

I overheard this conversation tonight at dinner. Frankly, I don't recall ever hearing a Republican gripe about a Democrat violating the Constitution. Or illegally detaining foreign citizens without trial, or hell, even charges. Or lying our way into a war... Ok, well, let me rephrase that. Or lying our way into a war specifically derived to line our pockets. Or... Well, come to think of it, I do need to sleep at some point tonight so let me drop this one here.

When a Democrat is in office, Republicans complain about blowjobs, the disconnect of politicians from their people, and lack of family values. Well, we all know about where they stand on these points.

I just thought this would be a pretty interesting story... It's really amazing to hear what our own people believe about the other end of the spectrum, and how wrong they can be.

Double Standards? Part II

Since the first major wars, there have been established standards for the treatment of prisoners of war. Certain parts of the human spirit simply cannot abide watching another human suffer and because of this, these rules have evolved to encompass and be largely dictated by the Geneva Convention.

These international laws have seen America through dark times, even when our own men and women have been subjected to horrible treatment and torture. They are guiding principles that are a light to the civilized world and may one day see a time when the world no longer has need for rules of any sort guiding a war.

Until that time, everyone needs to abide by the rules, not bend them as they see fit. Four lead Republicans joined with the Democrats including John Warner and John McCain in resisting Bush's doctrine that would have allowed torture of 'detainees' in various prisons around the world. While details of the deal struck today are still under wraps, it can only be presumed that there were major defeats for Bush in his bill.

The fact that this kind of teamwork can still manifest itself in such a vitriolic atmosphere for doing the right thing is almost amazing. It holds hope out for the future of Washington and our country.

Pending the outcome of the bill's details, I'm at least marginally pleased.

Double Standards?

Q Mr. President, critics of your proposed bill on interrogation rules say there's another important test -- these critics include John McCain, who you've mentioned several times this morning -- and that test is this: If a CIA officer, paramilitary or special operations soldier from the United States were captured in Iran or North Korea, and they were roughed up, and those governments said, well, they were interrogated in accordance with our interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, and then they were put on trial and they were convicted based on secret evidence that they were not able to see, how would you react to that, as Commander-in-Chief?
THE PRESIDENT: David, my reaction is, is that if the nations such as those you named, adopted the standards within the Detainee Detention Act, the world would be better. That's my reaction. We're trying to clarify law. We're trying to set high standards, not ambiguous standards.
And let me just repeat, Dave, we can debate this issue all we want, but the practical matter is, if our professionals don't have clear standards in the law, the program is not going to go forward. You cannot ask a young intelligence officer to violate the law. And they're not going to. They -- let me finish, please -- they will not violate the law. You can ask this question all you want, but the bottom line is -- and the American people have got to understand this -- that this program won't go forward; if there is vague standards applied, like those in Common Article III from the Geneva Convention, it's just not going to go forward. You can't ask a young professional on the front line of protecting this country to violate law.
Now, I know they said they're not going to prosecute them. Think about that: Go ahead and violate it, we won't prosecute you. These people aren't going to do that, Dave. Now, we can justify anything you want and bring up this example or that example, I'm just telling you the bottom line, and that's why this debate is important, and it's a vital debate.
Now, perhaps some in Congress don't think the program is important. That's fine. I don't know if they do or don't. I think it's vital, and I have the obligation to make sure that our professionals who I would ask to go conduct interrogations to find out what might be happening or who might be coming to this country, I got to give them the tools they need. And that is clear law.
Q But sir, this is an important point, and I think it depends --
THE PRESIDENT: The point I just made is the most important point.
Q Okay.
THE PRESIDENT: And that is the program is not going forward. David, you can give a hypothetical about North Korea, or any other country, the point is that the program is not going to go forward if our professionals do not have clarity in the law. And the best way to provide clarity in the law is to make sure the Detainee Treatment Act is the crux of the law. That's how we define Common Article III, and it sets a good standard for the countries that you just talked about.
Next man.
Q No, but wait a second, I think this is an important point --
THE PRESIDENT: I know you think it's an important point. (Laughter.)
Q Sir, with respect, if other countries interpret the Geneva Conventions as they see fit -- as they see fit -- you're saying that you'd be okay with that?
THE PRESIDENT: I am saying that I would hope that they would adopt the same standards we adopt; and that by clarifying Article III, we make it stronger, we make it clearer, we make it definite.
And I will tell you again, David, you can ask every hypothetical you want, but the American people have got to know the facts. And the bottom line is simple: If Congress passes a law that does not clarify the rules, if they do not do that, the program is not going forward.
Q This will not endanger U.S. troops, in your --
THE PRESIDENT: Next man.
Q This will not endanger U.S. troops --
THE PRESIDENT: David, next man, please. Thank you. It took you a long time to unravel, and it took you a long time to ask your question.

If you can call those standards... The short end of this is that Bush is trying to push through his Detainee Treatment Act which blatantly violates the Geneva Convention while allowing the US (and the US only) special consideration for torture... well, namely that we can.

Somehow, this just strikes me as wrong. I mean, am I crazy here, or is that shit just messed up?

Bush is slamming people who were his own constituents who have become so disgusted with 'business as usual' in the Bush White House that they've actually taken a very deliberate stance against this bill and Bush himself. John McCain, a Vietnam POW who was a special guest for five years at the Hanoi Hilton, has been bruised and battered by Bush, first during the primaries where it was insinuated that McCain was not a war hero because he was captured and couldn't fight, and more recently when, again, the President (with no war record) seems to doubt Mr. McCain's credentials as an expert on both war and torture.

Part of Mr. Bush's confusion seems to come from the fact that he keeps referring to the people held in Guantanamo, in secret prisons world wide, and in other places. This, in the end, is actually just a way for Mr. Bush to get around the Geneva Convention, since it only literally recognizes POWs, as opposed to detainees, which is what the chimp keeps referring to by clarity of the law. Since detainees aren't being mentioned, he has to take it upon himself to make his own special set of rules for how he wants to handle them.

Isn't it amazing what a good weasel can come up with when they put their slimy minds to it?

Path to the Next 9/11

I hate using buzzwords, pop-phrases, and other Republican spew, I really do. Hold up... Actually, I love using it against them. In ABC's "The Path to 9/11," there was something of a direct implication that the Clinton administration had a golden opportunity to take out bin Laden years before the horrible attacks of five years ago. This is known by all sources (even the ones stated to have been directly involved!) to be completely made up and straight out of... well... Disneyland!

Liberals, eat your heart out. While I can't say that the call went all the way to the White House, it is most certainly under this administration. During a Taliban funeral, this administration completely failed to take out nearly 200 members of the Taliban, including what were believed to be several "high ranking members."

Can I honestly say that they called the White House and were hung up on? No, not really. Can I dishonestly say it? You betcha. Therefore, I present to you my own screenplay; The Path to the Next 9/11.

Predator Drone Operator: "Sir, you need to take a look at this!"
Predator Duty Supervisor: "What the hell am I looking at, soldier!?!"
Operator: "Sir, it's a Taliban funeral. Intel indicates several high ranking members are there. This is the biggest opportunity since the war started! I have Hellfires armed and ready, sir."
Supervisor: "Excellent. I'm calling for authorization." ::dials White House::
Some Dick: "What do you want?"
Supervisor: "Mr. Vice President, this is Predator Field Command. We have a large grouping of Taliban at a funeral and a target on them. We can take them all out with your command."
Some Dick: "Do you think I'm here to swat flies? Go fuck yourself." ::call is disconnected::
Operator: "Sir, do we have clearance to fire?"
Supervisor: ::dejected:: "No, we don't. Carry on with surveillance."

I need to be clear. There really is no truth to this... well, except for the opportunity, and the screw-up, and that it happened under Bush (like so many screw-ups). I would point out though that while they were told not fire based on rules of engagement, a high ranking Pentagon official has already weighed in on the matter and stated that no such rules exist. Specifically, while they are not permitted to fire upon targets with religious significance, they may break those rules based upon the value of the target as weighed to the value of the target in question. In this case, someone screwed up.

In the meantime, I recommend that liberal bloggers everywhere pull a Coulter and deliberately misquote my post here as pure fact, as opposed to mere speculation.

Buried in Pooh

Ok, so, I'm a big fan of Disney. The old Disney. Walt Disney. Not this lousy excuse/cover for Republican ideals and slander.

ABC/Disney is preparing to air a special 'docudrama' called "The Path to 9/11." According ABC's own letters in response to concerns from former Clinton aides, the program is based on less than factual material. From The Guardian:

``For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression,'' ABC said in its statement. ``We hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast of the finished film before forming an opinion about it.''

Many websites have mentioned boycotts against Disney as possible means for sending messages to the creators of this material. I feel that this would be an effective means of sending a message to ABC/Disney, and in the meantime, we should support local efforts to bring about the truth about September 11th. The best way to do this is to bring to light the Bush administration's complacency with regard to international terrorism, the failures of the war on terror, the failure to capture Osama bin Laden, and last but certainly not least, Disney's willingness to play politics with our nation's greatest tragedy.

Out Of Sight...

The Chateau D'If rises again. While I grant you that many an oppressive regime has silenced its opposition in the past, and though this is certainly (not known to be) such a case, one common factor between then and now remains the same. People are being whisked off to nowhere hell-holes to be kept, questioned, tortured, and 'sentenced' all in secrecy, well outside the borders of US judicial reach.

For several years now, since September 11th, the rumor mill has been rapidly churning about reports of secret prison sites, ranging from Saudi Arabia to old KGB gulags in Siberia. Bush and crew dodged or denied any questions about this issue, such as in this excerpt from dKosopedia.com:

White House press secretary Scott McClellan insisted that the U.S. is the world leader on human rights, despite outrage in Europe over reports of secret CIA prisons. "When it comes to human rights, there is no greater leader than the United States of America, and we show that by holding people accountable when they break the law or violate human rights, and we show that by supporting the advance of freedom and democracy and supporting those in countries that are having their human rights denied or violated, like North Korea." Source: Annie Gearan. "White House Says U.S. is World Leader on Human Rights Despite Secret-Prison Reports." Associated Press. December 2, 2005

There are known cases, such as Maher Arar and Khalid al-Masri, in which known innocent civilians have been accused of such crimes and have simply disappeared in much the same way victims of the KGB might have at one time. When their captors can obtain no credible information from them, they are simply dropped off in the middle of some foreign country without so much as an 'Ooops!'

Bush has flatly admitted he lied on several occasions. Somehow though, a full 30% of our voting populous still manages to find a way to support him. Stunning.

Rum on the Rocks

Medical science has been disproved once more. You CAN regrow a spine. The Democrats are starting to prove it on a daily basis, too. The Democrats, led by Harry Reid, are pushing an attachment to the Pentagon spending bill that calls for the termination (sorry, they're only asking for him to be fired) of Secretary Rumsfeld. While it's expected to be shot down (even by the Democrats involved), it's a shot across the bow of the Bushies, and more importantly, it's there for all to see. A plain act of defiance.

``The 'stay the course' policy in Iraq has made America less secure, reduced the readiness of our troops, and burdened America's taxpayers with over $300 billion in additional debt. ... One indication of a change of course would be to replace the current secretary of defense,'' the resolution said.

There is little chance of any such bill scraping past the staunch opposition of the Republicans, but this proves that there is such a growing discontent with the establishment that the "anybody but Bush" sentiment may have turned into an all out movement. It's grown to the point that being associated with Bush may become a very tangible political hazard.

As a fan of my DVR, I really want to fast forward and get to the good part, but for right now, it seems that the show just might be getting good.

Do Not Be Silent

The five year anniversary of September 11th is close at hand, a mere six days away. During this time, pundits everywhere are talking about bringing the nation together as one, putting away 'petty' political differences. In one sense, they are correct. As a nation, we should be united by the bonds of such incomprehensible tragedy, never to be torn apart again, as some would say, be united, not a divided.

It is, however, the other sense which these people have implied it. They would like us to be silent about our outrage in the way the ensuing five years has been handled and perverted into a political whipping boy for the Republican Party. That's just what it's been for the last 12 years, too; a party for the Republicans. Their first whipping boy was Clinton, arguably our greatest president in 50 years. Since 2001, it's been the attacks of September 11th.

The economy, the war, the division of this great nation, all the fault of September 11th, which was the fault of the cowardice of the Democratic Party. Of course, if we look back in history, we would note that international terrorism has been on the rise for the last 30 years, and the Republicans have been president to the great majority of those years, and largely responsible for the security failures we are witnessing today, culminating with America as the target in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Alas, Clinton was our president during that time, so we must admit that he was completely at fault for that failure in security, except that he was only in office for two months at the time. That puts a few dents in that argument. What about the Cole? The issue with the Cole is that you can't always catch small operations. Even if you could, military rules of engagement are very specific: Do not fire unless fired upon, except with direct prior approval from an officer aboard the ship.

My point is that the Republicans will not be silent as they pay lip service to the horrors of September 11th and neither should we as we try to preserve the memory of the lost.

"Rage, rage against the dying of the light."