December 14, 2005 by lonbud
Your Cheatin’ Heart
Perhaps a few readers will remember a post I made somewhat in advance of the 2004 election cycle, imploring citizens everywhere to take note of the mechanisms by which we effect our electoral perogatives. If not, you can refer to it here.
Comes now news of Walden O’Dell’s resignation from the position of CEO at Diebold, manufacturer of the electronic voting machines used to count nearly 40% of the votes cast in American elections since 2002.
Mr. O’Dell gained a measure of notoriety during the 2004 campaign by stating publicly his “commitment to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president,” meaning of course, George W. Bush.
Mr. O’Dell’s resignation comes in the wake of a securities fraud class action suit filed by Diebold shareholders on Tuesday.
Noteworthy here is not necessarily the fact of Diebold’s unreliable product, evidence of which has been established by citizen hackers, by the government, and even by Diebold’s own admission(p.3).
More important, in my view, is the consistency of Mr. O’Dell’s alleged behavior with that alleged of a host of other figures aligned with the Republican Party and the ruling oligarchy in our nation.
Abuse of power, fraudulent financial activity, and electioneering shenannigans are the ties that bind figures latley in the news such as Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, Bill Frist, Randy Cunningham, and half a dozen other people tied to the Bush administration whose names will never be remembered to history, but whose actions may well have helped to shape it.
With the sweet smell of a rising stock market and a robust economy perfuming the air today, it may well be beyond the olfactory facility of many to note the rot destroying our country from within, but as the song says, “your cheatin’ heart will tell on you.”
Should you be interested in a wonderful resource for learning much more about the ways in which the promise of America has been betrayed, and those who have rendered the betrayal, please check out http://www.guvwurld.org/.
Michael Herdegen - December 15, 2005 @ 6:41 am
As regards GuvWurld.org, I probably should have stopped reading after coming upon this whopper near the top of their homepage:
America’s descent into fascism is facilitated by perpetuating the myths of our culture, pretending to be a democracy with a free press and free speech in free markets.
Hah !
However, after poking around their site a bit, it does seem as though they’re a decent source for info, despite being anti-Israeli and presumably pro-terrorist, and despite their defining as “fascist” some behavior by the Pentagon that was released by the gov’t to the mass media, and reported nationwide.
Apparently GuvWurld.org is too busy to take a moment to examine what behaviors are typical of fascist/totalitarian regimes, and which actually reinforce our society’s claims of “freedom”.
lonbud - December 15, 2005 @ 7:12 am
What passes for “the great debate” in these times is rife with hyperbole and mischaracterization on both sides. While GuvWurld and the like may toss around words like fascism rather loosely (given the historical context of what actual fascist states were like), it’s no less true about members and proponents of the status quo who preach from the altar of the free market.
What specifically do you find presumably pro-terrorist about GuvWurld, Michael?
And wouldn’t you agree that one can be critical of Israel (or the United States) without necessarily being anti?
As for the story of DoD spying to which you link, I can certainly see why some people might believe such activity encroaches upon fascistic behavior.
Such a belief is at least as plausible as the one currently popular among certain other folk who believe there is a War on Christmas.
Meredtih Charpantier - December 15, 2005 @ 3:36 pm
Loyalty may be the last remaining value. Or it may just be a lazy habit of the weak kneed. How one can remain loyal to a party of lying cheating dirty dealing low blow, scufflaw, scoundrels is beyond my reach. Seems there are going to be a whole lot of fleas floating to the surface as a lot of rats go willingly down to rough seas…or is this yet another dream.. since, as this site points out clear and bright .. ye olde average American is too deaf dumb and blind to see just what that is biting his hide.
Tam O’Tellico - December 15, 2005 @ 6:44 pm
This controversy begins not with paranoid Liberals, but with Mr. Diebold asserting his promise to do anything in his power to assure the re-election of George W. Bush. Unfortunately, short of a confession (don’t hold your breath), we’ll never know if vote-robbing occurred because it would be essentially untraceable.
Given Mr. Diebold’s promise, it is reasonable to be concerned that his company’s machines are counting votes, especially in critical states like Ohio and Florida. For more read this from the Miami Herald:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/13410061.htm
Apparently it is all too easy to change vote counts on these machines, and one can’t help but wonder if a supposedly sophisticated company couldn’t have done better — unless someone intended that the machines be hackable.
You may call it paranoia, but some paid attention when Stalin offered the final word on this subject: “Having the vote is nothing; counting the vote is everything.”
Tam O’Tellico - December 15, 2005 @ 8:14 pm
“….ye olde average American is too deaf dumb and blind to see just what that is biting his hide.”
Wag the God
All around me, people are fuming about the War on Christmas — can’t they be satisfied with the War in Iraq? If you think there is no connection between the two, think again. This is a case of Wag the God. If Islamists aren’t enough to keep the public distracted, trot out the Atheists.
Perhaps a hundred million or more Americans truly believe there is a vast plan afoot to destroy their faith. The mere fact that there are so many of them ought to be evidence that the plan isn’t working. But such an insight would require thought, so the battle rages on.
This plan is supposedly being led by demon atheists and the federal judiciary. Fact: there are so few atheists in the U.S. that the wisest course would be to ignore them – unless one believes their unbelief will suddenly prove irresistible. Fact: federal judges tend to be fairly conservative – but they are governed by a Constitution that more than two hundred years later remains too liberal for most Americans. It might be said that the last time anyone heard anything so liberal, Jesus walked the Earth.
Apparently, some Christians are offended because judges defend the separation of Church and State. Others are offended because department stores that must remain open 24-7 to accommodate their profligate spending dare to post signs that say Happy Holidays rather than Merry Christmas. How can it be that Christians should be so concerned about defending their faith while at the same time spending like drunken sailors on jewelry, gore and violence movies and video games, and HD TV’s.
Fact: Holiday/Christmas shopping accounts for one-third of annual retail sales. Feed the poor, indeed! How tragic that a faith founded on the brutal deaths of its early adherents should be reduced to a clamoring mob of “martyrs” bent on “sacrificing” themselves on the altar of Conspicuous Consumption at Walmart.
If they knew anything about the faith they claim, they would know it is both pacifistic and communistic. For an example of what the faith is supposed to be, look to the Catholic priests who sacrifice their lives to promote liberation theology in Central and South America.
If they knew anything about history, they would know that year-end celebrations have likely been with us since the Dawn of Man, that the Egyptians celebrated this as the time when the sun was reborn, and that the Christians borrowed this occasion to celebrate the birth of their Son even though the evidence from scripture makes it pretty clear that didn’t happen in winter.
But, of course, all that would require some knowledge of history and a slightly open mind.
Instead American’s are content to be kept blind by the New Pharisees, the politicians, preachers and priests with a vested interest in preserving their high stations rather than promoting the Commonweal. Add to that a press increasingly reluctant to do its job because it is owned by corporate interests.
The War on Christmas is another of the red herrings like the fuss about “In God We Trust” on our currency, as though God is somehow honored by that. Or the tempest about posting the Ten Commandments in court houses where the odds are routinely stacked against the poor.
Perhaps these Christians ought to concentrate on putting Jesus’ teachings into practice. But instead, they prefer to remain blind to their own faith. What would Jesus do? He would probably tell them to remove the log from their own eyes before getting upset about someone else’s splinter.
lonbud - December 16, 2005 @ 10:42 am
Here’s another name for the Republican Honor Roll: James Tobin.
Of course you don’t remember the name, but Mr. Tobin is a former mucketymuck with the National Republican Party, having served as political director for its Senatorial Campaign Committe during the 2002 campaign, in which New Hampshire’s Democratic Governor Jeanne Shaheen ran in a tight race against Republican John Sununu for an open Senate seat.
Today a federal jury in New Hampshire convicted Mr. Tobin on two counts of telephone harrassment stemming from a scheme in which he organized thousands of hang-up telephone calls to a Democratic get-out-the-vote phone bank and a ride-to-the-polls line run by Manchester’s firefighters union on Election Day 2002.
Mr. Tobin faces up to seven years in prison and $500,000 in fines when he is sentenced after the first of the year.
Perhaps even more telling than the juvenile nature of the dirty tricks to which Mr. Tobin and his Republican cohorts were willing to stoop in gaming the democratic process, is the fact that last year, Mr. Tobin was rewarded for his efforts and loyalty to the party by being named George W. Bush’s campaign manager for New England. He stepped down from that position once the charges against him became public.
Read the A.P. story here.
Michael Herdegen - December 17, 2005 @ 3:21 pm
lonbud:
What specifically do you find presumably pro-terrorist about GuvWurld, Michael?
Their Israeli/Palestinian archives are filled solely with the misdeeds of Israeli leaders and the IDF; mooning over the idiot Rachel Corrie while ignoring Palestinian suicide bombers who murder scores of random innocents, including children, strikes me as being both anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian-terrorists.
And wouldn’t you agree that one can be critical of Israel (or the United States) without necessarily being anti?
Yes.
As for the story of DoD spying to which you link, I can certainly see why some people might believe such activity encroaches upon fascistic behavior.
The behavior is proto-fascist; the fact that it was revealed to the press BY THE GOV’T, and that the info was allowed to be widely reported, is about as far from fascist/totalitarian as one can get.
Meredtih Charpantier:
Loyalty may be the last remaining value. Or it may just be a lazy habit of the weak kneed.
It’s both, although hardly the “last remaining” value.
How one can remain loyal to a party of lying cheating dirty dealing low blow, scufflaw, scoundrels is beyond my reach.
Since that’s a pretty fair description of both major American political parties, which party do you favor ?
The Greens ?
The Libertarians ?
.. ye olde average American is too deaf dumb and blind to see just what that is biting his hide.
Being contemptuous and condescending towards the electorate rarely brings victory, and in any case, you’re wrong.
While certainly SOME people cannot perceive what is in their best interest, if a majority of people reject what you’re offering, election after election, at some point you must realize that people see something about what you’re offering that you’re blind to, and it would behoove you to find out what that is.
Tam O’Tellico:
[W]e’ll never know if vote-robbing occurred because it would be essentially untraceable.
Except that even small, local elections have exit-polling done, and if there’s a big discrepancy between the exit polls and the election results, it’ll raise questions and red flags – or at least it should…
As you note, You may call it paranoia, but some paid attention when Stalin offered the final word on this subject: “Having the vote is nothing; counting the vote is everything.”
Hugo Chavez paid attention, but people like Jimmy Carter and lonbud* aren’t willing to give credence to a THIRTY POINT discrepancy between the exit polls and the election results.
I guess voting fraud by those whom you like or support isn’t notable or objectionable…
A win’s a win, right, no matter how dirty ?
JFK, anyone ?
* I know this because lonbud’s explicitly said so.
How can it be that Christians should be so concerned about defending their faith while at the same time spending like drunken sailors on jewelry, gore and violence movies and video games, and HD TV’s. […]
Perhaps these Christians ought to concentrate on putting Jesus’ teachings into practice. But instead, they prefer to remain blind to their own faith.
Preach it, brother.
Unfortunately, it’s true.
However, to say that posting the Ten Commandments in court houses where the odds are routinely stacked against the poor is both true, and entirely misses the fact that the poor have ALWAYS been at a disadvantage in courts (whether of law or royalty), and that 21st century American courts are more poor-friendly than any in history.
The biggest reasons that the poor are still disadvantaged in modern courts has nothing to do with the courts themselves, and everything to do with personal and sociological factors.
The poor tend to be stupid, which we can do nothing about, and ill-educated, which we could do something about… If the teachers’ unions would let us.
Tam O’Tellico - December 17, 2005 @ 10:16 pm
I feel like Erich Segal …. where do I begin?
Michael, on one hand you take Meredith to task for “being contemptuous and condescending towards the electorate”, while on the other, you say “The poor lose out in court because they tend to be stupid”. Well, if the poor tend to be stupid, maybe it’s because they tend to watch Fair and Imbalanced Fox News.
To categorize the poor as stupid is the kind of idiocy best left to Rash Limbaugh. The poor are poor for many reasons, most of which have little to do with stupidity. Frankly, that crack is far beneath you — at least I hope it’s beneath you.
But even if your absurd assertion were true, the poor are not supposed to be brilliant in the courthouse, their lawyers are. But it’s for damned sure the poor can’t afford the brilliant ones. And that is where the inequity in our courts begins.
Blaming teachers unions for the failure of our educational system is like blaming the UAW for the failure of GM. Certainly teachers unions have a share of the blame, but the failure has a lot more to do with bad parents, bad school boards and bad administrators than it does with bad teachers.
And now you can add bad legislators. Ask a good teacher their opinion of NCLB and teaching to tests, and they will tell you exactly why they are such bad ideas.
If I were going to pick one reason above all others for the failure of education, it would be TV, and its even more insidious bastard child, video games. Too bad, since both have the potential to be powerful educational tools. But in a society driven only by the bottom line, they have instead become merely one more vehicle for selling drugs, toys, cars, and all the other things we don’t really need.
And speaking of things we really don’t need, as the public becomes less and less well-educated, they become more and more susceptible to being sold religious intolerance and suspect wars. Of course, you may argue the public has voted otherwise, but at least 52 million voters seem to agree. In fact, it may well be a lot more, but like I said, we’ll never know.
Or maybe we do know, since as you suggest, exit polls tend to confirm or invalidate vote counts. Given your apprarent agreement on that subject, please tell me how you rationalize the huge difference between exit polls and vote counts in the 2004 Presidential election?
It seems pretty obvious that something was rotten in Denmark as well as Ohio (at least) in 2004. Maybe we need a new slogan: Vote stealing — it’s not just for Chicago anymore.
lonbud - December 18, 2005 @ 10:03 am
Blaming the sorry state of education in America on the teachers’ unions is ridiculous. If the poor are disadvantaged with respect to education it has everything to do with the manner in which education is funded and nothing to do with the manner in which teachers attempt to protect what little security and respect our society affords their profession.
Michael Herdegen - December 18, 2005 @ 4:17 pm
Education in America is overfunded.
The teachers’ unions are hardly the only problem, nor the most major one, but they are the easiest problem to fix.
American society gives teachers plenty of respect, and plenty of money, which you’d know if you could remember back to two months ago when I showed that the average grade school teacher makes MORE than the median wage in America.
As for “security”, apparently you’ve never tried to fire a public school teacher.
lonbud - December 18, 2005 @ 7:54 pm
Michael, you apparently inhabit some sort of parallel universe in which everyone enjoys perfect health, great weather, and freedom from want of any stripe. Here in the United States of America, most public school systems are in shambles and must rely on charitable giving and private fundraising to obtain even staple supplies and teaching materials.
See the work of this organization to get some idea of the depth and breadth of the problem.
Your statement that the average grade school teacher makes MORE than the median wage in America is meaningless. In a properly ordered society, teaching would be one of the best-paid professions, and one both sought-after and difficult to enter.
Instead, we have the vast majority of teachers making middling wages and school districts begging people to join the ranks. For a fine discussion of teacher pay relative to other professions requiring similar skills and education, see this.
If any sector of our society is overfunded, it’s the military. Education and its real requirements are an afterthought.
Michael Herdegen - December 19, 2005 @ 10:15 am
Tam O’Tellico:
Well, if the poor tend to be stupid, maybe it’s because they tend to watch Fair and Imbalanced Fox News.
Yes, conservative people tend to watch FOX, and stupid people tend to be conservative, but surely you don’t believe that watching news on television makes one stupid ?
To categorize the poor as stupid is the kind of idiocy best left to Rash Limbaugh. The poor are poor for many reasons, most of which have little to do with stupidity. Frankly, that crack is far beneath you — at least I hope it’s beneath you.
It’s not a “crack”, it’s an acknowledgement of the truth.
Are you contending that stupid people tend to be RICH ?
Or that the rich tend to be stupid? Paris Hilton is an outlier, not the mean.
The correlation between education and wealth is very high, and while I have met some incredibly stupid Ph.D.s, the tendency is for those with a lot of education to be intelligent, as well.
The bottom line is that the less intelligent one is, the poorer one is likely to be.
I’m disappointed that you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that very obvious point.
Ask a good teacher their opinion of NCLB and teaching to tests, and they will tell you exactly why they are such bad ideas.
Teaching to tests is a GREAT idea, because many teachers AREN’T “good”, just decent, and NCLB forces schools to ensure that their pupils are literate and can do basic math, which are the basics that any school ought to impart.
If I were going to pick one reason above all others for the failure of education, it would be TV, and its even more insidious bastard child, video games. Too bad, since both have the potential to be powerful educational tools. But in a society driven only by the bottom line, they have instead become merely one more vehicle for selling drugs, toys, cars, and all the other things we don’t really need.
Sure, I agree that both television and video games could be educational, which was the predicted major use (“killer app”) for television right after it was invented, and in fact they DO educate – most people a little bit, and some people a lot – think of cable & PBS talk shows, the Biography Channel, History Channel, Discovery Channel, Science Channel, Nature Channel, Travel Channel, Animal Planet channel, Discovery Times Channel, Discovery Health Channel, Military Channel, The Learning Channel (TLC), Home and Garden TV, Fine Living channel, DIY network, Food network, C-SPAN, MSNBC, CNN, et al.
However, who in their right minds would still be pining for ANY media to be primarily educational in nature ?
Let us think back to the invention of the printing press… The first thing printed was The Bible, but within ten years, the major output of printing presses was erotic novels, whose intended purpose was to amuse and titillate.
The reason that VCRs sold well enough for major movie studios to begin releasing titles, which eventually resulted in the VCR being a standard part of every middle class home’s entertainment choices, was… Pornography.
If tens of thousands of people hadn’t purchased the VERY expensive early machines, so that they could watch erotica in the convenience and privacy of their own homes, the VCR would still be only a commercial and scientific tool.
When we get holography and virtual reality, I guarantee that they will be used primarily to entertain and sell.
[A]s the public becomes less and less well-educated, they become more and more susceptible to being sold religious intolerance and suspect wars.
Yeah, history is just full of examples of how the presumably more-educated peoples of the early and mid twentieth century lived in peace and religious tolerance.
When was this “Golden Era”, when most people were intelligent and educated, and the world lived in peace and harmony ?
[P]lease tell me how you rationalize the huge difference between exit polls and vote counts in the 2004 Presidential election?
No rationalization needed, just some rationality.
There WERE NO “huge differences” between exit polls and vote counts, just differences within the margins of error.
Which is why Kerry conceded so quickly.
Or are you one of those people who believe that you are more competent, knowledgeable, and power hungry than were JF Kerry and the Dem Party establishment ?
I can assure you that if they had thought that there was any case to be made for voter fraud, we’d have heard about it.
It’s only the barking moonbats and raving lunatics who keep alive the notion that JFK, Bush, and the two major political parties conspired to deliver the election to Bush – or that the GOP is filled with evil geniuses, and the Dems with dimwits.
lonbud:
Here in the United States of America, most public school systems are in shambles and must rely on charitable giving and private fundraising to obtain even staple supplies and teaching materials.
Substitute “some” for “most”, and that becomes a true statement.
Otherwise, it’s just another example of something that you BELIEVE to be true – but have never bothered to investigate or learn anything about.
Your statement that the average grade school teacher makes MORE than the median wage in America is meaningless. In a properly ordered society, teaching would be one of the best-paid professions, and one both sought-after and difficult to enter.
Instead, we have the vast majority of teachers making middling wages and school districts begging people to join the ranks.
ROFL
It’s “meaningless” that teachers are in the UPPER half of ALL wage earners ?
Is it also “meaningless” that our society spends FAR more on education than we do on ALL sports, combined, even though each individual top-tier professional athlete makes more than any teacher ?
We also spend FAR more on education than we do on Hollywood, even though a handful of actors make millions.
What is your explanation for why the teachers’ unions are so powerful, if teachers are low-status, ill-paid drones ?
The “profession” of teaching IS difficult to enter, and that’s not by chance.
Although teaching is, at best, a semi-skilled position, and one best learned through OJT and practice, the teachers’ unions have pressured legislatures to require that public school teachers hold degrees in education, although anyone with a degree could be an effective teacher after a three-month training course and an apprenticeship.
Talk to some people with degrees in education, and see if they think that they needed two years’ worth of “advanced” college courses to teach, and if those courses were very helpful in preparing them for the actual challenges of teaching.
School districts wouldn’t have to beg for teachers if anyone with a degree could get a teachers’ certificate by taking and passing knowledge-proficiency tests, taking a teaching seminar, and serving as an assistant teacher for a few months.
Would you care to guess about why the teachers’ unions are so dead set against current teachers being required to take annual proficiency tests, and why they don’t want a system where anyone who demonstrates proficiency is allowed to teach in public schools ?
The reason why teachers don’t typically make six figures is because THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF PEOPLE WHO ARE CAPABLE OF TEACHING.
Indeed, in America there are at least 30 million adults who would make excellent teachers. Although there are certainly people who are talented at teaching, it’s not a job that requires talent, just some training and practice in instruction.
Any shortage of teachers is a combination of people choosing not to go into the field, combined with fiat barriers to entry.
Am I mistaken, or didn’t you say that you have been a teacher ?
Why don’t you know this stuff ?
BTW, in thinking more about this, wouldn’t you agree that one can be critical of Israel (or the United States) without necessarily being anti, it strikes me that criticism of PROCESS is at least intended to be constructive criticism, but criticism of GOALS is usually simply anti-American.
Michael Herdegen - December 19, 2005 @ 1:10 pm
Iraqis in former rebel stronghold now cheer American soldiers
Oliver Poole, 19/12/2005, Daily Telegraph
[Emphasis added]
Those troops need not be American.
As we train more Iraqi soldiers, they can take over the day-to-day patrols and guard duty, and American troops can concentrate on putting out fires.
Tam O’Tellico - December 19, 2005 @ 5:34 pm
Question: If teaching is such a wonderful, well-paid profession, why does the average new teacher leave within five years? I wonder, Michael, have you ever taught in a classroom? Do you have any friends that have? Forget the statistics and ask those who are in the heat of the battle why the turnover is greater than in any profession you can name, including the military.
Figure out what this really means for education. Assuming the average graduate of our teacher factories is 22, barely older than their high school charges. They have no real-world experience in their field of “expertise” and no real world teaching experience. On average, they will be 27 when they leave the profession. What business could succeed given that sort of dynamic?
None.
Tam O’Tellico - December 19, 2005 @ 5:43 pm
Now that Bush has had his conversion and professed to seeing the light on torture (after his public humiliation by McCain and the Press), we can rest assured that things will change — Dark Ops will get a lot darker.
If we can’t quit torture on moral grounds, can’t anyone convince Cheney and the Butchers that it is stupid practice for practical reasons? Or is it possible that some of our soldiers and spies derive too much sadistic pleasure to quit?
If you want to read a truly insightful piece from a real expert on torture, I recommend the article from which I excerpted this:
“One nasty morning Comrade Stalin discovered that his favorite pipe was missing. Naturally, he called in his henchman, Lavrenti Beria, and instructed him to find the pipe. A few hours later, Stalin found it in his desk and called off the search. “But, Comrade Stalin,” stammered Beria, “five suspects have already confessed to stealing it.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121700018.html
Bubbles - December 19, 2005 @ 6:22 pm
W. Umm… did I say democracy ohh I may have misspoken I meant nation building. We’re nation building yeah thats the ticket err.. I know I said we wouldn’t engage in nation building but umm… errr.. 9/11 its the reason for everything.
Michael Herdegen - December 19, 2005 @ 8:23 pm
If teaching is such a wonderful, well-paid profession, why does the average new teacher leave within five years?
Teaching pays fairly well, but “wonderful” is subjective.
I’m well prepared to accept that most teachers find that they hate the profession once they get a real-world taste of it, if in fact that’s the case. However, I’m not sure how that’s relevant to what we’ve been speaking about.
I wonder, Michael, have you ever taught in a classroom?
I have taught, but not in a classroom, or at least not as a regular faculty member.
Do you have any friends that have?
Several, with a combined 36 years of experience.
Forget the statistics and ask those who are in the heat of the battle why the turnover is greater than in any profession you can name, including the military.
Actually, I can name four, off of the top of my head; there are probably many more:
First, you’re wrong about the military, at least on the enlisted side, so that’s one.
Truck driving.
Telemarketing.
Food service industry.
Like you, I’m too lazy to look up the actual stats, so you’ll have to be content with four industries that have a greater turnover than teaching – two that pay MORE than teaching, and two that pay less.
Assuming the average graduate of our teacher factories is 22, barely older than their high school charges. They have no real-world experience in their field of “expertise” and no real world teaching experience. On average, they will be 27 when they leave the profession. What business could succeed given that sort of dynamic?
Quite a few; most, in fact.
For instance, the four that I mentioned above.
First year is “training year”, and then you get four good years ?
A lot of industries and businesses would BEG to get that dynamic.
There really aren’t that many businesses, industries, and professions that would struggle with a dynamic where you have a lot of rookies, quite a few journeypersons, and a few old bulls.
Medicine, maybe.
And in fact, most people in the medical profession get paid quite well.
Even nurse’s aids, with experience, can make almost $ 30K.
That’s exactly what we’d expect to find if retaining people was very important, and that’s one reason why teachers get paid less, on average, than good nurses. (But not much less).
If we can’t quit torture on moral grounds…
Sometimes the most moral action is to torture.
I’m sure that you can work out the scenarios.
Or is it possible that some of our soldiers and spies derive too much sadistic pleasure to quit?
Ah, yes, the ad hominem remark, standard fallback among the ignorant and the unserious.
Fortunately, our national defense is in the hands of people who are willing to act like adults.
“One nasty morning Comrade Stalin discovered that his favorite pipe was missing…”
I agree, the parallels between the Amerikkka of 2005 and Stalin’s USSR are uncanny !!
Or not.
The Soviet Union killed people to achieve their national aims, Hitler’s Germany killed people to achieve their national aims, America has killed people and is killing people to achieve their national aims…
All morally the same, no ?
Like peas in a pod.
lonbud - December 19, 2005 @ 9:09 pm
Well, Michael, on a different thread you purported to have discovered the crux of the reason why you and I disagree in so many respects. Now I have seen the light for myself.
I do not believe there is ever a case in which the most moral action is to torture. Your certainty that one can work out the scenarios only serves to make the depth of our disagreement clearer.
Who are you, Michael Herdegen, to pass moral judgment on the authorization to subject another human being (or an animal, or an insect, for that matter) to torture?
From what earthly or divine authority do you or any other human being derive such power?
All of the pain and woe and failure of humankind to transcend its lust for power and its fear of death is rooted in thinking like yours. And, as long as leaders think the way you do, the distinctions you purport to draw between the moralality of Hitler and Stalin and BushCo are meaningless.
Michael Herdegen - December 19, 2005 @ 11:36 pm
I am Michael Herdegen, and am as fit as any other adult, and more than most, to morally authorize the torture of terrorists, or even another human being.
The earthly or divine authority whence I derive such power can be expressed as the simple truism that the needs of the many usually outweigh the needs of the few.
The “golden rule” provides a handy reference, as well.
If you want to get into torturing animals, will you affirm that you eat only free-range or organic red meats, poultry, and eggs ?
If not, then you are condoning and supporting the torture of animals.
I do not believe there is ever a case in which the most moral action is to torture. […] And, as long as leaders think the way you do, the distinctions you purport to draw between the moralality of Hitler and Stalin and BushCo are meaningless.
Yes, you think those things because you have not yet achieved the ability to think maturely.
You don’t draw distinctions between aggressor and defender, both to you are equally sinful; you would selfishly let a million people perish, to spare your own hands of blood.
None of which is to say that you cannot, at some future point, become mature or even enlightened, I merely point out that you are neither of those now.
However, an inability to distinguish between Hitler and Bush, or even Stalin and Hitler, is literally insane – delusional to the point that it impairs everyday functioning – as is the inability to distinguish between the legacies of the U.S. and the USSR.
All of the pain and woe and failure of humankind to transcend its lust for power and its fear of death is rooted in thinking like yours.
Not in “thinking like mine” – properly stated, it should read:
“All of the pain and woe and failure of humankind to transcend its lust for power and its fear of death is rooted in you.”
And I accept that verdict.
However, I do note in passing that I have no personal fear of death, although I understand that many do, even avowed religionists.
Tam O’Tellico - December 20, 2005 @ 10:32 am
For all Michael’s self-aggrandizing claims of maturity, his arguments belie his claims. Torture advocates may well believe they occupy the moral high ground, just as they believe our actions in Iraq are only to promote democracy and make the U.S. safer.
Well, they are wrong — just as they were wrong about WMD. Nor do theyseem to be able to see that they keep moving the target.
The target is not no torture ever under any circumstances. Any fool knows that in a war, that is not possible — such is the nature of war, and that is one more reason why we should be far more reluctant to engage in it.
The target is to eliminate the use of torture as an avowed policy routinely used as an interrogation technique or punishment inflicted on thousands of prisoners, most of whom don’t likely have any important information to divulge in any case. Certainly, many of these prisoners have fallen into our hands as a result of large bounties paid to our “friends of the moment”, “friends” that may well have a vested interest in turning over a tribal rival or a recalcitrant brother-in-law.
Even if I concede the point, as McCain does, of the “one in a million” instance where the moral imperative justifies torture, what is being advocated and practiced by Cheney and Dark Ops hardly qualifies. In fact, torture has far too often become the norm, and that is why I suggest sadists may be in charge.
The article I noted makes a powerful case against torture as policy on moral and practical grounds. If there is no other reason to stop torture, we should stop because there is ample evidence it is not a particularly effective interrogation tool.
That ought to be reason enough for “realists” to be against the present policy. If not, there is the argument that we are at least providing some measure of protection from torture for our troops in present and future wars.
If the counter is that the bad guys don’t follow the rules, than I guess we are being asked to ignore the rules and become bad guys, too. Of course, “realists” see such an argument as silly and see themselves like Cheney, protecting the right of a bunch of “idealists” like me to whine.
Or maybe they meann to suggest that the only thing that matters is winning. If so, I think I’ve heard that argument before from guys like Stalin and Hitler. It’s the argument of those who see themselves as hard-asses and the rest of us as wimps. Their condescending attitude toward us weak-willed pantywaists reminds me of Jack Nicholson’s famous line “You can’t handle the truth.”
Well, I’m a big boy, and I can handle the truth. And the truth is that on the rarest of occasions, we do things out of absolute necessity that we know are morally reprehensible — cannibalism, for instance. But when those aberrations become the norm or routine policy, we have lost our moral compass, ourl moral authority and all justification for our actions. Thus any of us can become Stalin or Hitler, and the only distinction becomes body count.
In fact, it can be argued that it is far more “humane” to gas and incinerate a few million Jews than to sadistically torture a few thousand prisoners, who may possibly be terrorists, on the slim chance that we may extract a very few pieces of information that may prove to be critical — if we can analyze and use it in time.
Of course, such an equation would depend on how you formulate statistics and measure the relative value of human lives (if you didn’t recognize that as sarcasm, you probably don’t have the moral maturity to be engaged in this dialogue).
Those who see a distinction between a grotesque and painful death by torture at the hands of Stalin or Hitler or Cheney might better ask someone who died under such horrible circumstances. I doubt they could see any such distinction.
Michael Herdegen - December 20, 2005 @ 12:31 pm
Well, I’m exactly as mature as the current and immediately previous leaders of America, Germany, Italy, and Poland, to name a few nations that have condoned and carried out extreme interrogations in the 21st century.
While you may feel that they, as well as I, am something other than rational and enlightened adults, I am content to be judged as part of that group.
Those seven Presidents and Prime Ministers, coming from both the left and right in the political spectrum, didn’t get to be the leaders of their major nations by accident, they were CHOSEN by their respective societies, judged by their nations’ peoples to be effective decision makers and wise-enough leaders.
And, once their decisions became deadly serious, with lasting real-world consequences, they ALL chose the same option, regardless of their wildly divergent backrounds, experience, and philosophies – the same course of action that I advocate.
Torture advocates may well believe they occupy the moral high ground, just as they believe our actions in Iraq are only to promote democracy and make the U.S. safer.
Well, they are wrong…
Sez you – which is the only rational response.
In fact, all available evidence is that YOU are wrong about that.
While history may ultimately vindicate your position, all that’ll do is allow you to utter “I told you so” with extreme satisfaction.
The objective reality is that it isn’t at all clear who will be correct in the long run, you or those whom you denigrate, and in the short run, THEY are clearly correct – America hasn’t been hit again, and has therefore been “kept safe”.
So, since you’ve been wrong so far about the effects of our actions in Iraq, why should we assume that your position on torture has any additional credibility ?
The target is to eliminate the use of torture as an avowed policy routinely used as an interrogation technique or punishment inflicted on thousands of prisoners […] Certainly, many of these prisoners have fallen into our hands as a result of large bounties paid to our “friends of the moment”, “friends” that may well have a vested interest in turning over a tribal rival or a recalcitrant brother-in-law.
Extreme interrogation measures have been used on hundreds of prisoners, not thousands, so your goal has been met.
Although we’ve certainly imprisoned for a time a few hundred people such as you describe, innocent people turned over to us for a bounty, we’ve tortured none of them, unless you consider normal prison conditions to be “torture”.
The vast majority of the combatants captured and imprisoned by us are NOT subjected to extreme interrogation measures – those are only used on KNOWN persons of extreme interest.
In fact, torture has far too often become the norm, and that is why I suggest sadists may be in charge.
Rubbish.
You are against extreme interrogation, so you wildly speculate that it must be a widespread problem, but it’s demonstrably NOT the norm.
But perhaps you have a non-mainstream definition of “torture” ?
Would denying someone dessert while imprisoned be “torture” ?
Here in America prison inmates have sued states, claiming that it’s “cruel and inhumane” for them not to be served ice cream, and in one instance, the prisoner was served ice cream, but he felt aggrieved because no chocolate ice cream was available…
lonbud has written that “humiliation” = “torture”, an intensely juvenile stance that’s another hobnailled boot to the face for real torture victims, such as the Holocaust victims that you refer to, and those that Saddam had thrown alive into plastic shredders, (among myriad other gruesome fates), and the horrors that Pol Pot wrought…
Those who see a distinction between a grotesque and painful death by torture at the hands of Stalin or Hitler or Cheney might better ask someone who died under such horrible circumstances.
Now that’s comedy !
Yeah, America routinely tortures suspects to death, just like Stalin and Hitler.
See above, where I caution lonbud about the dangers of unchecked delusion.
For instance, (“Cheney” = “Stalin”) = “impaired ability to make real-world decisions”.
…if you didn’t recognize that as sarcasm, you probably don’t have the moral maturity to be engaged in this dialogue.
Sarcasm is notoriously difficult to do in a printed medium, so it has to be broad to be clear. Keep trying, you’ll get it down eventually.
Well, I’m a big boy, and I can handle the truth.
Self-aggrandizement sure is fun, huh ?
Tam O’Tellico - December 20, 2005 @ 7:19 pm
I am quite content to stand by my previous post. However, I will take your advice and try to make my sarcasm broad enough that even you can grasp it.
lonbud - December 20, 2005 @ 10:09 pm
Of all the things that characterize BushCo and its virtual surrogate here in this forum, I beleive it’s the hubris I find most difficult to grok.
I can stand the namecalling (immature, delusional, juvenile) as well as the condescension, the twisting of fact, and even the wholesale purchase of outlandish propaganda (cf: Michael’s absurd post about Tal Afar’s citizens greeting their American liberators with laurel wreaths and a standing O).
But to willingly, resolutely embrace torture as a necessary and useful tool in the quest to lead people to a better life in a safer, more secure world, well, it’s just sad and tragic, and it really makes me grieve for mankind.
To smugly assert, “Extreme interrogation measures have been used on hundreds of prisoners, not thousands” — as if he has any basis whatsoever for knowing the truth of such a statement — Michael is clearly unhinged.
And our kinder, gentler apologist for torture seeks to assuage his critics with the proviso that extreme interrogation measures – those are only used on KNOWN persons of extreme interest.
Where’d you hear that one, Michael, from your government? Perhaps it’s been reported that way in the New Iraqi Free Press.
I’d like you to cite, if you will, where I have written “humiliation = torture.”
In the end, it matters not whether one prisoner dies a tortuous death or whether death by torture is de rigeur; nor does it matter whether one engages in torture as an accused agressor or an avowed defender. In both instances — whether one relishes it like the Marquis de Sade or whether one merely holds one’s nose and accepts it as part of an ability to make real-world decisons — one buys the same ticket on the boat ride to the ass end of the River Styx.
For the record: I do consume meat and dairy products from organic and free-range raised animals as a matter of personal choice. Where I can objectively determine a meat or dairy product is derived from factory farming I go with the tofu.
Also for the record: there is not a single documented case where torture of a human being has resulted in the lives of millions of others being saved or spared.
Michael Herdegen - December 21, 2005 @ 10:26 am
Tam O’Tellico:
I am quite content to stand by my previous post.
That would be foolish, for the reasons that I specified:
American actions in Iraq have promoted democracy, (obviously), not just in Iraq but also in Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, and Lebanon, although only Egypt, Iraq, and Lebanon have national elections for the leaders of the entire country.
American prisoners are NOT normally subject to extreme interrogation measures.
Only a small percentage of prisoners are treated in such a manner.
This statement: “Those who see a distinction between a grotesque and painful death by torture at the hands of Stalin or Hitler or Cheney…“, is pathological.
However, I will take your advice and try to make my sarcasm broad enough that even you can grasp it.
Touche.
lonbud:
I can stand the namecalling (immature, delusional, juvenile)…
Those are certainly blunt, but also factual. My intent is not solely to insult, I just sometimes get frustrated enough to abandon diplomacy.
Thinking that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al. are war criminals, and/or that they belong in the same category as Hitler and Stalin, is delusional.
Contending that it’s “torture” to be stripped naked, have feminine undergarments placed on one’s head, and/or be forced to do a naked human pile, all while being photographed, is juvenile. While such activities are humiliating, and against both American military regulations and international treaties, to call them “torture” requires a pretty complete ignorance of what barbaric things that humans have done to each other from the time that we swung down from the trees and started roaming the plains of Africa.
…and even the wholesale purchase of outlandish propaganda (cf: Michael’s absurd post about Tal Afar’s citizens greeting their American liberators with laurel wreaths and a standing O).
Why absurd ?
Do you not believe that such a thing happened ?
If so, why not ?
And, why “propaganda” ?
The Daily Telegraph is not well-known as a mouthpiece for the Bush admin, and the British press as a whole is rather oppositional towards the Bush admin and the Iraqi pacification project.
Unless, of course, you believe that ANY good news from Iraq MUST be false, regardless of who reports it.
But to willingly, resolutely embrace torture as a necessary and useful tool in the quest to lead people to a better life in a safer, more secure world, well, it’s just sad and tragic, and it really makes me grieve for mankind.
You and me both, brother.
However, there will someday come a time when all humans seek redress for their grievances through the political and legal systems, and we won’t have to contend with animals arming themselves to seek domination over all through force alone.
To smugly assert, “Extreme interrogation measures have been used on hundreds of prisoners, not thousands” — as if he has any basis whatsoever for knowing the truth of such a statement — Michael is clearly unhinged.
Yes, an overstatement.
However, whatever the number is, it’s clearly not many, only a small percentage of those whom we capture.
And our kinder, gentler apologist for torture seeks to assuage his critics with the proviso that extreme interrogation measures – those are only used on KNOWN persons of extreme interest. Where’d you hear that one, Michael, from your government?
It’s a function of knowing something about how militaries and intelligence services work.
You, too, could have such knowledge, if you cared to pick up a couple of books, or read a few articles.
We don’t have the resources available to intensely interrogate ALL U.S. prisoners, and we don’t make those resources available because there’s no point in doing such interrogations routinely.
For all of some folks’ bluster, America isn’t a police state like Nazi Germany or the former Soviet Union, we aren’t paranoid, and we don’t beat on people for kicks.
We use extreme interrogation only on those who we are pretty sure have something of value to tell us, and we establish who those people are through electronic and human intel gathering, as well as through interviews with all prisoners.
The common prisoner is willing to talk to us, because they’re bored, and don’t know anything that they think is valuable anyway, but when we combine all of their accounts of who was doing what, where, we can get a picture of who we should press for more info.
Perhaps it’s been reported that way in the New Iraqi Free Press.
Yes, the Iraqi press IS now free, and that is, in fact, a New Thing.
Witness the fact that we have to PAY them to print nice stuff about us.
Do you believe that Saddam PAID the press, previously, to report nice stuff about him, and not print negative stuff? (Of which there were legions).
I’d like you to cite, if you will, where I have written “humiliation = torture.”
In Cry Me A River, you write:
To which I respond:
You then say:
The charge that people have been killed at Gitmo is hysterical paranoia.
People have certainly died there, but people die in any prison, and in fact wherever people live for extended periods.
Plenty of Americans have dropped dead in Iraq, without having been subjected to violence.
To say that the harassment of prisoners which occurred at Abu Ghraib, and the normal prison conditions at Guantanamo Bay, rise to the level of “torture”, and is “systematic”, is extremely ignorant, and indicative of a complete lack of serious thought about torture in general, and Gitmo and Abu Ghraib in particular.
What happened in Abu Ghraib was scandalous, and criminal, but it was a rogue operation, was exposed, those who participated have been sentenced to many years in prison, and those who were supposed to be overseeing those soldiers have been dismissed from the military.
To believe that such behavior is “systematic”, one would ALSO have to believe that it’s occurring at ALL places where U.S. prisoners are housed – but that it’s only been revealed in ONE location, and that all American military commanders and high officials are lying about the existence of that type of behavior, and that all media types in Iraq are covering up the truth. That type of thinking is paranoid, conspiratorial, and runs counter to what we know of reality and history.
Such widespread conspiracies cannot be kept silent for long, even in totalitarian police states.
The U.S. can’t even keep their “top secret” new military equipment from being photographed and reported about for years before it’s officially unveiled.
In the end, it matters not whether one prisoner dies a tortuous death or whether death by torture is de rigeur; nor does it matter whether one engages in torture as an accused agressor or an avowed defender. In both instances — whether one relishes it like the Marquis de Sade or whether one merely holds one’s nose and accepts it as part of an ability to make real-world decisons — one buys the same ticket on the boat ride to the ass end of the River Styx.
Not so.
It does matter whether we use extreme interrogation as a last resort, or as a normal part of imprisonment, and the fact that we DO NOT stress such interrogatees to death, or even cause them physical harm, separates such actions from “torture”.
Also, it does matter if such actions are done with pleasure, or out of grim need.
As Tam O’Tellico pointed out up-thread, humans sometimes resort to cannibalism, but we forgive those who did so solely to survive, and imprison those who merely like to eat human flesh, and kill to do so.
That is, in fact, the basis of the Christian faith.
Christ forgives those who regret their actions, and not those who don’t. Faith alone isn’t enough, there must also be repentance, and those who enjoy eating other humans, or hurting people, don’t regret their actions, nor repent of them.
Therefore, it’s entirely possible that if two people commit the exact same acts, in the same manner, only ONE will be going boating after death.
For the record: I do consume meat and dairy products from organic and free-range raised animals as a matter of personal choice. Where I can objectively determine a meat or dairy product is derived from factory farming I go with the tofu.
Good deal. I commend you.
Germany Talks Torture, and Finds Hypocrisy:
To torture or not to torture. That, surprisingly, has become a burning question in Germany this week. Germany’s new interior minister has drawn fire for saying authorities must act on information from terror suspects even if it was obtained unlawfully. […]
David Crossland, 12/20/05, Der Spiegel
Because adults have to do things which they’d rather not do.
Only children, (of any age), have the luxury of pretending that survival doesn’t require work and sacrifice, and that the hearts of evil people will “grow three sizes that day”, if only we’re nice to them.
lonbud - December 22, 2005 @ 12:23 am
Oh, I think I’m getting it now. It’s only torture if we do it to ALL who we imprison.
Or maybe it’s torture if we do it to more than just the tiny few we know have something up their sleeves, and do admittedly subject to “extreme interrogation measures” (cue the sound of Michael thrashing around in the weeds of doublespeak).
I just sometimes get frustrated enough to abandon diplomacy.
Michael has that in common with John Bolton. Surprise, surprise, surprise, as Gomer Pyle would say…
Unless, of course, you believe that ANY good news from Iraq MUST be false, regardless of who reports it.
I actually do believe there are many better things happening for many different people who didn’t necessarily enjoy lives filled with good news in Iraq prior to the American occupation.
I also believe there are American service personnel and good hearted people from many walks of life attempting to do even grand and wonderful things in Iraq, and that there are stories of success to be reported.
And I’m happy for that, and for all those who enjoy the benefits of being out from under Saddam’s boot heel.
I just don’t believe our “aventure,” as Donald Rumsfeld calls it, was necessary to achieve the aim of saving the Middle East, or of having capitalist democracy define the nature of society there in the next era of history.
I don’t believe it’s an intelligent use of our national resources, technology, or manpower, and I don’t believe it will provide for the long-term security of Americans abroad or at home.
The charge that people have been killed at Gitmo is hysterical paranoia.
People have certainly died there, but people die in any prison, and in fact wherever people live for extended periods.
Perhaps one of the most Pollyana-ish statements ever to grace this blog.
People have been killed at Gitmo.
Some were tortured to death.
Stories of actual torture abound (and not just the fraternity-style pranks fit for public consumption, Virginia).
Plenty of Americans have dropped dead in Iraq, without having been subjected to violence.
Here are some statistics on general cause of death rates in the USA; and here are those for Americans in Iraq.
You tell me.
As for that retreat into the bosom of Christian “faith” and “regret” and “repentance,” seeking absolution for the denial of your own divinity — I don’t buy it.
When it comes to torture, I think Hunter S. Thompson — who I daresay might be roundly accepted as a person with as all-encompassing a view of torture as you are going to find among culturally accessible figures of the last half century — should have the final word:
“Buy the ticket, take the ride.”
All aboard!
lonbud - December 22, 2005 @ 12:33 am
One more thing, Michael:
You purported to address my request that you cite where I have written “humiliation = torture” and produced a classic change of subject, together with no statement or even inference that I equate humiliation with torture.
Why bother?
Michael Herdegen - December 22, 2005 @ 5:42 am
The Abu Ghraib scandal was about humiliating prisoners, regardless of whetever else happened there. If you wanted to refer to some other behavior, you cannot just say “Abu Ghraib”, and expect that readers will understand that you mean something OTHER than the scandal.
Therefore, when you repeatedly link “panties on the head & naked human piles” to “torture”, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to infer that you believe that being humiliated is a form of torture.
I will say this: I understand why some might think that some of what U.S. forces do, with authorization and approval, is “torture”.
I just think that it’s worth it, if it produces actionable intel – which it has.
I also have a complete lack of understanding about why anyone would think that America is at fault for this complex and difficult situation; THEY declared war on US, not the other way around. We were perfectly happy to let them destroy their own societies, as long as they left us alone.
(Actually, I do understand why people take that position, I just can’t think of any non-vile reason why an ADULT would do so).
In closing, here is some testimony from Iraqi torture victims, at the trial of the Butcher of Baghdad. THIS is what real torture looks like. It’s not panties-on-the-head, denial of dessert, having to stand all day, or being forced to listen to “The Barney Song” at 90db for hours:
Tam O’Tellico - December 22, 2005 @ 8:53 am
I admit to being tortured by this debate. I am tortured in the same way I am tortured by the most basic tenet of my faith — to turn the other cheek. I wish I was faithful enough to act on my belief.
Torture is wrong, and we know it, no matter what the justification. Yet instead of turning the other cheek, we turn a blind eye because it is easier and more efficacious at the moment — or so we believe.
Let me say, I do make a distinction between the childish humiliation of prisoners and torture. And perhaps — perhaps — Michael is correct that Abu Gharib was the former not the latter.
On the other hand, renditions to Poland and Egypt and other places by highly-trained Black Ops was not for the purpose of humiliation. Anyone who believes that should volunteer for a lobotomy. Or maybe they’ve already had one.
As to how many prisoners received rendition and the torture which surely accompanied it, we will never know. And as to how many instances of catastrophe-avoiding torture gems were extracted, we will never know.
“Realists” ought to be made to answer these questions about effectiveness, and not just offer claims that some poor bastard blurted out a confession. They should cite some examples of how mass-murder at the Golden Gate Bridge or the Boston Subway — or something — anything was prevented. Otherwise, we are left to take the word of perpetual liars and professional exaggerators — an opinion totally justified based on the cooked evidence they presented to justify this war.
Truth is, even if such information were extracted, we don’t know that it would be put to use in a timely fashion. We do know information was extracted by govt sources, information gathered without torture by the way, that could likely have prevented 9-11. We also know that information did not pass up the chain of command or was ignored when it was passed on. We also know that very little has been done to correct that failure — at least that’s the opinion of the 9-11 Commission.
Given that fact, even if torture succeeded in extracting information — a doubtful hypothesis according to most experts — what assurance do we have that it would be passed on or acted on in a timely fashion by the same people who couldn’t even prepare for a hurricane they knew was coming weeks in advance?
I will say again — it is utterly foolish to expect the same fools that got us into this war and prosecuted it so poorly, to get us out of it in a good way.
Michael Herdegen - December 22, 2005 @ 9:32 am
I agree that we’re speaking purely in the hypothetical here, and cannot know the reality of either proposition.
Further, none of us are in a position to implement any policies.
[T]he same people who couldn’t even prepare for a hurricane they knew was coming weeks in advance…
What do the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana have to do with the War on Terrorists, or Iraq ?
Besides, they had DAYS of warning, not weeks; but that’s a minor quibble, to be sure. Nagin and Blanco wouldn’t have done any better if they’d had YEARS to prepare – and in fact, they did, (or at least Nagin did), in the sense that New Orleans has been known to be at risk for EXACTLY this kind of disaster since at least 1980.
Anyone who thinks that the Feds should have been the first-responders needs to check their copy of the U.S. Constitution.
[I]t is utterly foolish to expect the same fools that got us into this war and prosecuted it so poorly…
As wars go, it’s been prosecuted rather WELL, with few allied fatalities, and a complete recovery from initial mistakes accomplished.
WW II Germany, for instance, could claim neither of those points.
At any rate, three years on, Iraq has managed to avoid beginning a civil war, despite the insurgents’ and terrorists’ best efforts to ignite one; all of the major factions composing Iraqi civil society have bought into the concept of winning at the ballot box, instead of under arms; they’ve negotiated, written, and democratically adopted a constitution, one which formally protects the rights of non-Muslims and females; they’re well on their way to having enough trained and experienced Iraqi police officers and soldiers to keep order in their own country, and are eager to do so; thousands of schools have been constructed or refurbished, they’re pumping oil at a faster rate than they have since ’90, the amount of electricity being generated nationwide has surpassed pre-war levels, hundreds of thousands of television satellite dishes have been sold to Iraqi consumers, and they now have hundreds of newspapers, ones that are free to criticize their political leaders; and very importantly, unemployment is coming down to reasonable-for-the-region levels.
In short, they now have the foundations to be a prosperous and modern nation, all in less than three years since the first bombing run over Baghdad during the current invasion.
Whether they can capitalize on this opportunity, I dunno, but if they end up like Jordan or the UAE, that’s a pretty good second-place finish.
lonbud - December 22, 2005 @ 9:58 am
The Abu Ghraib scandal was about humiliating prisoners…
As far as it went in the American media, and to the extent that the American public was willing to take its collective mind off Paris Hilton’s sex tapes, yes.
In reality, what happened at Abu Ghraib involved much more than panties and naked pyramids. Prisoners there were tortured; some there died — from being tortured. It happened (is happening) there, at Guantanamo, and at other facilities, in Egypt for one, where American intelligence personnel at a minimum look the other way while people’s human rights and dignity are systematically violated.
Tam O raises a very cogent question that no one in the Bush administration has been willing to address, and that is: what single piece of evidence extracted by torture — excuse me, extreme interrogation methods — has led to the capture of which specific individual(s), thereby preventing which particular plot from killing or wounding which specific population of innocent people?
We were perfectly happy to let them destroy their own societies, as long as they left us alone.
You’ve taken the words right out of Osama bin Laden’s mouth, Michael. Had the United States withdrawn its forces from Arabia after the Gulf War, 9/11 might never have happened and we might not ever have got into this pickle.
Here’s a couplet from a song I wrote in 2003:
“How can you point the finger, what can you really say
Another G.I. died in the desert today.”
Amazing how often in the past two years those words have been true.
Tam O’Tellico - December 22, 2005 @ 11:43 am
Well, for once I am inclined to agree with Michael. I do not believe that U.S. forces exiting the Mideast will end this conflict or make us or the Israeli’s safer. Islamist fundamentalists are quite vocal about their intent to convert or kill all unbelievers — in much the same way Christians were intent on doing the same thing a thousand years ago. Frankly, I am convinced that many Fundamentalist Christians — including this President — are inclined to do the same today — and damn Jesus’ teachings to the contrary.
On the other hand, our military presence in Muslim countries is an irritant that complicates the situation and throws fuel on the Fundamentalist fire. Just imagine what would happen if Islamist troops showed up in Crawford or Macon or Washington, DC. I can assure you there would be no cheers and crowds wouldn’t be tossing roses.
Cheers and Roses was one of a multitude of “misunderestimations” made about this war and proof the war was not prosecuted well. This war is a glaring example of hubris and false economy which will be studied in our war colleges for decades to come.
Of course, if the only measure is defeating Saddam’s dispirited and disorganized army, it was a success. But this war was not prosecuted well, if you consider its consequences in totality — something which Bush has finally gotten around to doing. He has even finally owned up to error and misjudgment, but apparently Michael wades blithely onward into the breech.
Michael Herdegen - December 22, 2005 @ 12:06 pm
You’ve taken the words right out of Osama bin Laden’s mouth, Michael. Had the United States withdrawn its forces from Arabia after the Gulf War…
You mean, while Saddam Hussein, the person whose invasion threat was responsible for American troops being in Arabia in the first place, was still in power ?
Does that TRULY strike you as a responsible option ?
Never mind the facts that America had long ago agreed to guarantee Arabia’s protection, in return for oil concessions, and that the gov’t of Arabia didn’t WANT us to leave…
Further, by what justification do you presume that bin Laden, a man who was exiled from Arabia, and whose forces are waging a REBELLION against the House of Saud, speaks for the masses of Arabia ?!?
In fact, the entire War on Terror and all al Qaeda operations are, in the largest context, an externalized Arabian civil war.
Bin Laden didn’t like U.S. troops in Arabia, but mostly he hates what he regards, (with much justification), as the corrupt and decadent House of Saud, who control Mecca.
9/11 wasn’t meant to destroy the U.S., although bin Laden would have been delighted if it had had some effect in that direction, it was meant to cause us to decide that continuing to support the House of Saud was more trouble than it was worth.
The endgame was always supposed to be in Arabia.
However, it all went wrong – America reacted with a roar of anger, not a Spanish whimper of fear, and drove bin Laden and his allies out of their comfortable evil lair; and even in Arabia, after a few bombings and guerrilla strikes, the Arabian security forces have the al Qaeda cells there mostly treed, and are picking them off.
[W]hat single piece of evidence extracted by torture — excuse me, extreme interrogation methods — has led to the capture of which specific individual(s), thereby preventing which particular plot from killing or wounding which specific population of innocent people?
While that’s a question that I hope the answer to can someday be revealed, it should be blindingly obvious why the Bush admin can’t answer it now.
To do so would reveal what we know, and about whom, and it’s also possible that we have people in custody that the terrorists DON’T YET KNOW ABOUT.
“Loose lips sink ships”, right ?
Regarding torture, are we then agreed that America is willing to allow our allies to torture people on our behalf, but that our stress interrogation techniques don’t rise to the level of “torture”, and that what was revealed publicly about what happened at Abu Ghraib was merely embarrassing, and far from “torture” ?
Tam O’Tellico - December 22, 2005 @ 12:08 pm
As for Katrina as a measure of this administrations all-too apperent incompetence, I will remind Micahel that FEMA’a own assessment stated unequivocally that a disaster of such magnitude was far beyond the scope of local and state authorities to deal with and that such a disaster was imminent.
Fact: the leaders of many Gulf Coast communities did prepare in advance and did work diligently to extricate their towns from this godawful mess, but they got damned little help from the Feds. Ask any of those Mayors what they think of Mike Brown and his FEMA.
Putting the blame for a disaster that affected the entire Gulf Coast and gas and oil supplies (at least) in the rest of America, on the mayor of New Orleans or even the governor of Louisiana, is another despicable Conservative trick like robbing the poor and then blaming them for being poor. A simple answer, yes, but simply wrong. I wonder, is it the poor or Conservatives who are simple-minded?
The fact is the Federal goverment acted even more irresponsibly than local and state government. Particularly in light of the fact that the Federal govt’s own experts stated categorically that the levees would fail days before it actually happened. I know I heard the head of the national weather service state that as a fact — not a possibility — to all who would listen. Apparently Mike Brown was too busy partying to pay attention.
Who was ultimately responsible for this disaster? The President and the man he appointed to be responsible, his good friend Brownie. The Prez and his cohorts didn’t want to play “the blame game” because they knew damn well they were to blame. And so did the American people, thus one of the major reasons for Bush’s freefall in the polls.
I suspect that even Conservatives are a little disgusted to have spent hard-earned tax dollars to buy Brownie’s dinners at expensive DC restaurants and his suits from Nordstrom. Fiddling while Rome burned indeed. Conservatives can choke on this all they like, but with real men “the buck stops here”. One can only imagine what Harry Truman would have done in that situation.
Fortunately for Bush, the public has a way of forgetting. His modest mea culpa (the only thing modest about him) and his well-crafted speeches will most likely return the sheep to the fold– at least until the next disaster goes unmet.
Michael Herdegen - December 22, 2005 @ 12:26 pm
[A]pparently Michael wades blithely onward into the breech.
Quite so.
For all of the reasons that I listed above, I’m very optimistic that Iraq will be a prosperous, stable nation.
Whether or not democracy sticks remains to be seen. But, that’s not necessary for us to achieve our geopolitical goals, it’ll just be a nice moral victory, and a feather in our cap.
Further, even if Iraq ends up having a civil war, it still might end up well for the U.S., assuming that it’s a short-lived affair. After all, three small nations that don’t attack their neighbors works just as well for us as one large nation that doesn’t attack its neighbors.
But this war was not prosecuted well, if you consider its consequences in totality…
Such as ?
I’ve listed some positive things above, and the re-invasion of Iraq also resulted in mostly free and fair elections in Egypt and Lebanon, and caused Libya to give up their WMD programmes, including an extremely well-hidden nuclear programme that was YEARS further along than anyone had suspected.
What are some of the negative “consequences in total” ?
Michael Herdegen - December 22, 2005 @ 12:53 pm
The Federal response to Katrina was poor, but part of the blame for that goes to Gov. Blanco, who didn’t turn over control of the situation to the Feds until things were already grim. Apparently, she was among those who didn’t believe that the levees would fail, and neither did Mayor Nagin. Perhaps they were too busy “partying” ?
The fact is the Federal goverment acted even more irresponsibly than local and state government.
Polls of the current and former residents of New Orleans, those closest to the situation, show that they primarily blame state and local officials for what happened, NOT the Feds – although they’re not happy with the Feds either.
FEMA’a own assessment stated unequivocally that a disaster of such magnitude was far beyond the scope of local and state authorities to deal with and that such a disaster was imminent. […]
Particularly in light of the fact that the Federal govt’s own experts stated categorically that the levees would fail days before it actually happened.
You would then be in favor of a Constitutional amendment which would give the Federal government the ability to take over control of any city or state that a Federal agency declared was sure to face difficulties of any sort, correct ?
I can tell you now what what the odds are of such an amendment passing.
Or perhaps you’re in favor of Presidents pre-emptively declaring martial law in any area that a Federal agency designates as a “pre-disaster” area ?
Say, in a political opponent’s largest supporting state, the night before the elections ?
Tam O’Tellico - December 22, 2005 @ 2:50 pm
Thank you for raising some nightmare scenarios the public ought to be all too fearful of as this President continues to expand and exert his perogatives to do exactly as HE pleases and as HE deems necessary to protect us. Thank God even this weak-willed Congress is finally beginning to stand up to his wretched excesses.
But your red herring (though in Bush’s case it is another sort of smelly fish) does not excuse FEMA’s failure to act in advance of an approaching disaster. No doubt there is plenty of blame to go around, but do you honestly believe that the most glaring example of failure wasn’t Party-Boy Mike? If so, you are seriously out of touch with most of America. And since Bush appointed him, Bush is painted with the same brush. So sayeth Tam, the pols and the polls.
As for Iraq, yes, there have been some successes, but there have also been monumental failures, failures that turned much of Iraq into a no-man’s land and continue to hamper our success there. The worst of these failures was invading Iraq with one-fifth the troop count employed to kick Saddam out of Kuwait.
The Cheers and Roses scenario resulted in us being unprepared for urban guerilla warfare and resulted in countless unnecessary deaths and maimings caused by inadequate body armor and armored vehicles. I’m sure you would find that the families of those who were killed or maimed consider these failures of this administration, particularly in the person of Don Rumsfeld.
There were even successes that were failures, like the “liberation” of Fallujah that was in fact the obliteration of Fallujah. It would be wise to keep in mind that memories are long in that part of the world.
If you are content to see Iraq divided into three bickering, grudge-holding nations, then I suppose you are a supporter of balkanization as the road to peace. If that’s so, you and John C. Calhoun have a lot in common.
And if you seriously propose that Shia and Sunni will one day lie down like lion and lamb, I point you toward Nothern Ireland for instruction.
But the largest failure of this war is that rather than present us to the bad guys of the world as the New Rome (one of this war’s chief aims), it has exposed just how vulnerable we are to urban guerilla warfare. I doubt that anyone in North Korea, China or even Iran is cowering in a corner begging to be spared our Shock and Awe.
You may argue that we scared Khaddafi into submission, but I suspect his “conversion” had a lot to do with his near-miss in 1986. And in any case, his conversion remains highly suspect. Note this from General Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc.
“Behind the scenes, however, Khaddafi seems still to be the same staunch anti-American sponsor of terror. According to the recent revelations, he has continued to the present day to quietly build one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons in the Middle East, has recently acquired centrifuges to enrich weapons-grade uranium, and has cooperated with North Korea to improve his missile arsenal. Preliminary U.S.-British visits to just ten of his production facilities show Libya’s nuclear weapons program to have been far more advanced than Western intelligence suspected.”
If you think all that is behind us in Libya, you are not the realist you claim to be.
As for elections in Egypt, you may want to give some credit/blame to Sadat and Mubarak, as well as to Sharon for pulling back in Palestine. Surely, those events influenced “free” elections in Eypt much more than the fall of Saddam.
You and I may continue this rant ad absurdum, but only time will tell which of us is more of the realist. And contrary to what you have said, I will be happy to be wrong and will take no pleasure in being right.
Michael Herdegen - December 22, 2005 @ 11:43 pm
Thank you for raising some nightmare scenarios the public ought to be all too fearful of as this President continues to expand and exert his perogatives to do exactly as HE pleases and as HE deems necessary to protect us.
That’s what many thought about Clinton, too.
Didn’t happen.
Won’t happen now.
No doubt there is plenty of blame to go around, but do you honestly believe that the most glaring example of failure wasn’t Party-Boy Mike?
No executive covered themselves with glory during Katrina and the aftermath, but the most glaring example of failure was Mayor Nagin.
Remember the arial pictures of all of those busses sitting in flooded motorpools, busses that could have been used to transport thousands of people to safety ?
That was Nagin’s call.
Remember how the Red Cross was prohibited from setting up aid stations at the baseball stadium, despite the presence of thousands of refugees there, because the football stadium was the “designated” refugee center ?
That was Nagin’s call.
I don’t argue that anyone’s without blame, I merely point out that the blame doesn’t fall ONLY, as you seem to be arguing, or even primarily, on the Federal response.
If so, you are seriously out of touch with most of America.
That may well be true, but my opinion is shared by the majority in N.O., LA, and I’m more willing to accept their verdict of who’s to blame than one from people who only saw bits of the disaster on television.
As for Iraq, yes, there have been some successes, but there have also been monumental failures…
…countless unnecessary deaths and maimings caused by inadequate body armor and armored vehicles.
Happens in EVERY war. It takes us a while to get up to speed, because despite our enormous defense spending, American culture isn’t a martial culture.
Look at what happened when we got involved in WW I, and our troops were equipped with the miserable machine guns that the French were using, 80% of which were no longer in service just two years later.
Look at what happened at the beginning of WW II, in Northern Africa, when our forces suffered defeat after defeat.
Look at what happened at the beginning of the Korean War – we got pushed back to the tip of the peninsula – our anti-tank rounds BOUNCED OFF of the beefed-up Chinese tanks…
As Rumsfeld famously said, we go to war with what we’ve got, not what we WISH we had. In the end, we won WW I, WW II, the Korean War, and now in Iraq.
There were even successes that were failures, like the “liberation” of Fallujah that was in fact the obliteration of Fallujah.
Had to be done.
That wasn’t part of a guerrilla campaign, or our “minimal damage” policy, that was old fashioned, fortified-wall, take-and-hold-ground warfare.
Charles the Hammer or Napoleon would have recognized the strategy.
The bottom line was, we COULD NOT afford to have territory controlled by the insurgents, not if we wanted all Iraqi factions to buy into the concept that the only way for them to survive and prosper was to struggle in the POLITICAL arena, and contest at the ballot box; and, they now all have decided to go that route.
If the insurgents had all just melted away, we could have spared the city, but as is we had to destroy it to save Iraq.
I’m sure you would find that the families of those who were killed or maimed consider these failures of this administration, particularly in the person of Don Rumsfeld.
No doubt many do, and they’ve earned the right to think what they will, but it isn’t much true.
As I’ve pointed out, some of our failures are structural, due to our culture, and not due to the decisions of any particular group of people.
After the War on Terrorists is won, and we’ve demobilized, whatever the NEXT war is will feature some of the EXACT SAME PROBLEMS.
America isn’t Sparta.
And if you seriously propose that Shia and Sunni will one day lie down like lion and lamb, I point you toward Nothern Ireland for instruction.
You mean, where the IRA has demobilized and (mostly) disarmed ?
Iran is Shia, and Arabia Sunni, and they don’t much fight.
But the largest failure of this war is that […] it has exposed just how vulnerable we are to urban guerilla warfare.
Which is to say, not much.
The urban guerrillas have killed many of our people, but have totally failed to meet a single one of their objectives thereby. THEY certainly don’t feel victorious, and with good reason.
I doubt that anyone in North Korea, China or even Iran is cowering in a corner begging to be spared our Shock and Awe.
Then they’re idiots.
America isn’t going to invade China, Iran, or NoKo; if we get into a war with them, we’re just going to bomb them back to the Stone Age.
I have no doubts whatsoever that the military leaders of those three nations recognize that we held back in Iraq, because we didn’t want to destroy facilities and infrastructure that we’d just have to rebuild later – but we will have no such concerns about THEM. Dresden is the example that they should be looking to, not Baghdad.
Further, of the three, the only one that we’re likely to engage is NoKo, which is also by far the weakest of the lot.
As for elections in Egypt, you may want to give some credit/blame to Sadat and Mubarak, as well as to Sharon for pulling back in Palestine. Surely, those events influenced “free” elections in Eypt much more than the fall of Saddam.
There were many factors, but the fall of Saddam was the largest.
As to “free”, the Islamic Brotherhood, formerly banned, now holds a third of the seats in the legislature. They feel “free”.
But again, it’s relative.
I agree that none of those elections were up to Western standards, but they were also a BIG improvement over what was the previous norm.
I expect continued progress.
[O]nly time will tell which of us is more of the realist.
Indeed.