A new look at our political detainees

Warning: Some of the photos below are explicit and shocking. But, then again, so is our treatment of political prisoners on President Bush's watch. Anyway, proceed accordingly.

Chris Jordan, a Photoshop political activist (I just made that up - I don't know what else to call him), does some amazing work. I've posted about him before, but his latest creation and political statement is a pretty powerful one.

From his Website:

Constitution, 2008
8 x 25 feet in five panels

Depicts 83,000 Abu Ghraib prisoner photographs, equal to the number of people who have been arrested and held at US-run detention facilities with no trial or other due process of law, during the Bush Administration's war on terror.

You can often catch his work in full scale at different appearances around the country. He currently doesn't have any a appearances listed, but check back to his site often. It's worth it.

(Click any of the photos below for a larger view)

View one...



View two...



A closer view...



Close-up of actual Abu Ghraib photos...

Again, as the election approaches, let's not forget what has happened in our name at Guantánamo Bay, in Iraq and elsewhere; all permitted to happen by the Bush administration and its enablers, a list which John McCain sits atop of.

Gen. Taguba: US guilty of war crimes

Similar to how Attytood worded it yesterday, the headline above doesn't come from a partisan Website, or from Keith Olbermann or Air America Radio - it comes from a retired hero, Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, the general that President Bush asked to look into our military disgrace, Abu Ghraib. From the Boston Herald:

WASHINGTON - A Cambridge-based human rights organization said it has found medical evidence supporting the claims of 11 former detainees who were allegedly tortured while in American custody between 2001 and 2004, in what a former top U.S. military investigator said amounts to evidence of war crimes.

Medical evaluations of the former inmates found injuries consistent with the alleged abuse, including the psychological effects of sensory deprivation and forced nudity as well as signs of "severe physical and sexual assault," Physicians for Human Rights said in a report scheduled for release today.

The report also alleges that in four of the cases, American health professionals appeared to have been complicit by denying the detainees medical care and observing the abuse but making no effort to stop it - charges that, if true, represent gross violations of medical ethics.

Incidentally, of the 11 mentioned in the report above detained at Guantánamo, Afghanistan or Iraq was ever charged with a crime. Their fate? The doctors found:

One detainee who said he was repeatedly stabbed in the cheek with a screwdriver had wounds consistent with such treatment, the doctors reported. Another who said his captors sodomized him also had physical signs that supported the allegation, while several others had burns and psychological problems the doctors concluded were consistent with electrical shocks.

Above, Barbara Starr yesterday gave a report on CNN about Taguba's opinion on what went on at Abu Ghraib. A partial transcript:

Starr: One thing perhaps worth noting in this report, Heidi, is the forward, the preface to the report was written by retired Major General Anthony Teguba. [right] He's the army general [who] led the investigation into the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. in this report the general says, "there is no longer any doubt that the current administration committed war crimes."

The only question is whether those who ordered torture will be held into account. Pretty tough words from a man very well regarded inside the army when he conducted the investigation into Abu Ghraib. For its part, the Pentagon continues to say that it deals with detainees in a humane fashion, that there is no policy toward torture, and if there was any misconduct, any abuse, it was in violation of government policy. but this report clearly a pretty damning indictment if it stands on its own.

I distinctly remember the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh bending over backward (metaphorically, of course, because we know Rush couldn't really do that without a fistful of OxyCodone). Limbaugh even went so far as to say that it appeared that troops who were torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib were "blowing off steam." Hmm, I guess if blowing off steam were a synonym for torture, then he's be in the ballpark there. Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy that this report concludes what it does - far from it. Something like this isn't a stain on the military - it's a stain on America.

However, I'm not holding my breath that the likes of Limbaugh, O'Reilly or Hannity are going to apologize anytime soon.

As for Taguba, a highly decorated officer who gave 34 years of his life to the military? He was ordered to retire in in 2006 no later than January 2007 by by Gen. Richard Cody, the Army's Vice Chief of Staff. No explanation was given as to why he was being ordered to retire.

Thus ended a 34-year military career, all because he did his duty and reported the ugly truth about Abu Ghraib. Maybe now those responsible within the Bush administration will be held responsible. I'm not holding my breath, since our Democratically controlled Congress has shown little backbone in punishing those in the Bush administration who deserve it.

Must see: Bush accuses UK journalist of "slander"

The George W. Bush European farewell tour continues to Wow, but for all the wrong reasons. Yesterday, during an interview with Adam Boulton, a British journalist with Sky News, Bush accused him of slander, for having the temerity to bring up the Bush embarrassments of Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. Watch the video above. A partial transcript:

BOULTON: And yet there are those who would say, look, let's take Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib and rendition and all those things, and to them that is the, you know, the complete opposite of freedom.

BUSH: Of course if you want to slander America, you can look at it one way. But you go down — what you need to do — I think I suggested you do this at a press conference — if you go down to Guantánamo and take a look at how these prisoners are treated — and they're working it through our court systems. We are a land of law.

Really?!? "Working it through our court systems?!?" Where is our president headed next, Comedy Central? The Supreme Court recently ruled against the Bush administration regarding the prisoners at Gitmo (basically) having any rights whatsoever. The Guantánamo detainees now have the right to appeal their cases in our legal system (which, by the way, has the right-wing neo-cons all in a tizzy, but more on that in a minute).

It gets better - check out this exchange:

BOULTON: But the Supreme Court have just said that — you know, ruled against what you’ve been doing down there.

BUSH: But the district court didn't. And the appellate court didn't.

BOULTON: The Supreme Court is supreme, isn't it?

Wow - it just went downhill from there. I guess we should all be grateful that Bush "accepts" the Supreme Court's decision. And I'd like to know just what "law" Bush is referring to? The USA PATRIOT Act? The 1,100+ document that members of Congress had mere hours to read before it was rammed through a Congress ruled by Republican majorities? That law? Sure, it passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress, but legislators were under tremendous pressure to "do something" in the wake of 9-11, even if that "something" turned out to be a bad thing. A few years later, when the Act came under review, I distinctly remember the likes of Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, etc. questioning critics' patriotism, decrying that they were "siding with the terrorists." I know - it seems pretty absurd to read it now, and to some unbelievable, but it did happen.

History will also reflect that Bush has been rebuked by a conservative Supreme Court, time and time again, regarding the detainees at Gitmo regarding habeas corpus, military tribunals, and their rights to fight their charges in U.S. courts.

I'd say that Bush should be embarrassed, but he passed that signpost a long, long time ago (perhaps when he was busy running oil companies into the ground and profiting from it).

Bush just got bested by a British journalist, and he revealed something that anyone with a brain has known since he first was appointed to the presidency (& that I've been complaining about for at least that long) - when a court rules in favor of the Bush administration, Bush has nothing to say (but he's no doubting high-fiving his aides and sycophants in the West Wing), but when a ruling goes against the administration, Bush decries "activist judges" who are "legislating from the bench."

Honestly, Bush has pretty much lost the ability to surprise me, but this one even had me reeling for a Philadelphia minute. Click Here to see the full transcript, as well as the full interview, if you can stomach it.

Enjoy. Or cry.

h/t C&L

Some Sunday comics, a bit late

So, Toyota is now the global king. The only amazing thing is that it took so long. I sure hope GM can turn it around, but the company is hamstrung by the astronomical costs of its pension and medical care costs.

I'll discuss the Pat Tillman fiasco in a separate post, but in short, it's one of the most disgraceful chapters in U.S. military history. At this point, I can't say I'm surprised, though - nothing from this administration surprises me anymore. Aside from Tillman's death, the most tragic thing about the whole incident is that no one will be held responsible for it. I'm not even talking so much about the friendly fire, which is a tragedy, but the cover-up and the lying by the U.S. government to the Tillman family. However, like Abu Ghraib and Haditha, it's unlikely that anyone within the highest reaches of the Pentagon or the Bush administration will be held responsible.

The $400 John Edwards haircut is an embarrassment to him and his campaign, but the press coverage about this whole thing has been nothing short of amazing.

I'm not defending it - it's inexcusable. Anyone who was going to donate money to his campaign will probably be thinking twice. Had he paid for it himself, it would not have been disclosed. What was Edwards thinking? The answer is, he wasn't, because if he was, he would not have put this on the campaign books. You know what, though? Each and every campaign, and candidate, has these skeletons in his or her closet.

Anyone catch the stories about Rudy Giuliani and all of this rock-star like demands when he makes a campaign appearance? You probably didn't, because it got virtually no mainstream media coverage.

In addition to his $100,000 speaking fee, during his private speaking tours, he requires to be shuttled to and from speaking events in a Gulfstream IV private jet. You can read more about his demands Here and at the Smoking Gun, which obtained a copy of a Giuliani contract. Evidently, Oklahoma State released one of his contracts, sick of his unusually high demands.

Anyone want to argue that he's not using any campaign cash improperly? C'mon, they all are, without question. I have a hard time believing that a guy like Rudy, who's used to first-class treatment in every way, is all of a sudden going to be flying commercial.

During the 2000 campaign, it was revealed that then-candidate George W. Bush spent over $100 a minute.

Or, how about John McCain's all-expenses-paid trip to Iraq, so he could try and end his embarrassment stemming from his disastrous appearance on CNN just days before, where he blithely chided Wolf Blitzer for not knowing the facts on Iraq.

Again, I'm not saying that Edwards' behavior should be excused. It shouldn't. He won't get a dime out of me, even if he becomes the nominee. But, my point is all of the presidential candidates undoubtedly have lavish expenses. That doesn't make it right, either, but to single out Edwards is laughable.

You have to be able to read Spanish to know where this cartoon is coming from, and this one is right on. (It reads, "Why all the violence?")

I'm happy that finally, someone is actually going to take the time to examine all of this actions in a legal way. (Of course we know his work isn't always respectful, but that doesn't make it illegal. But, the likelihood that he did something illegal is all but certain, in my mind.)

Boris Yeltsin will be remembered as the first democratically elected president in Russian history. He probably was the right man at the right time. Like all leaders, he had his flaws, but, unlike Mikhail Gorbachev, who wanted to reform the communist party, Yeltsin wanted it abolished. Yeltsin took Russia toward democracy, and Vladimir Putin is taking Russia away from it.

Speaks for itself.

Speaks for itself, Part II.

How many people thought that Sheryl Crow was actually serious in suggesting we should all wipe with one sheet of toilet paper? Many in the mainstream media did. I don't know I'd want to shake her hand without a latex glove on, but I took it as the joke it was when it first starting making the rounds of the MSM.

Yep, this is about right. I find it absurd and preposterous that five Catholic men on the Supreme Court are imposing their beliefs on every woman in America. What's more, if my wife's life is in danger if she were to become pregnant, she can't have an abortion after a certain amount of time has elapsed. Or, if the baby is afflicted with a certain fatal birth defect or disorder, the pregnancy can't be ended. That's how I interpret it, and it sickens me.

Oh, and Partial-Birth Abortion is a euphemism coined by the Pro-Life movement - it's a non-medical term for Intact Dilation and Extraction.

The Supreme Court's decision sickens me and the pic at right illustrates exactly how I feel about the Supreme Court and its horrific decision. I can't think of a better reason to vote Democrat in 2008 - Roe v. Wade has never been more in jeopardy than it is right now, along with many other civil liberties and rights with the George W. Bush-stocked Supreme Court.

What's more, people should look into exactly what the procedure is, and more importantly, how often it is (was) used. According to the Guttenmacher Institute, the procedure has had a very low rate of usage, representing 0.17 percent (2,232 of 1,313,000 abortions) of all abortions performed in the U.S. in 2000.

Brit soldiers not given VIP treatment in Iran

Above, Left to Right: Joe Tindall, Arthur Batchelor, Chris Air, Felix Carman, Adam Sperry and Simon Massey during a press conference.

*****

Can anyone honestly say they're surprised to hear this news? It seems as if Iran didn't exactly give the VIP treatment to the 15 British soldiers that it held captive for 13 days. I can think of five reasons why I wasn't surprised to hear the news...

It doesn't take a diplomat to figure out that the British hostages weren't going to be treated, ahem, kindly while held captive in Iran. It shouldn't take a diplomat to figure out why.

Great Britain is our closest ally - in many ways, our fates are linked when it comes to the War in Iraq. Since the UK has marched in lockstep with the US during this war, that quite naturally makes British soldiers a target, as well as American GIs.

Our enemies certainly know this, and I can guarantee that not one of our enemies will ever forget the images like the ones above that came out of Abu Ghraib. As soon as I heard the news that English soldiers were taken hostage by Iran, I shuddered at the thought of the treatment they were going to get at the hands of their captors.

Earlier today, the British soldiers confirmed what many feared would be their fate while in captivity. During a press conference, seven of the soldiers discussed some of the unpleasant aspects of their captivity, including:

• Being blindfolded and subjected to interrogation
• Being told they faced seven years in prison if they did not "confess"
• The soldiers stated that Iranians entered Iraqi waters deliberately to detain them, and that fighting back was not an option
• They were 1.7 nautical miles away from Iranian waters
• Psychological pressure and mind games
• Faye Turney (the only woman held hostage) was isolated in a cell away from the rest of the crew

This kind of puts Abu Ghraib into perspective a little bit. THIS is just one of the reasons that so many people were upset when the scandal broke, including me. First and foremost, it's immoral and a national disgrace - the U.S. cannot and should never, under any circumstances that I can think of, condone such behavior from anyone in its armed forces.

But, the other argument against using such techniques against POWs, enemy combatants, or whatever you wish to call them, is that our soldiers or soldiers of our allies may also be taken prisoner. Besides being morally wrong, this is the principle reason that it's never, ever a good idea to torture prisoners - what goes around has the potential to come around.

I'm very happy and grateful that our friends across the pond are home safe and that nothing terribly bad happened to them, but all accounts I've been reading. (Although I'm quite certain that their time in Tehran was no picnic.)

This really could have escalated into an international incident, and I'm very thankful that it didn't.

A quick footnote to this incident - Tony Blair, for all of the heat he's taken for his almost blind devotion to President Bush and the U.S. War in Iraq, handled this incident exactly as an experienced, in-control politician should.

I wonder how President Bush and Dick Cheney would have handled this if the 15 captives in Iran were American soldiers. I will go to my grave believing that if Democrats would not have taken control of Congress last November, this very well could have led to war between Iran and the United States.

One last thought (at least for this post) about Abu Ghraib - I can still remember Rush Limbaugh saying this about the prison scandal:

(From a New Republic article about his comments, which refer to Limbaugh's comments on his May 5, 2004 radio show)

This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation, and we're going to ruin people's lives over it, and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You [ever] heard of need to blow some steam off?

(From Rush Limbaugh's Website)

I'm sorry, folks. I'm sorry. Somebody has to provide a little levity here. This is not as serious as everybody is making it out to be. My gosh, we're all wringing our hands here. We act like, 'Okay let's just die,' you know? 'Let's just give up. What can we do to make these people feel better? Let's just pull out of there, and let's just go. Let's just become a neutral country. Let's just do that.' I mean, it's ridiculous. It's outrageous what's happening here, and it's not -- and it's not because I'm out of touch; it's because I am in touch, folks, that I can understand. This is a pure, media-generated story. I'm not saying it didn't happen; I'm [not] saying the pictures aren't there, but this is being given more life than the Waco invasion got. This is being given more life than almost - it's almost become an Oklahoma City-type thing.

I would love for Rush to spend a few weeks in an Iranian prison camp, or better yet, one run by Al-Qaeda, and have the exact things done to him that a few of our soldiers did to prisoners at Abu Ghraib. But, he's so stupid, I doubt it would even make a difference.

It really is proof positive that regardless of the abuses and misdeeds by our federal government, as long as Republicans are in power, there is a certain element of society that will defend their every action. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter lead the way.

Ex-Bush aide: Kerry was right

This was pretty big news this past weekend - ex-presidential aide Matthew Dowd has spoken out against President Bush, and in a very unequivocal, public way.

Dowd, a former Democrat who was not happy with many things during the Clinton Presidency, was taken in by Bush's messages of "restoring honor and integrity to the Oval Office" and bringing bipartisanship and cooperation to Washington. Dowd switched parties and remained with Bush for the next six years, serving as Bush's chief campaign strategist during the 2004 election.

However, many events began to change his mind - Abu Gharib, Bush's refusal to meet with Cindy Sheehan, the decision to keep Donald Rumsfeld on after a number of missteps, and the renomination of former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton.

"I really like him, which is probably why I’m so disappointed in things," he said during an interview with The New York Times. He added, "I think he's become more, in my view, secluded and bubbled in."

During his NYT interview, Dowd stated his faith in Bush's ability was misplaced, and he called for a withdraw from Iraq. In retrospect, Dowd says his faith in Bush was misplaced. You've got plenty of company, Mr. Dowd.

He asserted in the interview that Bush "still approached governing with a 'my way or the highway' mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides." What a surprise.

Dowd said he decided to go public with his disagreement with the administration because his disappointment was so great. He also reasoned he felt an obligation to speak out now because he played a part in Bush's electoral victories.

The most powerful passage from the Times article comes here:

Mr. Dowd, a crucial part of a team that cast Senator John Kerry as a flip-flopper who could not be trusted with national security during wartime, said he had even written but never submitted an op-ed article titled "Kerry Was Right," arguing that Mr. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat and 2004 presidential candidate, was correct in calling last year for a withdrawal from Iraq.

"I'm a big believer that in part what we're called to do — to me, by God; other people call it karma — is to restore balance when things didn’t turn out the way they should have," Mr. Dowd said. "Just being quiet is not an option when I was so publicly advocating an election."

Even more outrageous, and in retrospect, sad, it what Dowd had to say in the interview about Kerry's qualifications to lead a strong national defense:

In television interviews in 2004, Mr. Dowd said that Mr. Kerry’s campaign was proposing "a weak defense," and that the voters "trust this president more than they trust Senator Kerry on Iraq."

But he was starting to have his own doubts by then, he said.

He said he thought Mr. Bush handled the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks well but "missed a real opportunity to call the country to a shared sense of sacrifice."

The two events that hardened Dowd's resolve to speak out against Bush happened during the summer of 2005, said Dowd: the president's poor decisions regarding Hurricane Katrina, and Bush's refusal to meet with Cindy Sheehan around the same time that he was entertaining Tour de France Champion Lance Armstrong at his Crawford ranch, said Dowd during the interview.

His thought process was further influenced by working with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger during his 2006 campaign, which had a theme of broad, bi-partisan appeal. (I can relate to Dowd's thinking here - Arnold is most definitely a Republican I would consider voting for were he eligible to run for president, which he is not.)

"I think we should design campaigns that appeal not to 51 percent of the people," said Dowd, "but bring the country together as a whole.

"If the American public says [it's] done with something, our leaders have to understand what they want," Dowd said. "They’re saying, 'Get out of Iraq.'"

Pretty powerful statements from one of Bush's inner circle. This is by no means a crippling blow, but it comes at a time when Bush needs as few of these stories as possible in the media.

While it's about three years too late, I applaud Dowd for his courage - it's not a stretch that Bush's Rasputin, Karl Rove, will avenge Dowd's change of heart in whatever way he can.

Photos from AP via The Huffington Post

To clarify: Abu Ghraib & My Lai

My dad sent me an e-mail tonight about my post yesterday, and he rightly made the point that My Lai and Abu Ghraib are two totally different animals that aren't even in the same ballpark.

He's right.

However, I don't think I adequately explained what I meant.

My Lai and Abu Ghraib aren't comparable on just about every level, without question.

At My Lai, innocent Vietnamese villagers were slaughtered by American soldiers, including women and children. (The actual number who were murdered is disputed - I've read just over 100 in some articles, nearly 350 in another, and 504 on Wikipedia's Website. Wikipedia is an openly edited site, so anything you read on that site should be verified by reputable sources.) Even on the low end, My Lai was a tragedy with few equals in American history.

Abu Ghraib didn't involved hundreds of people dying, but it was a severe abuse of authority, and a severe breach of morality on the part of American soldiers.

The only parallel I was attempting to draw between Abu Ghraib and My Lai was the impact those two events had in the context of the two wars when they occurred. No more, no less.

From a human life perspective, comparing these two tragedies would be like comparing a firecracker to a hydrogen bomb.

I've had a lifelong love affair with similes and metaphors, but sometimes I guess the comparison isn't always successful or obvious.

Teddy: We've lost the moral authority

In less than 48 hours, the documentary film Ghosts of Abu Ghraib premieres on HBO. The film is directed by Rory Kennedy, the youngest child of Senator Robert F. Kennedy and Ethel Kennedy. By most accounts that I've read ahead of time, the film packs a pretty powerful punch, and how could it not, considering the subject matter?

In a column today on Arianna Huffington's Website, Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy has a point when he says that "It may well be the steepest and deepest fall from grace in our history."

"Yet at every opportunity, the Administration has tried to minimize the problem and avoid responsibility for it," he wrote.

Like Teddy or hate him, how can a logical person who has even passively followed the Abu Ghraib fiasco disagree, regardless of political persuasion? The most frightening part of the abuse and torture tragedy is that there are Americans who feel that nothing wrong occurred at the prison. Count Rush Limbaugh among them, who infamously said that all he saw in the photographs were "soldiers having a good time." Sick, demented, sad and preposterous.

Quick aside about Ted Kennedy, by the way. Can Republicans possibly be any more trite than bringing up Chappaquiddick every five minutes? Probably my favorite Republican bumper sticker of all time reads, Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns. My reply to that bumper sticker would be this: George Bush's Iraq War has killed more Americans than 3,000 of Ted Kennedy's cars. No question Kennedy got off easy and that Mary Jo Kopechne's death was tragic, but to hear some people tell it, he killed her in cold blood and walked away scott free. Politics aside, does anyone really believe that? Teddy's got a lot of warts, most self-inflicted, and that scandal tops the list, but he's done a lot of good for our country, too. Oh yea, and can we all agree that he and his members of his have made some pretty tragic sacrifices because they wanted to serve their country? Okay, Kennedy rant over.

Kennedy's right - the images are still disturbing to look at. I remember the shock, horror and disbelief I felt when I first saw the images.

In my lifetime, since I've been old enough to remember and follow politics, I can't think of any single event (Aside from the current War in Iraq itself) that has damaged our credibility and moral standing with the rest of the world more than Abu Ghraib.

I'll rephrase - Abu Ghraib is my generation's My Lai. Okay, that might be overstating the case a bit - over 100 innocent Vietnamese were killed in that tragedy. I'm not suggesting that Abu Ghraib is equal, I'm merely suggesting that its impact is equal.

We are America - we are supposed to stand for Democracy, freedom, peace and human rights. This war has put all four of those into doubt, and Abu Ghraib only exacerbated our free fall as the moral authority in the free world.

Adding to many Americans' frustration is the lack of any sort of in-depth, independent investigation of the scandal. In the days following Abu Ghraib going public, the Bush Administration seemed more intent at castigating those who exposed the scandal than getting to the bottom of what happened. And I won't even recap the absurdity of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's comments.

Kennedy writes:

What we got instead were nine incomplete and self-serving internal investigations by the Pentagon. None of the investigators were given the authority to challenge the conduct of the civilian command. The report of the Schlesinger Panel found that abuses were "widespread" and that there was "both institutional and personal responsibility at higher levels." But Secretary Rumsfeld refused to let the panel to consider personal accountability for the abuses.

The Republican rubber-stamp Congress was complicit in the Administration's efforts to evade responsibility.

I know that the DemocratIC Congress has better things to do right now, like determining whether to fund President Bush's troop escalation, but once time permits, I certainly hope Congress initiates a bona fide investigation into Abu Ghraib, one with teeth and subpoena power.

Don't forget to check out Ghosts of Abu Ghraib, which premieres this Thursday night on HBO at 9:30 p.m. ET/PT.

Freedom: An awesome video

This video just blew me away. It was sent to me by my friend Lisa, so I'm bringing it to you. It's from YouTube, and it's by "Anonymous," but it should be labeled "Genius."

I haven't seen any political video this poignant since President George W. Bush has been in office.

Of particular note in this video - images of maimed soldiers, flag-draped coffins and Abu Ghraib. I don't get any pleasure out of seeing any of these photos, but American citizens, before they "Support the Troops" and glorify war, should know the real cost of war (more specifically, SEE the toll of war). But, our government doesn't want you to see these images - it goes through great lengths to prevent pictures like these from reaching the American public - and that's flat out wrong. Right now, the only people who truly know the human cost of war are the friends and family of those killed in Iraq. We should all know what is being done in our name, as Americans. (Oh, and for the record, I know the ban on images of American coffins started under President Clinton, not Bush; and Clinton ought to be ashamed of himself. However, that doesn't absolve Bush of responsibility from continuing the practice.)

Above, some of our war dead, taking the form of the self-described "War-time President." To see a larger image of this pic, click Here.

Let me clarify what I mean. I'm not hoping for pictures of flag-draped coffins splashed across the front pages of every major newspaper and news magazine in America, but it's wrong that the military bans those pictures. But, if this senseless slaughter continues, maybe that is precisely what we need for the American people (and politicians) to wake up & realize that this war is wrong, and the whole premise for having started it was also false.

Just thought I'd share this video with you - I'm going to permanently put it on my blog down the right side, because I think it's that poignant. So, give it a watch, then watch it again to get the true feel of it. I think I've watched it about eight times since Lisa sent it to me.