Olbermann on war crimes by W's cabal

This one's a little old, but it still merits a mention. Just under a few weeks ago, Keith Olbermann unleashed a tirade against the Bush administration for its conduct in Iraq. After thinking about it, Olbermann clarified his remarks backed up his proverbial bus, and ran over Bush and his war-making cabal again, calling some of them (including Bush, and presumably, Dick Cheney) "cold blooded killers." I won't apologize for agreeing with him.

Bush and many in his cabinet (but not all, as Olbermann rightfully points out) almost certainly deserve to be tried for war crimes. It's a pretty sticky issue that many would take offense to - so be it. But, any American who can possibly even try to evaluate and analyze the War in Iraq objectively would almost certainly come to the conclusion that if Bush were the leader of another country, invading a neighbor, the U.S. would most likely be up in arms, beating the drums of righteous indignation, calling for a war crimes trial. Oh wait, haven't we already done that? Slobodan Milošević and Saddam Hussein are two recent examples that come to mind, specifically Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, an invasion we went to war over. Desert Storm was a farce in many (but not all) ways. We certainly weren't liberating a democracy, that's for sure. But, I digress.

Anyway, it's important to note that neither Olbermann nor probably the overwhelming majority of liberals (including me) lump our troops under the statement or thoughts behind his label "cold blooded killers." Olbermann in the footage above rightly classifies them as the heroes they truly are, and on this Memorial Day, it's worth mentioning again that we can and must give them the resources they will need, for the rest of their lives, to confront, combat and conquer the physical and emotional obstacles that await them once they return home from battle.

This administration and those who support it make great sport of constantly repeating, over and over, the slogan of this war by many on the home front: Support the Troops. Well, Supporting the Troops is going to take a lot more than putting a ribbon on your car in the coming years. Yet, thus far, this administration has done little more than just that for returning troops, and for many troops in the field, some of whom have had to go without adequate body armor, etc.

At the end of his Special Comment, Olbermann takes one final swipe at two of his critics by saying, "Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin, why do you hate our troops?" I don't know what he's specifically referring to there, but that's bound to stoke the flames of partisan bickering in the weeks and months to come, which will surprise no one. But, in the end, Olbermann is spot on for calling out this administration for its massive, criminal negligence in not giving our troops what they need.

Olbermann truly is a voice in the wilderness - an island of reality in a sea of diarrhea that passes for what many call our "free press," which should be called what it really is - our corporate media. Frankly, it's a miracle that NBC lets him air his show at all. Make no mistake - it's only because there's money to be made, not because of his political views.

63 years ago today: D-Day

In the world we live in today, it just seems so incomprehensible - virtually the entire continent of Europe under the thumb of Adolf Hitler, a dictator so brutal, he makes Saddam Hussein seem like Beaver Cleaver. (Above, the blue represents Nazi-occupied territory in Europe)

Sixty-three years ago today, Operation Overlord set out to change all of that. Its success was anything but assured. That too is something that is tough to comprehend today - during the whole time while I was growing up, whenever World War II was discussed in any of my classes, study always centered around our victory against Germany and Japan, but back then, leaders at the highest levels of our military weren't at all sure the plan would be a success. So much so, that General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander Allied Expeditionary Force in Europe, had a draft of speech written he would read in case Overlord failed.

Hundreds of years from now, billions of people will be grateful the Allies did not fail.

Above, troops approach Omaha Beach, into a firestorm and bloodbath I will never be able to comprehend, no matter how many books I read or movies I see.

Troops take to the beach. Facing a hail of gunfire from waiting German troops, as well as bombardment from German 88s, Allied troops were lambs to the slaughter in many instances. Survivors have told stories of how troops drowned from all weight of the equipment they had to carry, some were murdered in boats before they ever got off the boat, and others were cut down on the beach, where there was no cover whatsoever. It's amazing that the troops were able to get a foothold on the beach at all.

The price of victory to get a foothold on Europe was heavy, for both sides. The Allies lost 29,000 during D-Day operations, while the Germans lost 23,019 (Wikipedia), but the true number of dead will never be known. One thing's for sure - the water turned red from the slaughter; all for the cause of freedom.

It has been said so many times, but it will never be a cliché - we owe the World War II generation a debt of gratitude that can never be repaid.

There's hope after all for amnesic GOPers

This is one of the better parodies I've seen this year - I got a big kick out of it. It's the Ronald Reagan defense - "I can't/don't remember." (Although Reagan most famously said "recall.")

Bin Laden should have been in this commercial, too, because Bush and his cabal sure as hell don't remember (don't want to remember) that HE and his organization are responsible for 9-11, not Saddam Hussein.

Ike was right

On January 17, 1961, three days before he left office, President Dwight Eisenhower warned:

"...we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex... Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

If there is a supreme being, and I believe there is, Ike is looking down on the current state of affairs in this country, shaking his head, and saying "I told you so."

The ineptitude of our Department of Defense seems to get more and more appalling by the year. The defense budget is over half of a trillion dollars per year, and yet, the department can't account for over a trillion dollars in allocated money. It's just unbelievable.

Amazingly enough, the DoD asks for more.

Seeing Donald Rumsfeld again is a buzz kill - his obfuscations and intentionally vague answers are about what I'd expect.

It's startling that we sell so much of our defense technology to other countries when it comes back to bite us in the rear end so much. Iraq and Osama bin Laden are two of the more glaring examples (and errors) of this often ill-advised policy.

The irony isn't lost on me that we funded and armed Hussein in the 1980s during Iraq's war with Iran (and turned a blind eye to his chemical weapons use and mass slaughter to tens of thousands). We also armed Osama bin Laden to the teeth in the 1980s in his fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

I'd like to say that some day our political leaders will learn, but they haven't shown any indication that they are about to change.

Saddam -- the new Janet Jackson?

Above is the real deal - video of Saddam Hussein being hanged. Honestly, is anyone surprised that a video of this leaked out?

I knew it was only a matter of time.

This morning on Today, it was reported that the man who took this video with his cell phone has been arrested. Arrested for what?

Vandra put it best this morning when she said that this video will probably be some sort of watershed moment, much like this one...



...that will bring calls to regulate the Internet. You can bet your tax return that there will be a massive, post-Janet-like movement to regulate the 'Net now - people complaining about invasions of privacy with accompanying complaints about videos like these always find their way to the 'Net.

I can guarantee you one thing -- I will do everything in my power to fight any regulation. The Internet is the final frontier in the mass media where corporate control isn't the norm. Yes, there is a downside to having such a wide-open medium, but the upside is freedom of expression.

This is the same argument that has been raging for decades, but it's not news that you have to take the good with the bad in a society where you have freedom of expression, whether its Baltimore or Baghdad.

A few more thoughts on the Saddam video.

1. Why weren't people who were permitted to view the execution searched for cell phones, if the U.S. Military and the Iraqis were so concerned with video of it getting out? I have to tolerate everything but a Magnum flashlight being shoved up my rear end when boarding an airplane, so the same measures could have been taken during the execution.

2. It also cracks me up that everyone (in our government and the Iraqi government) is so upset about this video hitting the 'Net. If both wanted to keep it so secret and were concerned about video getting out and/or reaction, see #1, and also, don't execute the guy. Throw him in jail for 50 years, and let the homeboys have their way with him.

3. No, my heart's not broken that he's gone. But, that doesn't change my opinion on this dumb and misguided war, and the criminally inept way that it's being fought.

Again, mark it down - don't be surprised if you see a movement to regulate the Internet in some way, some time soon. It's a typical political ploy - the minute news gets out that you don't like, "there must be regulation!" It's only a matter of time, people. If Saddam's hanging doesn't touch off a massive movement to regulate the 'Net, another controversy will.

Snow: "Crazy" we'd influence Saddam trial

When the going gets tough, the tough get better PR.

My prediction earlier today that Bush and his blowhards would be licking themselves all over about the Hussein verdict has come to pass, and there shouldn't be one person in American surprised by this latest PR gimmick.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, decried the assertion as "absolutely crazy" that the Bush administration had anything to do with the verdict being announced so close to the election. I'd be surprised if Snow's own mother would believe him. Bush and Snow are both fucking liars.

(According to Media Matters, Snow told CNBC on November 2 that the Saddam Hussein verdict "will be a factor" in the midterm elections.)

Consider these facts: this administration has a well-established track record of smearing anyone who stands in the way of it or its party holding onto power, both in the presidential election and in Congressional races (consider John Murtha, John Kerry, Max Cleland, among others); this administration wanted to prevent the 9-11 Commission from reporting its findings until after the 2004 presidential election; Bush said a few weeks ago, with a straight face, that he was never for "Stay the Course" when, over the past three years since the war began, anyone who has heard him speak on Iraq has heard him mutter that phrase; and how about the Valerie Plame Affair? Anyone remember Bush publicly stating that "anyone involved in leaking" in the case "would be fired"? Karl Rove has given public testimony that he was the source to some reporters in the case.

I could blog for three days straight about the lies of Bush and those who work for him. These people will do and say anything to stay in power. Now, we're to believe that it's a wild coincidence that the verdict was announced 48 hours before a critical mid-term election, when it's been widely reported that the verdict and sentencing wasn't due until mid-November? Umm Hmm. On to the ridiculousness. ...

According to AP, Snow said voters "ought to be heartened" by the verdict. "This is getting the Iraqis to stand up on their own. You can't have civil society without rule of law."

The hilarity continued when Bush resumed campaigning this morning.

Bush spun Saddam's conviction and sentence for maximum political effect. "They've sacrificed for the security of the United States," said Bush. "Without their courage and skill, today's verdict would not have happened."

"Today we witnessed a landmark event in the history of Iraq," Bush said on the campaign trail in Western Nebraska.

No, Mr. President. What we witnessed today was classic Wag the Dog. I hope and pray American voters, many of whom are fed up with your lies, deceit and failed policy in Iraq and at home, aren't fooled on Tuesday.

Rummy & Saddam met one year after executions

Rumsfeld shakes the hand of a man condemned to death: Rummy shakes hands with Hussein on December 20, 1983. (Hussein was just found guilty in the execution of 148 men and boys on July 8, 1982 in the Shiite city of Dujail after a purported assassination attempt against him.)

For those of you who think I'm making up the whole "Saddam used to be OUR dictator" slant, check out picture above. The Huffington Post is running a caption contest for this pic - enter that Here. There are lots of declassified documents about this encounter, and they make for some very interesting reading.

You can read the declassified stuff Here, but I'll give you the cliff notes:

**A U.S. cable recording the December 20, 1983 conversation between Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein. Although Rumsfeld said during a September 21, 2002 CNN interview, "In that visit, I cautioned him about the use of chemical weapons, as a matter of fact, and discussed a host of other things," the document indicates there was no mention of chemical weapons. Rumsfeld did raise the issue in his subsequent meeting with Iraqi official Tariq Aziz.
National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114 of November 26, 1983, "U.S. Policy toward the Iran-Iraq War," delineating U.S. priorities: the ability to project military force in the Persian Gulf and to protect oil supplies, without reference to chemical weapons or human rights concerns.

**National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 139 of April 5, 1984, "Measures to Improve U.S. Posture and Readiness to Respond to Developments in the Iran-Iraq War," focusing again on increased access for U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf and enhanced intelligence-gathering capabilities. The directive calls for "unambiguous" condemnation of chemical weapons use, without naming Iraq, but places "equal stress" on protecting Iraq from Iran's "ruthless and inhumane tactics." The directive orders preparation of "a plan of action designed to avert an Iraqi collapse."

**U.S. and Iraqi consultations about Iran's 1984 draft resolution seeking United Nations Security Council condemnation of Iraq's chemical weapons use. Iraq conveyed several requests to the U.S. about the resolution, including its preference for a lower-level response and one that did not name any country in connection with chemical warfare; the final result complied with Iraq's requests.

**The 1984 public U.S. condemnation of chemical weapons use in the Iran-Iraq war, which said, referring to the Ayatollah Khomeini's refusal to agree to end hostilities until Saddam Hussein was ejected from power, "The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims."

***

How inconvenient for Rummy and Bush. Hmmm, here's a wild prediction - they'll lie and deny their way out of this inconvenient fact, if it even gets any press.

Saddam verdict due NOV. 5!

CNN is reporting that the verdict in the Saddam Hussein trial is due on November 5, two days before the coming election.

Honestly, should anyone, Republican or Democrat, be surprised by this latest Karl Rove / President Bush manipulation? I know I'm sure as hell not.

It's perfectly obvious that the American people want change, but the million dollar question is, will they get it?

When I see an interview late last week of Karl Rove scoffing at a reporter about the anticipated losses, and he mutters, "You can look at your math, I'll look at THE math." It makes you wonder.

I'll be writing a lot more about stolen elections this week - I've done a lot of reading on the 2000 and 2004 elections recently, and what I've read is more than troubling.

It's also important to note that this isn't the first time this administration has manipulated events in Iraq to influence the outcome of an election.

As as reported in Media Matters, the LA Times reported on October 11, 2004, that the Bush administration planned to delay major assaults on insurgent strongholds in Iraq until after the 2004 U.S. presidential election, fearing large numbers of U.S. military casualties.

Recently, as Media Matters noted, on the October 24 broadcast of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, CBS News White House correspondent Jim Axelrod reported that a White House official told him, "[D]o not expect to see anything significant prior to Election Day" "as far as a significant change" in the Bush administration's Iraq policy and then quoted the official as saying: "You're not going to see anything before November 8th. It would be political suicide, and Karl Rove would never allow it."

You know, I didn't realize that Karl Rove was elected president. I totally despise him - he's the modern-day Rasputin.

It's awfully interesting, no it's tragic, that Bush has waited so long to change policy (or at least consider changing) in Iraq. This October has been the third deadliest month since the war began, and it doesn't look like it's going to get better.

Now, all of a sudden, Bush has convenient political amnesia ~ "What?!? Stay the course?!? Never said it!" I'll have more on the death of Stay the Course in a bit.