“It seems that President Bush is falling into the Nixon trap – his administration can do no wrong. His allies and people who support him can do no wrong,” said Robert Dallek, a presidential historian. “Palmeiro is above suspicion, Rove is not to be questioned, John Bolton is a stand-up guy.
“The danger is he divorces himself from public reality, political reality, and it erodes his ability to lead the country,” Dallek said.
It’s not that his administration can do no wrong. It’s that he can do no wrong. If he picked these people for his administration or for his friends, thay are, by definition, good people who are above suspicion. To say otherwise would be to admit that his judgment is imperfect and that is impossible. Dear Leader is an infallible child.
Several analysts said the Palmeiro situation illustrates that point. Bush took a strong stand against steroids in his 2004 State of the Union address, demanding that major league sports take tougher action to eliminate steroid use by athletes.
“The use of performance-enhancing drugs like steroids in baseball, football and other sports is dangerous and it sends the wrong message – that there are shortcuts to accomplishment and that performance is more important than character,” Bush said.
But when news of Palmeiro’s positive drug test and 10-day suspension by Major League Baseball became public, Bush almost instantly backed the ballplayer, saying Palmeiro spoke truthfully on March 17 when he wagged his finger at the House Government Reform Committee and emphatically denied ever using steroids.
Bush’s fondness for Palmeiro – who recently became only the fourth major league player to slam more than 500 home runs and 3,000 base hits – dates back to when Palmeiro played for the Rangers under Bush’s ownership.
“Rafael Palmeiro is a friend. He testified in public and I believe him,” Bush said Monday. “He’s the kind of person that’s going to stand up in front of the klieg lights and say he didn’t use steroids, and I believe him. Still do.”
Bush’s quick defense seemed contradictory to some, in light of his previous tough talk on steroids.
“His defense in this case, so quickly, seemed like an about-face, from taking a stand to a ridiculous statement a fan might make to another fan in a bar,” said Richard Lapchick, chairman of the DeVos Sports Business Management Program at the University of Central Florida. “It certainly didn’t seem like he thought that one through.”
How unusual. And he’s usually so intellectually thorough.
Stephen Hess, a political scientist at George Washington University in Washington, believes Bush’s judgment isn’t clouded by loyalty. The president had no problem in dismissing Lawrence Lindsey, his economic adviser during the 2000 campaign and the head of his Council of Economic Advisers until his ouster in 2002.
“That showed me he’ll carry loyalty to a point – which is part of what presidents do,” Hess said.
Of course, Lindsey was let go not long after he estimated publicly that a war in Iraq could cost $200 billion, far above Bush loyalists’ line at the time, which may have been seen as disloyal. Iraq war costs will exceed $200 billion in the next year.
And he was fat. His loyalty doesn’t extend that far.
Honestly, this blind defense of Palmiero has little to do with loyalty. It’s about Bush’s faith based approach to everything. If he believes it, it must be true. He does not use reason to come to conclusions. He makes decisions based on feelings and beliefs and “instinct.” In this case, his instinct is that Palmiero is a good guy and therefore could not have lied. His “instinct” is that creationism makes sense and therefore, is as legitimate as evolution. His “instinct” was that Saddam was a threat and therefore, we had to invade.
We have a man with a child’s mind running this country. Millions of us can see this as clearly as we can see his face on our television screens. People can call me an elitist and a snob for pointing this out but I will never stop. It’s like telling me it’s rude to notice that the sun came up this morning or that gravity exists. It is observable fact that this president is intellectually stunted. I’m not going to pretend otherwise so that certain people’s feelings don’t get hurt. I’ll lose my mind.
It’s almost spooky that I’ve been writing about Novak all this week — even before he had his hissy fit yesterday. Perhaps I have some sort of psychic powers of which I’ve been unaware up to now. I hope so. If this works out I’ll get back in the market.
Actually, there is a more prosaic explanation. I’ve been writing about Bob Novak all week because he wrote an odd column about the Plame case on Monday. It was the first time he’s written anything about it in many months. And he said that he’d done it against his lawyers’ wishes. Atrios is reporting a rumor that Novak is being called before the Grand Jury all of a sudden. I would suspect that if it’s true, it’s because of something he wrote in that column.
We all know that it is quite strange that he had not been called before (although we don’t know that for sure.) It’s even more strange that he seems to have cooperated. Otherwise, unless Pat Fitzgerald was the most incompetent boob in the DOJ, he would have been in the same boat as Matt Cooper and Judith Miller. It’s the nature of the “cooperation” that’s most curious.
Of the major media players, Walter Pincus has spoken to the public and the prosecutor. Matt Cooper has spoken to the public and the prosecutor. Tim Russert made a deal and spoke with the prosecutors and NBC released a statement to the public relaying the substance of his conversation. Judith Miller hasn’t spoken to either the prosecutor or the public and is in jail. Robert Novak, the only one who actually published the leak information, hasn’t spoken to the public but (we assume) he has spoken to the prosecutor. He has repeatedly said that he cannot discuss the case in any way because his lawyers have advised him not to say anything publicly.
Why would that be? Here’s one little hint, although it may just be an accidental turn of phrase. The day after Novak had his little contretemps with Ed Henry in June, miracle of miracles, the NY Times actually did a tiny little story on why Novak has not been on the hotseat like every other reporter in town. And Novak’s publisher said this:
Among those defending Mr. Novak yesterday was John Cruickshank, publisher of The Sun-Times.
“We, as news people, never want to be in a position of saying, No comment,” Mr. Cruickshank said. “But he cannot respond and at the same time abide by the legal strategy his counsel has been recommending.”
Why is his legal counsel recommending a legal strategy at all? Nobody else is using that excuse. Obviously, as a journalist he cannot use the white house excuse that the prosecutor has requested he not talk about the case because … well, that would make him the worst kind of journalistic sissy there is. Especially compared to macho Judy Miller. While it’s true that Miller is practising shoddy journalism by refusing to write what she knows (without revealing her source) she at least is following the general principle that the press shouldn’t knuckle under to the government, which is, after all the reason for the confidentiality rule in the first place.
Novak hasn’t upheld anything at all. He’s almost certainly given up his sources and also refused to answer questions. He is being totally unprincipled. It’s left him open to being called a hack and a liar and he’s restrained from responding by his “legal strategy.” It’s clearly driving him crazy. And that leads me to believe that his lawyers know that there is a grave danger that if Bob keeps talking he’s going to find himself in a big heap of trouble.
It’s possible that Novak wrote something he shouldn’t have in that column on Monday. Not knowing what he’s told the authorities I don’t know specifically what it said that would be cause for worry but Bob is clearly having a very hard time with the fact that he is not allowed to spin his way out of this defend himself :
Though frustrated, I have followed the advice of my attorneys and written almost nothing about the CIA leak over two years because of a criminal investigation by a federal special prosecutor. The lawyers also urged me not to write this. But the allegation against me is so patently incorrect and so abuses my integrity as a journalist that I feel constrained to reply.
Again, why would Novak have to be so careful? He’s not covered under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act nor is he really prohibited from publishing classified information. His only reason for having to be so cautious is because he either has an immunity deal with the prosecution, which I sincerely doubt, or his lawyers believe that Fitzgerald thinks he may have lied to the authorities or obstructed justice.
Based on his meager public statements alone you can easily see why Fitzgerald would have ample reason to suspect him of participating in a cover-up. He’s been changing his story from day one. In his original column he said that Wilson was a fine, well qualified non-partisan, ex-diplomat and that the administration had told him that his wife suggested him for the mission. He explained a few days later, “I didn’t dig it out — they gave it to me — they thought it was significant.” Shortly thereafter, he changed his story and wrote that it had been just an “off-hand remark” in the midst of another conversation. Then when the justice department began its investigation he said he pursued the story because he was “curious” as to why a partisan Democrat like Joseph Wilson with no qualifications was sent on the mission — a characterization that is entirely at odds with what he actually wrote.
You can see why his lawyers wanted him to shut up. He tends to draw suspicion on himself every time he opens his mouth. And let’s not forget that Karl Rove and others, through their mouthpieces, have been using the same line with respect to other reporters like Cooper — “it was an offhand comment.” Indeed, the administration figures involved seem to want us to believe that they were just offhandedly mentioning this little factoid with no coordination or plan at all — to a reported half dozen elite DC journalists. Robert Novak, contrary to his earlier statements and the tenor of his original piece, seemed to want to enthusiastically back that up and imply that he was independently pursuing the story of the partisan democrat Joe Wilson’s trip all on his own. How very convenient.
And there is another aspect to this story as well. Novak seems to have finally lost the protective insular cloak of the celebrity proess corps brotherhood. But that doesn’t abslove them of their absurd silence all these months.
It is one thing for a reporter to withhold the names of his sources. It is quite another for a reporter to withhold information from the public to protect each other. But this case has shown in numerous ways that the press feels perfectly comfortable trafficking in gossip about a president’s sex life — and funneling that gossip through the foreign press and back to sleaze sites like Drudge in order to “get it out there.” But they have been remarkably willing to stay silent when their “stars” are involved in a legal tangle.
That’s one big reason why this ridiculous spectacle of Bob Novak and Tim Russert and Judith Miller the rest of these guys, who clearly have pertinent information, has been played out for two years as kabuki while the rest of us keep scratching our heads and wondering why they don’t just tell us what they know.
Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei changed the dynamic last week when they printed Bill Harlow’s comments about Novak. Novak lost his composure, both in print and then on television. He is a spoiled DC elder who believes that he is above the petty humiliations and character assassination he deals every day to politicians of whom he disapproves. He can’t believe that he has to sit back and let people trash his reputation while he’s constrained from responding by the possibility of legal consequences. Poor baby. Maybe he ought to spend some time in jail reading some of his columns and reviewing tapes of his Crossfire and Capital Gang appearances in which he ruthlessly destroyed Democrats for the last 40 years. Maybe he could write a novel about his experiences on the other side of the fence — where Bob Novak is subjected to … Bob Novak.
Update: Mark Leon Goldberg at TAPPED has a delicious little piece of speculation about Novak’s “cooperation” and his little temper tantrum yesterday:
Picking up on what Atrios hints at, if James Carville was engaging in some privy, insider goading when he told Robert Novak that he has to “show the right wingers that you are a stand-up guy, and The Wall Street Journal is watching your every move,” does that suggest that Novak already named names? If so, is the VRWC silently sharpening their knives in the event that Novak’s spilled the beans? Will they sacrifice one of their own?
Josh Marshall wonders why Novak would have stomped off the set just because Ed Henry was planning to ask him about Plamegate (if that’s why he did it.) After all, Novak’s been successfully fending off questions about this for two years now.
I think he might be a little bit prickly because he didn’t want it generally known that his most recent column used false information not generated this time by “senior white house officials” but from a discredited cockheaded man-ho. Check out Peter Daou’s full report on the Gannon “expose” that Novak used as proof that the Kerry campaign “discarded” Joe Wilson.
It seems to me that it’s possible the mean old man just didn’t want to face the fact that he is a has-been journalist as well as a Republican hack who’s outlived his usefulness. Retirement must be looking pretty good.
Bayh said there are legitimate grounds to criticize President Bush’s approach to fighting terrorism, but until Democrats establish more credibility on the issue, many voters won’t listen.
“Many Americans wonder if we’re willing to use force to defend the country even under the most compelling of circumstances,” Bayh said. “The majority of Democrats would answer that question that, yes, there is a right place and a right time. We don’t get to have that discussion because many people don’t think we have the backbone.”
And the best way to deal with that is to vigorously endorse whatever insane, bullshit war the Republicans want to wage. Because it’s worked out so well so far.
In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
The president praised the congressional action, declaring “America speaks with one voice.”
I guess even though more than half the Democrats signed on to that cock-up, we still should have been even more enthusiastically running off the cliff with old George. What utter nonsense. If DLCer Evan Bayh thinks that we’ll build credibility on national security by screaming “War On Terror” louder and shriller than the Republicans, he’s nuts. Even they know that slogan has outlived its usefulness.
Might I suggest that the reason Democrats have no credibility on national security is not because we allegedly refuse to defend the country, but because bedwetters like Evan Bayh run all over the country validating the Republican’s patented talking points that Democrats refuse to defend the country?
It’s true that the American people think we have no backbone. But let’s just say the reasons have less to do with our national security policy and more to do with our leadership. We will have credibility on national security when we have a credible national security policy — and when we show the country that we aren’t so afraid of Tom DeLay and Karl Rove that we’ll scurry to the front of the line to sign up every time they say boo.
Speaking of which… via Crooks and Liars I see that both Little Ricky and Novakula had hissy fits on the air today. Ricky resorted to gay bashing right away. I suspect that Novakula will be buying himself a nice new SUV very soon.
Via Talk Left, I see that Murray Waas and Joe Wilson were on Democracy Now. Waas obviously has some informed contacts and he said a couple of things that caught my eye:
MURRAY WAAS: Fitzgerald keeps his cards close to his vest. There was some interesting action in the last couple days before the Grand Jury. Two of Karl Rove’s aides came before the Grand Jury, an assistant and another top aide. We’re not sure what they said. We’re not sure why they were called. But that would indicate some intensification or moving toward some kind of closure, which way is a little bit difficult to tell, but Fitzgerald does seem stymied still by the lack of testimony by Judith Miller.
[…]
So, we’re not sure exactly where things are going. One other interesting possibility, if there isn’t — if there aren’t indictments brought, there is the option for special prosecutors to issue a public report. So, Fitzgerald can potentially put out everything that he knows in the public record. But he is kind of a man who is impervious to public opinion, who doesn’t see his role necessarily as one of informing public opinion, but simply prosecuting crimes. So, he has had discussions with people in the Department of Justice, and some people have urged him to take that course, but we hope we can find out what actually happened here. If there are indictments, there would be trials, and if there were no indictments, because the evidence doesn’t reach a level beyond a reasonable doubt to bring people to trial, that maybe there would be a public report. And lastly, interestingly, there’s a movement by Nancy Pelosi, the majority leader — Democratic leader in the House now, to get behind a Democratic resolution of inquiry by Congress to get to the bottom of this, when Fitzgerald is all done. So hopefully someday we’ll learn the truth, we’ll learn all of the facts.
I can’t tell you how much it’s going to chap my hide to see Karl Rove and his buddies skate because Judith Miller is covering for them. After watching them willfully and credulously print every smear that scumbags like David Bossie could dream up about Bill Clinton, the NY Times makes a fetish of protecting the Bush administration. Our paper of record has seriously lost its way. It is now little more than a Republican plaything; its reputation is being used as a vehicle to mislead the public; its ethics and standards are being manipulated to cover up corruption. Something is very rotten at the Grey Lady. (Here’s Gene Lyons’ latest take on the matter. He’s an expert in the perfidy of the NY Times.)
And I think we know why the republicans are being very ginger in their treatment of Fitzgerald and why Senator Pat Roberts backed off his threat to hold hearings about the investigation. They don’t want to piss Fitzgerald off and force him to offer a public report in order to clear his own reputation.
Everybody’s sitting tight.
Update: I see that Talk Left has yet another post on this matter in which she wonders why (Rove’s lawyer)Donald Luskin is no longer talking and speculates that his law partner Benjamin Ginsberg might be involved:
Is Ginsberg serving as an ex-officio, behind the scene counsel to Rove? Don’t forget, Ginsberg both represented the Bush campaign during the 2000 Florida recount and served as counsel to the Bush 2004 re-election campaign.
I wouldn’t be in the least bit surprised. The post links to an interesting interview in Legal Times with Richard Sauber, Matt Cooper’s lawyer:
LT: From all that you’ve heard and all of the people you have spoken to, what do you think Fitzgerald is aiming for?
RS: I spent a lot of time on the phone [with Fitzgerald] and in person. He was so careful not to give away anything — even with body language — any indication of what he was looking at or where he was going. It was quite astonishing how uncommunicative he was. So the short answer is, I don’t know.
But the only clue is that he submitted some fairly extensive material under seal. Every judge who has commented on that [has said] how impressive the showing is and how important this case is to national security. All I can surmise is that he has a substantial amount of evidence to continue a fairly robust investigation. And it does involve classified material.
The ratfucking operation in the GOP is getting awfully sloppy these days. They just don’t seem on their game. And it’s not just that Rove is sweating bullets wondering if he’s going to have a fun new roommate named Roscoe pretty soon. I think it’s because the true masters of the game are getting old — and the younger generation of ratfuckers are like so many children who inherit great fortunes — spoiled and worthless.
Consider the fact that the Republicans create a “voting irregularity” front group to counter the charges that they are fixing elections. Fine. I would expect no less. This is what they do.
But, by God, I never thought they’d be dumb enough to use nationally known Republican operatives to do it. Jim Dyke was the communications director for the RNC during the 2004 campaign, ferchistsake. He was all over television. And now six months later he’s working with a 501c “non-partisan” group that released a report claiming “Democrat operatives” are stealing elections. Please. Any good GOP sleaze artist knows that you create at least a couple of degrees of separation between the party and the ratfucking. Roger Stone must be shaking his head in disgust. I suppose it’s what happens when you lose the hunger for power.
Bradblog has even more on the rightwing blogs little orgasm over this “non-partisan” report.
I think Kevin asks the right question about this story that John Roberts did pro-bono work on a gay rights case:
It’s probably a sign of my slow deterioration into political senility that I’m less interested in the actual story here than I am in the meta-story. Why did Serrano write this piece? Who suggested it to him? And why did they suggest it?
Was it to make Roberts look less doctrinaire and therefore more palatable to liberals? Or was it designed to plant seeds of doubt about his doctrinal trustworthiness among conservatives? Or to insinuate that maybe Roberts is gay after all? Or what?
This sounds like a job for Arianna to me.
If I had to guess I’d say that it came from the liberal side which looked over his statement to the Senate of pro-bono cases he’d worked on and saw that he’d left out one important case. But who knows?
It certainly does seem odd to me that a staunch Republican and Catholic like Roberts, who we know by now is a winger’s right winger, would work on a gay rights case like this one. This was no arcane legal issue like one of the two pro-bono cases he descibed in his statement. Nor was it on behalf of the poor like the other one, which one could say is easily reconcilable with his religious beliefs. This was a landmark gay discrimination case. He could have begged off, I’m sure.
I can’t guess what went on, but I do think it’s odd that he didn’t mention it, if what he wants to do is present himself as a non-ideologue for the purposes of a smooth confirmation. It would have been a perfect example of his “open-mindedness.” On the other hand, it might stir up discomfort among the religious extremists who are demanding perfect fealty these days. But then, he really is a super ideologue, so why was he defending gay rights in the first place? He couldn’t do his pro-bono work for causes that didn’t offend his religious beliefs?
Steve Soto deconstructs the GWOT-GSAVE flippity-flop and Tim Grieve over at Salon reminds us that this isn’t the first time they’ve done it. Seems the leader who says “Aah’m a leader who knows how ta lead cuz aah’ve led” is a teensy weensy bit inconsistent on this issue.
But I have to say that I never thought he’d really give up the “war.” After all, who is George W Bush?
I’m a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn’t true, but it is true. And the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is. And I see dangers that exist, and it’s important for us to deal with them.
He’s a war preznit for the culture ‘o life. He’s nothing without that.
Gary Farber has been writing about a very interesting follow-up to the story from last night about the Iraqi General who was killed with the novel “beating with a rubber hose while tied up in a sleeping bag” interrogation technique. I was unaware that this was only uncovered because of another honorable whistleblower:
For Sgt. 1st Class Michael Pratt it would have been far easier to look away. If war is hell, after all, there are going to be some demons. And since hooking up with the Colorado-based 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Iraq in early 2003, the Utah National Guard soldier had learned it was simpler to ignore questionable actions than report them.
But the guardsman couldn’t look past what he had seen in the Al Qiem Detention Facility. Not after the death of an inmate whom he believed had been abused by a senior officer. Not even as the Army announced that the prisoner had died “of natural causes.”
Army records show that apparent abuses of inmates at the makeshift prison, known as the Blacksmith Hotel, may have been ignored had Pratt not reported his concerns to Utah Guard officials, outside the chain of command of the unit to which he was temporarily assigned. The documents, transcripts from testimony given by Pratt in a closed hearing last March, also detail the soldier’s struggles to do what he felt was right in the face of pressure to remain silent.
The record also illustrates a disturbing charge: That the unit with which Pratt found himself in Iraq was little interested in hearing an enlisted soldier’s complaints and concerns about the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners.
Contacted by The Salt Lake Tribune, the Bountiful native declined to speak about the matter, saying he wanted to ensure any further testimony would not be tainted by public comment. Maj. Mark Solomon of Fort Carson, Colo., the commander of 3rd Cavalry troops not currently deployed – including four soldiers implicated in the inmate’s death – said he could not comment on any of Pratt’s allegations.
But a 38-page transcript of previously secret testimony details what Pratt claims to have seen at Blacksmith – and why he ultimately decided that he could not remain silent.
[…]
A soldier with a squeaky-clean record and reputation during his 18 years in the Utah National Guard, Pratt was apparently unprepared for what he found in his first few months with some of the regular Army soldiers of the 3rd Cavalry.
Among the allegations made in his testimony: That he had witnessed a soldier shoot a 14-year-old boy in the back during a raid – as the boy was running away. That matter, he claimed, was never thoroughly investigated, though fellow soldiers assured him that the rules of engagement had been followed when the teen was shot.
Later, when he learned that unqualified soldiers were conducting interrogations, Pratt again logged a compliant. In response, he testified, he was investigated – and told by other soldiers it was for blackmail purposes.
The final blow came when Pratt reported that a group of combat engineers had confiscated a large stash of currency from an Iraqi family who intended to use the money to send their daughter to Jordan for an operation. When he reported the matter to an officer in his chain of command, Pratt said, “he told me I was getting too close to the Iraqis. He accused me of losing my objectivity.”
“After that incident,” Pratt said. “I realized that it was pointless to report anything.”
[…]
Still, Pratt said he confronted the senior soldier after he watched another officer pull a sleeping bag over an inmate, immobilizing the man with cord before slamming him to the ground. When the inmate began to pray aloud, Pratt said, the officer poured water into his mouth and cupped his hands over the inmate’s face.
Welshofer, the unit’s “subject matter expert” on interrogation techniques, told Pratt “the sleeping bag technique” was authorized, though only certain soldiers were allowed to use it, according to Pratt’s testimony. In the following days, the record states, Pratt watched as Welshofer himself applied the technique on another inmate, sitting on the bound man’s chest and stomach as he asked him questions.
“I could tell by the way he was sitting, if I was in the detainee’s position, I would have had a hard time breathing,” Pratt said, adding afterward: “I’m surprised that it didn’t kill him.”
This guy was finally heard when he left Iraq and reported what he knew to an officer from the Utah National Guard stationed in Kuwait. It’s likely that this whole story would have been swept under the rug if this man had not come forward as he did.
He is a hero, to be sure, as are others, which I wrote about the other night. It’s quite clear that torture, beatings, abuse and sexual humiliation were standard operating procedures from 2002 – 2004 at least, in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo. I won’t even hazard a guess about what happened to the ghost prisoners they considered to be real threats and kept in various offshore prisons or rendered to friendly despots who would happily torture them for us. One of them says they sliced his genitals — but then we are told that they are all liars, so what do I know? (I thought the tales of menstrual blood in Guantanamo were ridiculous too — until they turned out to be true) Considering what was done to those who were considered low level, I’m not sure we ever want to know the details. Apparently, at least for a time, people at high levels ordered our military to behave like barbarians. And gosh, it’s really worked out so well.
I know that war is hell and all, but it’s really important to keep in perspective one particular thing. We invaded Iraq; it didn’t attack us. We weren’t invited in either. We just did it. And as we now know, the reasons we gave for doing it were false. And when we got there we were so unprepared that we allowed the country to immediately devolve into chaos. Out of that chaos an insurgency developed. Our reaction was to “take the gloves off” — in a country we had allegedly just liberated — the same way we “took the gloves off” with al Qaeda.
The vast majority of Iraqis were not Saddam’s bitter-enders, not insurgents and certainly not terrorists. They had just spent 30 years under the thumb of a totalitarian dictator. And yet we were rampaging through their homes, “hunting insurgents” and treating them as if they were an enemy. We sent in too few troops and those we sent were untrained and inexperienced. And we let the CIA and other unacountables have a free hand.
Again, these were Iraqis, the people we claimed to be liberating — not a country of terrorists who threatened our way of life. And yet I think many of our troops did not understand this. And why would they? The president of the United States constantly made it sound as if they were one in the same. He evoked 9/11 in the same breath as Iraq over and over again. Many of our troops believed that the Iraqis were responsible for the terrorist attacks. And with the instructions to “take the gloves off” they took out their rage against those they believed were responsible.
This is why the chickenhawks should be forced go to war. It’s not that they must be willing to die for their country; nobody’s dying for America over there — they are dying for George W. Bush. It’s because if young (and not so young) men and women are going to be forced to have blood on their hands like this; to be involved in the killing of innocents and torture and abuse due to political incompetence, then the political supporters of this war should have to share in their nightmares and their guilt. Let them be the ones fending off nervous breakdowns and suicide, let them have this on their consciences. The chickenhawks who support “taking the gloves off” in an unjust war should be forced to be the ones who do this barbaric dirty work on behalf of the man they see as the great deliverer of freedom and democracy.
I sincerely hope that George W. Bush’s God exists. Because if he does, he’s sending that SOB straight to hell.
Farber has been posting on this for several days. Here he discusees an earlier story from the Denver Post.
Update: For another excellent analysis of the full story read this post and the next one down from Marty Lederman at Balkinization.