Iraq War Crimes? (Guest post)

"The immorality of the United States and Great Britain's decision to invade Iraq in 2003, premised on the lie that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, has destabilised and polarised the world to a greater extent than any other conflict in history.

Instead of recognising that the world we lived in, with increasingly sophisticated communications, transportations and weapons systems necessitated sophisticated leadership that would bring the global family together, the then-leaders of the US and UK fabricated the grounds to behave like playground bullies and drive us further apart. They have driven us to the edge of a precipice where we now stand – with the spectre of Syria and Iran before us.

If leaders may lie, then who should tell the truth? Days before George W Bush and Tony Blair ordered the invasion of Iraq, I called the White House and spoke to Condoleezza Rice, who was then national security adviser, to urge that United Nations weapons inspectors be given more time to confirm or deny the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Should they be able to confirm finding such weapons, I argued, dismantling the threat would have the support of virtually the entire world. Ms Rice demurred, saying there was too much risk and the president would not postpone any longer.

On what grounds do we decide that Robert Mugabe should go the International Criminal Court, Tony Blair should join the international speakers' circuit, bin Laden should be assassinated, but Iraq should be invaded, not because it possesses weapons of mass destruction, as Mr Bush's chief supporter, Mr Blair, confessed last week, but in order to get rid of Saddam Hussein?

The cost of the decision to rid Iraq of its by-all-accounts despotic and murderous leader has been staggering, beginning in Iraq itself. Last year, an average of 6.5 people died there each day in suicide attacks and vehicle bombs, according to the Iraqi Body Count project. More than 110,000 Iraqis have died in the conflict since 2003 and millions have been displaced. By the end of last year, nearly 4,500 American soldiers had been killed and more than 32,000 wounded.

On these grounds alone, in a consistent world, those responsible for this suffering and loss of life should be treading the same path as some of their African and Asian peers who have been made to answer for their actions in the Hague.

But even greater costs have been exacted beyond the killing fields, in the hardened hearts and minds of members of the human family across the world.

Has the potential for terrorist attacks decreased? To what extent have we succeeded in bringing the so-called Muslim and Judeo-Christian worlds closer together, in sowing the seeds of understanding and hope?

Leadership and morality are indivisible. Good leaders are the custodians of morality. The question is not whether Saddam Hussein was good or bad or how many of his people he massacred. The point is that Mr Bush and Mr Blair should not have allowed themselves to stoop to his immoral level.

If it is acceptable for leaders to take drastic action on the basis of a lie, without an acknowledgement or an apology when they are found out, what should we teach our children?"

--Archbishop Desmond Tutu, in a column in The Observer (see link below)

Link to original article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/02/desmond-tutu-tony-blair-iraq

Better off before Obama?

The George W. Bush administration saw the largest terrorist attack in US history, a 3 trillion dollar war based on lies that killed more than 4415 American soldiers and the largest Wall Street crash since the Great Depression, but somehow the Republicans claim we are worse off with President Obama.

That's chutzpah.

How did I miss this?

This is clearly from about 3 years ago, given the topics he covers but how funny is this? And true, of course, as usual, from him.

From George W Bush to the Romneys

The actual, now-famous Ann Romney quote: "I love the fact that there are women out there who don’t have a choice and they must go to work and they still have to raise the kids."

Very, very reminiscent of the George W. "Immadipstick" Bush quote: “You work three jobs? Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that." He said it to a divorced mother of three in Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005”

Newsflash: If you're middle- or lower-class and voting Republican, they aren't working for you and you're voting against your own, best self-interests, so you know.

Links: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/24/1085982/-Ann-Romney-I-love-the-fact-that-there-are-women-out-there-who-don-t-have-a-choice-;
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/131983;

A Republican--a Bush, no less--on the current Republican Party

"I used to be a conservative, and I watch these debates, and I’m wondering, I don’t think I’ve changed, but it’s a little troubling sometimes when people are appealing to people’s fears and emotion rather than trying to get them to look over the horizon for a broader perspective, and that’s kind of where we are." --Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida, brother of former President George W. Bush, son of Former President and Director of the CIA George H.W. Bush. Link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/02/24/jeb-bush-2012-candidates-troubling.html

"Preventive detention"? From a former Constitutional Law Professor?

Are you freaking kidding me? This from a constitutional law professor? No proof of guilt first? No trial by jury?

It's 1968 all over again

I found a blog recently, by accident, railing about how bad and stupid and mistaken and apparently just wrong the "Occupy" movement is and my first thought was "it's 1968 all over again." Back then, I was a teenager and I had come to the conclusion that the Vietnam War was wrong. Monumentally wrong. And I said so. Other friends at the time thought it important to go along with the official line of the administration. Then there were the Conservatives, Republicans and Right Wing of the country that was also for fighting and supporting that war. Later, when Robert McNamara, then-President Nixon's Secretary of Defense told us the truth, that it was all a lie and he cried on TV about it, well, it was too late but at least we were all vindicated, those of us who were against the war. Now, it's the same thing all over again. The students and young people are out in the streets, protesting. They're protesting Wall Street's ripoff of us, the American people. They're protesting the stranglehold corporations have on the country. And there are the same, mostly older, Conservative, Republican and Right-wing folks, thinking the kids are just hippies and druggies and unemployed low-lifes, looking for "Uncle Sugar" to give them something. Well, as I said, they were mistaken then and they sure as hell are mistaken now. And it just makes me mad. It's very disheartening, at least.

A disgusting vote from our Senators today

I can hardly believe what I'm reading but both Senators Roy Blunt AND Claire McCaskill voted today in the Senate to authorize the indefinite suspension of habeus corpus. I am so disgusted at this news--and at both of them--I can hardly speak. For a refresher, habeus corpus is Latin for "you may have the body". In the law, it "is a writ, or legal action, through which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention... It has historically been an important legal instrument safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary state action. It is a writ requiring a person to be brought before a judge." The writ oh habeus corpus has long been a strong underpinning of our judicial system so people would not be held indefinitely, without being charged with some crime so they could defend themselves. That these two--and 59 other--senators would vote in favor of maintaining this is, I think, unconscionable. Fortunately, regardless of the outcome in Congress, President Obama has vowed to veto it. Here's hoping it fails completely, utterly, as it should. It should be pointed out that habeus corpus was first done away with, to set this up, in the George W. Bush administration, no surprise, what with their paranoia and disregard for the Constitution. Links: http://wearechangetv.us/2011/11/61-senators-betrayed-you-today-they-authorized-the-indefinite-suspension-of-habeus-corpus/#ixzz1fDOeH9Wg; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/29/senate-votes-to-let-military-detain-americans-indefinitely_n_1119473.html; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeus_corpus

Why we occupy

From none other than Robert Reich, former member of President Bill Clinton's administration: We need true, stringent, tough, accountable, prosecutable campaign finance reform, at minimum so we can get the money--the big money--of the wealthy and corporations out of our govenment and it can be the our government--people's government--once again.

Probably the most important documentary most Americans will never watch

But you won't because it takes 1 and a half hour or you're too busy or it was a long time ago or some other thing. It was put up on You Tube in 2007 but still fits in extremely well right now with the "Occupy" movement. It makes if very timely. Winston Smith is alive and well. I hope you had a nice weekend. Say, hand me my fiddle, will you, Nero?

The Iraq War

This guy started it (against our own, national laws as well as international ones)

And this guy is finishing it.

Now, let's get ALL American soldiers out of Iraq, stop paying the contractors over there and get out of Afghanistan as soon as possible. Please.

Churches just want to be able to discriminate, that's all

The Supreme Court in Washington began hearing the case today (Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church vs. EEOC, see link, below) about the church who--get this--wants to be able to discriminate against its employees for whatever reason they deem fit (sexuality, age, disability, etc.) because they're supposed to be left alone by the state via the Constitution. Boy, that's a beauty. Sure, they also want tax deductions from that same state for the same reasons, then they want money from that same government in the form of "Faith-based initiatives", thanks to that last, ignorant administration out of the White House and now this. They really want everything. They want to have that cake and eat it, too. How a church could even remotely request, let alone demand, as they are here, that discrimination laws shouldn't apply to them is beyond the pale. It seems this Lutheran church isn't aware of that Jesus Christ guy and what he said and stood for. Sheesh. Link: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/10/supreme-court-church-state-conflict-schools.html

America flaunts international law, more, again, still

First, President George W. Bush and Dick Cheney trounced international law by pre-emptively and unilaterally attacking Iraq for their 2nd Iraq War, against both popular opinion and, far worse, international law. We've been paying for that with soldiers lives, American prestige and money and materiel ever since. Next, there were "reports that the Obama administration had flown a Somali man accused of ties to terrorism to New York to face prosecution after holding and interrogating him at sea for more than two months." Yeehaw. At least we're consistent, huh? Now, finally today, anyway we find that Governor Rick Perry and the State of Texas "has executed a Mexican national for the kidnapping and rape of a 16-year-old San Antonio girl. Humberto Leal Garcia, 38, was put to death less than two hours after the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 5-to-4 vote, rejected pleas from the Obama administration for a delay to avoid what it called serious international repercussions." Here's where the problems come in regarding international law: "Texas authorities failed to inform him of his right to speak with officers from the Mexican consulate and failed to inform the consulate that a Mexican national had been arrested. Both of those failures violated a 1963 treaty signed by the U.S. Indeed, the consular access provision was added to the treaty at the insistence of the United States." But now, here's the tricky part, at least for the US--while we repeatedly trounce international law as shown by these 3 instances and more, regarding this last one, the US actually likes to use this treaty for its own citizens. Background: "The U.S. relies on the treaty to secure legal help and often to win release of Americans imprisoned abroad, some in countries such as Iran, Libya and Syria. Last year alone the U.S. invoked the treaty for 3,500 Americans imprisoned in other countries." So we like to invoke this law for our own citizens but for people of other countries and their governments, we figure "screw you guys, we're going our own way on this." If we were in school, the US would get a checkmark in the "Doesn't get along with others" column, at least. Can you say "blatant hypocrisy"? Trouble is, executing this Mexican National last evening was good for Texas Governor Rick Perry's presidential run that isn't even official yet. So one Humberto Leal Garcia died last night so Rick Perry could be shown as tough on crime and help his popularity. Yahoo, huh? Isn't that just terrific? I wonder what international laws we'll disregard next. And some people wonder why we have a not-so-great-name and reputation in some parts of the world. Links: http://www.representativepress.org/ViolatingInternationalLaw.html; http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/cra0868.htm; http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/u.s.-may-have-violated-domestic-and-international-law-capturing-and-holding-somali-months-sea; http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/texas-executes-mexican-national-after-supr; http://news.yahoo.com/texas-executes-mexican-court-stay-rejected-233305430.html; http://news.yahoo.com/un-official-us-execution-leal-broke-intl-law-160400028.html

Corporations are killing us

 

Last night I did watch this documentary on HBO, "Hot Coffee", telling how corporations spent and are spending millions upon millions of dollars to advertise and market to us to get us to believe, in this case, we needed tort reform, all so they could reap many more millions of dollars in profits and benefits for themselves, all at our expense. They're buying--literally--our judges and justice system and cleaning us out. We're being played for suckers, folks, big time. Now, word out today shows a house in Wyoming that is "a single address in this sleepy city of 60,000 people..." where "more than 2,000 companies are registered." In this way, the corporations can, well just read: "A Reuters investigation has found the house at 2710 Thomes Avenue serves as a little Cayman Island on the Great Plains. It is the headquarters for Wyoming Corporate Services, a business-incorporation specialist that establishes firms which can be used as 'shell' companies, paper entities able to hide assets." I tell you, the corporations are playing us, they're using us, they're taking gross advantage of us and yes, they are exploiting and, in the end, killing us and tearing apart the country. We have to put a stop to them and these practices. Go, see this movie, "Hot Coffee". You'll be astounded at what you learn. It's yet more evidence that, if there were a hell, George W. Bush and Karl Rove would surely have to have one of the hottest places in it, reserved especially for them. Links: http://news.yahoo.com/special-report-little-house-secrets-great-plains-113759191.html; http://hotcoffeethemovie.com/

HUGE GREAT NEWS!!!!

OSAMA BIN LADEN DEAD ON PRESIDENT OBAMA'S WATCH!!!!!

YEEHAW!!!!!

Quote of the day

"I read in the newspapers they are going to have 30 minutes of intellectual stuff on television every Monday from 7:30 to 8. to educate America." 


"They couldn't educate America if they started at 6:30."--Groucho Marx

Read more:http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/groucho_marx_2.html#ixzz1JclVNWBI

Late night fun quote

"He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot." 
— Groucho Marx

(Fortunately, he's also already out of office).

(Accidental) Quote of the day

"When Paul Ryan says his priority is to make sure, he's just being America's accountant ... This is the same guy that voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for, voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my health care bill--but wasn't paid for,"   --President Obama when supposedly or apparently speaking near an open microphone.


Maybe we need to have him speak more openly, honestly and more frequently near an open mic.




Have a great weekend, y'all.


Link:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110415/ts_yblog_theticket/obama-caught-on-audio-slamming-gop

Snippets of brilliance and clarity from economist Joseph Stiglitz

Here's your "class warfare", folks.  And I have news for you---we're losing.

A few lines from an article by economist Joseph Stiglitz from Vanity Fair, May, 2011:

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

Americans have been watching protests against oppressive regimes that concentrate massive wealth in the hands of an elite few. Yet in our own democracy, 1 percent of the people take nearly a quarter of the nation’s income—an inequality even the wealthy will come to regret.

The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably... In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride. Among our closest counterparts are Russia with its oligarchs and Iran. While many of the old centers of inequality in Latin America, such as Brazil, have been striving in recent years, rather successfully, to improve the plight of the poor and reduce gaps in income, America has allowed inequality to grow.


The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend money on common needs. The rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security—they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had. They also worry about strong government—one that could use its powers to adjust the balance, take some of their wealth, and invest it for the common good. The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes.


But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy. Lowering tax rates on capital gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their income, has given the wealthiest Americans close to a free ride. 


Much of today’s inequality is due to manipulation of the financial system, enabled by changes in the rules that have been bought and paid for by the financial industry itself—one of its best investments ever.


When you look at the sheer volume of wealth controlled by the top 1 percent in this country, it’s tempting to see our growing inequality as a quintessentially American achievement—we started way behind the pack, but now we’re doing inequality on a world-class level. 


Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office


With the top 1 percent in charge, and paying no price, the notion of balance and restraint goes out the window. There is no limit to the adventures we can undertake; corporations and contractors stand only to gain.



The rules of economic globalization are likewise designed to benefit the rich: they encourage competition among countries for business, which drives down taxes on corporations, weakens health and environmental protections, and undermines what used to be viewed as the “core” labor rights, which include the right to collective bargaining.


Imagine what the world might look like if the rules were designed instead to encourage competition among countries for workers. Governments would compete in providing economic security, low taxes on ordinary wage earners, good education, and a clean environment—things workers care about. But the top 1 percent don’t need to care.


Of all the costs imposed on our society by the top 1 percent, perhaps the greatest is this: the erosion of our sense of identity, in which fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community are so important. America has long prided itself on being a fair society, where everyone has an equal chance of getting ahead, but the statistics suggest otherwise: the chances of a poor citizen, or even a middle-class citizen, making it to the top in America are smaller than in many countries of Europe. The cards are stacked against them... With youth unemployment in America at around 20 percent (and in some locations, and among some socio-demographic groups, at twice that); with one out of six Americans desiring a full-time job not able to get one; with one out of seven Americans on food stamps (and about the same number suffering from “food insecurity”)—given all this, there is ample evidence that something has blocked the vaunted “trickling down” from the top 1 percent to everyone else.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.


There's far more of the article I could print here but won't.  I highly recommend it: http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?printable=true&currentPage=all#ixzz1ImNW3xNn


With thanks and a hat tip to America Blog:  http://www.americablog.com/2011/04/stiglitz-we-have-government-of-1-by-1.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Americablog+%28AMERICAblog%29

On Mr. Stiglitz:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz

Where have we heard this before?

From the news just now:

International alliance divided over Libya command

President Barack Obama, speaking in Santiago, Chile on Monday, defended his decision to order U.S. strikes against Libyan military targets, and insisted that the mission is clear.

And like a parade of Pentagon officials the past few days, Obama insisted that the United States' lead military role will be turned over—"in days, not weeks"—to an international command of which the United States will be just one part.

Like I said, where have we heard THAT before?

Who would have thought that this president, of all people, would have so much in common with and continue so many of the policies of the previous president?

Link:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theenvoy/20110321/ts_yblog_theenvoy/international-alliance-divided-over-libya-command