Stop the Lies, Stop the Funding, Stop the Genocide: STOP IT
The time has arrived to prove to you a conclusion I have intended to discuss for some time. The conclusion will undoubtedly dismay some of you greatly. As a very wise philosopher once observed, or certainly should have observed: Tough.
The general subject is The Neverending Dance About Funding the Iraq Occupation. Let's reword that, to make it more accurate: The Neverending Dance About Funding the Iraq Genocide. Genocide is what it is. Let's endeavor to be minimally honest about what the United States government is paying for -- with your tax dollars, I remind you. Honesty should be possible to us; after all, we're not the ones dying in incomprehensibly, monstrously huge numbers.
Let's begin with this USA Today story:
I realize the following is a truly radical proposal, but please come along with me. Let's actually look at the proposed bill, shall we? Oh, no! some of you cry in protest, as well you should. Courtesy of the also reliable David Swanson, who can be relied upon to cut through the dross and, let's continue to be honest, through the lies and get to the heart of the matter, we can look at this legislation. You need only consider two passages, translated into actual Democratic talking points provided to Swanson:
As Swanson discusses and as I discussed in the earlier articles, this legislation says nothing about the U.S. "enduring bases," just as it says nothing about the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Moreover, focus very, very carefully on those exceptions in this latest bill: "US forces in Iraq" shall be "transitioned" to "force protection and diplomatic protection; limited support to Iraqi security forces; and targeted counter-terrorism operations."
As I said about Kerry's essentially identical exceptions:
Yet the USA Today story makes it appear that the wonderfully brave Democrats will now seek to end the war, or rather the occupation of Iraq, and force Bush to begin troop withdrawals. But December 2008 is merely a "target" for the "end of combat," and the administration is already planning on withdrawing some troops, which is all this bill "requires" -- and it does not even do that.
So all of this is only posturing on all sides, posturing of the most transparently phony kind: posturing to satisfy various constituencies, posturing to provide talking points for the 2008 elections, posturing to satisfy the fragile but enormous vanity of all these repellent political hacks. Meanwhile, IRAQIS ARE DYING IN HUGE NUMBERS.
Ah, yes, that conclusion I mentioned in the opening. Most liberal and progressive bloggers have devoted untold hours, days, weeks and months to deconstructing false narratives, those offered by the media and/or by Republicans. In one sense, this is valuable work: false narratives are certainly destructive and negative in numerous ways. I myself spend a great deal of time deconstructing them. Indeed, that is one of the points of this post.
But note the shift that occurred once the Democrats took back Congress. Now the Democrats control a coequal branch of government. Now the Democrats are not only the minority: now the Democrats are responsible, now the Democrats are significantly in control, now the Democrats are accountable. And what do we see? Writers like Kos, whose vaporous musings on this and similar subjects are echoed with variations by most other leading liberal and progressive bloggers, are more than willing to peddle false narratives of their own. For now, certain false narratives help the Democrats. Now the Democrats will demonstrate the "strength and fortitude to stand tough for what they believe" -- when "what they believe" is a continuation of the genocidal, murderous, criminal status quo.
So all that earlier (and present) concern with false narratives was not concern with false narratives because they were false. No, indeed: it was concern with false narratives that didn't help Democrats. But if false narratives are believed to affirmatively help Democrats, according to some especially vile series of political calculations (which are usually wrong, as they are with regard to impeachment)...well, as Dear Leader might say, bring 'em on!
There is, of course, no enforceable limit on the number and magnitude of lies that swamp our national discourse (and there could not and should not be). That has been the subject of recent essays here: "The Barren, Deadly Wasteland that Is Now Our Life," and its followup, "The Barren, Deadly Wasteland Further Considered, and the New Normal." But these endless lies have throttled all possibility of genuinely meaningful, substantive political discussion here at home -- and the same lies are murdering hundreds of thousands, and even greater numbers, of innocent people abroad, people who never threatened us and who never could have.
If we are to stop the murder, and if we are to save ourselves, the lies must stop. They must stop. As a first step, stop lying to yourselves. Then, perhaps, we might be able to move forward, one small step at a time.
In the meantime, innocent Iraqis are dying in untold and intentionally uncounted numbers. STOP FUNDING THE GENOCIDE.
The general subject is The Neverending Dance About Funding the Iraq Occupation. Let's reword that, to make it more accurate: The Neverending Dance About Funding the Iraq Genocide. Genocide is what it is. Let's endeavor to be minimally honest about what the United States government is paying for -- with your tax dollars, I remind you. Honesty should be possible to us; after all, we're not the ones dying in incomprehensibly, monstrously huge numbers.
Let's begin with this USA Today story:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that Democrats won't approve more money for the Iraq war this year unless President Bush agrees to begin bringing troops home.This is breathlessly picked up by the ever-reliable Kos -- who is reliable for certain traits, and one in particular, that we shall identify shortly -- who swooningly announces:
By the end of the week, the House and Senate planned to vote on a $50 billion measure for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would require Bush to initiate troop withdrawals immediately with the goal of ending combat by December 2008.
If Bush vetoes the bill, "then the president won't get his $50 billion," Reid, D-Nev., told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., made a similar statement last week in a closed-door caucus meeting.
If Reid and Pelosi stand firm on this, they will have a chance to finally fulfill one of their key 2006 campaign promises and prove that they have the strength and fortitude to stand tough for what they believe, all the while giving the vast majority of the American people what they want.It's enough to make you faint with admiration and gratitude. "Strength and fortitude to stand tough for what they believe"! I can barely breathe, I am so overcome.
I realize the following is a truly radical proposal, but please come along with me. Let's actually look at the proposed bill, shall we? Oh, no! some of you cry in protest, as well you should. Courtesy of the also reliable David Swanson, who can be relied upon to cut through the dross and, let's continue to be honest, through the lies and get to the heart of the matter, we can look at this legislation. You need only consider two passages, translated into actual Democratic talking points provided to Swanson:
Requires a transition in the mission of US forces in Iraq from primarily combat to: force protection and diplomatic protection; limited support to Iraqi security forces; and targeted counter-terrorism operations...The first of these provisions is the major killer, in more ways than one. I've been over this same ground before: in "Theater of Death," from seven months ago, at the end of April; and in an analysis from April 2006, which discussed a John Kerry op-ed in the NY Times, which contained identical loopholes.
Prohibits deployment of any troops not fully equipped and trained; waivable with a presidential national security certification...
As Swanson discusses and as I discussed in the earlier articles, this legislation says nothing about the U.S. "enduring bases," just as it says nothing about the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Moreover, focus very, very carefully on those exceptions in this latest bill: "US forces in Iraq" shall be "transitioned" to "force protection and diplomatic protection; limited support to Iraqi security forces; and targeted counter-terrorism operations."
As I said about Kerry's essentially identical exceptions:
Of course, Kerry isn't proposing that we withdraw all American combat forces -- none of which, I repeat, are there for any legitimate reason. Oh, no: "Only troops essential to finishing the job of training Iraqi forces should remain." And: "To increase the pressure on Iraq's leaders, we must redeploy American forces to garrisoned status. Troops should be used for security backup, training and emergency response..."The previous essays on this topic examine all this in much more detail. Let me restate the unavoidable, central conclusion. Even if this bill were to be signed by Bush exactly as the Democrats have crafted it, it requires precisely nothing. It will change nothing. U.S. troops will remain in Iraq in at least the many tens of thousands for years to come, and probably for decades. The genocide will continue. The slaughter will go on. And, as I said in "Theater of Death":
That's a handy loophole -- one big enough to drive a decades-long occupation through, even if it is "only" an occupation confined to those "enduring bases" we're spending so much money on. In this manner, Iraq will remain our staging platform for our neverending efforts to control the future of the Middle East, just as we have attempted to do ever since World War I.
WEGet it? This bill, as it is right now, changes nothing in any way that matters a damn.
ARE
NOT
LEAVING.
Yet the USA Today story makes it appear that the wonderfully brave Democrats will now seek to end the war, or rather the occupation of Iraq, and force Bush to begin troop withdrawals. But December 2008 is merely a "target" for the "end of combat," and the administration is already planning on withdrawing some troops, which is all this bill "requires" -- and it does not even do that.
So all of this is only posturing on all sides, posturing of the most transparently phony kind: posturing to satisfy various constituencies, posturing to provide talking points for the 2008 elections, posturing to satisfy the fragile but enormous vanity of all these repellent political hacks. Meanwhile, IRAQIS ARE DYING IN HUGE NUMBERS.
Ah, yes, that conclusion I mentioned in the opening. Most liberal and progressive bloggers have devoted untold hours, days, weeks and months to deconstructing false narratives, those offered by the media and/or by Republicans. In one sense, this is valuable work: false narratives are certainly destructive and negative in numerous ways. I myself spend a great deal of time deconstructing them. Indeed, that is one of the points of this post.
But note the shift that occurred once the Democrats took back Congress. Now the Democrats control a coequal branch of government. Now the Democrats are not only the minority: now the Democrats are responsible, now the Democrats are significantly in control, now the Democrats are accountable. And what do we see? Writers like Kos, whose vaporous musings on this and similar subjects are echoed with variations by most other leading liberal and progressive bloggers, are more than willing to peddle false narratives of their own. For now, certain false narratives help the Democrats. Now the Democrats will demonstrate the "strength and fortitude to stand tough for what they believe" -- when "what they believe" is a continuation of the genocidal, murderous, criminal status quo.
So all that earlier (and present) concern with false narratives was not concern with false narratives because they were false. No, indeed: it was concern with false narratives that didn't help Democrats. But if false narratives are believed to affirmatively help Democrats, according to some especially vile series of political calculations (which are usually wrong, as they are with regard to impeachment)...well, as Dear Leader might say, bring 'em on!
There is, of course, no enforceable limit on the number and magnitude of lies that swamp our national discourse (and there could not and should not be). That has been the subject of recent essays here: "The Barren, Deadly Wasteland that Is Now Our Life," and its followup, "The Barren, Deadly Wasteland Further Considered, and the New Normal." But these endless lies have throttled all possibility of genuinely meaningful, substantive political discussion here at home -- and the same lies are murdering hundreds of thousands, and even greater numbers, of innocent people abroad, people who never threatened us and who never could have.
If we are to stop the murder, and if we are to save ourselves, the lies must stop. They must stop. As a first step, stop lying to yourselves. Then, perhaps, we might be able to move forward, one small step at a time.
In the meantime, innocent Iraqis are dying in untold and intentionally uncounted numbers. STOP FUNDING THE GENOCIDE.
Stop the lies. Stop the funding completely. Stop the slaughter.
STOP IT.
1 comment:
OT: [Not intended for publication as it stands -- would prefer you add your own comments/thoughts; feel free to use the questions at the end of this as they relate to the Conyers editorial: The issue is -- we're not sure the nature of Pelosi-Conyers arrangement after the Kucinich bill was passed in re Cheney.]
=========================
Comment for publication (please re-word this/clean it up as needed, and add your own thoughts):
It would be useful to have some ability to oversee, intrude, and compel the Members of Congress to explain the progress of their investigation; and ensure the intent of the Kucinich resolution is getting the full attention it needs. It would be nice if there were a means by which We the People -- before the election -- could compel the Congress to publicly comment, show evidence, and provide a status report of their actions in response to the Kucinich resolution: Something that would be mandatory; and one that would compel some deadlines/actions/follow-up where the Congress was not doing what was reasonably expected.
Where the Members of Congress have not been candid, it would be nice to be able to easily get information to determine -- independent of congress -- whether the Members conduct in re the House Rules/Standards of Conduct on the investigation does or does not warrant action, oversight, discipline, or some sort of sanction. It would be a shame to find out late in 2008, "Oh, by the way, we're not making progress because the VP's office isn't cooperating." No, we need to have some milestones, deadlines, and some heads up that more pressure needs to be applied -- including some real contempt citations -- or, if needed direction action by the State AG's through prosecutions -- to put some teeth into this Circus the DNC and GOP are leading in DC.
The State AG's have an interest in determining whether there is a reasonable basis to charge Members of Congress, the President, and Vice President -- as it relates to issues of this investigation, compliance, and responsiveness -- whether they have or have not fully conducted themselves in a lawful manner; or whether they have -- through inaction -- not fully met their oath of office requirements under the Constitution; To provide for an enforcement mechanism. There needs to be some deadlines, "This has gone on long enough; we're charging you with malfeasance, 5 USC 3331"
As it stands -- and this is the problem in the Executive Branch -- the Congress can decide, "What we did is appropriate" and force everyone not agree with that conclusion. That's why we have a problem with the President circumventing FISA Court: He, like Congress, would be engaged in self-oversight: Not possible when the issue is the secrecy which is hiding evidence of criminal activity, malfeasance, and unlawful activity.
Congress, for purposes of "oversight" cannot be a "self-governing body": It has to have some "oversight of that oversight". Our system doesn't -- yet -- have that. But it could be done if there were a fourth branch of government whose sole job -- under the Constitution, not statute -- was to conduct investigations, gather evidence, and conduct prosecutions of all US government officials, outside either Congressional, Executive, or Judicial Oversight. The concern: Would that 4th Branch be a dictatorship; or could it be one that is checked through Judicial review. Ideally, this fourth branch would be one that -- if needed -- could have an independent army to, if needed wage lawful combat against a wayward Executive or Congress should they choose to conduct illegal warfare, and nobody is stopping them: Just as a check on them. It would be good if this 4th Branch had an NSA-like capability to monitor the President and Congress to ensure they are fully complying with their legal obligations; and that this capability were monitored by the public.
==== END COMMENT FOR PUBLICATION =====
- - - - - - - - -
[The questions may need another spell check]
Here's the link to the full Conyers letter/editorial. Based on what we know (or don't know, LOL), it appears there is an opportunity for snarkiness:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/17/AR2006051701880.html
------ For example: Look at this key paragraph: I think it deserves a followup ----
-- BEGIN CONYERS Editorial/clip ---
So, rather than seeking impeachment, I have chosen to propose comprehensive oversight of these alleged abuses. The oversight I have suggested would be performed by a select committee made up equally of Democrats and Republicans and chosen by the House speaker and the minority leader.
The committee's job would be to obtain answers -- finally. At the end of the process, if -- and only if -- the select committee, acting on a bipartisan basis, finds evidence of potentially impeachable offenses, it would forward that information to the Judiciary Committee. This threshold of bipartisanship is appropriate, I believe, when dealing with an issue of this magnitude.
--- END ---
QUESTIONS [Feel free to use these]:
1. What, in way of "comprehensive oversight" has the Chairman put in place now that the Kucinich resolution in re Cheney has been passed?
2. After the Kucinich resolution in re Cheney was passed, what is the status of the "select committee": Who's been named; what is the plan to approve/review; and what names has the Speaker and minority leader approved from each party to review the allegations in re Cheney?
3. When will the "process" that Conyers outlined get "the answers" he said were needed: When will witnesses be called; how will the findings in the Conyers REport "Constitution in Crisis" be used as a guide; what is the expected date this investigation will end?
4. Does Conyers have any plan to forward immediate evidence of crimes by Cheney warranting impeachment: When is the cutoff date for the "easy Charges"; is Conyers open to having multiple rounds for impeachment: First round for the "no brainers, and things that can be quickly proven"; and a second round of impeachments in re the longer things; and then a third round of things that are taking longer, but can still be done before 2009?
5. Conyers said, IF IF IF the select committee "acting on a bipartisan basis, finds evidence of potentially impeachable offenses, it would forward that information to the Judiciary Committee" . . .
A. What if the Committee cannot agree; and the GOP plays stupid?
B. What if the DNC joins the GOP in acting stupid?
C. What is "potentially impeachable offenses" -- that's a low bar to anything; so why isn't Pelosi willing to support that "low bar investigation"?
D. If the bar for what would trigger a response to the Judiciary COmmittee is "this low," why is it apparent that Pelosi is (apparently) raising the bar on whether she will or will not approve the investigation?
6. The "bipartisan House" voted to forward the charges for investigation. Both the GOP and DNC voted to support this. Yet, suddenly the "spirit of bipartisanship" (calling for the investigation) has now run into not a GOP brick wall in the White House, but a stonewall in the Speaker's office. What is Conyers plan to remove (first) the new roadblocks he did not specifically mention in his editorial?
Post a Comment