Jeb Bush, Endless War and the Neocon Trap

Jeb Bush claims to be "his own man" but on foreign policy so far, he looks to be a retread of the disastrous policies of his brother, the Chimperator, and we all know what those policies cost America in terms of squandered lives and treasure.  How else to explain Jebbie surrounding himself with the same group of advisers who proved wrong on virtually every aspect of the Bush/Cheney Middle East policy. Worse yet, these advisers still refuse to admit how wrong they were.  There's much to dislike about Jebbie, but the prospect of more Middle East disasters along suggests he should never make it to the White House.  A piece in The Daily Beast looks at the frightening situation.  Here are excerpts:

Are the neoconservatives turning on Jeb Bush? It would be ironic, considering the men his brother turned to for foreign policy advice. It would also be highly problematic—since foreign policy establishment hawks should represent one of Bush's few natural constituencies on the right. But it's hard to observe recent developments and not suspect something is afoot.

I've often observed that Sen. Rand Paul has to walk a fine line in order to keep all the disparate elements of his coalition together, but it's increasingly looking like Jeb Bush is having to do the same thing. He has the legacies of his father and brother to contend with. And while these legacies aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, they aren't necessarily complimentary, either. And therein lies the trap for Jeb: does he alienate the GOP’s main cadre of foreign policy activists and thinkers, or does he saddle up with them and risk being seen as the second coming of his brother?

The foreign policy "realist" community hopes Jeb will be the "smart" son and follow the "prudent" footsteps of his father. . . . . But neoconservatives prefer George W. Bush's more aggressive foreign policy, and want the GOP to nominate a hawk in 2016. Now Jeb Bush's campaign needs to figure out what kind of President Bush he would be, and he likely won’t be able to assuage the concerns of both camps.

[T]he Washington Free Beacon, which is widely thought of as a neoconservative outlet, recently noted: "Jeb Bush’s selection of Baker as a foreign policy adviser has sparked concern among conservatives and in the Jewish and pro-Israel communities. Baker is infamous for his hostility to Israel, having said during his tenure as secretary of state in the George H.W. Bush administration, 'F--k the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway.' Baker is also a supporter of President Obama’s Iran negotiations."

The comparatively moderate, intellectually inclined Jeb Bush would seem like a natural candidate for neoconservatives to rally behind. But Baker speaking at J Street while working for the campaign in some capacity is cause for concern. This is dangerous if prominent hawks start to suspect that Jeb might not be as friendly to their cause as the Ted Cruzes of the world. Kristol and Rubin would seem to be sending a message that Bush that he can't take their support for granted. They need him to prove that he's a lot more like Dubya than his dad.  

Politico is already reporting that Jeb Bush is distancing himself from Baker, noting that he "disagrees" with him on Israel. And writing at National Review Wednesday morning, Jeb is made his pro-Israel position clear. Let's see if that’s enough for the critics. If Jeb really wants to win the nomination, he might have to drop Jim Baker like a bad habit. 

The take away?  We don't need another Bush in the White House - never, ever. 

Bush and Cheney, et al, Are Still War Criminals

Former Chimperator Bush is apparently feeling peevish that his administration "hasn't been given enough credit" for his contributions to the war on terror. Hence, his childish refusal to join President Obama in New York City yesterday. Bush and his sycophants continue to try to re-write the history of misrule and high crimes during the eight years of the Bush/Cheney nightmare. It is so very important that we not forget what was done to ruin the honor of this nation - and that doesn't even touch upon the economic catastrophe that flowed from Republican deregulation efforts during that same time period. Andrew Sullivan has a dead on assessment of just what the Chimperator and Emperor Palpatine Cheney brought to the USA - with the help, of their Republican enablers in Congress. Here's Andrew's summation of the Bush/Cheney years:
*
Not only do these war criminals and shoddy lawyers [John Yoo] refuse to take accountability for their crimes, they tell clear untruths about how the capture of bin Laden was achieved and distort history.
*
So let us be very clear. The war criminal Dick Cheney presided over the worst lapse in national security since Pearl Harbor, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 people. This rank incompetent failed to get bin Laden at Tora Bora, and then dragged the US on false pretenses into a war in Iraq, empowering Iran's dictatorship, and killing another 5,000 more Americans on a wild goose chase. He presided over the deaths of more than 8,000 Americans, and tens of thousands of Iraqis during his criminally incompetent years in office.
*
What on earth are we debating? How have these delusional maniacs managed to even get us onto this turf? Because they have to. Because when the full truth of these past years are fully in focus, they will be revealed as some of the greatest criminals ever to have wielded power in America.

Christianist and Wingnut Gathering at Pat Robertson's university

Every now and then Regent University attracts a gathering of theocrats, Christianists, and wingnuts to its campus. One such event occurred yesterday (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SOU_ROVE_REGENT_VAOL-?SITE=VANOV&SECTION=STATE). Fortunately, there was a voice or two of reason to counter the agenda of the other speakers, such as Karl Rove, who I find to be an absolutely despicable human being who borders on a moral (in my opinion, Rove would have fit right in with Hitler's henchmen):

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (AP) -- Former top presidential adviser Karl Rove began a debate Friday on "should America bring democracy to the world" with a simple response to that question: "Obviously, my answer is yes." Former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., said his answer was "yes, by example, but not by force," setting up a complicated and at times testy discussion between the two men - as well as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey - that was dominated, naturally, by the Iraq war. The men spoke at a forum at Regent University, the Christian school founded by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson.

The most contentious moment during the debate erupted between Rove and Cleland, a Vietnam veteran and former member of the national commission that investigated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Cleland lost his Senate seat to Republican Saxby Chambliss, who suggested Cleland was soft on terrorism, and Cleland supporters said Rove was behind that. Cleland pointedly asked Rove "why didn't the Bush White House go after Osama bin Laden? Why are we wasting time in Iraq?" Cleland argued that assets have been pulled away from Afghanistan and sent to Iraq, and the two men heatedly spoke over each for a few seconds. McCaffrey, a national security and terrorism analyst for NBC News, called the Afghanistan war "one of the most miserably handled, under-resourced operations imaginable," with the United States pulling out a fair amount of special operations forces.

Earlier, Rove said that anyone concerned about world peace must be concerned about encouraging the spread of democracy. Totalitarian regimes can be sources of violence and instability, so it is in America's national interest to promote democracy - not just elections, but liberty - beyond its borders, said Rove, who resigned in August as deputy White House chief of staff.

Meanwhile, of course, Rove did his up most to build a totalitarian regime right here in the USA, with Chimperator Bush and Emperor Palpatine Cheney trampling all over the Constitution and the rights of American citizens. As one reader suggested, I myself due to my comments could be on a terrorist watch list under the secret domestic spying programs that now exist.

European and American rights groups file torture complaint against Rumsfeld

I truly hope that complaints filed against Rumsfeld - and hopefully the Chimperator once he is out of office - will go forward. These individuals basically said who cares about international law (or US law for that matter) and authorized illegal conduct. Nothing would make me happier than to see them be convicted. Only then will America has regained some of its lost moral standing. Here are some highlights from the International Herald Tribune (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/26/europe/EU-GEN-France-Rumsfeld-Torture-Complaint.php):

American and European rights groups filed a legal complaint in France accusing former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld of responsibility for torture in Iraq and at the Guantanamo Bay military prison, the groups said Friday. The complaint was filed with the Paris prosecutor's office as Rumsfeld arrived in France for a visit, according to the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, the Berlin-based European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights and two Paris-based groups, the International Federation of Human Rights and the League of Human Rights.

The rights groups say their complaint could go forward because people suspected of torture can be prosecuted in France if they are on French soil. The complaint will now be examined by French prosecutors, who will decide whether it is well-founded and should be pursued or whether it should be rejected. The Paris prosecutor's office said on Friday night that it was checking whether Rumsfeld is protected by any sort of diplomatic immunity and whether he was still in France. The complaint says Rumsfeld, in his former position as defense secretary, "authorized and ordered crimes of torture to be carried out ... as well as other war crimes."

"We know that we can't get him into prison right now, but it would be great to make sure that he couldn't safely leave the U.S. anymore," said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Strike on Iran Would Roil Oil Markets, Experts Say

As the Washington Post is correctly reporting (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502840.html?hpid=topnews), a strike by the USA on Iran would potentially cause chaos in the oil markets. Having once worked for an oil company as in-house counsel and remembering the mess created by the oil embargo in the 1970's, Bush and Cheney must be crazy to even contemplate such a policy. Oops, I forgot - they are crazy. Bush has had almost seven years to push the US towards less dependence on foreign oil - via conservation, better fuel economy requirements for cars, etc., and nothing has been done. The country is still as vulnerable as it was 30 years ago. The soccer moms need to dump their gas guzzling SUV's and the "butch" men need to get rid of their big ass trucks for starters. Here are highlights from the article:

A U.S. military strike against Iran would have dire consequences in petroleum markets, say a variety of oil industry experts, many of whom think the prospect of pandemonium in those markets makes U.S. military action unlikely despite escalating economic sanctions imposed by the Bush administration. The small amount of excess oil production capacity worldwide would provide an insufficient cushion if armed conflict disrupted supplies, oil experts say, and petroleum prices would skyrocket. Moreover, a wounded or angry Iran could easily retaliate against oil facilities from southern Iraq to the Strait of Hormuz.

"It will be chaos. . . . I can't really see it," said Abdulsamad al-Awadi, an oil trading consultant and former executive at Kuwait Petroleum. "Having been in the marketplace for almost 30 years, I can't see a scenario for it, or precautionary measures" that oil companies could take. "There are no precautionary measures." "If war breaks out, anticipate that all hell will break loose in the oil markets," said Robin West, chairman of PFC Energy, a District oil consulting firm. "Certainly when you lose 2.5 million barrels a day of Iranian production, which is the most likely case scenario, that will literally just make the market go berserk," al-Awadi said. Asked whether the companies he worked with had contingency plans, he said, "The oil industry does not have contingency plans. We are not military people."

"These crises have a habit of bursting on the scene and leading to unforeseen places," Drollas said. "Everyone wants it not to happen, but it's like a crash happening slowly. You can see the two cars coming toward each other. . . . There's an inevitability about it."

I am glad that I live close enough to my office that I can always walk if gas prices go through the roof or we have gas rationing as we did in the 1970's. Most people will not be as lucky.

An inexperienced president with a fundamentalist psyche and a paranoid and power-hungry vice-president who decided to embrace "the dark side"

Andrew Sullivan has a chilling post today (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/10/imaginationland.html) that may go along way toward explaining the mindsets of Chimperator Bush and Emperor Palpatine Cheney. It is scary, but does seem to add up. It certainly makes more sense then the BS explanations their defenders put forth. Here are some highlights:

Bush, putty in Cheney's hands, never wanted torture, but was so cowardly and lazy he never asked the hard questions of what was actually being done. He knows, of course, somewhere in his crippled fundamentalist psyche. But this is a man with clinical - Christianist and dry-drunk - levels of reality-denial, whose interaction with reality can only operate on thecrudest levels of Manichean analysis. All he needs to be told is that whatever it is they're doing, it isn't torture. He won't ask any more questions. They're evil; we're good; so we can't torture. Even when they were totally busted at Abu Ghraib, his incuriosity and denial held firm. After all, what if he were to find out something he didn't want to know? His world might collapse.

We may have entered a world, in other words, where the empirical reality of our national security is less important than the imaginationland that every torture regime will create. We may therefore be sacrificing our liberties for a phantasm created by brutality spawned by terror. We don't know for sure, of course. But that's what torture does: it creates a miasma of unknowing, about as dangerous a situation in wartime as one can imagine. This hideous fate was made possible by an inexperienced president with a fundamentalist psyche and a paranoid and power-hungry vice-president who decided to embrace "the dark side."

Until they are both gone from office, we are in grave danger - the kind of danger that only torturers and fantasists and a security strategy based on coerced evidence can conjure up. And since they have utter contempt for the role of the Congress in declaring war, we and the world are helpless to stop them. Every day we get through with them in power, I say a silent prayer of thanks that the worst hasn't happened. Yet. Because we sure know they're looking in all the wrong places.

More Reports of Blackwater USA Arrogance and Lack of Oversight

The October 15 issue of Newsweek Magazine (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21163806/site/newsweek/) has joined the list of publications doing stories on locally based mercenary provider, Blackwater USA. The picture that emerges is one of an organization that sees itself as answerable to no one and largely above the law, civilian or military. In this day and age, it is disturbing that mercenaries are being allowed to function in this unrestrained manner. Sadly, it appears to be all too typical of what the Bush/Cheney regime has allowed to occur, often deliberately. Here are some story highlights:

Oct. 15, 2007 issue - The colonel was furious. "Can you believe it? They actually drew their weapons on U.S. soldiers." He was describing a 2006 car accident, in which an SUV full of Blackwater operatives had crashed into a U.S. Army Humvee on a street in Baghdad's Green Zone. The colonel, who was involved in a follow-up investigation and spoke on the condition he not be named, said the Blackwater guards disarmed the U.S. Army soldiers and made them lie on the ground at gunpoint until they could disentangle the SUV. His account was confirmed by the head of another private security company. Asked to address this and other allegations in this story, Blackwater spokesperson Anne Tyrrell said, "This type of gossip has led to many soap operas in the press."

Whatever else Blackwater is or isn't guilty of—a topic of intense interest in Washington—it has a well-earned reputation in Iraq for arrogance and high-handedness. Iraqis naturally have the most serious complaints; dozens have been killed by Blackwater operatives since the beginning of the war. But many American civilian and military officials in Iraq also have little sympathy for the private security company and its highly paid employees. With an uproar growing in Congress over Blackwater's alleged excesses, the North Carolina-based company is finding few supporters.

Unlike nearly everyone else who enters the Green Zone, said an American soldier who guards a gate, Blackwater gunmen refuse to stop and clear their weapons of live ammunition once inside. One military contractor, who spoke anonymously for fear of retribution in his industry, recounted the story of a Blackwater operative who answered a Marine officer's order to put his pistol on safety when entering a base post office by saying, "This is my safety," and wiggling his trigger finger in the air. "Their attitude was, 'We're f---ing security; we don't have to answer to anybody'."

Late last week the State Department announced that it would increase oversight of Blackwater in particular, installing cameras in its vehicles and having a Diplomatic Security Service officer ride along on every convoy. But another State Department official, also speaking anonymously, says that DSS agents in Baghdad have not been eager to rein in the contractors in the past: "These guys tend to close ranks. It's like the blue wall."

One almost wonders whether Blackwater sees itself as some future Praetorian Guard to Chimperator Bush and Emperor Palpatine Cheney (that might explain Erik Prince's smugness while testifying before Congress) who I for one, hope really leave office in January 2009.

Kucinich 'seriously thinking' about forcing vote on Cheney impeachment

While this measure may well not pass, it would nonetheless be nice to see sharp focus placed on the misdeeds of Vice President "Darth Vader" Cheney. Particularly before he convinces Chimperator Bush that he should order an attack on Iran. Here are portions of a RawStory article (http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Kucinich_seriously_thinking_about_forcing_vote_0928.html):

Rep. Dennis Kucinich says he is so concerned about what he sees as the Bush administration's push for a war with Iran that he is considering using a parliamentary measure to force the House of Representatives to vote on impeaching Vice President Dick Cheney.

"We're preparing for another war, and they're going to destroy America," the Ohio Democrat said Thursday on the Ed Schultz show. "We have a government in place right now that has to be challenged. I'm seriously thinking about calling a privileged resolution on impeachment of the vice president and forcing a vote on the floor of the House."

privileged resolution would force the full House to debate about whether to proceed with impeachment, but it remains unclear precisely how, when or whether Kucinich would be able to introduce such a resolution. Privileged measures "may be called up on the floor whenever another measure is not already pending" and the House agrees to consider it, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Ex-Iraq General: Bush 'misunderstanding' Vietnam history

I guess since Chimperator Bush and Dick "Darth Vader" Cheney both avoided serving in Vietnam - Bush because of Daddy's connections and Cheney because it "wasn't for him" - it should be no surprise that these two fascists cannot understand the true nature of what went on in Vietnam. I suggest that both men watch the film "Fog of War" wherein Robert McNamara discusses the mistakes of Vietnam. Perhaps if they had watched the film before going into Iraq, the whole debacle could have been avoided. This MSNBC quote at Raw Story is illustrative:

MSNBC's Alison Stewart interviews retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, senior adviser to VoteVets, who was in charge of training the Iraqi military in 2003 and 2004. Alison asks Gen. Eaton his take on the accuracy of President Bush's recent statement, during his Wednesday speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, that retreating from Iraq would cause the same kind of "violent reaction" that came from the United States' pullout from Vietnam.

"It's a very unfortunate trip back into history," says Eaton. "It reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Vietnam war was about. Our enemy there was the North Vietnamese Army and their proxy forces, the Viet Cong. The issue in Iraq is a religious-based civil war with al-Qaeda thrown in there to complicate the affair."

Eaton calls Bush's analogy "unfortunate," citing "untidy parallels" between the behaviors of senior civilian leadership in Vietnam and Iraq. There is a failure on the part of the Bush Administration to devote diplomatic resources, in addition to fighting troops, to help the current situation.

Bush threatens to veto health care coverage for kids and seniors, but think Bush, Cheney or Roberts had any problems with their health insurance?

I could not help but reference this post on America Blog (,http://www.americablog.com/2007/07/bush-threatens-to-veto-health-care.html) since it gets to the growing crisis in this country for so many people: the cost of health care coverage. At the moment, my premium is $1337.00 per month. My office has a group plan and all employees can have coverage through it if the so elect. But if you are and individual, there are people with pre-existing conditions who cannot get coverage: The insurance carriers want your premium dollars, but want as little chance of actually having to pay anything out as possible. I believe it is a travesty that the supposedly most advanced nation in the world has millions and millions of citizens who do not have and cannot obtain health coverage. Here's some of America Blog's commentary:

Over the past two weeks, three of the top officials in our government have undergone major medical experiences. Bush had a colonoscopy and polyps removed; Cheney got some kind of new cardiac device; and John Roberts had a seizure that landed him in the E.R. If those experiences had happened to most Americans, we'd be sorting through our health care plans to figure out what was covered and how much we owed. That is, if there was health insurance coverage.

Meanwhile, I don't think Roberts is fretting that he had a pre-existing condition or whether E.R. visits are in his plan. The rest of us are tortured over things like that.You know that none of those guys have any such worries. You're paying for them to have the best health care around.

Yet, George Bush is vowing to veto the SCHIP reauthorization. This week, the House will pass its version of SCHIP reauthorization, the Children’s Health and Medicare Protection Act (CHAMP), H.R. 3162. That bill will provide health care to 11 million kids while protecting senior citizens from the Bush effort to privatize Medicare. Yep, health care for kids and seniors. But, Bush can't have that.

Pat Tillman's Diary

I came across an interesting post at this blog site. I do not know the validity of the contents, but if true, more interesting issues come up that should be answered. (see: http://cunningrealist.blogspot.com/2007/07/diary.html):

From a reader:

I served in Operation Desert Storm. After I got out of the military I became a police officer. Reading about Pat Tillman's death, something really stuck out to me: He kept a diary. Major red flag there. As a cop, if we had a guy in the stationhouse watching us and writing down what he saw everyday in a little black book, you can probably guess how that would go over with everyone else. Same thing in the military, even more so. There were a couple of guys who kept diaries when I served. But those were very basic "what chow we had today" etc. types of things, a way to pass downtime more than anything else. The guys who kept them were not writing about illegal wars or upcoming meetings with Noam Chomsky. One other thing, because of his high profile you can be sure Tillman's views were known up through the chain of command right into the Pentagon, which was almost certainly getting regular reports on Tillman from his superiors. And what happened to Tillman's diary? Right after he was killed it was destroyed. No surprise there.

Me: In addition to last week's report that medical examiners said the shots that killed Tillman appeared to have been fired from ten yards away, over the weekend the AP also reported that some snipers -- whose names Tillman's comrades don't remember -- arrived in a Humvee just prior to his death, got out of their vehicle, and started shooting. To be clear, I'm not convinced yet that this was anything other than an accidental death, with a subsequent cover-up (just as the Abu Ghraib story was breaking) to portray Tillman as a hero killed by hostile fire. I think that cover-up probably reached the highest levels of the Pentagon and into the White House. But let's see what we find out next....the rolling revelations continue, three years on.

Answering to No One

I had been waiting to run this photo of Vice President "Darth Vader" Cheney with the right commentary. Walter Mondale's column today (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702126.html) set the right stage:

The Post's recent series on Dick Cheney's vice presidency certainly got my attention. Having held that office myself over a quarter-century ago, I have more than a passing interest in its evolution from the backwater of American politics to the second most powerful position in our government. Almost all of that evolution, under presidents and vice presidents of both parties, has been positive -- until now. Under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, it has gone seriously off track.

The Founders created the vice presidency as a constitutional afterthought, solely to provide a president-in-reserve should the need arise. The only duty they specified was that the vice president should preside over the Senate. The office languished in obscurity and irrelevance for more than 150 years until Richard Nixon saw it as a platform from which to seek the Republican presidential nomination in 1960. That worked, and the office has been an effective launching pad for aspiring candidates since.

But it wasn't until Jimmy Carter assumed the presidency that the vice presidency took on a substantive role. Carter saw the office as an underused asset and set out to make the most of it. He gave me an office in the West Wing, unimpeded access to him and to the flow of information, and specific assignments at home and abroad. He asked me, as the only other nationally elected official, to be his adviser and partner on a range of issues.

This all changed in 2001, and especially after Sept. 11, when Cheney set out to create a largely independent power center in the office of the vice president. His was an unprecedented attempt not only to shape administration policy but, alarmingly, to limit the policy options sent to the president. It is essential that a president know all the relevant facts and viable options before making decisions, yet Cheney has discarded the "honest broker" role he played as President Gerald Ford's chief of staff.

Rather than subject his views to an established (and rational) vetting process, his practice has been to trust only his immediate staff before taking ideas directly to the president. Many of the ideas that Bush has subsequently bought into have proved offensive to the values of the Constitution and have been embarrassingly overturned by the courts.

The corollary to Cheney's zealous embrace of secrecy is his near total aversion to the notion of accountability. I've never seen a former member of the House of Representatives demonstrate such contempt for Congress -- even when it was controlled by his own party. His insistence on invoking executive privilege to block virtually every congressional request for information has been stupefying -- it's almost as if he denies the legitimacy of an equal branch of government. Nor does he exhibit much respect for public opinion, which amounts to indifference toward being held accountable by the people who elected him.

Cheney is a menace and his belief that he is no answerable to anyone is dangerous. He and Bush have done more to subvert the Constitution and deprive citizens of legal protection than any administration in history. Even during World War II the President did not to have the power to have citizens arrested on his say so, with no legal protections to those targeted.

War Crimes and the White House

It is about time that more members of the GOP begin to wake up to the travesties worked by the regime of Chimperator Bush and Vice President "Darth Vader" Cheney. Here are highlights from a Washington Post op-ed by Retired Gen. P.X. Kelley, who served as commandant of the Marine Corps from 1983 to 1987, and Robert F. Turner, the co-founder of the University of Virginia's Center for National Security Law and a former chair of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Law and National Security:

One of us was appointed commandant of the Marine Corps by President Ronald Reagan; the other served as a lawyer in the Reagan White House and has vigorously defended the constitutionality of warrantless National Security Agency wiretaps, presidential signing statements and many other controversial aspects of the war on terrorism. But we cannot in good conscience defend a decision that we believe has compromised our national honor and that may well promote the commission of war crimes by Americans and place at risk the welfare of captured American military forces for generations to come.

The Supreme Court held in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld last summer that all detainees captured in the war on terrorism are protected by Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which prescribes minimum standards of treatment for all persons who are no longer taking an active part in an armed conflict not of an international character. It provides that "in all circumstances" detainees are to be "treated humanely."

Last Friday, the White House issued an executive order attempting to "interpret" Common Article 3 with respect to a controversial CIA interrogation program. The order declares that the CIA program "fully complies with the obligations of the United States under Common Article 3," provided that its interrogation techniques do not violate existing federal statutes (prohibiting such things as torture, mutilation or maiming) and do not constitute "willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual in a manner so serious that any reasonable person, considering the circumstances, would deem the acts to be beyond the bounds of human decency."

In other words, as long as the intent of the abuse is to gather intelligence or to prevent future attacks, and the abuse is not "done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual" -- even if that is an inevitable consequence -- the president has given the CIA carte blanche to engage in "willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse."

It is firmly established in international law that treaties are to be interpreted in "good faith" in accordance with the ordinary meaning of their words and in light of their purpose. It is clear to us that the language in the executive order cannot even arguably be reconciled with America's clear duty under Common Article 3 to treat all detainees humanely and to avoid any acts of violence against their person.

To date in the war on terrorism, including the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks and all U.S. military personnel killed in action in Afghanistan and Iraq, America's losses total about 2 percent of the forces we lost in World War II and less than 7 percent of those killed in Vietnam. Yet we did not find it necessary to compromise our honor or abandon our commitment to the rule of law to defeat Nazi Germany or imperial Japan, or to resist communist aggression in Indochina. On the contrary, in Vietnam -- where we both proudly served twice -- America voluntarily extended the protections of the full Geneva Convention on prisoners of war to Viet Cong guerrillas who, like al-Qaeda, did not even arguably qualify for such protections.

It will take years to repair the damage done to this country's reputation by Bush/Cheney. Once credited with most of the world with good intentions and some degree of morality, this country is (or certainly this administration) is despised by the majority of the world. The full op-ed can be found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072501881.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR

New Lows in Approval for the Chimperator and His Policies

American Research Group, Inc.'s newest poll shows that the Chimerator continues to sink like a stone in the opinion of the American public. Here are a few highlights:

A total of 71% of Americans say they disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president according to the latest survey from the American Research Group. Among all Americans, 25% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 71% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 23% approve and 73% disapprove.

Among Americans registered to vote, 27% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 70% disapprove. When it comes to the way Bush is handling the economy, 23% of registered voters approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 72% disapprove.

Among Republicans (30% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 68% approve of the way Bush is handling his job and 26% disapprove. Among Democrats (37% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 1% approve and 97% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job. Among independents (33% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 18% approve and 79% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job as president.

It strongly appears that only the delusional Christianist elements of the GOP continue to support Bush, but then they never rely on facts or reality to form their opinions either. I hope Bush/Cheney continue to deny reality and drag the GOP to massive defeat in 2008. I hardly think the Dems are a solution to every problem, but at least the country will not have Christianists in charge.

The complete poll results are here: http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/

Bush to cede power to VP during colonoscopy

This is a bit scary:

WASHINGTON - President Bush will undergo a routine colonoscopy Saturday and temporarily hand presidential powers over to Vice President Dick Cheney, the White House said. He last underwent colorectal cancer surveillance on June 29, 2002 (MY COMMENT: Perhaps that's when they inadvertently removed his brain??).

With Bush out of it for several hours, I can only hope Vice President "Darth Vader" Cheney does 't decide to start World War III by attacking Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, or God knows what other countries. Cheney has demonstrated time and time again that he thinks he is above the law and not subject to any Congressional restraints.

In France, a Senior Politician Dares to Question the 9/11 Tale

Today, nearly six years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, does anyone doubt the Bush administration and the mass media's grand narrative about just who was responsible for those shocking, sudden, well-coordinated and super-destructive events? Well, yes.

. . . [T]oday, still, there are some observers who doubt the established, now-familiar media story about the historic attacks that Team Bush seized upon to launch an aimless "war on terror." Apparently, one of them has landed a high-ranking government job in the cabinet of France's new president, Nicolas Sarkozy. That Doubting Thomas is Christine Boutin, France's new minister of housing and urban affairs.

ReOpen911, a France-based Web site devoted to investigating what took place in New York, Washington, D.C., and a field in Pennsylvania on that fateful day in 2001, and whatever events might have led up to it, is now featuring a video clip shot in November of last year in which Boutin - at that time still not a cabinet minister - is asked: "Do you think that Bush could [have been] behind these attacks?" Boutin responds: "I think that it's possible."

What do readers think given Chimperator Bush's documented difficulty in ever telling the truth? The full story is found here: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/indexn?blogid=15archive/

New Poll: Majority Favor Impeaching Cheney

New polls by American Research Group of 1,100 respondents taken from July 3-5, found that 54% of Americans favored impeachment of Vice President Cheney. Only 17% of Republicans in the poll favored the impeachment of Cheney, while 76% of Democrats supported the move in the House of Representatives. However, of independents polled, a slight majority of 51%, also supported impeaching the Vice President. The numbers for impeachment of Bush show an almost event split for those other than those in the undecided category.

The poll also reflected deep disapproval of President George W. Bush's commutation of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" 84% oppose a full pardon for Libby.

The full results can be viewed here: http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/

Former Royal Family Selling ‘Dracula’s Castle’

The price is $135,000,000. Perhaps Dick Cheney can use his Haliburton war profits to buy it. He and Count Vlad, the inspiration for Dracula, certainly seem to have some similar personality traits. Here's highlights of the MSNBC report:

The Bran Castle, perched on a cliff near Brasov in mountainous central Romania, is a top tourist attraction because of its ties to Prince Vlad the Impaler, the warlord whose cruelty inspired Bram Stoker’s 1897 novel, “Dracula.”

Bran Castle was built in the 14th century to serve as a fortress to protect against the invading Ottoman Turks. The royal family moved into the castle in the 1920s, living there until the communist regime confiscated it from Princess Ileana in 1948.

After being restored in the late 1980s and following the end of communist rule in Romania, it gained popularity as a tourist attraction known as “Dracula’s Castle.”

In May 2006, the castle was returned to Princess Ileana’s son, Archduke Dominic Habsburg.
Habsburg, a 69-year-old New York architect, pledged to keep it open as a museum until 2009 and offered to sell the castle last year to local authorities for $80 million, but the offer was rejected. Monday, he put the castle up for sale “to the right purchaser under the right circumstances,” said Michael Gardner, chief executive of Baytree Capital, the company representing Habsburg. “The Habsburgs are not in the business of managing a museum.”

Four Years since "Bring'em On"

The national Security Network (http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/165) has a report on the state of affairs four (4) years after Chimperator Bush stupidly told the anti-American elements in the Middle East to "Bring'em on." Here's a summary and some highlights:

It has been four years since the President declared “bring’em on” in response to the budding insurgency in Iraq. Since that statement, more than 3,300 American troops have been killed and 25,000 have been wounded. Iraqi civilians have suffered tremendously, with four million fleeing their homes and an estimated 35,000 killed. The security situation has only deteriorated further, with the initial insurgency morphing into multiple civil wars and sectarian violence. Incredibly, there are more American troops in Iraq today than were there four years ago when the President made his reckless declaration.

The Middle East is facing its largest refugee crisis in a generation. More than 2 million Iraqis have fled Iraq and another 2 million are internally displaced.

America has been in Iraq longer than it was in World War II. It has been 52 months since military operations in Iraq began. As of July 1, 2007, American troops have been in Iraq for 1,565, days the equivalent of 222 weeks.

Four years later, oil production is 21% below prewar levels. Despite the assertion that Iraqi oil production would pay for the war, production is down to 1.97 million barrels/day from 2.5 before the war.

Baghdad is still averaging only 5.6 hours of electricity per day. This number represents only 20% of prewar production levels. Unemployment remains between 25-40%. For the last two years, the unemployment rate hasUnemployment remains between 25-40%.

And our Chimperator and Darth Vadar Cheney think democracy will prevail in such an environment? Both are either utterly insane or complete delusional idiots.