John McCain

John McCain: "My butt is so wide for special interest plowing by Republican behind the behind backers that when their elephant -sized members enter my back door they find no pleasure at all." Thanks Jim Leherer for bringing this ugly fact to the light of my afternoon.

Katha Pollitt takes on revisionism and muses on the manufacture of today into historical grist in the latest online edition of thenation.com


BLOG | Posted 10/08/2007 @ 1:46pm
How Many Times Can a Country Lose its Innocence?
by Katha Politt

I've been thinking recently about the many ways in which we conceal from ourselves the truths we know we know. At the Shocked, Shocked conference at NYU on Saturday -- the subhead of which was the comical/exasperated "Just how many times can a country lose its innocence?" -- the Yale historian David Blight gave a riveting talk about how over the second half of the 19th century the Civil War became memorialized as a conflict between "two right sides " -- Union and Confederate-- and "reconciliation" came to mean focussing exclusively on the valor of the soldiers in both armies. Slavery? Black people? Neither fit the narrative of reuniting North and South. For that, the causes and purposes of the war had to be obscured, the past -- the real past -- forgotten. The slaveowner and the slave dropped out of the public story, the soldiers in blue and gray became the star players. In this way, the country could bind up its wounds and move on triumphantly without having to confront the reconstitution of white supremacy in the South, or Northern racism either. Napoleon quipped that the winners write history, but until the civil rights movement, the history of the Civil War was largely written by the South.

Blight gave an interesting example of how the wish for a heroic, positive history distorts "progressive"memory too. Ken Burns ended his PBS series on the Civil War with footage of the huge 1913 reunion at Gettysburg of veterans from both sides, closing on a conciliatory meeting between an old black union soldier and a white confederate one. According to Blight, this picture had to have come from a much later vets reunion. In 1913, all the vets were white. The only blacks permitted in the encampment were the ones who built and maintained the latrines, cooked and served food, and handed out blankets.

You can see the same process of historical mythmaking at work on the War in Vietnam. The war as well-intentioned tragedy (liberal version) versus the war as sabotaged glory, the stab in the back (conservative). The history of militant GI resistance, told in the powerful documentary "Sir! No Sir!", has dropped out of public memory, replaced by feckless "draft dodgers" and the myth of the returning soldier spat upon in the airport by a hippie girl with flowers in her hair.

How will the War in Iraq be woven into the ongoing narrative of American goodness and progress? We brought them democracy, but they couldn't handle freedom? We could have pacified the country with just a bit more time but the peaceniks stabbed us in the back, just like in Vietnam? Maybe both--in fact, both are in circulation already. You can be sure that, as with Vietnam, no matter how many Abu Ghraibs and Hadithas come to light, they will be blamed on bad-apple soldiers and the fog of war, not higher ups or official policy.

Imagine that in 30 years the Smithsonian tries to put on an exhibit exploring the the Iraq war: the cooked evidence of WMD, the "embedding" of the media, our bewildering and shifting alliances with assorted Iraqi would-be strongmen, the destruction of Iraqi infrastructure, the violence against civilians, the displacement of millions of Iraqis to Syria and Jordan, and so on. Today , these are all things we know well. But will we still know them in 30 years? If history is any guide, they'll have been replaced by a soothing and hopeful popular narrative of patriotism , military valor and well-meaning blunders. In the furor over the planned exhibit, many rightwing politicians will raise tons of cash, the curator will lose her job, and in the end the more disturbing, 'controversial" displays will be replaced with pictures of Osama bin Laden, 9/11, soldiers building schools and soulful-eyed Iraqi children being brought to America for medical treatment.

Blight closed with a wonderful remark from the Reverend Fred Shuttleworth, the great civil-rights leader: "If you don't tell it like it really was, it can never be as it ought to be." That goes for all of us.

The Coming Food Crisis is here and so is the remedy:

from the Nation website:

The Hundred-Mile Diet

Christopher Ketcham

..."Meanwhile, trade studies in Britain find that the British import huge quantities of staples such as milk, pork and lamb, while exporting comparable tonnages of these same products--trapped in lunatic "food swap" trade agreements made possible by cheap oil, subsidized transport and centralized purchases by massive retailers. Perhaps localvorism is best understood as an act of rebellion against a system that should not--cannot--stand."...

CRUDE BUBBLING REALITY SURFACES FROM THE TROOPS through the nyt

The War As We Saw It
By Buddhika Jayamaha, Wesley D. Smith, Jeremy Roebuck, Omar Mora, Edward Sandmeier, Yance T. Gray and Jeremy A. Murphy
The New York Times

Sunday 19 August 2007

Viewed from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)

The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the "battle space" remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers' expense.

A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.

As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.

Similarly, Sunnis, who have been underrepresented in the new Iraqi armed forces, now find themselves forming militias, sometimes with our tacit support. Sunnis recognize that the best guarantee they may have against Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated government is to form their own armed bands. We arm them to aid in our fight against Al Qaeda.

However, while creating proxies is essential in winning a counterinsurgency, it requires that the proxies are loyal to the center that we claim to support. Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in our absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with us on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on it should the Americans leave.

In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. (In the course of writing this article, this fact became all too clear: one of us, Staff Sergeant Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a "time-sensitive target acquisition mission" on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive and is being flown to a military hospital in the United States.) While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse - namely, the widespread use of lethal and brutal force.

Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.

Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux.

The Iraqi government is run by the main coalition partners of the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance, with Kurds as minority members. The Shiite clerical establishment formed the alliance to make sure its people did not succumb to the same mistake as in 1920: rebelling against the occupying Western force (then the British) and losing what they believed was their inherent right to rule Iraq as the majority. The qualified and reluctant welcome we received from the Shiites since the invasion has to be seen in that historical context. They saw in us something useful for the moment.

Now that moment is passing, as the Shiites have achieved what they believe is rightfully theirs. Their next task is to figure out how best to consolidate the gains, because reconciliation without consolidation risks losing it all. Washington's insistence that the Iraqis correct the three gravest mistakes we made - de-Baathification, the dismantling of the Iraqi Army and the creation of a loose federalist system of government - places us at cross purposes with the government we have committed to support.

Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict - as we do now - will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run.

At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. "Lucky" Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal.

In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, "We need security, not free food."

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are - an army of occupation - and force our withdrawal.

Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.

We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.

---

Buddhika Jayamaha is an Army specialist. Wesley D. Smith is a sergeant. Jeremy Roebuck is a sergeant. Omar Mora is a sergeant. Edward Sandmeier is a sergeant. Yance T. Gray is a staff sergeant. Jeremy A. Murphy is a staff sergeant.

-------

Eat this Rovian Daily Kos censoring implants!

observations from a Viet vet against war advocating peace published in Counterpunch

..."Tillman was killed by three, closely-grouped 5.56mmrounds (the ammunition used exclusively by the U.S. M-16; a “round” is one cartridge) the middle of his forehead. The official Army story (after all the “enemy fire” b.s. was exposed as a lie) was that he was killed by friendly fire by his own unit from 90 yards away.

"A bit of weapon forensics is appropriate at this point. The M-16 is an automatic weapon, which can be fired “semi”-automatically, where each trigger-pull fires one round, or on full automatic, where the weapon fires continuously, and very rapidly, as long as the trigger stays pulled. The choice between semi and full is made by a switch on the weapon.

"Anyone who has fired any type of weapon knows that the violent release of expanding gases accelerating the bullet down the barrel causes the weapon to jump, or recoil. It’s pure physics. The accelerating bullet causes an equal and opposite reaction. The recoiling weapon will not, and cannot, place a second bullet on the same aiming point as the first if it is fired rapidly. Similarly for the third bullet, and so forth. This is especially true for automatic fire mode, but also for semi-automatic mode, if the rate of fire, or pulling of the trigger is rapid. Automatic weapons are said to “walk”, and it is impossible to avoid this, even by the most skilled marksman.

"Add to this another factor. Automatic weapons discharge multiple bullets in rapid succession. Where these bullets land is called the “beaten zone”, in Army training parlance.

"The further away you are from the beaten zone, the larger it will be. That is, the weapon’s recoil, already discussed, causes a “spray”effect, whose profile is larger the further away the target is--like a garden hose.

"Army doctors examining Tillman noted the very close grouping of the entry wounds in his forehead, and concluded they could not have come from a weapon fired 90 yards away(more like 10 yards, max), and tried to report this, but their reports were squelched. Ten yards raises vexing questions, not the least of which is that the Army’s current story, after the first Silver Star heroism version was exposed as b.s., may itself be another cover-up. The obvious question is this: if the bullets came from 10 yards away, who fired them, and why?"

"This is complicated by the knowledge that Pat Tillman, a member of the elite U.S. Army Rangers, its shock infantry, was openly opposed to the occupation of Iraq, in which he had participated, and was a well-read political dissident who intended to meet with Noam Chomsky, an internationally-renowned political writer who is deeply opposed to U.S. imperialism. Pat Tillman, the poster boy for Bush/Cheney’s “Global War on Terrorism”, never had that meeting and never returned to the U.S."

"Winston Warfield is a Vietnam Veteran, (Infantry) and a member of Veterans for Peace."

These are the realities of the United States of America when the trickle down policies of the Bush Gang hit main street

•Twenty million Americans – cannot buy enough to eat.

•20 percent are without adequate water supplies.

•12 percent of children are malnourished.

•92 percent of American children suffer learning problems.

•23 percent of Americans live in "absolute poverty," earning less than ten dollars a day.

•More than 20 million people have been displaced inside America.

•A further two million Americans have become refugees, mainly in California and Arizona.

Mysterious snipers emerge in Tillman murder

Interesting and incriminating information regarding the claim of a high level hit on Tillman due to his epiphany on the war and his vow to come back to the US and oppose the war when his tour was over. He should have kept his mouth shut. Remember that there was no enemy fire at all and no enemy soldiers in the area. This was a hit just like the hit on the Italian journalist on the airport road, Paul Wellstone's convenient air crash, the anthrax letters sent to Leahy and Daschle, the targeting of Afghanistan when the 9-11 bombers were Saudi, and hundreds of other lesser events surrounding bogus prosecutions of opponents of the war like Martha Stewart, and Michael Moore most recently.

From AP's freedom of information request Pat Tillman transcripts:

"involved never-before-mentioned snipers who were apparently there when the firing broke out, got out of their vehicle and walked alongside the convoy, cutting up the canyon firing. O'Neal said Saturday that he knew there were snipers in the convoy that fired at them, but that he can't remember their names. Were they fired at by the snipers? "Not that I know of," O'Neal told the AP. " Well which is it?

"His recollections of the snipers reflected other testimony in the transcripts, including answers given by Capt. Richard Scott, who conducted the first, immediate investigation: Q: Are you aware whether or not any U.S. forces snipers were at the scene? Scott: They were in serial two. Q: And, and do you know whose GMV (ground mobility vehicle) they were traveling in? Scott: I don't think they were in a GMV. I think they were in a cargo Humvee. Q: Okay. Do you know if the snipers fired any rounds during this incident involving CPL Tillman? Scott: I do not, no."

Was Pat Tillman killed on Cheney's or Rumsfeld's orders?

(the following piece got the O'Reilly treatment from none other than Karl Rove's greatest achievement, The Daily Kos website. If you are not aware of this site, it is where little "d" democrats are required to play nice within the framework of the authoritarians in the undisclosed locations and in secret meetings closed to the plebes in the streets. The Daily Kos is where support for politicians like multimillionaire John Edwards, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, (still a Goldwater Republican Girl,) and Nancy Pelosi, (aka Nancy D'Alesandro; daughter of the Baltimore machine politician, Thomas D'Alesandro) can be heard to with continue the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places, while appeasing the ruling class of the idle rich.) Playing by the rules is the way we stay mired in the mud and remain inoffensive and non threatening. This is the rule of The Daily Kos.)



We must be ever vigilantly cynical regarding the bloodthirsty, money-hungry cut-throats in the White House because they never disappoint the rudest and crudest analysis of their active and ongoing conspiracies. The vilest imaginings of Stephen King is where these deceitful serpents dwell. Never make the mistake that you are being too cold in your analysis of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and Rice. When I wrote this piece 28 April 2007 I kept that in mind:

"This is only the latest incident highlighting the arrogance of the authoritarian officer class of the military which feels itself duty bound to protect the military-industrial echelon which signs its paychecks and greases the skids of empire. Officers are paid and promoted for lying about the war and putting a false face of honor on what is nothing but the murder of civilians. "

"It appears that for a time Pat Tillman bought into the propaganda like so many green fresh-faced kids do. When he found that it was a lie and wrote to others including his family about the atrocities he was seeing on a daily basis and being forced to participate in by his commanding officers, he was seen as a threat to the whole Iraq War Lie told by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, Powell, and Rice. Pat was a famous enlistee who would find an audience and he was finding his own voice and it scared the daylights out of the Administration liars. "

"So when the letters home detailing the day to day horrors he was being asked to inflict on innocent civilians showed some consistency and gravity and when his conversations to others in the squad started to raise eyebrows, he was ordered killed to keep his mouth shut. That is what this country has become and it is to our collective shame that his death speaks. The US Congress needs to speak for all the dead through Pat Tillman with a thorough investigation, seeking conviction of all who sought to silence him through death. "

Michael Jordan

This is an excerpt of the San Jose Mercury article published 25 April 2007 by Frank Davies

"There is growing evidence that Tillman's death was a prime topic at the highest levels of the military and Bush administration. When he was killed in April 2004, the White House was dealing with the bloodiest month in Iraq to date and the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Six days after Tillman's death, a White House speechwriter, John Currin, contacted the Pentagon to get more information about Tillman and how he enlisted, an e-mail released Tuesday showed. Currin wanted it for a speech by President Bush to the annual White House correspondents dinner. "

"A day after that e-mail, Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of joint special operations, warned top generals that Tillman's death was likely caused by friendly fire. McChrystal was worried that Bush might include comments about Tillman in a speech. He warned in the memo that "it was essential that you received this information as soon as we detected it in order to preclude any unknowing statements by our country's leaders which might cause public embarrassment if the circumstances of Cpl. Tillman's death become public." "

"Bush praised Tillman and his courage at the dinner, but made no specific comments about how he died. McChrystal and another general, Philip Kensinger - who attended the San Jose memorial but did not tell the family how Tillman died - were severely criticized in Gimble's report, and face punishment under an ongoing review by a four-star general, William Wallace. "

"Gimble admitted to the House committee that he "did not look into" possible contacts between the Pentagon and White House over the case, and that investigators did not question Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about what he knew and when. Instead, Rumsfeld sent a letter to the investigation that he did not know the true nature of Tillman's death for several weeks, Gimble said. Kevin and Mary Tillman said they found that difficult to believe. Rumsfeld was keenly interested in Tillman's service and had written him a personal letter of thanks after his enlistment."

But now the only uncertainty remaining resides with the "tooth fairy" set of conservative journalists. The Associated Press revealed today the results of a freedom of information request involving 2500 pages of investigation which was repressed by the Defense Department and the Bush Administration and their Republican allies in the house and Senate. It is now painfully clear when viewing all the facts regarding Tillman that he was murdered by the Bush Administration to keep him from using his celebrity status and money to expose the lie of the war in Afghanistan.

By MARTHA MENDOZA AP National Writer

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) _ Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player's death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

"The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described," a doctor who examined Tillman's body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.

The doctors _ whose names were blacked out _ said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.

The medical examiners' suspicions were outlined in 2,300 pages of testimony released to the AP this week by the Defense Department in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

Among other information contained in the documents:

_ Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments.

_ The three-star general who kept the truth about Tillman's death from his family and the public told investigators some 70 times that he had a bad memory and couldn't recall details of his actions.

_ No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene _ no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck.

The Pentagon and the Bush administration have been criticized in recent months for lying about the circumstances of Tillman's death. The military initially told the public and the Tillman family that he had been killed by enemy fire. Only weeks later did the Pentagon acknowledge he was gunned down by fellow Rangers.

The documents show that a doctor who autopsied Tillman's body was suspicious of the three gunshot wounds to the forehead. The doctor said he took the unusual step of calling the Army's Human Resources Command and was rebuffed. He then asked an official at the Army's Criminal Investigation Division if the CID would consider opening a criminal case.

"He said he talked to his higher headquarters and they had said no," the doctor testified.

--Associated Press reporters Scott Lindlaw in Las Vegas and Lolita C. Baldor in Washington contributed to this story.

This whole nightmare we have been enduring was cooked up by Cheney and his Energy Council during the first days of the Bush Presidency and every incident including 9-11 was a concocted casus belli to enable the Texas Oil Cartel to convince US citizens to take our tax money and blood and use it to enrich the Texans by going to war in Afghanistan for an pipeline for Unocal, and in Iraq for cheaply pumped crude oil to be shared by the Seven Sisters. If you want to find who started this horror show rolling you need look no further than James Baker of Baker Botts. It was Jimmy Baker who bullied Al Gore out of his victory in 2000. Janet Reno should have arrested him when he started interfering with the election outcome.

Solution? First we need to impeach them, then we need to prosecute them, sentence them, and then finally put them to death in a Reign of Cleansing to put the world right again. If you haven't got the stomach for victory, find it.

Long Live Robespierre!

Paul Craig Roberts -- Defrocked!!!

I have been carrying on an adulation regarding Stanford Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, the darling of the neo-conservative liberal poseur Alexander Cockburn; only to find out recently through an exploratory combined congratulatory letter and admonishment that he really considers himself as an unabashed trickle-down godfather of supply side economics and further feels that he is a man of the people as he views Ronald Reagan to be as well. Were it not for the combined poisoning of the 'well of truth' of both these souls of the Wall Street Journal pundit pool along with David Brooks I would have considered it an unfortunate anomaly. But upon contacting Mr. Roberts it appears that he actually believes that he is carrying the crucifix of humanity right alongside the Pontiff of Putriditity Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Get this:

Paul,

I have been enjoying your articles while allowing for the Republican tag which may provide some sort of credibility for Alex Cockburn in his insular isolated global sphere, I would like to ask you to make the change to progressive and drop the Republican tag which carries no distinction for any prescient being since WWII. Like David Stockman your allegiance to Reagan Patrician authoritarianism is something which hinders your street credibility in the modern world of justice. Get off this foolishness and break away and become human. Please do it now!!

(Paul responds)
Stockman was the opposite of loyal to Reagan. Don't
know what
you mean by pat. auth. Reagan was a man of the people
disliked by the Republican establishment. So was I

You said:

Reagan was a man of the people
disliked by the Republican establishment. So was I

Ed Meese, People's Park police riot, a killing, Iran Contra, Guns for Drugs: Any of these things jog your memory?

The tenured middle class patricians and the old money but not the people.
Not the people of whom Lincoln spoke, "God must have loved the common people because he made so many of them."

Certainly not the people whom he sent the national guard and the dogs after.
He was not the man of the people but rather "The Man", as in the hobnail boot on the neck of a citizen.

The people hated Reagan and still do. You are a much better human being than him, and need to maybe break away from the association with him.
That was my suggestion.

Anyway you may still disagree but I want you know that I like your writing and your willingness to stand up to the current excessively dangerous government we find ourselves under now. Kudo's

Mike Jordan


Paul Responds:

the people loved Reagan, the most popular president of
the post war era
you are misinformed

Paul I couldn't agree less-

Ronald Reagan had less than 20% support of the country at the height of his popularity:
A media president, media manipulated into media prominence just like the current liar president and media darling G. W. Bush.
In 27 years you are the first person I have ever met who liked Reagan.
Upon hearing he had been shot, my fellow working, suffering Americans in San Francisco were hoping for a fatality.
We travel in different circles to say the very least.
The "love" for Ronald Reagan had to do with his 20 Muleteam Borax Days and GE Theatre and his good looks in a bathing suit when he was a lifeguard as a young man.
These images created a host of false impressions where silly hayseeds equate photogenic qualities found in actors for honesty and decency. Women swooned over him and men shaved their body hair to look like him to win back their wives. This was not the acceptance of a diligent politician but rather red hair dye and makeup assisting star glamour which has been well chronicled by the insiders in his inner circle. Joan Quigley at the request of his wife Nancy was more significant in creating the fiction of Reagan than any other person excepting perhaps George Bush Sr. who manipulated intelligence in the background and threatened committee members including John Kerry to make Ron look good during Iran Contra and the constant murders of civilians by intelligence agents like Eugene Hassenfus in their immoral efforts to over throw duly elected governments. Ronald Reagan renewed the horror show in Central America and is the main reason governments in "the south" started pushing their people up over the border here which is threatening to collapse our economy completely. The economic fictions which Reagan sold to a desperate and undereducated American population regarding supply side BS was perfectly packaged by his advisor's which I presume you call yourself one.

If the American people had the intellectual tools to adequately assess the policies of Ron Reagan he would be right at the bottom just above George Bush.
But then you seem intent to peg your entire output and achievement on this guy even though you have valid points to make outside of the area of this Ronald Reagan blindspot. My suggestion is to break free of this guy and go out and rub elbows with the dirty teaming masses and find out what you have been studiously avoiding because you could be a much better writer if you cut this albatross from around your neck. You are a good writer, be better!

One man's opinion. Oh and by the way John F. Kennedy Jr. was a post war President with real staying power in the popularity polls and if you were to poll today he would beat your man Reagan in a landslide. But in the end it's about deeds and not popularity and both men are tarnished.

See No Evil, Speak No Truth

by Devilstower

Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 04:01:07 PM PDT

A month ago, Ali Hassan al-Majid -- better known in the media as "Chemical Ali" -- was sentenced to death. Ali was condemned for his role in use of poison gas on two Kurdish villages, including the attack on Halabja, where several hundred people (at the very least -- possibly several thousand) were killed on two horrible days in 1988. The people in Halabja that day were subject to a deadly cocktail of mustard gas and nerve agents that left the streets littered with bodies.

The use of chemical weapons against civilians was one of the justifications cited often in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Though Halabja was fifteen years in the past by the time "Chemical Ali" landed on a playing card, the Kurds who had fallen a decade and a half earlier became a rallying cry for invasion.

High on the Bush administration's list of justifications for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists.

The nuclear and biological programs mentioned in that 2002 Washington Post article proved to be nothing more than hot air, as did the contacts with terrorists, but the use of chemical weapons was real enough -- if not exactly current.

Even the mainstream media back in 2002 recognized that the manufactured outrage over chemical weapons was complicated by our history with Saddam's regime.

Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions.

...

The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

But only a few months later, the media seemed to have developed amnesia on the subject, and though the chemical weapons attacks on the Kurds were frequently mentioned as the war got underway, it's hard to find any mention of US weapons sales to Iraq, much less a connection to St. Ronnie.

Now a new book, A Poisonous Affair, by Joost R. Hiltermann, recalls not just the US connection in the chemical weapon attacks, but how that connection played into Iraq's past, present, and future.

While the international community was quick to condemn the Iraqi regime in the days that followed, within a week the US State Department began floating the suggestion that Iran had also played a role inthe gas attack and even might be responsible for the majority of the chemical fatalities. This contention, which originated in the Pentagon, soon took on a life of its own and helped dilute a UN Security Council resolution that should have condemned Iraq.

Eventually, a watered down condemnation of chemical weapon use was produced that blamed both sides. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush not only provided chemical weapons to Iraq, they actively covered up the use of those weapons. It wasn't just a matter of standing by, it wasn't even a matter of providing imagery that helped the Iraqis plan their attacks, the US helped to cover up the very same massacres that were later used as justification for the invasion.

Saddam Hussein ultimately proved not guilty of hiding chemical weapons in Iraq previous to the invasion. However, Ronald Reagan was guilty of covering up not just the presence, but the use of chemical weapons against civilians. Having already been caught breaking the law in Iran-Contra, both Reagan and Bush I were anxious to avoid scrutiny of their support for Iraq. As a result, they purposely confused the facts about events in Kurdistan.

When the first western journalists reached the affected areas, this is what they found.

"No wounds, no blood, no traces of explosions can be found on the bodies," he reported. "The skin of the bodies is strangely discoloured, with their eyes open and staring where they have not disappeared into their sockets, a grayish slime oozing from their mouths and their fingers still grotesquely twisted. Death seemingly caught them almost unawares."

As Chemical Ali gets ready to meet the noose -- which should happen any day now -- it needs to be remembered that he had unindicted friends who helped preserve his ability to use those weapons again, and again, and again.

When that platform swings open, will there be a moment's pause in the fishing at Kennebunkport by the man who helped deliver and cover up the weapons Ali used? Will there be a toast from a former Secretary of Defense who justified Saddam's use of chemical weapons, then used them again as an excuse to invade? Will the death be noted between pretzels by the son who used massacres to justify still more deaths?

Will the press -- and the public -- note the passing of a monster, or register the final, brutal result of a cynical, bloody policy made by two generation of men who thought they could manipulate events in the Middle East?

• ::

Conyers: 3 More Congress Members and I'll Impeach

Submitted by davidswanson on Sat, 2007-07-21 22:50. Activism | Congress | Impeachment | Nonviolent Resistance

By David Swanson

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers has said that if three more Congress Members get behind impeachment he will start the impeachment proceedings.

I was a guest today on Bree Walker's radio show. She's the progressive radio host from California who purchased Cindy Sheehan's land from her in Crawford, Texas.

Bree attended an event on Friday in San Diego at which Congressman Conyers spoke about impeachment. Her report was extremely interesting. I had already heard reports that Conyers had said: "What are we waiting for? Let's take these two guys out!" But, of course, what we're waiting for is John Conyers. Is he ready to act? It was hard to tell from that comment. In January, Conyers spoke at a huge rally on the National Mall and declared "We can fire them!" but later explained that what he meant was that we could wait for two years and Bush and Cheney's terms would end. Was this week's remark just more empty rhetoric?

It appears to be more than that. Bree Walker told me, on the air, that Conyers said that all he needs is three more Congress Members backing impeachment, and he'll move on it, even without Pelosi. I asked whether that meant specifically moving from 14 cosponsors of H Res 333 to 17, or adding 3 to the larger number of Congress Members who have spoken favorably of impeachment but not all signed onto bills. Bree said she didn't know and that Conyers had declined to take any questions.

Either way, this target of three more members seems perfectly doable. It's safe to assume, I think, that we're talking about impeaching Cheney first. But, even if Conyers is talking about Bush, the target is perfectly achievable.

First, there are Congress Members like Jesse Jackson Jr. who have spoken out for impeachment but not signed onto H Res 333. They should be urged to act now! Second, there are dozens of members who signed onto H Res 635 a year and a half ago, Conyers' bill for an investigation into grounds for impeachment, who have not signed onto H Res 333 yet. Third, one of the excuses citizens often hear from lots of Congress Members for not signing onto articles of impeachment is that not enough of their colleagues have signed on and therefore "we don't have the votes." Well that just changed. Now three more votes is all that's needed to get this machine rolling. Fourth, many of the 14 Congress Members backing H Res 333 have used similar excuses to justify refraining from lobbying their colleagues to join them. That can now end. Our 14 leaders can do more than just put down their names.

Now, if Conyers begins impeachment proceedings in the House Judiciary Committee, we should all be clear on what that will mean. If it is serious, it will not mean sending any subpoenas or contempt citations to the emperors' court. Bush and Cheney have already repeatedly refused to comply with subpoenas.

President Richard Nixon did the same, of course, and his refusal to comply with subpoenas constituted the offense cited in one of the three Articles of Impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974 as warranting "impeachment and trial, and removal from office." But Bush and Cheney have gone further, ordering former staffers not to comply with subpoenas, and announcing that the Justice Department will not enforce any contempt of Congress proceedings.

What the impeachment of Cheney or Bush will be is very, very fast. It will not disrupt or distract from the important business of passing nonbinding resolutions and holding all-night gripe sessions over bills destined to be vetoed. Impeachment in the case of Dick Cheney need not take the three months it did for Nixon or the two months it did for President Bill Clinton. In fact, it could take a day. Here's why:

Bush and Cheney's lies about Iraqi ties to al Qaeda are on videotape and in writing, and Bush and Cheney continue to make them to this day. There was no al Qaeda in Iraq until the invasion.

Their claims about Iraqi weapons have been shown in every detail to have been, not mistakes, but lies.

Their threats to Iran are on videotape.

Bush being warned about Katrina and claiming he was not are on videotape.

Bush lying about illegal spying and later confessing to it are on videotape. A federal court has ruled that spying to be a felony.

The Supreme Court has ruled Bush and Cheney's system of detentions unconstitutional.

Torture, openly advocated for by Bush and Cheney and their staffs, is documented by victims, witnesses, and public photographs. Torture was always illegal and has been repeatedly recriminalized under Bush and Cheney. Bush has reversed laws with signing statements.

Those statements are posted on the White House website, and a GAO report found that with 30 percent of Bush's signing statements in which he announces his right to break laws, he has in fact proceeded to break those laws.

For these and many other offenses, no investigation is needed because no better evidence is even conceivable. This impeachment will be swift. And it will require only a simple majority. We already know that the Democrats can vote as a block if they want to, and that a few brave Republicans might join them.

Whether the Senate will then convict Cheney will depend on how much pressure citizens apply and how much information the House manages to force onto television sets. The latter could be surprisingly large and substantive, since the conflict of an impeachment is certain to generate incredible ratings.

But even an acquittal would identify the Senators to be removed from office by voters in 2008. And Cheney (or Bush) would still have been 100% impeached. Al Gore didn't run for president pretending he'd never met Bill Clinton and pick Senator Joe Lieberman as a running mate because the Senate convicted Clinton (it acquitted).

The timing of Conyers' remark may be related to the steps the White House has recently taken to assert "unitary executive" dictatorial power. Bush has commuted the sentence of a subordinate who obstructed an investigation into matters involving Bush and Cheney. And, as mentioned above, neither subpoenas nor contempt citations will go anywhere. Impeachment is no longer merely the appropriate step that it has been for the past six years. It is now the only tool left to the Congress for use in asserting its very existence as a functioning body of government.

But the timing is also quite helpful to the grassroots movement for impeachment, and rather symbolic. Five years ago this Monday, the meeting was held at #10 Downing Street that produced the Downing Street Minutes. Over two years ago, then Ranking Member Conyers held a hearing in the basement of the Capitol, the only space the Republican leadership would allow him. At that hearing, several Democratic Congress Members for the first time began talking about impeachment. The witnesses at the hearing were Ambassador Joseph Wilson, attorney John Bonifaz, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, and a then unknown gold star mother named Cindy Sheehan. They discussed the evidence of the Downing Street documents, which added significantly to the growing body of evidence that Bush and Cheney misled the Congress about the case for war.

This Monday, Sheehan and McGovern and a great many leaders of the movements for peace and impeachment will lead a march at 10 a.m. at Arlington National Cemetery. We will march to Congressman Conyers office and ask to talk with him about impeachment. We will refuse to leave without either a commitment to begin at once the impeachment of Cheney or Bush or both, or our arms in handcuffs. The same day, groups in several states around the country will be sitting in and risking arrest for impeachment in the district offices of their congress members.

Not everyone will be able to take part. But everyone can take two minutes on Monday and do two things: phone Chairman Conyers at 202-225-5126 and ask him to start the impeachment of dick Cheney; and phone your own Congress Member at 202-224-3121 and ask them to immediately call Conyers' office to express their support for impeachment. Your Congress Member might just be one of the three needed, not just to keep us out of jail but to keep this nation from devolving into dictatorship.