imprisonbush.com

Republicans go on and on whining about something called “political correctness.” What is political correctness? It means that you avoid saying certain things, or distort the way you say them, for political reasons, regardless of whether or not those things are true. Political correctness is an insidious form of speech control. By controlling what should be said, one controls what is said. When that happens, you have to take a good, hard look at whose interest is served by concealing the truth.

Problem is, Bush supporters are the biggest perpetrators of political correctness there is. Their latest politically correct schtick? “I can’t believe you’re politicizing this tragedy! It’s disrespectful to exploit the victims of a tragedy for political purposes!”

Aside from an uptight prissiness about propriety and exploitation that’s a tad unbefitting macho cowboys who like to say things like “Bring it on” to Iraqi insurgents, what’s wrong with this politically correct Republican line?

Plain and simple, it is a way of avoiding the truth, and dodging personal responsibility.

Cindy Sheehan tries to hold President Bush accountable for the death of her son in a war he started on false premises. And what do we hear from Bush defenders? Cindy and her supporters are “politicizing tragedy.” And gee, they really shouldn’t. Why not? Well, it just isn’t seemly. It’s insensitive! It’s offensive!

OK everybody. Let’s have a little pity party for all those big tough warmongers. Wooks wike we hurt their widdle feewings! Oh you poor, dear, perpetrators of unfounded wars of aggression! Are you really saying it’s insensitive (oh, dear me!) to exploit war dead for political purposes? Puh-lease! War dead have been exploited for political purposes since the dawn of history. But apparently it’s only politically correct to milk their “heroic sacrifice” for the benefit of the powers that be. Give me a break!

Is Bush personally responsible for Casey Sheehan’s death? “(Gasp!) How dare you ask? You’re politicizing tragedy!” Political correctness trumps personal responsibility, and Bush is off the hook.

In the wake of hurricane Katrina, we’re hearing the same thing. Whenever someone asks whether or not Bush administration policies contributed to the disaster, we get the same pat, politically correct, all-purpose schlock: “You’re politicizing tragedy!” It’s so, you know, insensitive!

Well, just for the moment, let’s leave sensitivity aside and take a cold hard look at Bush’s personal responsibility for contributing to the tragedy. There are at least three ways in which Bush policies can be said to have increased the risk of, or contributed to the magnitude of, the disaster:

1. The levees around New Orleans were overdue for repair, and Bush failed to provide the Army Corps of Engineers with the resources necessary to fix them.

2. There has been rampant looting in New Orleans–apparently the local police are even taking part. Where is the National Guard? Thousands of them are over in Iraq, looking for weapons of mass destruction, or getting attacked by terrorists so we don’t have to, or rounding up those people on that deck of cards, or sending a message to rogue states, or building democracy, or whatever it is we’re doing over there this month.

3. Global warming appears to increase the risk of damage from hurricanes in three ways: First, it heats the ocean to higher temperatures, giving the hurricane more power. Second, it raises sea levels, putting low-lying coastal areas like New Orleans at higher risk. Third, it kills coral reefs, leaving the coast more vulnerable to storm surges. Now, the science on much of this is still in the works, but we’ve known for some time that global CO2 emissions are likely to put the world at increased risk of extreme weather events such as hurricanes. What has Bush done to protect us from this risk? Absolutely nothing! He blew off the Kyoto Protocol, and has taken absolutely no steps to curb CO2 emissions.

So does Bush have at least some degree of personal responsibility for this disaster? “How dare you ask? You’re politicizing tragedy!”

Well, you know what? I’m really really sorry if the question of personal responsibility offends all you poor, sensitive souls who blow off torture as “fraternity hazing,” dismiss the death of the innocent as “collateral damage,” and call the Geneva conventions forbidding torture “quaint.” Not!

Are Bush Republicans big tough warmongering brutes, or little crying politically-correct babies? Apparently, both–depending on what appears politically expedient at the time. They have no bedrock values, no constant nature. They are manipulative, soulless hypocrites.

You don’t get to be a big tough guy about the suffering of others, then turn around and get a little pity party because somebody is so insensitive as to hold you responsible for the outcomes of your policies. Are you actually trying to say you should get a pass on criticism for failed policy, so long as the failure is disastrous enough to be considered a “tragedy?” That’s absurd to the point of being surreal.

The next time you hear some Republican cough up “You’re politicizing tragedy!” Tell him to get a new schtick.

Somebody going by the name “Fitch” has this to say:

“I find it hilarious that you numbnuts on the left can’t win an election to save your life, and you think the solution is to become even more unhinged and shrill, and call people Nazis and war criminals. Keep up the good work. I hope you guys never win an election again.”

First, let me say this. Thanks for coming, Fitch. Really, thanks. Tell all your friends. Especially the ones who like checking into facts and following things up, because if they chase down the information we’ve presented here, they’ll be forced to conclude Bush belongs in jail.

Of course you disagree because, as Francine duly notes, you completely ignore the facts.

Instead, we get a blast of puffed-up machismo. Nothing substantive. It’s all about how we “numnuts” didn’t “win.” So it’s about our virility and you calling us losers. Never mind whether or not we’re speaking the truth. Look at the implicitly feminizing, homophobic tone of your remarks. Our strongly stated views are “shrill,” like a woman, or an effeminate man. Is Bush’s testosterone-charged warmongering “shrill?” Oh no, it’s manly!

George W. Bush is a war criminal. The evidence is there–this is an administration that has repeatedly and openly mocked U.S. and international law. Think about it: we now have an Attorney General who is on record dismissing the Genva Conventions as “quaint.”

What are we supposed to say? “Umm, um, excuse me. Um, the president’s a war criminal. If that’s OK with you. Uh, sorry.” Or maybe, you know, find a more politically correct word for “war criminal” so we don’t offend anybody? Gee, you’d dismiss us if we said that, too.

That’s where the damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t comes in. If liberals express something strongly, we are “shrill.” If we express it meekly, we are “pablum pukers.” If we calculate our message to gain votes, we are “spineless.” If we speak with conviction, we are “unhinged.” The only place these kinds of ridiculous accusations can thrive is in an environment starved of truth and rationality–unfortunately they’ve gained a lot of traction in the mainstream media, where they pass for some kind of substantial analysis. Well, Fitch and all you other conservative blowhards out there, listen up. While you carry on with your preening machismo, we’re going to keep telling it like it is.

Let me tell you something about American values you and your so-called-conservative friends have apparently forgotten: The truth matters. At the end of the day, that’s what it’s all about. America is in the grip of a regime that habitually, wantonly and arbitrarily violates domestic and international law–illegal detentions of American citizens without so much as a charge being filed, torture, violation of environmental law, you name it. The truth is here, on these pages. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, and we’re not sugar coating it. We will continue to stand for truth, justice, and the rule of law. You and your friends may think it’s cool or funny to make fun of these “quaint” things. But we know their power.

The whole pile of neoconservative lies is nothing but a house of cards–huff, bluff, and wishful thinking. When it comes falling down, it will vaporize faster than Enron, and people will wonder how it could have just disappeared so quickly. That’s the power of the truth, my friend. You may not care about it, or believe in it, but I do. And the American people do.

And when the truth prevails, I promise you this. To the last breath of my body, I will defend the right of Bush and all the other neoconservative criminals to that which they have conspired to deny so many others–a prompt, fair trial and a humane imprisonment.

While President Bush keeps trotting out the tired old “stay the course” line on Iraq, Dan Murphy of the Christian Science Monitor explains in some detail how Civil War in Iraq is not just a worst-case scenario for the future, but a term that–according to some definitions that are commonly agreed upon–accurately describes Iraq right now.

This is bad news. And it’s not getting better. As the third deadline for an agreement on the Iraqi constitution draws near, Iraq’s third transitional government has declared it isn’t even going to meet, let alone try to hammer out an agreement. If a draft constitution does somehow pass, there’s more than a good chance it will be rejected by voters on Oct. 15.

Iraq is unraveling. And where’s Bush? Up nights with representatives of the Iraqi factions at Camp David, burning the midnight oil in a last-ditch attempt to hash out a deal that will avert full-blown civil war? Oh, no. He’s out on a bike ride, in the middle of a five-week vacation!

While he was a military policeman at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan, Private First Class Willie V. Brand beat two prisoners so hard that a medical examiner found that their muscles had been ripped to shreds inside their bodies. Private Brand literally beat these men to a pulp. They both died.

Private Brand testified that he was taught and ordered to beat prisoners in the way that he did, but the military trial swept the idea of command culpability under the rug. Of course, even if Private Willie Brand was ordered to torture prisoners by beating them silly, he was criminally liable. Under international law, following orders is not an excuse for committing a war crime.

So, Private Brand was convicted two days ago of assault, maltreatment, false official swearing and maiming. That’s good.

Yesterday, the power of that conviction was pulverized when Private Brand was let off with a slap on the wrist. For his crimes, Private Brand could have been sentenced to 16 years in a military prison. Instead, he was given no jail time at all – just a little demotion.

Demoting a private? What’s the point? You get demoted for sleeping in instead of showing up for drill. You get demoted for telling a commanding officer to go fuck himself. Is that the moral equivalent of beating a man to death? In the American military today, killing two men can get lead to the punishment of a minor career setback. Let that be a warning to all of us.

Of course, the moral example is set at the top of the chain of command. Generals have overseen regimes of torture and avoided punishment. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has been caught ordering torture to take place, and yet remains untouched. President George W. Bush himself signed off on plans for exporting prisoners overseas to be tortured, and put his name on plans for the torture, sexual manipulation and extreme humiliation of prisoners of war, but the Republican Congress refuses to even consider investigating him for these crimes. In the new America, war crimes are regarded as insignificant.

How are we to expect these people to be held accountable for their war crimes. The popular mood in America is to regard torture as just a kind of juvenile hijinks. To a nodding audience of millions, Rush Limbaugh announces that beating a man until his muscles are torn to shreds amounts to nothing more serious than a fraternity prank. Limbaugh ought to know, because, um… he never made it to college.

As that popular Republican bumper sticker puts it, it’s all about the Power of Pride.

I was stunned to hear a Republican member of Congress admitting that what the Bush Administration is trying to build in Iraq is not really a “classic” democracy like the kind that we would recognize as Americans. No, as the new Iraqi constitution developed by American-approved politicians is nearing completion, it seems that the kind of democracy that our soldiers are dying and killing for in Iraq will be the kind of democracy that:
- limits voter influence over the government
- makes Islam the central authority in the law – whether non-Muslim Iraqis like it or not
- shoves women off into a corner

In short, the kind of democracy that America’s invasion and occupation of Iraq is setting up there is no democracy at all. So, what are we really up to in Iraq, if this last, final excuse for the war is falling apart?

Take a look at the spending patterns of American-controlled money in Iraq. Billions of dollars, flown in airplanes literally filled with dollar bills, has just disappeared. Additional money has been allocated to American corporations, but cannot be accounted for. Out of the hundreds of billion dollars taken from American taxpayers to be spent in Iraq, only half of a percent is being spent on activities purported to be related to building democracy there. For the next year’s Iraq War budget, which runs up towards 100 billion dollars, only 130 million dollars is allocated to democracy-building activities. For the very time when the Iraqis are supposed to be winding up their democracy into full tilt, the Bush Administration is requesting less money to support the monumental task. Many democracy-building organizations in Iraq are reporting that their funding is due to run out in just six months from now – without any plans for resumption of their activities. These organizations say that they will soon be forced to start cutting back on their essential projects – even before the elections scheduled for December.

Whatever the heck is going on in Iraq, it sure as hell is not democracy building. We can’t say for sure, because so many activities are being kept secret from us, but it sure as hell looks like a large number of criminal activities are taking place under the cover of the war in Iraq.

We need a full accounting for the planning of the Iraq campaign, and we need it now. No more waiting for dribbles of information through rare, pre-scripted press conferences. No more secrets. We need a full and independent investigation of the Bush Administration’s pre-war and post-war plans for Iraq. Too much is at stake for us to remain in the dark any longer.

This month it’s official: George W. Bush has spent more time on vacation than any other President of the United States in history. He takes a lot of little vacations throughout the year, and then takes one big long August vacation every year. The Republicans who are angry at the French for having a 35 hour workweek seem to think that this is just fine.

I don’t. It’s not because I have the kind of work ethic that declares that people are terrible sinners if they don’t work every waking hour of the day. Rather, it’s because President Bush has asked us to make so many sacrifices that his refusal to make sacrifices himself is so striking.

Bush says that we have to sacrifice our liberties, the openness of our government, and hundreds of billions of dollars because there’s a grave terrorist threat. Bush says that he can commit crimes, like torture, because he deems it necessary for the national interest in these very very serious times. Bush tells Cindy Sheehan and the mothers of the 1,840 young Americans who have died in Iraq that it was necessary to sacrifice their lives because Americans have to give their all in defense of the “Homeland”.

So, it bothers me that Bush is willing to give up so little himself. He won’t send his own kids to fight in the war, even though they’re of prime age for military service. Bush won’t take any of his own family fortune, gained through big oil deals, and donate it to the cause of the Iraq War. Heck, in August, Bush won’t even show up for work. Jimmy Carter spent much more time working in the White House than Bush does, even though America was not “in a war against evil” with soldiers fighting overseas at that time.

What in the world makes President Bush so ready to skip work and hang out at his dude ranch? Sometimes I wonder why Bush doesn’t take a break at the government-owned Camp David, like other Presidents have done. Could it be that Bush needs the privacy of his own residence to do something away from the microphones and recorded emails of the White House? Something he doesn’t want to be recorded for posterity – or for the law to find out about?

I see in today’s news that George W. Bush has declared that America will not lose its nerve in Iraq. “The only way they can win is if we lose our nerve,” Bush said.

Apparently, if the Iraqi insurgents exploded a nuclear weapon in Baghdad, taking out the whole city including the entire American military command, Bush wouldn’t consider that to be losing the war. No, in Bush’s mind, losing would be concluding after such a disaster that maybe the Iraq War was a mistake.

That’s a pretty damned scary attitude to take going into war, never questioning the strategy, never questioning the tactics, and never ever questioning the mission itself. If Goerge W. Bush ever got lost in a parking garage, I’m pretty damned sure he would lead his wife on an expedition to sub-Saharan Africa in search of his car, and never ever admit that he had made a mistake. He’d just tell Laura not to lose nerve, as they searched through the ruins of ancient Timbuktu in search of their Lexus SUV.

Cindy Sheehan is being attacked by George W. Bush’s followers because she is daring to challenge the stupid cowboy Western attitude that has shaped the entire Iraq War: Only Dead Men Ask Questions. Cindy Sheehan is not asking America to lose nerve. Cindy Sheehan is asking America to use all the nerves sitting inside their skulls to devise a foreign policy based on smarts instead of squints.

Republicans hate Cindy Sheehan because she has the guts to ask, politely, why Bush had the nerve to lie to get America into an unnecessary war that has killed her son, and 1,840 other American mothers’ sons. Of all the nerve, that’s the kind of nerve we ought to lose.

What a coincidence! We just heard some shocking news yesterday about information purposefully withheld from the public in the 9/11 report. And, you know, it should have been all over the news today. And Felzenberg’s tap dancing was not going to hold up long.

But gee. Thousands of hours of edited “oral histories” of 9/11 have been released. Certainly, for anyone interested in the whole 9/11 thing, these are a lot more attention grabbing. Not saying they shouldn’t have been released, but the timing is awfully suspicious.

Coincidence? Got me. Hey, we report, you decide. But something smells fishy.