C I V I L    M A R R I A G E    I S    A    C I V I L    R I G H T.

A N D N O W I T ' S T H E L A W O F T H E L A N D.


Showing posts with label Iraq war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq war. Show all posts

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Iraq War Finally Over


From the New York Times:
In a fortified concrete courtyard at the airport in Baghdad, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta thanked the more than one million American service members who have served in Iraq for “the remarkable progress” made over the past nine years but acknowledged the severe challenges that face the struggling democracy. . . .

The muted ceremony stood in contrast to the start of the war in 2003 when an America both frightened and emboldened by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, sent columns of tanks north from Kuwait to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

As of last Friday, the war in Iraq had claimed 4,487 American lives, with another 32,226 Americans wounded in action, according to Pentagon statistics. . . .

The war was started by the Bush administration in March 2003 on arguments that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and had ties to Al Qaeda that might grow to an alliance threatening the United States with a mass-casualty terrorist attack.

As the absence of unconventional weapons proved a humiliation for the administration and the intelligence community, the war effort was reframed as being about bringing democracy to the Middle East.
What the troops think about the end of the war:

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

Source:  BBC

Source:  BBC

Source:  Prose before Hos

See also the White House timeline of the Obama Administration's wind-up of the war in Iraq.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Mission Accomplished: Smelling Like a Rose

"Bush Jesus": 
Notice the halo effect produced by the radar dome behind his head.

The canonization process of St. George of Guantanamo has begun.  Read and weep:

Justice drops inquiry into destruction of torture videos

Miami Herald:  The former director of the CIA's secret operations branch won't be charged with the destruction of 92 videotapes showing the use of waterboarding and other controversial interrogation techniques, the Justice Department announced Tuesday. . . .

In interview, Bush defends Iraq war and waterboarding

Washington Post:  In his first major interview since leaving office, former president George W. Bush defended the most controversial aspects of his tenure - including the use of waterboarding against terrorism suspects and the invasion of Iraq. . . .

George Bush's torture admission is a dismal moment for democracy

The Guardian:  Although it comes as no surprise, George Bush's straight admission that he personally authorised waterboarding – an act of torture and a crime under US and international law – marks a dismal moment for western democracies and the rule of law. When again will the US be able to direct others to meet their human rights standards? Certainly not before it takes steps to bring its own house in order.

Unlike the UK's coalition government, which has announced a judicial inquiry on allegations of British involvement in torture, Barack Obama's administration has apparently ended the practice – but has done nothing to investigate the circumstances in which it was used by the Bush administration.

Bush claims that the use of waterboarding on Abu Zubaydah "saved lives", including British ones. There is not a shred of evidence to support that claim, one that falls into the same category as the bogus intelligence relied on to justify war in Iraq.

Indeed, waterboarding and Iraq appear to be interconnected, as torture-induced information was relied upon to justify the invasion. Torture may produce information, but it doesn't produce reliable information, as every experienced interrogator I have spoken with repeatedly tells me – on both sides of the Atlantic. It produces the information that the subject believes the interrogator wants to hear. . . .

He would do better to take on board those with first-hand experience of what the embrace of torture might mean for Americans abroad, who recognise that its use by the US will justify its use against the US.


Hundreds leave Bush book-signing in Dallas empty-handed

Fort Worth Star-Telegram:  Hundreds of people left the bookstore in North Dallas where former President George W. Bush was autographing copies of his book, Decision Points, without getting a signed book Tuesday. Borders books officials by 10 a.m. had told those in the back of the line that they likely wouldn't be able to see the 43rd president, and get a signed copy of his book, but many stayed just in case.

Tricia Ditmore, 49, of Grand Prairie was among those who left empty-handed. "I wanted to see him and shake his hand," she said, as tears welled up in her eyes. "I wanted to tell him that we supported him - that he was loved and supported. I don't know if he knows. I hope other people told him that."

About 1,000 people were able to meet the former president, and take home signed copies of his book. Among the lucky ones were Terry and Tammy Jones of Justin. They were first in line, having camped out at the store in Preston Royal since about 2 p.m. Monday. After they bought four books autographed by Bush, and briefly met the former president, they couldn't stop smiling. "He shook my hand and he kissed Tammy's hand," Terry Jones said.

Said Tammy Jones: "I waited 18 hours for two seconds and a kiss on my hand. I'm never washing this hand again."



No comment from your Head Trucker.  What can any decent person say?

Saturday, May 22, 2010

The War Is Making You Poor Act

This country is spending $549 billion this year on the military budget, and the Administration has requested another $159 billion on top of that to continue what we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.   Which is about half of all the military spending by every country on the face of the earth.  And what is that accomplishing?

(Seriously - and I am not going to get into a screaming match with anyone on this issue - but after nine years, exactly what is the freaking point, what exactly are we getting or trying to get from occupying those places?  You should understand that I admire very much the bravery and skill and sense of honor that keeps individual soldiers there, doing their job and following orders - that's not the question.  What essential national-level good are we doing, what good are we getting from spending all that money and blood, is what I would really like to know.  If there is any good to be had.  If any Blue Truck readers can answer the question directly in 100 words or less, please hit the comment button.)

Rep. Alan Grayson, D-FL, has introduced a bill in Congress to address the monumental drain on our economy, and give many of you a zero income tax bill next year - check it out:



God, I wish he was my Congressman. 

As Joe Jervis says, "Not a chance in hell of passing, but at least somebody is screaming about war spending."

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Presidential Grade: B+?



President Obama, in a "Christmas at the White House" special with Oprah, gave himself a B+ on his first year in office:
Obama: Good solid B-plus. I think that we have inherited the biggest set of challenges of any president since Frankiln Delano Roosevelt. We stabilized the economy, prevented the possibilities of a great depression, or a significant financial meltdown. The economy is growing again, we are on our way out of Iraq, I think we've got the best possible plan for Afghanistan, we have reset our image around the world, we have achieved an international consensus around the need for Iran and North Korea to disable their nuclear weapons, and I think that we're gonna pass the most significant piece of social legislation since social security and that's health insurance for every American.

Oprah: So B-plus--what could you have done better?

Obama: Well, B-plus because of the things that are undone. Health care is not yet signed. If I get health care passed, we tip into A-minus.
What grade would you give him, guys?

BTW - Michelle looked fabulous in purple and pearls.  She just keeps getting more beautiful all the time, I think; and she seems more comfortable in her role as First Lady now.  Here's the First Couple talking about approval ratings, family traditions, and chimney arrangements for Santa's White House visit:

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Obama Ups the Stakes in Afghanistan

As Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. . . .


If the video doesn't display, watch it here.

I have to believe what he says:  I have no training whatsoever in military science, and to tell you the truth, with few exceptions international relations hold little interest for me.  From my little outpost here on the windswept prairie, it's all very far away, incredibly complicated, and does not directly affect my day to day life one way or another.  Though of course I realize there are important indirect effects; and certainly where our national security is concerned, and the protection of American lives, and humanitarian concerns in any quarter of the globe, there needs to be an adult in the White House with a clear gaze and a steady hand on the levers of the greatest military and economic might the world has ever known.

Disappointed as I am - and nearly heartbroken - over Obama's failure to live up to his stirring promise to be a "fierce advocate" for gay rights, the fact nonetheless remains that he is a brilliant man; and he has access to all the detailed knowledge of people, places, and situations abroad that can be determined.  And whatever the reason for his footdragging on gay rights, I do believe his heart is in the right place, and his values good.  So I have to trust that he is doing the right thing here, what is ultimately in the best interests of the nation and the world.

Certainly I trust him to do the right thing infinitely more than I ever trusted that lying, conniving, manipulating, prevaricating, mendacious, monkeybrained son of a bitch who had the job before him. Not to mention his nefarious, slime-sucking puppetmaster cohorts. Though to give the devil his due, Bush at least has had the decency to come home to Texas and just shut the fuck up, as far as I know; whereas Cheney is reprising his role as National Bogeyman, and going for an Academy Award with it.

I'm not a warrior at heart; I don't like to kill things, though I would and I have when absolutely necessary.  In a general way, it hurts to think of more young troops going off to fight somewhere in some unpronounceable place on the other side of the world, to bleed and suffer and die for an uncertain result.  The British in the days of their great Empire tried for a hundred years or more to put a lock on Afghanistan, and couldn't do it.  Back in the 1970's, the Soviet Union, with all its immense resources right next door, tried to subdue the place, and they couldn't do it.  How can anyone ever really win a guerrilla war against fanatical fighters in a mountainous country? 

Being ignorant, as I said, of military science, I don't see how it's possible; no matter how many guns and bombs we bring to the field, there's no definite fighting front, and there's always another cave, another rabbit hole they can hide in, and come back to fight another day.  Or if not in a mountainous region, in a steaming jungle like Vietnam - which the President says is a false analogy.  Let's hope he's right about that; he knows much more about it than I ever will, and by this point he should have a very sharp idea of the odds.

Occasionally, I meet soldiers here, either just back from overseas or about to deploy.  I talk with their wives, see their kids.  These young people in uniform are very decent, ordinary, small town folks; flesh-and-blood human beings who live, love, laugh, and work, and go off to war believing sincerely that they are in some way helping protect all those they leave behind.  They're not just numbers on a chart, they're my neighbors.

So - God help our troops, and God bless America.  What else can an old shitkicker say about all that?

After the jump, a few excerpts that I found particularly compelling from the President's speech tonight at West Point.  Full transcript here.

Continued after the jump . . . .

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Your hair will catch on fire . . .



. . . when you hear the official U. S. Government translation of the Iraqi president's explanation of his negotiations with the Bush Administration for a withdrawal date: not until 2011 "for domestic political considerations" in the United States, is what he was told. When questioned, the White House blathered on about long-term goals, peace and stability, yada yada yada; but they do not deny the accuracy of the Iraqi remarks.

Jeezus. Keeping the war going to benefit the Republican party here at home; it doesn't get any plainer than this, folks.

Please--send this to the people you love who think the war in Iraq is all about "protecting our freedoms," as I have heard endlessly repeated here in small-town Texas. If this doesn't wake them up, nothing at all will.

Kudos to acclaimed queer journalist Rachel Maddow for this trenchant piece of reporting.
Related Posts with Thumbnails