Baby-Killer Putin Bombs Maternity Hospital

The Russian butcher strikes again.  At women in labor.  At newborn infants.  In beseiged Mariupol, in the middle of a cease-fire.  Too horrible for words.

 

 

The Guardian reports (emphasis mine):

As Ukraine’s foreign minister, Dmitryo Kuleba, accused Russia of “holding 400,000 people hostage” in Mariupol, much of whose population has been without power, heat, water or phone signal for over a week, the president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, denounced an atrocity.

“A children’s hospital, a maternity ward. How did they threaten the Russian Federation? What is this country, the Russian Federation, that is afraid of hospitals, maternity wards and is destroying them?” said Zelendskiy on Telegram.

“Hospitals and schools are destroyed. Churches and ordinary buildings are destroyed. People are killed. Children are killed. The aerial bombing of a children’s hospital is the ultimate evidence that genocide of Ukrainians is happening.”

Amid western warnings that Moscow’s invasion was about to become even more brutal as the Russian leader, Vladimir Putin, seeks to regain stalled momentum, local authorities described the damage to the hospital – a combined 600-bed complex with children’s and maternity wards – as “colossal” and said at least 17 people had been wounded, including women in labour.

The deputy mayor, Sergei Orlov, said the city was being shelled continuously and 1,170 residents had died, 47 of whom were buried in a mass grave on Wednesday. “It’s medieval,” he said. “It’s pure genocide. The attack isn’t simply treacherous. It’s a war crime. They are attacking us with aviation, shells, multiple rocket launchers.” . . .

Zelenskiy said on Wednesday the threat level against the country was “at the maximum” and again called on the west to impose a no-fly zone, saying it risked a “humanitarian catastrophe” if it did not.

He called the Russians “Nazis” in an interview with Sky News, saying: “If you are united against the Nazis and this terror, you have to close. Don’t wait for me ask you several times, a million times. Close the sky.” He warned that otherwise “millions” of people could die.

I know the hearts of my truckbuddies, and of all decent people around the world, go out to these innocent victims of cold-blooded murder. 

In the face of such atrocities, President Zelensky says the West has a moral duty to help Ukraine, to stop the wholesale slaughter of innocents. 

We do. But how? Without incinerating billions more people in a nuclear holocaust? 

How, O Lord, how? Show us the way. Amen. 

---------------

Update, 3/9/22, 9:30 p.m.:  PUTIN THREATENED TO NUKE US LAST DECEMBER

Searching through news reports, I just happened to come across this chilling article from the Daily Beast, December 21, 2021:

Russian Citizens Are Now Being Prepped for Nuclear War

One day after Moscow submitted a draft of its Russia-U.S. security treaty, containing demands that NATO roll back its military deployments in Europe and deny membership to Ukraine and other post-Soviet countries, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov threatened that Moscow would raise the stakes if the West didn’t treat its demands seriously. On Monday, he told Interfax that Russia needs answers “urgently, because the situation is very difficult.” , . .

Pro-Kremlin propagandists and state-media experts filled in the blanks with what kind of escalation should be expected. On Sunday’s edition of News of the Week, state-TV host Dmitry Kiselyov explained: “Russia… prepared and handed over to the Americans its written proposals on strategic stability, or, more simply, on the prevention of nuclear war, since we are already at a critical point, to be honest…

"It’s simple. The U.S. and NATO must roll back from our borders, otherwise we will, figuratively speaking, ‘roll up’ to their borders and create symmetrical, unacceptable risks… If you put a gun to our head, we will respond in kind… The whole point is that the development of the Ukrainian territory by the [Western] bloc is not only Ukraine’s business. This is a complete breakdown of the global balance, which poses an existential threat to Russia. In other words, for Russia it is a matter of life and death… We simply will not allow it, regardless of the cost to us, and regardless of the cost to those responsible for it.”

Kiselyov, notorious for his previous assertion that Russia is the only country that can reduce the U.S. to a pile of radioactive ash, revisited his beloved “argument” to explain why the United States will be willing to entertain Putin’s unreasonable proposition. He asserted that Russia is willing to suffer any consequences and go to any lengths to get what it wants: “Never before has anyone published the texts of the proposed treaties. But never before in the 21st century has the situation been so acute, and the risks so great. Non-standard situations require non-standard approaches. Secondly, we’re holding very strong cards in our hands. Our hypersonic weapons are guaranteed to produce a response that is so unpleasant for America to hear: being reduced to radioactive ash.”

This horrifies me.  I don't remember hearing about this blood-curdling threat, given in plain English - but then, back in December I wasn't listening for it.  Why wasn't this front-page news?

Did anybody in Washington hear this warning?  Did anyone take it seriously?  What did they do?  How did they respond? 

Washington was warned about Russia's intentions with Ukraine, but was anybody minding the store?  Is anyone?  

God have mercy.

-----

Refugees Welcome

Activists today unfurled a welcome banner on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty, which was soon removed by park rangers.  Earlier in the day, the Department of Homeland Security had issued its new plan for rounding up and deporting illegal aliens found in this country.

Although the banner made a cheerful sight, today's deportation orders remind me of this cartoon from 1939 and the shameful story behind it: a cautionary tale for our time.

I also came across this poster, source not stated, which gives pause for thought:

More food for thought, if anyone is hungry:

Love the Stranger

A Syrian refugee fleeing Isis fighters in Tal Abyad holds onto his daughter as he waits to cross into Turkey at Akcakale border gate, on June 15, 2015.  (International Business Times, July 10, 2015)

Well, what to do about it?  Before you answer, consider two families, two stories:

1.  Welcome to Canada

2.  Welcome to Texas

Today's text, Deuteronomy 10:16-19:

¹⁶ Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.
¹⁷ For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:
¹⁸ He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment.
¹⁹ Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.


Cf. Matthew 25:31-46.

The Legacy of 9/11 and the Limits of American Power

Your Head Trucker very much admires the forthright clear-headedness of conservative Catholic, Vietnam veteran, retired U.S. Army colonel, and Boston University professor Andrew Bacevich, whose discussion of the Syrian crisis with Phil Donohue I posted last Sunday.  Here, in a highly pertinent clip from 2008, Bacevich incisively dissects the hubris and failure of the Bush response to 9/11, which continues to shape today's events in the Middle East and American foreign policy, even under President Obama:



Bacevich continues his provocative argument in this clip about his 2009 book, The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism:



If you are interested in hearing a fuller exposition of his views - and I wish every member of Congress and of the Obama Administration could be required to do so - you can watch this dialogue between Bacevich and Massachusetts School of Law Dean Lawrence Velvel:




For what it's worth, former KGB officer and Russian President Vladimir Putin has written about American exceptionalism too, in a New York Times op-ed that was published today - and though Putin's remarks, coming from a foreign head of state engaged in a diplomatic contest with our government, must be weighed on a different scale from those of Bacevich, it is perhaps instructive to compare the two points of view. A rhetorically adroit excerpt:

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.” . . .

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

Notice how smoothly he has turned the tables on us, with the oblique reference to our founding philosophy in the Declaration of Independence. Putin's remarks may or may not be insincere, but they do offer a window into how we are perceived abroad - a corrective to our own admiring gaze in the mirror, perhaps.

And isn't that one of the big things we castigated Bush and his cronies for - being utterly indifferent, if not actually blind and deaf, to America's standing and reputation in the eyes of the world? Putin is not an entirely trustworthy writer, but there is much food for thought here, if the bright boys in Obama's West Wing can digest it.

Obama's Address to the Nation about Syria

A transcript of the President's remarks is here.

Well, here are your Head Trucker's thoughts, just for the record:  the first two minutes were fine, with the President reviewing the use of poison gas since World War I and saying that the nations of the world have worked for a century to outlaw this terrible weapon of war.  Lofty ideas, noble thoughts.  All well and good.

ut from there, he seemed to tumble down one slippery slope after another, sliding on generalizations and doubletalk, vague claims and promises, and outright contradictions.  To wit, for example: "I've had letters from a number of citizens saying the United States shouldn't be the world's policeman, and I agree."  But then a few minutes later:  "For seventy years, the United States has enforced the rules of international law, and the world is a better place for that."  Um, so what exactly is the difference between a policeman and an enforcer, I wonder?  And also, what about all the debacles and destruction so carefully ignored by that far-reaching claim?  Cuba, Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, and others we could name?

Another example:  "We are not going to try to remove a dictator, we already learned from Iraq that that's no good because then we are responsible for all that comes afterwards.  I am not going to put American boots on the ground.  We're just going to degrade Assad's ability to use chemical weapons."  But then:  "In response to some comments in Congress, this attack will not be a pinprick strike.  The United States military does not do pinpricks."  So WTF?  How big and how bad will it be, exactly?  What the hell will happen when the order to hit Syria goes out?  Why all this vagueness and obfuscation?

Another:  "Syria has no ability to attack our military.  And any other attacks that might happen, well we deal with those threats every day, anyway.  And our BFF Israel [which your Head Trucker has been thinking is the elephant in the room that Obama has never mentioned until this speech], well everybody knows they have the power to respond to any attacks with overwhelming force."  In other words, Syria can't possibly do anything to hurt us.  And yet:  "Even though there is no imminent or direct threat to the United States . . . I believe I have the power to order this strike in order to enforce international law and protect our own children from being gassed like those poor Syrian kids."  What the holy fuck???

In other words, boys, as much as I want to support this president - and I do believe his fundamental motive of stopping an outlaw use of chemical weapons is sincere - I am hearing nothing but the same old bureaucratic doubletalk that has been used every fucking time before, when this country has muscled in where it shouldn't have gone.

And on top of all that - What exactly was the point of this speech?  What was his point, what was he asking us citizens, or anyone, to do?  The first three-fourths of the speech sounded like it might have been written last week - not until towards the end did he get around to mentioning that, oh yeah, somebody has a crazy idea for a diplomatic solution here, so I've been chatting with my bud Putin about that - we'll see where it goes, and I've asked Congress to chill on voting for anything until I know more.  Then I'll let 'em know.

And so your point is, Mr. President?  Why have you just been talking at us for 15 minutes, then?  What kind of idée fixe is this, which you just keep repeating and repeating?

Something is just not right here. I am vividly reminded of a brilliant aphorism that I heard Judge Judy say once: If it doesn't make sense, it's not true.

Continued after the jump . . .

Andrew Bacevich: It's Not about Syria, Mr. President

I never heard of Bacevich before now, but I like very much what he says.  Do make time today to listen to the whole lucid, plain-spoken interview, which covers much important ground besides Syria. Or read the transcript.



Okay, your Head Trucker is now officially opposed to this Syrian strike. But where are the marchers, the demonstrators, the protesters against the war? Does anybody care? 

Honk to Wounded Bird.


Update, 6:20 p.m.:  A lot has happened today - Kerry, speaking to reporters in London, made an offhand, strictly hypothetical remark that if Syria surrendered all its chemical weapons to international control, the strike would be called off. Well, in no time at all, Syria and Russia and the Secretary-General of the UN and even Hillary Clinton had all signed on to that idea, which seems a miraculous solution to the impasse.

Later in the day, the President gave interviews to six American news anchors and seemed to like the idea too - if it can be done, and verified.  He also said he's already been talking to Putin about it.  Here is the President speaking with Gwen Ifill of PBS Newshour:



The President will address the nation tomorrow at 9 p.m., EDT. 

Meanwhile, as the Senate and House take up debate on the issue this week, a CBS/New York Times poll shows that 6 out of 10 Americans oppose a military strike on Syria; and a CNN poll shows 7 out of 10 would oppose a military strike if Congress votes against it, with the same number believing that such a strike is not in the national interest of the United States.

United Nations inspectors who went to Syria in the wake of the gas attack are expected to present their report later this week.


What I Say: Your Head Trucker understands the President's reasons for striking Syria, as he states them in the interview, and his sincerity is evident. But as history has shown times without number, it is quite possible to be nobly motivated and perfectly sincere - and still be dead wrong.

From all I have seen and heard and read this past week, I cannot believe that this supposedly "unbelievably small" strike, as Kerry foolishly put it earlier today, earning deserved mockery from John McCain, will accomplish what the President's military advisors tell him it will. It is the wrong thing to do, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and in the face of all the world's opposition, very nearly.

Let's all pray that Kerry's other gaffe this morning bears fruit, and quickly; and as you see, all the diplomatic possibilities have not been exhausted, as the White House has been saying hitherto, so this golden opportunity should be seized. Otherwise, I can forsee nothing but evil consequences from the President's strike plan, however well-intentioned it may be.

And I just know that somewhere in Dallas, W is rocking back, laughing his ass off, and so are Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove.

Sunday Drive: Cops of the World

You really need to listen to this very pertinent song from the album Phil Ochs in Concert, 1966:



Why does this song still sound so relevant, nearly fifty years on?

Syria: "It's Simply Not Our Problem"

Outspoken Congressman (D.-Fla.) Alan Grayson came out strongly against a Syrian strike on the PBS NewsHour today:




From the Washington Post, here's the latest count, as of 6 p.m. today, of Senators and Representatives - click to enlarge:

It's very curious, isn't it fellas, that many more Republicans than Democrats are opposed to this military strike, even though perennial-hawk Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham ("who never saw a country they weren't tempted to bomb"), as well as House Speaker John Boehner and others in the Republican leadership, are all in favor of it. Can it really be that the party of "Shock and Awe" is opposed to this act of war just because Obama thought of it first?

Your Head Trucker is still unsure, by the way, of the best course of action; but he is certain there is no good one.

And before all you boys rush over to sign the petition at dontattacksyria.com, please be sure to read this short piece by Steve Coll in this week's New Yorker, "Crossing the Line" - excerpt:

Saddam first used gas bombs [in 1987] to thwart Iran’s zealous swarms of “human wave” infantry. Chemical terror broke the will of young Iranian volunteers, a lesson that informed Majid’s subsequent Kurdish campaign. The Reagan Administration’s decision to tolerate Saddam’s depravities proved to be a colossal moral failure and strategic mistake; it encouraged Saddam’s aggression and internal repression, and it allowed Iraq to demonstrate to future dictators the tactical value of chemical warfare.

The consequences of similar passivity in Syria now are unknowable. After more than two years and a hundred thousand deaths, the war has descended into a miasma of kidnappings, executions, and indiscriminate attacks. It would not be surprising if Assad or his henchmen seized upon selective gassings as a way to break the opposition’s will, or to flush rebels from strategic neighborhoods. Obama has said that his aim in Syria is to prevent more gassings, not to overthrow Assad. Since the costs of even a limited Western military intervention in Syria might be very high, in diplomatic standing and in lives, it is reasonable to ask whether the cause of punishing and deterring the use of chemical weapons is worth the risks. . . .

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reports that the number of Syrians who have fled their war-torn country has now topped 2 million. That's a tenth of the Syrian population, says the Pew Research Center, and half of them are children.



For more videos and interviews with refugees, see The Guardian's coverage here.

President Obama Seeks Congressional Approval for Syrian Strike

President Obama discusses the Syrian crisis with his top advisors in the Situation Room of the White House on August 30, 2013.  (White House photo)

The President spoke to reporters in the Rose Garden of the White House this afternoon:




Full text of the President's remarks here.  Speaker John Boehner has announced that the House of Representatives will take up the matter during the week of September 9, after returning from its Labor Day recess.


For the record, as much as your Head Trucker deplores the killing of innocent civilians in Syria, or anywhere, he is still not sure what the right thing to do is, and is glad the decision is not on his shoulders.  It's good that the President will seek the support of Congress on this matter, for moral and constitutional reasons.  One can make a compelling argument on both sides of the issue; but no one can predict with certainty what will result from acting or not acting, or the unintended consequences not yet foreseen. As always, the future is veiled from sight, and only time will tell which is the better choice.

But I will say that I rate the intelligence and integrity of Obama, Biden, and Kerry a helluva lot higher than that of Bush & Co.


Update, 8:50 p.m. - Steve Benen at The Maddow Blog writes about Obama's decision to pull Congress into the mix:

It's one of those terrific examples of good politics and good policy. On the former, the American public clearly endorses the idea of Congress giving its approval before military strikes begin. On the latter, at the risk of putting too fine a point on this, Obama's move away from unilateralism reflects how our constitutional, democratic system of government is supposed to work. . . .

The dirty little secret is that much of Congress was content to have no say in this matter. When a letter circulated demanding the president seek lawmakers' authorization, most of the House and Senate didn't sign it -- some were willing to let Obama do whatever he chose to do, some didn't want the burden of responsibility. Members spent the week complaining about the president not taking Congress' role seriously enough, confident that their rhetoric was just talk.

It spoke to a larger problem: for far too many lawmakers, it's so much easier to criticize than govern. In recent years, members of Congress have too often decided they're little more than powerful pundits, shouting from the sidelines rather than getting in the game.

It's one of the angles to today's news that's so fascinating -- Obama isn't just challenging Congress to play a constructive role in a national security matter, the president is also telling lawmakers to act like adults for a change. They're federal lawmakers in the planet's most powerful government, and maybe now would be a good time to act like grown-ups who are mindful of their duties.

The New Yorker's Amy Davidson writes in "Going to Congress: Obama's Best Syria Decision":

Dropping a few missiles and leaving, which is what the President has in mind, could as easily be an instrument of increased chaos—one of many points that ought to be debated in Congress. A quick strike is something that the Assad regime could put behind it, and sometimes a spectre can be more of a deterrent than a strike. The delay, as frustrating as it might be for some, means at minimum a period of uncertainty for the regime forces. And it pauses what had been a headlong rush to do something—anything that would make us forget those pictures—without thinking the next steps through or caring what happens afterward in Syria. By waiting and deliberating, this becomes, despite all the posturing that will take place, more about the Syrians, and less about our grief-stricken selves.

A couple of other very pertinent articles from the New Yorker are well worth your time:

"Two Minds on Syria"

"The Syrian Question"