Please, please, please tell me that soon to be former CIA Director George Tenant will be opening his big mouth and blasting this administration loudly and clearly for trying to scapegoat him and his Agencies (As DCI and Director of CIA he IS the clearinghouse for what intelligence gets to POTUS, except for the stuff Cheney and Rumsfeld glean from MI).  I don't want to know the secrets, I just want the truth about what they can tell us.  I want Tenant to do the same thing he did at Georgetown and clear the CIA's name so it won't be the whipping boy for the neo-cons anymore.

It won't happen.  Tenant will become the latest to be smeared by the hit-squads directed by Rove & Co., so he might as well blast the bastards from the convention floor in Boston.

Without the skills to use the tools.

It's not working! : US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) is caught in a sudden rain storm with a faulty umbrella while walking from Marine One to Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. (AFP/Tim Sloan)
Reference: Yahoo! News - AFP Top Photos

You've undoubtedly heard original Patriot, Ben Franklin's famous take on the Patriot Act and our War on Terra:

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security

Maybe our paranoid brethren on the right will listen to their hero Ronald Reagan:

You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or a right. There is only an up or down: up to man's age-old dream -- the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order -- or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course. Ronald Reagan, Republican National Convention, 1964

America is populated by idealists. Indeed our vision of the World affects our vision of ourselves. That is why there is such dissonance about the Abu Ghraib scandal. The realities on the ground are completely at odds with our perception of who we are and what we strive to be.

No, we are not as bad (read evil) as some would announce, but we certainly are no angels. Indeed our confidence in ourselves is shaken even more when our Justice Department shows it's complete lack of faith in the Justice System by holding someone like José Padilla without being confident that the overwhelming evidence they have of his guilt will suffice to put the guy away. In fact, the complete abrogation of this man's basic rights due to the government's paranoia of what he might do if freed, may be the very instrument used to unlock his cage. This would be a hell of a price to pay for learning that the Constitution protects everyone, even the most heinous among us.

Dalmer was responsible for a lot of murders, more than Padilla, so was Terry Nichols and Tim McVie. They all got fair trials and access to legal counsel. The list of monsters for whom our system can and does afford continued respect of their basic human and civil rights is legion. Just because we can label such a monster a "terrorist" makes him no less human and entitled to the protections we idealistic Americans believe in. Before John Ashcroft, this Nation would take pains to protect a criminal's rights, mainly to make sure that the menace could not go free on a "technicality," another word for a government blunder.

Now, when the "blunder" is intentional, colored by the legality of expedience and patriotism, it is all the more important that this callous disregard for all our protected rights be found totally un-American, and if Padilla and other's like him must be released so that Mr. Ashcroft realizes the limits of his power, so be it. Terrorist can kill and injure and destroy if freed, but they cannot defeat us or our way of life. However, when we act to undermine the very freedoms and rights that define us as Americans, they win without even leaving their 10 by 10 foot cells.

Can we be perceived as anything less than barbarians after this kind of thing gets out on top of all the rest that has happened?

Yahoo! News - Army Probing Assaults, Thefts by U.S. Troops in Iraq
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Army is investigating reports of assaults against Iraqi civilians and thefts of their money and jewelry by U.S. troops during patrols, raids and house searches, defense officials said on Monday.

The probe by the U.S. Army's Criminal Investigation Division, or CID, suggests that a major scandal over abuse of Iraqi prisoners by Americans goes beyond detention centers into the homes and streets of the troubled country.
"There are a number of criminal investigations by the Army into allegations of assault, theft and other issues that extend beyond the investigations into activities at detention facilities," Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman said.

You might not want to be thought of as a conquering cowboy with the scruples of Ghengis or Attilah. Think again America, because that's what so many think of you. Go ahead, stay the course and reinforce everyone's perception. My god, I'd support Pat Buchanan just to get rid of this S&M show living in the White House. It's that bad, really.

In other Iraq news: .
I understand completely. I've been crying over the "President Choice" for almost four years now.

Robert G. Kaiser has written a very inciteful article. I wish I had written it. Give it a click, well worth your time.

The Daily Star - Opinion Articles - The applause is fading; it's time to change the Iraq script

In keeping with Wince's challenge, I'll see his Navy Cross and see him 2 more plus four Silver Stars.

In early May, Marine Captain Brian Chontosh, Marine Lance Corporal Joseph Perez, and Marine Sergeant Marco Martinez were awarded Navy Crosses for extraordinary heroism, an award second only to the Medal of Honor. Army Sergeant Gerald Wolford, Army Sergeant Major Michael Stack, Marine Staff Sergeant Adam Sikes, and Marine Corporal Armand McCormick -- and 123 others -- have been awarded Silver Stars for outstanding valor in combat.
Kate O'Beirne on U.S. Soldiers, Heroism & Iraq on National Review Online

These are seven of the 130 heros already acknowledged and thanked for their bravery by a grateful government.  If not the people and the press who are preoccupied with the tragic seven miscreants at abu Ghraib, we would know them better.   Such is the theme of Kate O'Beirne's lament.

Like I always says to my staff, one "Oh Shit!" can wipe out a dozen "Atta Girls." Of course what always strikes me is the humility of our heros. The "Aw shucks, just doing my duty," stuff. But each one showed a dedication to his fellow soldiers, and their willingness to put their life on the line was a credit to the service and our nation. Above all was their initiative. Nobody ever got a medal for just following orders.

Just following orders should not be an excuse for inexcusable treatment of prisoners. It is a shame that the tragedy of abu Ghraib has stained the honor of our military.  That gnawing feeling in your gut when you first learned of what was going on there was shame.  That is why. because of the resounding ramifications and scope of the humiliation we all feel, it seems completely unaccepptable that seven enlisted reservist can be scapegoated as the seven idiots who lost the war as some in the Pentagon would have us believe.

This was the point of Al Gore's speech. How dare offical Washington lay the blame for creating an international incident of huge proportions on the ignorant acts of a few. Not when they were doing nothing different, it turns out, than what we were doing at Guantanimo, and our secretive hostage taking in the name of the war on Terra. I take it as a given that the abuse we saw at abu Ghraib was not the worst nor was it isolated. They had orders. This was a sanctioned psy-op.

It is shameful that those seven could be mentioned in the same article as heros like Chontosh, Perez and Martinez. But do take proper note that is was not the Village Voice or Moveon.org, but the arch-conservative bastion of the National Review that made the comparison. When the mindset of the top leadership is win at any cost, the ends justify the means, there will indeed be systemic problems within the chain of command.

I cannot blame our troops precisely because I do support them. They were betrayed by the General Staff, who should have staged a sit-down, a refusal to allow these illegal situations to develop.  Honor required something just short of a coup, but what else could they do but refuse and resign? As Shakespear's Antony said of the assembled leaders of the realm who stood by and reaped the benefits of unforgivable and illegal bloodlust,  "These were all honorable men."  Primarily the soldiers caught abusing the prisoners and the Generals in charge, were betrayed by the political leadership at CIA, the Pentagon and White House. If the civilians quest to stay in power is half as important to this administration as their willingness to go to any lengths to get information out of POW's. regardless of the damage done to the integrity of this nation, imagine to what lengths they will go to win in November. This is a cult of corruption I want no part of.

Who is supposed to stand up to POTUS and SecDef? The Generals know they either do the deed and duck, or get out. Like so many things of late, they hoped for the best, but didn't prepare at all. If these lowly privates can be prosecuted because they did not show the same initiative in a prison they give medals for on the battlefield, then I want some resignations.  I want some stars being ripped from shoulders and interrum appointees filling recently vacated bureaucrats' offices. I want some careers ruined before they can ruin the nation, the service, and the honor of our heros anymore.

While I'm putting my Christmas list together, I want the lawyers whose utter lack of ethics led them to write memos that we could abrogate the Geneva Conventions with impunity to be disbarred. I want the Antrax mailer found.  I want Osama's head on a stick.  I want Howard Stern to be able to be funny and not afraid of a fine.  I want the secret Patriot Act courts to open up, an economic policy that is fair and makes sense, an educational policy that is not only well meaning but well funded, health care costs that don't rise faster than the price of gas before the summer holidays, and an end to using tanks against rock throwing kids in the middle east.  And if the kids have AK-47s instead of rocks, leave anyway, even if they won't stop shooting, that goes for the republikuds too.  I want the Bill of Rights back and and a stop of the madness of our headlong rush to Armageddon. 

That's really not so much to ask for.  Most of it will happen if Bush is no longer in the White House, of that I am completely convinced.

After seeing Air Force One fly over my head the other day, I realized there's another little plot of land that's in my bit of fly-over country. From the front portch of where I've been staying, where I retreat to catch a ciggarette too many times daily, I can see the front green of a little church at the end of the road, about 200 yards away.

The other day, I noticed something new, rows and rows of little crosses, lined up like a mini Arlington. I don't know how long they've been there, I honestly don't know if they sprang up just last week when I first noticed them, or if in my preoccupation with everyday life, they slipped by me, unobserved. I've driven by the spot dozens ot times in the last few weeks, but I didn't see them.

President Bush didn't see them. His jet was too high and going too fast for such rose smelling.

Devon M. Largio, of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, made a scholarly study of the reasons the Bush administration gave for each of those crosses and whom they represent.

Bush administration has used 27 rationales for war in Iraq, study says

If it seems that there have been quite a few rationales for going to war in Iraq, that's because there have been quite a few -- 27, in fact, all floated between Sept. 12, 2001, and Oct. 11, 2002, according to a new study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. All but four of the rationales originated with the administration of President George W. Bush.

These are Devon's reasons:

1. war on terror
   
2. prevention of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
   
3. lack of inspections
   
4. removal of the Hussein regime
   
5. Saddam Hussein is evil
   
6. liberation of the Iraqi people
   
7. broken promises
   
8. imminent threat (implied by all, but only said by Daschel
   
9. because we can
   
10. unfinished business
    
11. disarmament
    
12. connection to al Qaeda
    
13. safety of the world
    
14. revenge
    
15. war for oil
    
16. threat to the region
    
17. for the sake of history
    
18. preservation of peace
    
19. threat to freedom
    
20. the uniqueness of Iraq
    
21. the relevance of the U.N.
    
22. commitment to the children
    
23. gaining favor with the Middle East
    
24. stimulation of the economy
    
25. setting Iraq as an example
    
26. because Saddam Hussein hates the U.S.
    
27. Iraq’s violation of international law.

At the other end of the timeline, looking back and evaluating what has transpired, Double Plus Ungood asks 12 questions from a Canadian perspective, "What Would it Take to See Failure?" and by implicaltion surrender, give up and pull out.

Most of the world's population opposing the invasion?


A year-long insurgency that showed no signs of letting up?


Tens of thousands of Iraqis joining militias?


Evidence turning up that the main Iraqi expatriate supported by the coalition was in the pay of a hostile neighboring government?


Evidence that a significant number of US troops are abusing, murdering, and stealing from the Iraqi population?


The gradual collapse of the coalition of the willing?


Polls that indicate that the great majority of Iraqis dislike the coalition and want them to leave?


Polls indicating that the person most-trusted by the Iraqis is a fundamentalist Shi'ite Ayatollah who barely tolerates the coalition, and the second most-trusted is a firebrand fundamentalist Shi'ite cleric who is at war with the coalition?


Polls indicating that twice as many Iraqis trust the UN than trust the US?


Reports from human rights organizations condemning the occupation?


Reputable accounts putting the number of Iraqi civilians killed into five figures?


Reputable studies indicating that al-Qaeda's strength is actually increasing because of the war?

I haven't counted the little crosses up the street, but I'm pretty confident that they represent 805 very good reasons to be proud, and sad, and above all, reverent and solemn this Memorial Day weekend.

After the gross violations of all that America stands for committed by the current administration in our name, I don't see how we can get Peace with Honor, even as we honor our dead.

Just for the record, all you sheep out there defending the indefensible negligence, dereliction of duty, and criminal disregard for legal standards of official behavior nationally and internationally; you can indeed honor the supreme sacrifices of the brave men and women who have given life and even more often their limbs in the cause of duty to our country, yet vilify the thoughtless policies issued by the irresponsible political leadership in Washington.

How many of you (Wince?) rail against LBJ for Vietnam, but find no disconnect with that position while honoring our veterans of that war? Just because Bush is the temporary custodian of the title Commander-in-Chief does not make this "War President" any kind of military leader. He is political, and our boys and girls know the difference, and their morale, if effected at all, is effected because they can see as well as those of us on the sidelines that that the bar keeps moving, usually down.

When one of the rationales for going in doesn't work, they moved to another. When there was a clear indication from the field that we were failing, the ill-defined mission was redefined -- in more and more vague terms. The criteria for success is more "unknown and unknowable" than ever before. Our exit strategy now seems to be, whenever the Iraqis in charge tell us to get the hell out.

As another Iraqi with CIA ties is floated as a new leader of the embattled country, what chance do you think that will happen anytime soon? Of course, if you are taking sides, the State Department and CIA opposed the civilian Pentagon leaders' choice in Iranian spy Chalabi. Allawi seems to be the unanimous choice of the powers that be, the Governing Coalition, the UN, UK, Jordan, Bremer, hope he gets popular support too. Hope he lives so long.

Sooner or later we will have to leave, no matter what face we put on it, and the Iraqis will get the theocracy they've always wanted and which is our worse nightmare. We wanted a united Vietnam too, just not one under a communist flag. Funny how doing exactly the opposite of what the paternal nation wants is what the occupeid colonials usually desire.

I'm going to take a little walk up the street, and try to explain to myself and the little crosses laid out so neatly, why they are there. I shouldn't have too much trouble with a reason, there are enough listed above. Yet none seem satisfactory. Maybe if we had stopped and really acted like the mission was accomplished, and somehow been able to turn the mess over to NATO and/or the UN, most of those crosses wouldn't be there.

Hat tip Ara

Isn't this the "pay as you go" principle that Kerry adhered to when he voted against the $87 Billion.

The May 19 "Budget Procedures Memorandum" -- its details first reported by The Washington Post -- warns that if an agency wants to increase funding for a program, it must cut somewhere else. CNN.com

The Post article goes into much more detail, but even there I don't quite see the direct connection between the social program cuts, but the implication is clear enough.

What I do see is that as long as Bush's tax cuts remain in place, a disproportionate share of the sacrifice for the War on Terra is being placed on the middle and lower class. But that is no surprise from a Republican administration.

The disagreement may be less of a rift than it seems, but it is still incredibly refreshing to hear a British leader speak up clearly and independently at long last, and to hear him say the right thing too.

That's how the Guardian spoke of the Healthy Disagreement between the US and UK over the precise power of the Iraqi's new "sovereign" government over military/security operations.

I will now traslate the Guardian's account into American English:

Nice to see Tony finally get some balls!