The Mahablog: Truth and the Bush Administration

Essential Links
Blame Bush for North Korea's Nukes
America -- What Went Wrong?
The Truth About Paul Krugman
Lies, Damn Lies, and Bush
The Big Picture
War and Profit
Remember September 11
Homeland Insecurity
Peaceniks of the Past
Is It Too Late?
Abe Lincoln, Peace Activist
What Are We Fighting For?
Better Than Teapot Dome!
Forgetting the Alamo
The Killer Mothers
Anti-Bush Graphics to Go
Bush Barf-O-Rama!
Type comparison
August 29
Partial Transcript, Abrams Report, April 5, 2005

  Home Blog of the American Resistance!
                                                         The Rove Clock
Archive Newer | Older

saturday, may 1, 2004

Getting Real
I'm struck by the dichotomy of Nightline's "The Fallen" tribute on the one hand, and the news of torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.
It would be easy to separate these two groups of soldiers -- the guilty torturers and the honored dead -- into two separate compartments of the mind. And chances are no soldier killed in battle so far took part in torture of prisoners. But please take a moment to step back and look at the bigger picture of soldiers in war.
Atrocities are part of war. This must be understood. We may not encourage our soldiers to commit atrocities, and we must not make excuses for atrocities. But any nation engaging in a war must recognize that atrocities will be committed, even by some of the same soldiers we honor as heroes. Not all soldiers, maybe not most, but some. Atrocities will happen as surely as the sun rises and rain falls.

Anyone who approves of a war but regards its atrocities as aberrations is a fool, or a hypocrite.


I have no personal experience of war. No doubt many who have will disagree with me. But I say that atrocities will happen because they always do. Anyone with some exposure to scholarly (as opposed to popular) military history knows this. War crimes might be compared to deaths by "friendly fire" -- something the military wants to avoid but knows it cannot elminate.
Atrocities happen not because some soldiers are inherently bad, but because they are human. They are human beings required to engage in the unspeakable brutality of warfare and to kill other human beings. In order to do that, soldiers learn to regard the enemy as less than human.
"For most human beings, it takes an awful lot to allow them to kill another human being," said Anthony Pratkanis, a psychology professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz. "The only way to do it is to justify the killing, to make the enemy look as evil as possible." ...

"The secret in propaganda is that when you demonize, you dehumanize," said James Forsher, a film historian and documentary filmmaker who has studied propaganda films, and who is an assistant professor of mass communications at California State University, Hayward.

"When you dehumanize, it allows you to kill your enemy and no longer feel guilty about it," he said. [Michael S. James, "Inhuman Enemy," ABC News, January 29, 2003]

Shrinks who study the psychological process of dehumanization say it makes persecution of the enemy seem morally acceptable, even to people who could not have persecuted others earlier in their lives. Thus a majority of American citizens approved of the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, for example. Thus the Seventh Cavalry could massacre women and children at Wounded Knee. Thus U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib could engage in cruelty to their captives. And don't forget Andersonville.
For that matter, thus a majority of Germans of the Third Reich could look away from the concentration camps, thus the Rape of Nanking by Japanese troops in 1937-1938, thus Israelis and Palestinians continue to slaughter each other, etc. etc. etc. This is a fact of human behavior, yet through the centuries we continue to be surprised by it.
These days we expect soldiers to easily flip a dehumanization switch on and off in order to kill the enemy on Monday but treat him humanely on Tuesday. Some can do it, but some cannot. Again, this must be understood. It must be understood by the civilian politicians who define the soldiers' mission; it must be understood that it may be unrealistic to expect the same troops to easily juggle war-waging and peacekeeping. This is especially true when the enemy is engaging in guerrilla warfare and supported by some of the civilian population.
Further, the reality of warfare must be understood by the civilians who choose to send soldiers to war. It must be understood that soldiers who behave "honorably" (who can somehow flip the dehumanization switch on and off) and "dishonorably" (who cannot) are not necessarily separated by a clear, bright line.
And further, if it were up to me, any lifelong civilian who uses the word honorable to modify warfare should have his mouth washed out with soap. The word honorable is encrusted with medals and parades and waving flags. Let's stop kidding ourselves about what war is.
Sometimes a nation has no choice but to go to war, to save itself. And when soldiers fight for their country, it is right to honor them with medals and parades and waving flags. But let's recognize that much of what these soldiers had to do in war was not pretty to look at.
Regarding war crimes by American troops, I tend to agree with blogger Citizen Smash:

THE UGLY TRUTH of warfare is that there are no “knights in shining armor” who will always fight for Good. Evil lurks deep in the hearts of all men, and it doesn’t care what flag you wear on your sleeve. We are most vulnerable when we suffer under the burden of tremendous stress – but the ultimate responsibility to resist Evil lies with every individual.

Our soldiers sometimes do horrible things. Disgusting things. Cruel things.

When they do, we must not hide from the truth. Those repsonsible must be identified, prosecuted, and punished appropriately. There must be a public accounting for these crimes.

Because we are a civilized society, we must never give in to the temptation to brush aside such atrocities as “the way things are in war.” For if we fail in this responsibility, we will ultimately become no better than those we are fighting.

And that would be the greatest tragedy of all.

This may seem contradictory to some readers -- to say that atrocities are inevitable and yet those who commit atrocities must be punished. They must be punished, first, because soldiers sent to war had damn well better learn to flip the dehumanization switch, for their own sakes as well as their country's sake. Second, such atrocities must be exposed and brought to trial so that civilians can see that some percentage -- a small percentage, we hope -- of the soldiers they send to war will be irretrievably f***ed up.
Weirdly, I found the Citizen Smash link on Instapundit, but Glenn Reynolds doesn't get it at all.

As with other reported misbehavior, it should be dealt with very, very harshly. But those who would -- as Senator Kerry did after Vietnam -- make such behavior emblematic of our effort, instead of recognizing it as an abandonment of our principles -- are mere opportunists.

Oh, please, Glenny, the invasion of Iraq was an abandonment of our principles.
Kerry and other Vietnam Vets Against the War didn't come home to diss the soldiers; they were calling attention to how those soldiers were being f***ed up by the hellhole their country had sent them itno. They were telling the truth about Vietnam. Glenny doesn't like truth when it disturbs his wittle ideology, I suppose.
Glenny the warblogger needs to face reality -- the fact of war crimes is one reason soldiers should not be sent to war unless there is no other choice. As far as I'm concerned, Glenny and others who encouraged our entry into an unnecessary war are just as guilty of war crimes as the prison guards of Abu Ghraib.
There are more frightening reactions from other bloggers of the Right: This fellow dismissed the torture as "some 'poor' Iraqi having his feelings hurt" and shrugged off Arab anger with "Yawn...Wake me up when they are not angry about something." Yes, let's dehumanize the Arabs. Way to go.
Someday I'd like to blog about the warbloggers' attitudes toward Iraqis, compared and contrasted with the attitudes of the Victorian-age British Empire toward its colonial subjects in Asia -- the "White Man's Burden." This fellow has already done something like it -- not quite what I plan to write when I get around to it, but interesting nontheless.
See also comments by PrimeCog of Art Machine, Billmon at Whiskey Bar, and Juan Cole of Informed Comment.

7:08 am | link

friday, april 30, 2004

Hot LInks 7:11 am | link

thursday, april 29, 2004

Sinclair Broadcasting Group ordered its affiliates not to broadcast Friday's Nightline program. Here is the announcement, which speaks for itself:

The ABC Television Network announced on Tuesday that the Friday, April 30 edition of "Nightline" will consist entirely of Ted Koppel reading aloud the names of U.S. servicemen and women killed in action in Iraq. Despite the denials by a spokeswoman for the show, the action appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq.

There is no organization that holds the members of our military and those soldiers who have sacrificed their lives in service of our country in higher regard than Sinclair Broadcast Group. While Sinclair would support an honest effort to honor the memory of these brave soldiers, we do not believe that is what "Nightline" is doing. Rather, Mr. Koppel and "Nightline" are hiding behind this so-called tribute in an effort to highlight only one aspect of the war effort and in doing so to influence public opinion against the military action in Iraq. Based on published reports, we are aware of the spouse of one soldier who died in Iraq who opposes the reading of her husband's name to oppose our military action. We suspect she is not alone in this viewpoint. As a result, we have decided to preempt the broadcast of "Nightline' this Friday on each of our stations which air ABC programming.

We understand that our decision in this matter may be questioned by some. Before you judge our decision, however, we would ask that you first question Mr. Koppel as to why he chose to read the names of 523 troops killed in combat in Iraq, rather than the names of the thousands of private citizens killed in terrorist attacks since and including the events of September 11, 2001. In his answer, we believe you will find the real motivation behind his action scheduled for this Friday. Unfortunately, we may never know for sure because Mr. Koppel has refused repeated requests from Sinclair's News Central news organization to comment on this Friday's program.

Sinclair Broadcast Group owns 62 television stations in 39 markets. Sinclair stations (only some of which are ABC affiliates) reach nearly one quarter of American television households. 

Here is how you can reach Sinclair Broadcasting Group to explain to them what sick, twisted bastards they are:

Corporate Headquarters
Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.
10706 Beaver Dam Road
Hunt Valley, Maryland 21030
410-568-1500 (Main Telephone)
410-568-1533 (Main Fax)

Here are the names of officers and chief executives, and here are directions to the corporate headquarters, in case you are in the vacinity.

Words cannot express how disgusted I am.

Update: Atrios has phone numbers of some local affiliates plus the email address of David Smith, President and CEO:

Also, an Eschaton reader in Columbus is organizing a reading of the names of the dead.

Please don't threaten anyone or commit any acts of vandalism.

8:40 pm | link

Hot Links 7:09 am | link

wednesday, april 28, 2004

Hot Links
Patti Davis (I assume it's that Patti Davis) asks if Bush can feel grief.

The president’s eyes twinkle and taunt, occasionally hold back and turn chilly. I want to see pain there. He is the leader of this country and our soldiers are dying in a war he said we needed to fight. Iraqis are dying, too—some of them civilians caught in the crossfire. I don’t understand how he can remain so composed.


I’ve also been watching how Bush walks—still that jaunty stride, I’m afraid. Nothing to indicate that his bones have the leaden feel that bones always do when grief intrudes.  [Newsweek web exclusive]

FYI, "lack of remorse" is an indicator of a serious personality disorder.
Douglas Brinkley writes in Salon "Why Kerry Threw His Ribbons." It's important to explain this. Us old fogies who are in the general vicinity of John Kerry's age know why he protested the war, but I gather from reading some right-wing sites there is genuine confusion among younger (or stupider) people -- i.e., if he's so proud of having served, why did he throw his ribbons?  I recall there are species that eat their young. Oh, well.
Instead, if you run into such creatures, hand them a copy of this article by Scott Lehigh in today's Boston Globe.

I've talked to a number of the enlisted men who served under Kerry on the swift boats he commanded. Although they didn't share Kerry's privileged background, most speak well of him. They considered him a leader who genuinely cared about them, a commanding officer who was brave but not reckless with his men's lives. "It took two or three days after he came on board the boat to know we had somebody special," says Jim Wasser, second in command on Kerry's first boat.

Nor have I heard anyone credibly suggest that Kerry wasn't a legitimate hero. Certainly James Rassmann thinks he was. He's the Green Beret a wounded Kerry plucked from the Bai Hap River in March of 1969. Del Sandusky, Kerry's number two at the time, says the rescue took place during "an intense firefight."

Rassmann was bobbing up and down every 30 seconds," Sandusky says. The Viet Cong "would shoot at him and he would go back down and swim under water." Kerry, who had taken shrapnel in his left buttock and was suffering from a bruised right arm, directed Sandusky to steer the craft back to Rassmann, who grabbed a cargo net hanging from the bow.

Rassmann couldn't pull himelf up -- he was too heavy, loaded with water and the flak vest -- so Kerry lay down on the deck and pulled him up," Sandusky says. "This is in the middle of a firefight. . . . He saved Rassmann's life."

That is the context that's missing -- and that demands consideration as the Republican campaign tries to paint John Kerry as a shifty, irresolute politician who simply can't be counted on in tough times.

Here's another suggestion. Before you read today's New York Times article on Douglas J. Feith and the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group, read what Josh Marshall says about it here and here.

12:41 pm | link

Too Late
Nicholas Kristof offers advice for how to deal with Iraq in his column today. One point:
Count to one googolplex before rushing into Falluja and Najaf to wipe out the resistance. Most Iraqis know that Moktada al-Sadr is a hotheaded blowhard. But nationalism leads Iraqis to rally around anyone we go after. We have already made Mr. Sadr a hero by closing his newspaper, and our best hope for destroying him is to leave him alone, let Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani discredit him and let the shadowy Thulfiqar Army carve up his Mahdi militia.
Sounds like we already screwed that pooch, at least in Falluja.
Be sure to read Wesley Clark's stirring defense of John Kerry's war record, this remembrance of the young Kerry who was a war protester, and this editorial damning Bush for the GOP's smear campaign. Harold Meyerson has an outstanding column on Kerry's and Bush's war records in today's Washington Post -- "Prince Hal vs. King Henry." So guess who is Prince Hal? But does that mean Dick Cheney is Falstaff?
More Hot Links later today.

9:52 am | link

tuesday, april 27, 2004

Hot Links
Following up on yesterday's observations on Condi's relationship with Bush -- see "Condi's Inner Life: What Freudian Slips Do -- and Don't -- Tell Us About Politicians" in Slate. Good stuff.
In the What Did You Do in the War Department: I don't know why anything the GOP does should surprise me any more. The Bushies and their Party co-horts are craven hypocrites who will stop at nothing. No appeal to decency affects them. But their continued efforts to smear Kerry's war record while expecting Bush to get a pass have brought me to new depths of revulsion.
But Kerry is throwing some punches. A front page headline in today's New York Times reads, "Kerry Questions Bush Attendance in Guard in '70s."

Mr. Kerry had previously declined to join other Democrats in raising questions about Mr. Bush's National Guard attendance record. But during a contentious interview on national television on Monday, when pressed on whether he threw away his Vietnam war medals in a protest in 1971, he defended himself and attacked the president.

"This is a controversy that the Republicans are pushing," Mr. Kerry said on "Good Morning America" on ABC. "The Republicans have spent $60 million in the last few weeks trying to attack me, and this comes from a president and a Republican Party that can't even answer whether or not he showed up for duty in the National Guard. I'm not going to stand for it." [Adam Nagourney and Jodi Wilgoren, April 27, 2004]

(Perhaps Kerry read this by Steve at No More Mister Nice Blog.)
Salon does its part by featuring an expose by James C. Moore, "Bush's Flight from the Guard."  Also in Salon, see "Mystery Man" about the dots that connect Bush's alleged National Guard service with Bush/Saudi business interests. And Joe Conason observes Karen Hughes' alleged concerns about Kerry's wartime record by recalling the role she has played in covering up Bush's alleged "military record."
E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post nails it, as he so often does.
"Have you no sense of decency, sir?"

It was the classic question posed by Joseph Welch to Sen. Joseph McCarthy 50 years ago during the Red-hunter's hearings investigating the Army for alleged communist influence. With his query, Welch, the Army's special counsel, began the undoing of McCarthy.

Unfortunately, the question needs to be asked again. It needs to be posed to shamelessly partisan Republicans who can't stand the fact that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are facing off against a Democrat who fought and was wounded in Vietnam. Cheney said in 1989 that he didn't go to Vietnam because "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service." While Kerry risked his life, Bush got himself into the National Guard.

Thomas Oliphant writes in the Boston Globe that "I Watched Kerry Throw His War Decorations." Marie Cocco of New York Newsday asks, "How much shrapnel did George W. Bush take?" Click here for the straight story on the Kerry medals/ribbons protest flap, which even some pro-Kerry writers mix up a bit. Dan Froomkin of WaPo provides a roundup of military flap coverage almost as good as this one.
Dick the Dick. Our alleged Vice President is also in the news. Yesterday the Supreme Court heard arguments from Solicitor General Ted Olson about why the details of Cheney's secret Energy Task Force should remain secret. For commentary see Paul Krugman, "A Vision of Power." Atrios has the story of how Dick the Dick embarassed himself and the nation at Westminster College in Missouri.

7:04 am | link

monday, april 26, 2004

Hot Links
The May issue of Vanity Fair (la belle Jacqueline on the cover) has a must-read article called "The Path to War." The authors ( Bryan Burrough, Evgenia Peretz, David Rose, and David Wise) have compiled Everything We Know about how the Bushies decided to invade Iraq. Well worth the price of the issue, IMO.
One paragraph that stuck out, describing pre-9/11 Iraq planning:

For months memos flew among the State Department, the Pentagon, the C.I.A., and the White House, but through a series of bruising meetings everyone stuck to his guns. The process swiftly became bogged down in bitter interagency disagreements. In such cases, it is the national-security adviser’s job to forge a common line. This, say numerous officials, is something Condoleezza Rice was unwilling to do. “She has no opinions of her own,” says an insider. “Her supreme concern is preserving her own relationship with the president. She’s a chief of staff, not an advocate, until she’s sure he knows what he wants to do.” The result, this insider says, is “there’s a tier missing in the foreign-policy wedding cake. A subject will get up to a certain level and then just stick until Bush decides.”

Many have commented on Condi's failure to do her job as National Security Adviser. But I want to know what is Condi's relationship with the president? She and Karen Hughes both have a sick need to fluff Shrub up into the man he certainly isn't, which is interesting by itself. But then compare/contrast Condi's recent dinner party flub, when she said "As I was telling my husb ... " then stopped and said, "As I was telling President Bush. ... "
She either has a secret husband stashed somewhere, or...?
Also in this VF issue: Snitch Hitchens on Ralph Nader, Dominick Dunne on Martha Stewart, a look at the Disney Rebellion against Michael Eisner, and Jackie Kennedy's White House secrets. Juicy stuff.

7:21 am | link

sunday, april 25, 2004

Hot Links for Choice Day
Get this -- Bob "The Lizard" Novak writes, "Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is being urged by colleagues to threaten to close down the Senate for the rest of the year unless Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle ends his disruptive tactics."
This is like Jeffrey Dahmer complaining that his victims were too chewy.
See also this NY Times article on Frist's campaign to oust Daschle from the Senate.
Senate Republicans are sputtering over the Dems' outrageous maneuvering to block complete takeover of the U.S. by jack-booted fascist thugs concerned conservatives pushing a totalitarian morally compassionate agenda. Life would be so much easier for the Republicans if those bleeping partisan Dems would just sit down and shut up, huh?

10:52 am | link

Archive Newer | Older

Regarding the RSS Feed: My web host insists it works. Cendron J. at Tech Support wrote me the following:
"I was able to subscribe to the using rss/xml blog reader from
as the blog reader by entering the url
The blog link should work as long as your blog reader can read xml."

Good luck.


Buy This Button!

Buy This Book!

Blogroll Me!

PLEASE NOTE: If you send me an email I assume the right to quote you anywhere I want
unless you specifically request otherwise.  
ALSO PLEASE NOTE that I am a slug about reading and answering email.

About Me




Air Maha

Radio Archive

Ben Merens, "Conversations with Ben Merens,"
September 9, 2004, WHAD Milwaukee, 90.7 FM

Guy Rathbun, KCBX San Luis Obispo,
September 15, 2004, 90.1 FM.



Best Blogs


Brad DeLong
Informed Comment
Political Animal
Press Think
Talking Points Memo

Hot Shots

Dr. Atrios

Group Effort

American Street
Big Brass Blog
The Blogging of the President
Crooked Timber
Daily Kos
League of Liberals
The Left Coaster
Liberal Oasis
Preemptive Karma
Running Scared
Shakespeare's Sister
Talk Left

Great Literature

Body and Soul
James Wolcott
The Rittenhouse Review

Great Dames

Alas, a Blog
Baghdad Burning
Bitch Ph.D.
Broad View
Democratic Veteran
Echidne of the Snakes
The Hackenblog
Heart, Soul, & Humor
Julie Saltman
Just a Bump in the Beltway
No More Apples
Peevish...I'm Just Sayin'
Pen-Elayne on the Web
Politics from Left to Right
Rox Populi
Suburban Guerrilla
Trish Wilson
What She Said!
World o' Crap
WTF Is It Now??

Abundant Attitude

Angry Bear
Cup o'Joe
David E's Fablog
Daily Howler
Democratic Veteran
Happy Furry Puppy Story Time
The Heretik
Kidding on the Square
Liberal Avenger
Mark Kleiman
Michael Bérubé
No More Mr. Nice Blog
Opinions You Should Have
People's Republic of Seabrook
The Poor Man
Public Domain Progress
The Rude Pundit
Seeing the Forest
Small Flashes
Steve Gilliard's News Blog
Talk Nation
That Colored Fella
Yellow Dog Democrat

Beyond Blogs

Black Box Voting
Blog Bites
Crooks and Liars
The Daily Kitten
The Daou Report
Democracy for America
Democratic Underground
The Drudge Retort
The Huffington Post
Iraq Revenue Watch
Iraq Veterans Against the War
Make Them Accountable
Media for Democracy
Media Matters
News Hounds
Sweet Jesus, I Hate Bill O'Reilly
Swing State Project
Think Progress
TPM Cafe
United for Peace and Justice
Utility Cats


The Loyalties of George W. Bush

Terror Alert Level






"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." --Theodore Roosevelt, 1918


The War Prayer

I come from the Throne -- bearing a message from Almighty God!... He has heard the prayer of His servant, your shepherd, & will grant it if such shall be your desire after I His messenger shall have explained to you its import -- that is to say its full import. For it is like unto many of the prayers of men in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of -- except he pause & think.

"God's servant & yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused & taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two -- one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him who heareth all supplications, the spoken & the unspoken....

"You have heard your servant's prayer -- the uttered part of it. I am commissioned of God to put into words the other part of it -- that part which the pastor -- and also you in your hearts -- fervently prayed, silently. And ignorantly & unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!' That is sufficient. The whole of the uttered prayer is completed into those pregnant words.

"Upon the listening spirit of God the Father fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle -- be Thou near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe.

"O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended through wastes of their desolated land in rags & hunger & thirst, sport of the sun-flames of summer & the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave & denied it -- for our sakes, who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask of one who is the Spirit of love & who is the ever-faithful refuge & friend of all that are sore beset, & seek His aid with humble & contrite hearts. Grant our prayer, O Lord & Thine shall be the praise & honor & glory now & ever, Amen."

(After a pause.) "Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! -- the messenger of the Most High waits."

·   ·   ·   ·   ·   ·

It was believed, afterward, that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.

[Mark Twain, 1905]

Who Links Here


Powered by:

Search Popdex:


Weblog Commenting by

Technorati Profile

My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Sister Numchuku of Reasoned Discussion.

Get yours.

Copyright 2003, 2004 by Barbara O'Brien

Reliable Alternatives net ring
This site is a Reliable Alternatives net ring member.

Thanks to RingSurf | Join? | Nominate? | Questions? |


Listed on BlogShares

Site Meter