by hilzoy
From the Washington Post comes the story of how US soldiers, intelligence agents, and CIA-trained Iraqi paramilitaries beat a prisoner to death:
“Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush was being stubborn with his American captors, and a series of intense beatings and creative interrogation tactics were not enough to break his will. On the morning of Nov. 26, 2003, a U.S. Army interrogator and a military guard grabbed a green sleeping bag, stuffed Mowhoush inside, wrapped him in an electrical cord, laid him on the floor and began to go to work. Again.
It was inside the sleeping bag that the 56-year-old detainee took his last breath through broken ribs, lying on the floor beneath a U.S. soldier in Interrogation Room 6 in the western Iraqi desert. Two days before, a secret CIA-sponsored group of Iraqi paramilitaries, working with Army interrogators, had beaten Mowhoush nearly senseless, using fists, a club and a rubber hose, according to classified documents. (…)
In the months before Mowhoush’s detention, military intelligence officials across Iraq had been discussing interrogation tactics, expressing a desire to ramp things up and expand their allowed techniques to include more severe methods, such as beatings that did not leave permanent damage, and exploiting detainees’ fear of dogs and snakes, according to documents released by the Army.
Officials in Baghdad wrote an e-mail to interrogators in the field on Aug. 14, 2003, stating that the “gloves are coming off” and asking them to develop “wish lists” of tactics they would like to use. An interrogator with the 66th Military Intelligence Company, who was assigned to work on Mowhoush, wrote back with suggestions in August, including the use of “close confinement quarters,” sleep deprivation and using the fear of dogs, adding: “I firmly agree that the gloves need to come off.” “
Gloves off, sleeping bag on:
“”OGA Brian and the four indig were interrogating an unknown detainee,” according to a classified memo, using the slang “Other Government Agency” for the CIA and “indig” for indigenous Iraqis. “When he didn’t answer or provided an answer that they didn’t like, at first [redacted] would slap Mowhoush, and then after a few slaps, it turned into punches,” Ryan testified. “And then from punches, it turned into [redacted] using a piece of hose.”
“The indig were hitting the detainee with fists, a club and a length of rubber hose,” according to classified investigative records. Soldiers heard Mowhoush “being beaten with a hard object” and heard him “screaming” from down the hall, according to the Jan. 18, 2004, provost marshal’s report. The report said four Army guards had to carry Mowhoush back to his cell.
Two days later, at 8 a.m., Nov. 26, Mowhoush — prisoner No. 76 — was brought, moaning and breathing hard, to Interrogation Room 6, according to court testimony. Chief Warrant Officer Lewis E. Welshofer Jr. did a first round of interrogations for 30 minutes, taking a 15-minute break and resuming at 8:45. According to court testimony, Welshofer and Spec. Jerry L. Loper, a mechanic assuming the role of guard, put Mowhoush into the sleeping bag and wrapped the bag in electrical wire.
Welshofer allegedly crouched over Mowhoush’s chest to talk to him. Sgt. 1st Class William Sommer, a linguist, stood nearby. Chief Warrant Officer Jeff Williams, an intelligence analyst, came to observe progress. Investigative records show that Mowhoush “becomes unresponsive” at 9:06 a.m. Medics tried to resuscitate him for 30 minutes before pronouncing him dead.”
Now consider this quote from a lawyer representing a soldier who has been accused of murder in connection with this case:
“The interrogation techniques were known and were approved of by the upper echelons of command of the 3rd ACR,” Cassara said in a news conference. “They believed, and still do, that they were appropriate and proper.”
OK, that’s a lawyer for one of the accused. But other people involved agree:
“In a preliminary court hearing in March for Williams, Loper and Sommer, retired Chief Warrant Officer Richard Manwaring, an interrogator who worked with Welshofer in Iraq, testified that using the sleeping bag and putting detainees in a wall locker and banging on it were “appropriate” techniques that he himself used to frighten detainees and make them tense.
Col. David A. Teeples, who then commanded the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, told the court he believed the “claustrophobic technique” was both approved and effective. It was used before, and for some time after, Mowhoush’s death, according to sources familiar with the interrogation operation.
“My thought was that the death of Mowhoush was brought about by [redacted] and then it was unfortunate and accidental, what had happened under an interrogation by our people,” Teeples said in court, according to a transcript.”
Wrong. An unfortunate accident is what happens when, say, I trip, hit my head on a rock the wrong way, and die. It is not what happens when you beat someone until he’s unconscious, and then, two days later, wrap him in a sleeping bag, tie it up with electrical wire, and sit on his chest. I’m sure they didn’t want him to die, but I’m equally sure that when someone dies after a series of brutal beatings, it’s not just an unfortunate accident.
I’m also sure that when you send soldiers off to invade a country without a plan for the occupation, and without providing enough troops to control any insurgencies that might arise, and when you then put enormous pressure on them to deliver intelligence by any means necessary and make it clear that the gloves are supposed to come off, it’s not just “unfortunate” that some of them end up beating people to death either. And while I do not want to absolve the soldiers from blame — I do, after all, believe in personal responsibility — to my mind, the people who put them in this position have a lot less excuse for their actions than the soldiers do.
Update: Bob McManus notes an analysis by Marty Lederman at Balkinization. It’s superb. You should read it.
why the f*ck have these stories not lost the capacity to surprise me?
hilzoy–
yeah, I read this a half hour ago and was thinking you should put up a post about it. Thanks.
Deeply sickening. This is the sort of stuff where I used to be able to say “America just doesn’t do that sort of thing.” You find yourself getting harangued in some foreign country, in some foreign language, by some America-hater who has had a few too many. And I used to be able to say to them: yeah, but there are some things America just doesn’t do.
The Rove/Bush/DeLay gang simply don’t care how much damage they do to America–they value nothing above power and money. They have lost their immortal souls, and are bent on making sure that America loses its soul, too.
We’ll just have to stop them. OH-02 shows we are making progress; people are getting fed up with the lies and the destruction of American values. Bush’s ratings are at all-time lows; a majority now understands that the Iraq war was a mistake and a diversion, based on lies. The entire coup is going to come tumbling down, and we will find our way back to sanity once again.
oh–and you didn’t even quote what was in one sense the most sickening part of it:
“The U.S. military initially told reporters that Mowhoush had been captured during a raid. In reality, he had walked into the Forward Operating Base “Tiger” in Qaim on Nov. 10, 2003, hoping to speak with U.S. commanders to secure the release of his sons, who had been arrested in raids 11 days earlier.”
This guy was a walk-in, early on in the insurgency–someone who came voluntarily to talk with the U.S. forces. And instead of turning this into an opportunity to turn an important figure over to our side, they begin torturing him, in full view of his countrymen, and eventually beat him to death.
This was clearly a mistake from the standpoint of fighting a popular insurgency: you have discouraged any further walk-ins, and you have sent the message far and wide that any dealings the Americans, even negotiations, will get you tortured and killed.
But Bush had to have his torture, no matter what it costs the country. Still does–he would rather leave the soldiers unfunded than allow the appropriations bill to go up for a vote with the McCain-Graham language in it.
I mean, I’m an atheist, right? But the sheer impiety of these people, their utter contempt for any value higher than political advantage, their disregard for any higher ideals–this convicts them of the deepest, most profound nihilism. They don’t believe in Christianity, they don’t value human life, and they don’t uphold American values. All they worship is their own power.
Related:
Also related.
This is the same story that I blogged about a week ago, by the way. Nice to see the Post and ObWings catching up, but there’s a way you could actually not have to wait for me to post a link here. 🙂
They left out the part about the sledgehammer handle, though. (Linking to the full version of the WashPo would save people having to do the extra click themselves, by the way, but perhaps you want people to see the other links on the page?)
Ah, I see Katherine is linking to what I wrote about last week.
don’t take it personally, I was in bar exam heck last week & then skipped town.
the cia sponsored paramilitaries thing I find especially upsetting, given some of the other gruesome stories about the interrogation techniques by iraqi paramilitaries.
I’m also somewhat startled that no one here thinks the Scorpion squads of “Iraqi paramilitary” were worth mentioning, let alone noting it in context of Ambassador John Negroponte’s history.
Katherine: why the f*ck have these stories not lost the capacity to surprise me?
They lost the capacity to surprise me some time ago, particularly when it’s old news.
I remember reading about this guy quite some time ago (unless it was another, very similar case): an Iraqi officer who gave himself up because the Americans had taken his sons hostage, and was then killed.
I mean, all due respect to Tad, but we know that American soldiers are doing this kind of thing, and worse, and have, for the most part, been promoted or rewarded for it. As far as I know, no American has been prosecuted for the crime of hostage-taking, and yet that too is against the laws of war.
Ah, didn’t see Katherine’s last comment before my subsequent comment.
“don’t take it personally, I was in bar exam heck last week & then skipped town.”
I don’t, although I confess that I do sometimes feel discouraged feeling like no one here (not to mention other places, but that’s not relevant here) bothers to read me unless I come over and directly post a link. The whole point of blogging is to get other people to read what one is writing about, after all. Not that I expect everyone to catch everything (or anything) I say, of course; it’s just frustrating, at times, to put in so much effort for so little apparent effect.
But not always. And I’m hardly the only blogger who feels that way at times, I kinda think. 🙂 (Okay, except for those with Big Regular Readerships, I guess.)
Hope the bar exam went great, of course, Katherine. And that the getting out of town was some relief.
No, when you beat someone to interrogate them, when they die that isn’t an ‘accident’.
I thought I’d lost the capacity for shock, too, but this one was a blow: Brits ask US to interrogate the ghost prisoners the CIA is holding about London bombings. Has a distinct air of “Do it to Julia!”, given that what they should be doing is denouncing our holding detainees away from Red Cross or any other access.
Jeanne at Body and Soul goes to the heart of the issue of torturing ghost prisoners (“high value detainees”).
We’re not to call the US’s global network of prison ships and hellholes a gulag, yet it needs to be named. To the extent that the reality is unsayable, it works in favor of those who maintain and rule the horror pits.
We’re not to call the US’s global network of prison ships and hellholes a gulag, yet it needs to be named.
Azkaban.
We’re not to call the US’s global network of prison ships and hellholes a gulag, yet it needs to be named.
Hotel Freedom
We’re not to call the US’s global network of prison ships and hellholes a gulag, yet it needs to be named.
Let’s try. I’ll start.
“Free Speech Zones”
“Lairs of Liberty”
“American Friends Abroad Confessionals”
Lubyanka.
I’m not an expert on the obviously messy jurisdictional issues here, but can’t a US Attorney somewhere launch an investigation into this? I assume that when it comes to military personnel that they probably have limited ability for such a thing, but what about the CIA? They’re not military and I would think fair game.
And the US Attorneys I think are more independent than the regular DOJ attorneys and therefore more capable of acting independently.
And note that US officials initially told the press that he was captured in a raid, and initially said he had died in US custody after “complaining of being sick.” F**kers.
If you all haven’t read enough horrifying things this morning I’d advise you to read Cindy Sheehan’s top Recommended Diary at Kos this morning. It’s enough to make you cry.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/3/42434/29626
But I thought that all this stuff was just being made up by jihadis as required by Richard Scarry’s Big Little Al Qaeda Training Manual? It’s not? Oh, bother. Now I don’t know who to believe.
Lederman
Didn’t notice anybody post the Marty Lederman analysis yet.
I am, as may have been noticed, beyond reason on this stuff. There was a feminist line in the 70s:”I’ll be reasonable when you get your foot off my neck.” McCain/Graham simply saying “Don’t do this no more please!” is a predictable response.
And as I have said, there is a pattern of behavior going back to the Palmer raids that is not shared by the American left.
Enablers abound.
Officials in Baghdad wrote an e-mail to interrogators in the field on Aug. 14, 2003, stating that the “gloves are coming off”
If these officials are acting without DoD authority, why aren’t they being fired? I’m so sick of the “bad apple’s” excuse when it’s clear now that despite what they say to our faces that the Bush administration does indeed support torture. When can we add them to the list of tyrants we’re morally obligated to fight against?
The name of the “gulag” is Intelligent Design”.
The program was created by a “Creator”, who resides in the White House. It is irreducibly complex, not open to question and should be taught alongside whatever cranky liberal no-torture theories are taught in our Nation’s schools. What, is Rush Limbaugh going to tell us: this program of murder just “evolved”?
I am for personal responsibility, too.
There must be impeachment and prison. No pardons.
I’d also recommend this amazing retelling of the “war on terror” by Juan Cole for anyone who hasn’t read it yet.
This story is old. But hopefully it will get more play. If every terrorist and insurgent could only believe that this might be there fate. It would be so nice to truly take the gloves off and fight this war. Instead our images is one of a country whiners.
Jesurgislac:
…but we know that American soldiers are doing this kind of thing, and worse, and have, for the most part, been promoted or rewarded for it
Hilzoy:
Unfortunately the posting suggestions aren’t really enforced and we have to listen to someone like Jesurgislac bad mouth our troops to protect the freedom of people like her from Islamic radicals who would surely silence her.
So it’s gloves back on, white ones that is as we serve tea and crumpets to captured terrorists and ask them real nicely what it is exactly the evil imperialists need to do so everyone can just get along.
nice troll, glenn
Unfortunately the posting suggestions aren’t really enforced and we have to listen to someone like Jesurgislac bad mouth our troops to protect the freedom of people like her from Islamic radicals who would surely silence her.
The person the US murdered while in captivity was an Iraqi military officer, not an Islamic radical. He’s parallel in everyway to a US major who would fight an occupying force that invaded the US until his dying breath. Read the freakin’ story if you’re gonna pontificate so.
Sulla,
read the story…PLEASE!
This prisoner was “Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush.” How you leap from that to “we serve tea and crumpets to captured terrorists” is part of the reason Bush et al. get away with this crap.
Glenn: the comment rules are enforced, at least as best we can, and subject to judgment. When someone just slips, as SCMT did last night, we remind them — it would be nuts to ban someone for this, especially when their immediate response is to apologize. When it’s a violation of civility but hasn’t yet revealed itself as an ongoing, unstoppable pattern and/or something that’s just unacceptable, pattern or no, we send a shot across the bow, and try to convince the person to play by the rules. Banning is a last resort. I did ban Jes, but I suspect she is working off a different computer and didn;t see it. That issue has been rectified, though.
“… to protect the freedom of people like her from Islamic radicals who would surely silence her”
I love formulations like this. Jes breaks posting rules from time to time because she’s ticked off that posting rules in the world at large are being broken.
Implicit in these formulations is the idea that when the troops come home some day, having vanquished the Islamic radicals, they will join with the tough guy keyboarders on the home front, and take care of folks like Jes, too.
“Silence” is the goal of lots of people.
Sulla:
Are your posts ALL said in a mincing voice?
If only I weren’t trapped in the reality-based community, I could understand that an officer in the enemy army is the same as a terrorist and that not beating people to death is the same as serving them tea and crumpets. I could also, like Glenn, see that being the “good guys” is about wearing the right color of uniform and has nothing at all to do with what we believe in or how we act. Unfortunately, true Bushian enlightenment eludes me.
“…but we know that American soldiers are doing this kind of thing, and worse, and have, for the most part, been promoted or rewarded for it”
hilzoy: I’m probably going to only get banned myself, but I have to ask you why this comment got jes banned. Is it untrue and therefore slander? Illegal (ie are there laws in the US against saying things that might undermine troop morale)? Is it because she’s criticizing the troops–most of whom have probably never done anything worse than made a rude comment to an Iraqi now and again– rather than the specific leaders who encourage this behavior or the particular people who enacted it? I apologize if I’m probing a sore point and will accept banning if you think my comment warrents it, but I am truly puzzled and would appreciate it if you would explain the rule to me.
I’m not saying it’s right Edward but let us not pretend stories like this are part of a metaphysical search for justice. They are as equally exploited by those with an axe to grind against the President as they are dismissed by his supporters. There is plenty of room for everyone on the pulpit regarding this.
JT- yeah, so?
I’m sure they didn’t want him to die, but I’m equally sure that when someone dies after a series of brutal beatings, it’s not just an unfortunate accident.
I’m not even sure of the wanting part. At best it seems to be indifference; the fact that they beat someone to death in only three days indicates that they didn’t really think there was important information to be had and could afford to be careless.
Dianne, in another thread, Jesurgislac claimed twice that Sebastian Holsclaw “opposed democracy and supported terrorism.” I’m pretty sure that’s what the banning was for.
Sulla:
I’m not saying it’s right
…but you’re not exactly falling all over yourself to say it’s wrong, either.
and notably:
They are as equally exploited by those with an axe to grind against the President as they are dismissed by his supporters.
is a lovely moral-relativist formulation. You might want to consider that beating prisoners of war to death has implications larger than domestic politics, hmm?
Dammit, I closed that tag!
Sulla,
I think your concern about how stories like this can be manipulated to beat up on folks who don’t deserve it would reach a wider audience if you had stopped to condemn the actions described first.
Your first comment suggests quite clearly that this Iraqi officer deserved to be beaten to death because he was a terrorist. I see nothing to support either of those. He was being uncooperative. Perhaps the US had reason to believe the information they were sure he had would save lives, but the experts agree torture does not work, so really, truly, WTF?
Are your posts ALL said in a mincing voice?
Mincing? They sound more warbly to me. Anyway, I’m more curious–well, mildly curious–why our Sulla chose the name of a homicidal Roman emperor as his nome de blog. If it refers to extracurricular interests, then I see why he thinks anything less than murder is “tea and crumpets.”
Edward, as horrible as it may sound because torture doesn’t work is the only reason I’m against it.
Dianne, although it appears that Glenn would like Jes banned for it, that comment isn’t the one that caused her banning. It was one insulting Sebastian in another thread.
It’s a roman thing Paul because the first blog I ever posted on was Tacitus and I hoped to generate attention for the late Republic. But by all means if you would rather bash me as homicidal fell free to do so, I have thick skin.
Edward, as horrible as it may sound because torture doesn’t work is the only reason I’m against it.
that’s honest. thanks.
but would your be for it, if it worked, in all cases? or would you suggest guidelines for its use?
meaning, specifically, would you support other states torturing US captives for information in any circumstance?
Thanks for the Cole link, Edward. Of course he manages three sort-of-aposite paragrapsh against Israel without mentioning the context of Palestinian terrorism. There’s actually a good case to be made that the Israelis screwed up the nationalism/religionism equation just like Reagan by trying to balance Hamas against the PA, but he skips it – when he’s in one of his light moods, as here, he can mention civilian casualties, and Jews, but not both in the same paragraph.
Well, at least Sulla didn’t pick Pompey (adulescentulus carnifex).
That said, Sulla, is it really that impossible for you to ever say “this was a crime, it sucks, let’s nail whoever’s responsible”?
If you were a German in 1945, would your reaction to the news about Auschwitz be to warn against its use as anti-German propaganda? At what point do you become an apologist for these deeds?
And as for white gloves, I fail to see what purpose is achieved by doing to anybody, even Osama, what was done to this man. Murder is not an interrogation technique.
I hoped to generate attention for the late Republic
Indeed. The late Republic needs all the attention it can get. Carry on.
A fellow blogger and his interpreter get murdered in Iraq.
We get a post about an old case of an unfortunate abuse during a time of war.
Oh the humanity!
Well atleast our priorities are clear.
it’s definitely a creative effort on Cole’s part rilkefan (I almost wrote “I’d also recommend this amazing spin of the “war on terror” ” in the first mention of it)
I think you can make a case for a description without discussing the victims though. Understanding that terrorism claims innocents lives makes it unforgivable, but it doesn’t explain how the groups committing the crimes came to be so powerful.
I think that’s the central value of Cole’s post…it outlines the age old guide for figuring out who to blame: “follow the money.”
The rest of the “money trail” is given context though – why Reagan supported the Muj, why we had bases in SA, etc. Cole suddenly swerves from the US narrative to get in his digs against Israel when he could as well represent his view without setting off my alarm system by writing, “During this time US support for Israel and the continuing Israel-PA conflict was a source of growing anger and radicalization in the region.”
“They are as equally exploited by those with an axe to grind against the President”
I oppose Bush’s torture policies on many grounds, including a simple fastidiousness about the public display of crude intelligence functions. It is not simply a genetic phobia of elephants, or disgust at gentlemen who say “nukular”.
There is at worst a paranoid intuition, and ar best a reasoned analysis that SS privatization and class-based tax differentials, anti-choice maneuvers, and the approval or tolerance of torture are connected. Perhaps in a lack of empathy and xenophobia? An authoritarianism? Certainly not everyone who identifies with one part of the agenda identifies with it all, but goshdarnit, my schizophrenia was supposed to diminish with age, but the externalities seem to persist. I see patterns.
setting off my alarm system by writing, “During this time US support for Israel and the continuing Israel-PA conflict was a source of growing anger and radicalization in the region.”
It’s a true statement, what’s your problem with it, other than knee-jerk support for the rogue state of Israel?
Well, gee, I guess we could read all about it on your blog, Glenn.
Oh, wait. You don’t have one. You just come to other people’s blogs and complain about what they aren’t writing.
You know, you can set up your own for free. And have whatever comment policy you want. Maybe you should go do that?
Glenn:
We get a post about an old case of an unfortunate abuse during a time of war.
What war? What are you talking about? I saw the President standing on that aircraft carrier with the big mission accomplished sign, it was on CNN and all the other channels in like May 2003, obviously the war was over. Since the war is over, why are we beating the opposing generals to death in sleeping bags?
Cole suddenly swerves from the US narrative to get in his digs against Israel when he could as well represent his view without setting off my alarm system
It’s not the most balanced telling of the story, I agree.
Again, though, that part of the Israel part of the story he’s omitting regards the victims of terrorism. He’s left that out throughout in all cases.
“were a source”. I’m screwing up “a and b were a c” a lot lately.
felix, maybe it’s even true, but if so it’s true in the sense that “Black men rape n white women per year” is true.
Anyway, back to the sledgehammers. (Well, the handles thereof. It’s so interesting that they couldn’t bring themselves to use sledgehammers, which would have made the story as viral as the woodchipper story.)
Again with the Mission Accomplished nonsense. You know, there are many good points to be made regarding this war; this is not only not one of them, it’s not even a point. Ask yourself: whose mission? Then try not to smack yourself on the forehead too hard when the answer comes to you. If it ever does.
And people, you be fairly vicious and nasty without overtly breaking the posting rules. I am sorry to see Jes get banned. Very sorry.
If, as I do, you view Sulla as one of millions, you can avoid the personal. It is also a mistake to personalize these flaws, sins, and crimes, for the ones closer to your side can say it is just Sulla or Trevino or Bird instead of their own friends and neighbors. And it is the Edwards and Katherines and hilzoys who need be radicalized in order for change to happen. You are not going to grasp the impervious and implacable, so reach a little closer.
Phil and KC: Thanks, that makes a lot more sense. I’m also glad to know that criticizing the US military is not grounds for being banned.
Me, too, believe it or not.
If that were the case, the banned list would have people outnumbering spambots two or three to one, instead of it being ten or twenty to one the other way.
Is banning indefinite? Tacitus returned, for ex.
I would respectfully suggest that the Higher Powers consider banning for set periods (15 days, 30 days, something like that), in the hopes that the cooling-off period will have a good effect.
Bush’s base loves this kind of stuff…this is why it happens…this isn’t just about the right-wing elite, but this is about their base…who think these are the actions of rightious men defending our freedoms.
Stop blaming Bush…start blaming The Base…because he does this for them.
Again with the Mission Accomplished nonsense.
Just taking the President at his word…In any event, it was stupid point in response to the comment about “abuse in a time of war.”
Ask yourself: whose mission?
while standing under that banner, Bush did say “major combat operations in Iraq have ended”. maybe he was talking about the “major combat operations” for a very specific group of sailors and he just didn’t clarify that in front of his nationwide audience. or maybe he meant “major combat operations” were in their last throes, or on the run, or turning a corner, or some other such nonsense.
Slart –
Agreed that the “Mission Accomplished” reed is a frail one, indeed, and carries far more heat than light. But I think it must at least be admitted that the presentation on the carrier was intended not only for the returning sailors, whose mission was, indeed, accomplished, but to the nation as a whole, via the national media coverage the WH made sure the event received. The reason the incident is weak for the purpose that Ugh puts it to is that beating politicians of any stripe over the head for demagoguery is like cursing pigeons for s**tting on your head.
Edward- “meaning, specifically, would you support other states torturing US captives for information in any circumstance?”- no and I’m not saying killing members of the Iraqi military will in any way will lead to the capture of OBL or end the beheadings in Iraq. I was countering what I felt are outrageous statements that pin the guilt of this on the administration with an equally outrageous statement. From my experience in the military things like this happen when the NCOs don’t enforce discipline.
Anderson- “That said, Sulla, is it really that impossible for you to ever say “this was a crime, it sucks, let’s nail whoever’s responsible”?”- no, but I think the punishment for this stays at a much lower level than most others around here believe.
Paul- “Indeed. The late Republic needs all the attention it can get. Carry on.”- Yeah, it is good to raise awareness of demagogues who exploit the resentments of the have-nots against the haves to serve their own cynical ends.
I would respectfully suggest that the Higher Powers consider banning for set periods (15 days, 30 days, something like that), in the hopes that the cooling-off period will have a good effect.
ditto.
I hope Jes returns.
banning only is for real for those on the left. Why just this week I saw ‘he who must not be named’ reprimanded yet again for posting violations, and he was just un-banned recently.. no special favors here! and by the way, Jes and I were the recipients of the original banning, not that it matters or anything.
Yeah, it is good to raise awareness of demagogues who exploit the resentments of the have-nots against the haves to serve their own cynical ends.
I didn’t realize you’d chosen the handle as a criticism of Karl Rove, Sulla. Well done.
by the way votermom, if you want to see Jes, she Main Page posts at Liberalstreetfighter.com, we know talent when we see it!
“Ask yourself: whose mission? Then try not to smack yourself on the forehead too hard when the answer comes to you. If it ever does.”
Slart, to try to get you to actually commit to a declarative statement, are you trying to say that the President flew to the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln on May 1st, 2003, simply to congratulate the crew for having completed their mission, and that this was what he was communicating, and solely intending to communicate, to the nation when he spoke under the “Mission Accomplished” banner? That might be difficult to sustain.
“Nineteen months ago I pledged that the terrorists would not escape the patient justice of the United States. And as of tonight nearly one half of Al Qaida’s senior operatives have been captured or killed.”
And, indeed, Osama bin Laden has been brought, dead or alive, to justice, as the President solemnly pledged to the nation.
Oh, wait, he’s “not that concerned.”
“Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups and seeks or possesses weapons of mass destruction is a grave danger to the civilized world and will be confronted.”
Good job on Iran and North Korea.
“The war on terror is not over, yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide.”
But now the war is over, replaced by the “global struggle against violent extremism.”
“And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.”
That was two years and three months ago. It’s not going as well as we had hoped.
But, bottom line, saying that this was simply about Bush saying that the Lincoln’s mission was accomplished simply isn’t true (which may not have been what you said; in your typical cryptic fashion, I don’t know what it was you were trying to say. So what was your point?
Uh oh. Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. Flee! I must flee!
no, but I think the punishment for this stays at a much lower level than most others around here believe.
There was a unit of Iraqi paramilitary at the prison, whose functions included being the highest tier of interrogation, and served the purpose of scaring other prisoners by their presence. How are those farther up the chain of command not aware of this?
Dianne et al: criticizing the military absolutely does not get you banned. Saying that Seb supports terrorism and opposes democracy does. I’m in favor of temp banning myself.
hilzoy: Thanks. Phil and KC explained the context to me, but I’m glad to get confirmation from you.
And since criticizing the military isn’t a bannable offense, perhaps I can ask how these US-military trained and supported paramilitaries are different from terrorists?
The intellectual and cultural descendants of the American lynch mobs are running this country and this “war”/struggle/jihad or what ever the PR firms are calling it now.
The only folks, who seem surprised by the depravity our government is practicing in Iraq, are American “moderates”.
Gary, you disagreeing with the content of Bush’s speech doesn’t in any way change who the speech was given to.
Probably you missed this bit:
Yes, that’s clearly directed to the nation as a whole, isn’t it?
It seems that you took my point exactly as I intended it to be taken, Gary. Are you pretending to be confused by it?
Everyone should read everything Lederman’s written on the torture scandal, more or less. No one’s better at connecting the dots.
The Salt Lake Tribune has a lot of stuff on this case today, focusing on the Utah National Guard Sergeant who blew the whistle. Note the PDF links to government documents in the sidebar.
“Gary, you disagreeing with the content of Bush’s speech doesn’t in any way change who the speech was given to.”
Sure, the nation on live tv; that was the entire point of the speech, right? He didn’t go out there to address the crew privately, right? They turned the bloody ship around so the visuals would look best on tv, remember?
“Yes, that’s clearly directed to the nation as a whole, isn’t it?”
It’s completely besides the point that when you’re making a live speech on tv, and have chosen a specific setting and audience, that you devote a few words to your audience, so you don’t look completely weird.
Are you seriously asserting that the speech was for the crew, not the nation? Are you kidding? What, someone snuck the cameras into a private ceremony? They were just incidental?
Are you kidding?
I think he is saying that the Mission Accomplished concept was certianly not meant to suggest that the entire War on Terror was done, and that in retrospect the defeat of the Iraqi Army did not represent the end of the Iraqi conflict. (Or at least that is what I would be saying). 🙂
And of course, presidents routinely give addresses to thousands of people without the press being there.
Are you kidding me, Gary?
Ah, I missed the crew-not-the-nation suggestion. Obviously, one excludes the other. Are you kidding me?
Sulla:
Edward, as horrible as it may sound because torture doesn’t work is the only reason I’m against it.
Well, that explains why you have a soft spot for it since, with some good old fashioned American innovation, maybe someone can make it work.
Can’t blamne people for trying, right?
This is a story written on Mowhoush’s death shortly after it occurred:
Thanks very much, Katherine. I’ve been trying to follow your fine work on this, too. Please contact me by e-mail. Marty
And of course, presidents routinely give addresses to thousands of people without the press being there.
This one does. Haven’t you been following those Social Security town hall meetings? 😀
Yes, one of these things is a lot like the other, Phil.
It’s a joke, Slart. You know, “ha ha?”
It’s getting harder for me to tell anymore, Phil. But, sorry.
Slart, the event was created so that the President could address the nation. You’re denying this?
“Mission Accomplished” referred to “major combat operations” having “concluded.” You’re saying this isn’t so? You’re saying that the President did not say this first thing out of his mouth?
This was not a live address to the nation on every network?
Sebastian said: “I think he is saying that the Mission Accomplished concept was certianly not meant to suggest that the entire War on Terror was done, and that in retrospect the defeat of the Iraqi Army did not represent the end of the Iraqi conflict.
Clearly your first clause is correct, since the President explicitly stated that, so it’s not a revelation. However, I’m not following your second clause, and the President most clearly did state that “major combat operations in Iraq have ended.”
Why anyone would try to argue this, I don’t know.
“And of course, presidents routinely give addresses to thousands of people without the press being there.”
Presidents do not regularly speak to the nation on live tv without the intention of speaking to the nation. Yes? No?
Presidents speak to huge groups without permitting tv cameras all the time. Yes? No?
So: your point?
I’m not trying to be argumentative here; I’m simply baffled that you’d contest or deny any of this. It’s not even as if it’s some sort of crucial issue. What’s your point, Slart?
Are you saying major combat operations have NOT concluded, Gary? That we’re still conducting heavy bombing missions and that we’re still pursuing the Iraqi Army to and fro across the desert?
Crap. You’re disappointing me.
Are you saying that “Mission Accomplished” was anything OTHER than the Navy’s air support mission being concluded?
I give up, Gary. You are in fact being argumentative, here.
Slart, I don’t understand why you are arguing about this. The Admin thought the war in Iraq was essentially over. As it turns out, they were wrong. They were wrong about a whole lot of things, and some of the mistakes were, in my view, inexcusable. This one, though, they had more than enough basis for: the Iraqi Army was done, the major cities had fallen, and the Hussein regime was utterly and totally ousted from all civil authority. The Pres can hardly be blamed for thinking he’d won it.
(I’m reminded of when Burgoyne took Ticonderoga in July 1777. When news reached London, George III is said to have danced about saying ‘I’ve won, I’ve beaten the Americans’ and the like. If those damned Americans had just played by the rules, the fall of this Gibralter of North America, and of the rebel capital a couple of months later, would have been the end.)
One tires of reading all the vast stretching of what the meaning of is is to get to a conclusion that whatever GWB has said must be the gospel truth. Equally tiresome is the strain to prove that nothing he says could possibly be true, but I hear a lot more of the former than of the latter. And you, Mr. S., are smart enough to engage in neither.
Slartibartfast–
You could avoid a lot of these problems if you would simply adopt ordinary declarative sentences. Instead, you spend all of your time being cryptic and allusive, so that your interlocutors have to do all the heavy lifting trying to figure out what you mean. And of course frequently you don’t give them enough clues to get it right, so misunderstanding ensues, then charges of misrepresentation, then counter-charges, and down it goes.
As far as I can tell, your position is as follows:
The banner that read “Mission Accomplished”, (whose placement was authorized by the WH) was intended to convey only the following message:
“The Navy’s air support mission is concluded”.
It had no other meaning.
Is that, finally, what you believe that “Mission Accomplished” meant? And if so, could you just say so, in straightforward declarative sentences?
Then we could finally get to the job of figuring out whether what you said is true or not, instead of spending all of our time simply trying to figure out what you said.
I know you don’t intend to cause all this confusion, but as a frequent reader I often find it very hard to interpret your utterances–I don’t mean that in a clever way, I just mean I can’t figure out what in heavens name you have just written, or what you are trying to get at.
Are you saying that “Mission Accomplished” was anything OTHER than the Navy’s air support mission being concluded?
Since I started this whole thing, in a snarky response to what I thought was a poor comment, I thought I might as well jump at this point and note that, IMO, the most reasonable conclusion to draw from Bush’s landing on the aircraft carrier and giving a live speech televised nationally with a big “Mission Accomplished” sign in the background combined with his “major combat operations” statement is that he was most emphatically not talking about the Naval air support mission (and neither was the sign which, IIRC, was the idea of the sailors on board).
Last part of parenthetical should read “was not the idea of the sailors on board”).
I asked: “What’s your point, Slart?”
No response here.
“Are you saying major combat operations have NOT concluded, Gary?”
Yeah, I kinda think all the major operations announced in the news over the last couple of years kinda suggest that, as do the 1800-odd dead American soldiers. What do you call Operation Spear, Operation Scimitar, and so on? Is, in fact, Operation Iraqi Freedom over, or is it “minor”?
“Are you saying that “Mission Accomplished” was anything OTHER than the Navy’s air support mission being concluded?”
Yes. I quoted the President. What’s your support for declaring that it meant “the Navy’s air support mission [has been] concluded”? Is that what the President said? What are you basing your apparent belief upon, precisely, with cite, please?
“I give up, Gary. You are in fact being argumentative, here.”
I give up, too. Clearly, I have no point, and I’m imagining the whole thing. And when I ask you direct simple questions, such as “what’s your point,” you decline to answer. So I give up, too. Baffledly, though.
Damn those lefties at Fox News:
They just keep doing it:
Operation Ivy Serpent. Operation Planet X. Do I also need to link to
# PENINSULA STRIKE
# DESERT SCORPION
# SIDEWINDER
# SODA MOUNTAIN, and on and on and on? But, hey, argue with CentCom that they’re not “major operations.” I’m sure you’re right, and they’re wrong.
You think these are not “major operations.” CentCom says they are “major operations.” Whose word should I take, do you think, Slartibartfast?
(Okay, I didn’t give up.)
Yeah, and what’s weird about all this is that I doubt there’s all that much substantive difference in policy or politics at stake here, between Slartibartfast and myself, or Sl. and G.F., etc..
I could be wrong about that–maybe there’s a big issue at stake. That’s the problem with writing in a way that requires your readers to fill in all the gaps–it’s hard to tell what *is* at stake, so some times mountains get made out of molehills.
The other day, Bitch Ph.D. said this:
“When I was in high school, my honors English teacher once said to me that my writing was “concise to a fault.””
Sometimes concise is nice. Sometimes terse is cherce.
But when people are trying to understand each others’ views about potentially fraught issues, making an extra effort to be clear about your own views just seems like the neighborly thing to do.
Gary, those are new major operations.
[/dripping-with-sarcasm].
I happened to notice this back in June.
“For what it’s worth, I think the single most important signpost to understanding where the administration’s real thinking lies is in this assertion from the 2005 National Defense Strategy:
“Our strength as a nation state will continue to be challenged by those who employ a strategy of the weak using international fora, judicial processes, and terrorism.” …Matt Yglesias
That’s just, like, awesome. It is a “strategy of the weak” to use “international fora” and “judicial processes.” Think on it.
CNN, on May 2, 2003:
“From the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, President Bush announced in a nationally televised address that “major combat operations in Iraq have ended.”
Slarti, Bush said “major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” Not “the Navy’s major combat operations,” not “major combat operations off the coast of Iraq,” not “major combat operations in small towns and villages,” but major combat operations in Iraq. Full stop. Period.
Now, you could try to argue that what’s been going on in the 2+ years since aren’t major combat operations. But that would require a rather strange definition of the term. The people of Fallujah, for instance, might want to disagree with you.
“Yeah, and what’s weird about all this is that I doubt there’s all that much substantive difference in policy or politics at stake here, between Slartibartfast and myself, or Sl. and G.F., etc..”
Indeed.
“I happened to notice this back in June.”
Ah. Does this mean Slart is kicking and screaming (figuratively speaking, meaning “resisting an obvious and otherwise trivial point for no immediately apparent reason”) because I’ve accidentally kicked him into Erasmus Syndrome without realizing it?
“The sum of our religion is peace and unanimity, but these can scarcely stand unless we define as little as possible, and in many things leave one free to follow his own judgment, because there is great obscurity in many matters, and man suffers from this almost congenital disease that he will not give in when once a controversy is started, and after he is heated he regards as absolutely true that which he began to sponsor quite casually….”
— Desiderius Erasmus
I certainly can’t figure out any other reason he’d be arguing with Centcom and the Pentagon in insisting that their many declarations and press releases about the various “major operations” they’ve undertook in Iraq aren’t true, but, then, many things are obscure to me.
wow, conservative dust-in-the-eyes strategy works again!
um, guys? hello? this post is about a man being murdered during an interrogation by US troops, with approval of the techniques by higher-ups.
and you lot are bickering about the carrier photo op.
focus, people. focus.
(and if anyone thinks this isn’t murder, imagine what a federal prosecutor would think if the death occurred during a drug gang’s interrogation of a DEA informant.)
Well, Francis, they have to argue about something; Slarti’s made it clear that he opposes this thing — and, among other reasons, dropped his Republican voter registration because of it — and Sebastian and Charles are fairly emphatic on the whole matter as well. The only person who has stuck up for it is Sulla, and Eiland and Macallan haven’t bothered (for some odd reason) to drop in with their “snicker” and “hahahahaha” and condescension. So, really, this is about all there is that’s apparently a point of any disagreement.
Where do you think the Navy’s air support mission was based from, Gary? And where was that base, when the speech was delivered?
Me, too. Oddly, his words seem to support my premise specifically.
Yes, those lefties at Fox News are exactly where you’d go to determine whether an operation was “major”. And of course, if ten or one hundred years from now we conduct further combat operations in Iraq, Bush will have, once again, been a big fat liar.
Compared with thousands of sorties per day? No. If you think any of these is within an order or two of magnitude of the amount of people or assets as any of the first 26 days of OIF, I’ll be happy to listen to why you think that’s so.
“focus, people. focus.”
Well, I wrote about the basic story over a week before anyone on ObWings noticed it, which still didn’t help anyone on ObWings notice it, and I wrote about it again and again. I’m not sure what more you want from me. If you have the delusion that it’s not normal for thread drift in comments to take place, or that there’s some sort of obligation to only comment on the base post, you are in error. Neither is the point of a comments thread to cheerlead.
Slart says: “Where do you think the Navy’s air support mission was based from, Gary? And where was that base, when the speech was delivered?”
I have absolutely no idea what your point is here. Could you possibly just state it in a declarative sentence, and quit playing Socrates?
“Oddly, his words seem to support my premise specifically.”
Fine: state how, please.
“Yes, those lefties at Fox News are exactly where you’d go to determine whether an operation was ‘major’.”
Slart, why are you deliberately ignoring all my links to CentCom? You’re claiming that CentCom is a bad source for whether their operations are major?
This is going from absurd towards absolutely kooky.
In case anyone wondered why I dropped away from commenting at ObWings, a huge reason was weariness with engaging in this sort of futile nonsense.
Anyway, yeah, you’re right, and you’ve demonstrated that by ignoring most of my questions to you and refusing to answer them, and ignoring what CentCom says, and claiming you’re correct, and they’re wrong (implicitly, by ignoring the point) about their own operations.
Talk about being disappointed. What’s behind this? What’s the problem here?
It’s certainly not as if what President Bush said two years ago matters particularly at this point. So he was wrong when he declared “major operations” over: so what? It’s hardly an important point by now; it’s hundreds down on the priority list of things to debate about Iraq, or things that President Bush got right or wrong. Why argue like the Red Queen about it?
The speech was made from the deck of an aircraft carrier. The aircraft carrier is the base of Naval air support. Are there any other declarative statements you need for me to make, or will this do it for you with respect to this particular point? How much further do I need to break this down?
And this idea that Centcom somehow contradicts me…really, is it your contention that Bush was claiming we would never fire a shot in anger in Iraq again? Or, more declaratively (and to swipe a line from others): those are other combat operations. If you’re fixated on the word “major”, maybe it’s best to ask Centcom to clarify. Again, if you think those other combat operations are on the same scale of “major” as OIF, a quick perusal and comparison of the resources required will set you straight. Go ahead, your link will work just as well as anything I could come up with. If you’re thinking “major” has some special, specific, military significance, I suggest you provide some justification for that notion.
And please, lose the victim act. You’re the one who came out all pitchforks.
I think we can all agree that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a ‘major combat operation’, completed within a month.
I think we can all agree that Operation Marita also was a ‘major combat operation’, completed within a month.
I think we can all agree that if were to tell someone who had relatives killed by Tito partisans, Chetniks, Ustashas or the German army that the war in Yugoslavia ended in april 1941, his answer would be:
‘- Would like a bag for your teeth?’
‘- …?’
‘- Yes, to carry them home after I’ve kicked them out of your mouth.’
Among the data points being omitted in this discussion:
1) The photo op of the “Mission Accomplished” was carefully chosen beyond, AFAICT, any other of Bush’s photo op; among other things…
– The carrier was turned so that television coverage wouldn’t see the San Diego (?) shoreline. This did not in any way impact the sailors’ ability to see said shoreline, however.
– The flight in was totally unnecessary (although this was masked by the turning of the carrier).
– The coverage was broadcast live (at, IIRC, the Bush Administration’s request, although I could be wrong about that) on all major networks in prime-time.
2) The “Mission Accomplished” banner, we are told, was specifically provided by the Bush Administration. When this became embarrassing, however, they subsequently denied that they had given any orders to hang said banner, claiming that the sailors had spontaneously decided to hang it themselves and that they couldn’t do anything about it (?!).
3) The White House’s own transcript of the speech was headlined not “Major Combat Operations have concluded”, but rather “Combat Operations have concluded”. This was changed without comment some months later (July, I believe) when it became clear that the White House’s would-be spin on the matter was no longer supportable. Copies of the otherwise-undocumented change are available at the Memory Hole, I believe.
[If anyone recalls the subsequent references to this speech, including the deliberate overstating to “Combat Operations” by Republican operatives, I’d appreciate it. I was too nauseated by the gluttonous jingoism to take careful notes.]
I don’t think there’s any dispute that Bush’s theatrics were intended in part for the sailors and crew of the Abraham Lincoln. That this was somehow intended as the primary purpose; that the photo-ops and the broadcast to the nation were somehow serendipitous or incidental; is simply naive (or disingenuous) beyond belief.
Anarch, there’s more to it than that. When President Bush was challenged about the “Mission Accomplished” banner in a press conference, he denied that the White House staff had provided the banner. His exact words were, “they’re not that ingenious.”
There was a long NY Times article (by Elisabeth Bumiller if I recall correctly) describing the elaborate orchestration of this incident by the White House political staff in detail.
Would anyone like to affirmatively suggest that they believe “Mission Accomplished” was intended to convey that the War on Terrorism was over? Anyone? Saddam’s regime was destroyed as was the Iraqi army. That mission was accomplished. Unfortunately for everyone, there are a lot of other things that need to be done over the next 20-30 years–many of them in the Middle East. That fact should have been obvious to anyone watching the situation. Bush has done things wrong since then. What does any of that have to do with the Mission Accomplished sign?
Would anyone like to affirmatively suggest that they believe “Mission Accomplished” was intended to convey that the War on Terrorism was over?
There is no “War on Terrorism” my little misguided friend. Where did you get that idea? There is a Global Struggle against Violent Extremism. Please update your talking points, and we will contact you at the appropriate time.
“Would anyone like to affirmatively suggest that they believe “Mission Accomplished” was intended to convey that the War on Terrorism was over?”
Not me. I’ve already said that, you know, above. Should we repeat this a third time, or more? If so, why?
“There is no ‘War on Terrorism’ my little misguided friend. Where did you get that idea? There is a Global Struggle against Violent Extremism. Please update your talking points, and we will contact you at the appropriate time.”
Felixrayman, you are not keeping up with the speed of the modern world. The G-SAVE® is entirely over. We’ve been back to fighting the War on Terror® for hours. Please try to keep up.
Must I always post links to the news here for people to keep up?
😉
Must I always post links to the news here for people to keep up?
Oh, you have something else to do? 😉
“Oh, you have something else to do? ;)”
No. Ever since I ceased commenting here, I’ve lain in a grave, contemplating the nature of the universe. This is perfectly clear from my blog, and the other blogs that have linked to it. Ahahahaha, your smiley made your query so funny.
Am I not ideologically pure enough for your taste, or what?
Y’know, I bitch about not getting enough attention here, and this, that, and the other, but I don’t actually see your blog listed on the Blogstreet Top Blogs, or Most Influential Blogs, felixrayman.
But, to be sure, I have nothing else to do.
“;)”
(Nose transplants are available, by the way.)
Tried to express my feelings in poem form.
I don’t actually see your blog listed on the Blogstreet Top Blogs, or Most Influential Blogs, felixrayman.
*slowly backs away*
Oh, you have something else to do? 😉
Sebastian Holsclaw: Would anyone like to affirmatively suggest that they believe “Mission Accomplished” was intended to convey that the War on Terrorism was over?
We’re talking about the Iraq War. It may or may not be part a larger war, that’s totally irrelevant and can only be used do deflect attention from the fact that Bush wanted to convey the impression that the war in Iraq was over, which it is not by any common definition of the words “war” and “over”.
Noted that you have an issue with the WH webmaster and/or PR department. I agree Karl Rove should be shitcanned for that. Next?
Which would be a crippling point, if that were ever an even incidental part of my argument. If you think that no one at all has considered that that particular speech might have targeted a somewhat wider audience, well, you must have a rather low opinion of others. And if it’s your contention that others may have taken that speech to mean that we were completely done in Iraq, you must have a really low opinion of others.
Slart: “completely” is too strong. How about, “mostly”? Or “the hard, bloody part is done”? Or, perhaps more interesting to me, did it mean, “We should be accorded political credit and hence more power and free rein to continue our agenda”? That’s what most bothered me, I think – the politicization of the war. Of course I’m angry about that as a partisan, but as a patriot I’m also upset because I bet the admin would be doing a better job in Iraq if they were willing to take the hit from admitting the truth of the situation and the necessity to change expectations and goals.
Point taken: our casualty rate is now only about half of what we saw up until the fabled announcement.
Or, to me: thanks for the great job; here’s what you accomplished. Guess I’m not nearly cynical enough.
“our casualty rate is now only about half”
Suckily, this month we’re back to (or 50% beyond, depending on one’s definition) of the “major combat ops” loss rate.
Guess I’m not nearly cynical enough.
Were you similarly credulous when listening to Bill Clinton? Not accusing (I didn’t know you then), just asking.
“Credulous” might not be quite what I meant there — not sure of the word I want — “charitable regarding the speaker’s intentions” or so.
I’m not sure why this even matters; I try to keep the mind-reading to a minimum. But: sure, Clinton seemed insincere to me on occasion, but for the most part I thought he meant what he said. This is not to say that what he said for the most part found agreement over here, but that’s not what you asked.
If you think that no one at all has considered that that particular speech might have targeted a somewhat wider audience, well, you must have a rather low opinion of others.
Clearly not, since I pretty much acknowledged this in my comment.
And if it’s your contention that others may have taken that speech to mean that we were completely done in Iraq, you must have a really low opinion of others.
What rilkefan said. I’ll go further: this was a perception deliberately fostered by the Bush Administration (your dismissal of the website’s evidence notwithstanding) and a perception that many people chose to accept. If you infer from that that I have a really low opinion of those people, well, I can’t really help you there.
Wait…which was a perception deliberately fostered by the Bush Administration?
Which website? If you’re talking about centcom, you really need to read the thread, because I specifically cited them in support of my argument. It’d be foolish in the extreme for me to dismiss my own evidence.
Evidence, please? After you tell me what perception it is you’re referring to, that is.
Wait…which was a perception deliberately fostered by the Bush Administration?
The notion that we had all but finished our operations in Iraq — i.e. that we were mostly, though not completely, done. What rilkefan had just said, and what I’d just agreed with.
Which website?
The White House’s website. The one I was just talking about, and the one whose relevance you just dismissed.
Evidence, please? After you tell me what perception it is you’re referring to, that is.
I’ll see what I can trawl up from the archives, although I’m a little perplexed that you seem to think this is somehow in contention.
Slarti,
This discussion might as well be about WMD. According to many the whole reason for the Iraq war was WMD and no matter how much evidence is cited they will not believe differently.
You can’t have a discussion with someone who has such selective memory. Many have chosen to see these issues in a particular way. This issue is no different.
The whole world knew that there was much more work to be done after removing Hussein. The difficulty of that task was often conveniently used as a reason for not invading Iraq. These people want to latch onto any issue they think they can use to criticize Bush.
Oh, but it was eminently dismissable, unless it’s your contention that the WH press office professes to be and is known as a reliable source of accurate information about the military. Forget reading upthread; I was baffled as to which website you were referring to, and I made a guess. It didn’t occur to me that you could be hanging any part of your argument from something this flimsy.
Glenn–
Thank you for making the point that rilkefan, anarch and others have been advancing.
“The whole world knew that there was much more work to be done after removing Hussein. The difficulty of that task was often conveniently used as a reason for not invading Iraq. ”
That’s right, the whole world had some grip on reality–it was mostly the Rumsfeld/Feith/Wolfowitz neo-con crowd that was claiming it would be a cakewalk, be over in six months, and pay for itself.
But they persuaded Bush, and Bush tried to persuade the US, that it would be easy, and quickly over, and that the troops would be home in months.
The “Mission Accomplished” banner was an attempt to continue persuading the US public that it *had* been easy, that it *had* ended quickly, and so on. And that the evidence of WMD would turn up tomorrow, and that we’d have Hussein and his sons in captivity tomorrow (at least they nailed them by the end of the year, thank goodness), and that the democratic revolution that we had started in Iraq would spread throughout the mid-east, why, practically *tomorrow*.
Slartibartfast–
have you yet spelled out, in simple terms, without question-marks, without rhetorical questions, what exactly it is you think that the “Mission Accomplished” banner was intended to convey?
Tad,
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t the ouster of Hussein pretty much a cakewalk?
If I remember correclty his regime fell rather quickly.
Thanks for pointing out how their assessment was accurate.
Is there any proof of this at all, aside from your say-so? I sadly lack mind-reading abilities, so you’re going to have to show me.
Other than “Mission Acccomplished”? I don’t think I need to.
Slartibartfast–
Surely you don’t *need* to. I mean, nothing terrible will occur if you don’t–the Dow won’t plummet, your socks won’t fall down. No, no–it’s completely optional.
Really, the only reason I can see why you might do it is because you would like to make yourself understood by your interlocutors, and avoid misunderstandings.
Tad,
Why don’t you cite some examples of Rumsfeld, Feith and Wolfowitz talking about it being a cakewalk?
I assume you are referring to this comment:
Ken Adelman, former UN ambassador, in an op-ed for the Washington Post, February 13, 2002:
I believe demolishing Hussein’s military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they’ve become much weaker; (3) we’ve become much stronger; and (4) now we’re playing for keeps
The MSM dupes another one… shame.
Slarti, do you realize that you are making an affirmative claim about Bush et. al’s motivations and thoughts that is every bit as much a conjecture as anything I have ever guessed about them? And very poorly supported conjecture at that, IMO, but that’s not the point–I don’t have the time or patience to parse the Mission Accomplished Banner and it seems like it could go on indefinitely without accomplishing anything. The point is that it’s either useful to guess at Bush’s motivations and intent, or isn’t. It’s not useful when it makes him look good but useless when it makes him look bad.
The burden of showing what “Mission Accomplished” means, outside of what it says, lies on someone other than me. In this exchange, that someone is you. The burden of showing that it’s an intentional campaign to mislead is, again, not mine.
What it obviously is, on the other hand, is pretty clear, and those things I’ve addressed above if you care to review.
Glenn–
Like you (I presume), I was delighted by the speed of the American advance on Baghdad, and ecstatic about the fall of the statue in the square. (Like too many of the current readers, I watched it happen in real time).
So–why didn’t we pull out our troops the next day, since the mission was accomplished?
I take it that we did not immediately withdraw our troops because there were some important missions that still had not been accomplished, e.g. the capture or killing of Hussein, the discovery of the WMD stockpiles, and the stabilization of the country under some form of civilian government.
You say that Hussein had been ousted, but if you will recall there was a real fear–not only among the Iraqis but among US figures–that if we pulled out right away, he would just move back in. There was much talk at the time–by Rumsfeld among others, IIRC–about how his psychological grip on the country was not completely shaken, even by his expulsion from Baghdad.
So–part of why the troops had to stay was to prevent the re-establishment of a Hussein regime. (I very much wish that one of the opening decapitation strikes had worked–I think the whole war really would have gone more smoothly if we had succeeded in killing Hussein early. Unfortunately, gambling on that sort of decapitation was never a realistic *strategy*; woulda been nice, but there should have been more planning for what to do if it didn’t work).
We can go back and read accounts from the early weeks and months after the war in which you will see Hussein’s continued freedom of action cited as a reason why Iraq was not settling down into the kind of stability that the Pentagon hope for. (Though never planned for). This was also why his eventual capture was widely trumpeted as a turning point that would allow the civilian situation to stabilize. (There too I had high hopes, unfulfilled).
So–you tell me. Was Hussein successfully ousted by the drive to Baghdad? I don’t think it’s that simple. And I don’t think that was ever the whole of the “mission”. If it had been, then why didn’t we just turn around the whole army, drive it south, and go home?
Oh, this is swell:
You do not need to choose between relying on these assurances and releasing prisoners. If a prisoner makes a claim that he will be tortured, and proves it, but he is a danger to your country, you are entitled to detain him until either the danger of torture in the other country lessens, or he decides he is willing to take his chances if deported there. In the U.S. the legal jargon for this is “deferral of removal” rather than “withholding of removal” under the Convention Against Torture. It was allowed before September 11 under U.S. immigration law. I don’t know if Britain has similar provisions, but it could easily adopt them.
Glenn–
You are right, the “cakewalk” phrase belongs to Adelman.
—————
“”There were some who were supportive of going to war with Iraq who described it as a cakewalk,” Tim Russert told Donald Rumsfeld on NBC’s “Meet the Press” last Sunday. The secretary of Defense seemed surprised. “I never did,” he replied. “No one I know in the Pentagon ever did.” While Rumsfeld spoke the literal truth, his response was still disingenuous.
Rumsfeld had been asked about the cakewalk description several times, rejecting it but still defending the premises for such a judgment. While its source was not technically a Pentagon official, it was a longtime Rumsfeld friend and lieutenant: Kenneth Adelman, appointed by the secretary to the Defense Policy Board (an outside advisory panel). In demanding military action against Saddam Hussein, Adelman has promised repeatedly there would be no military difficulty….
Unlike Vietnam, [the] strongest advocates of action against the Iraqi regime had estimated the lowest troop needs. Former Assistant Defense Secretary Richard Perle, named by Rumsfeld to head the Defense Policy Board, predicted in February 2001 that Hussein would be gone within a year. I asked Perle whether a major U.S. expeditionary force would be needed. “No, certainly not,” he replied. “I don’t think that’s necessary.”
Adelman, Perle’s Defense Policy Board colleague who held important government posts as Rumsfeld’s subordinate, was interviewed by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Dec. 6, 2001. “I don’t agree that you need an enormous number of American troops,” said Adelman. Hussein’s army “is down to one-third than it was before, and I think it would be a cakewalk.” Since then, Adelman has stuck to that estimate.”
——————–
So it looks like you are right: in referring to Rumsfeld, Feith, and Wolfowitz, I did not explicitly enumerate the member of the neo-con coterie who used the “cakewalk” phrase. But I do not think that makes a difference to my claim that it was “neo-cons” who had an unrealistic picture of how the war would go.
Oh–and the author I quote, who claims that Rumsfeld is being “disingenuous”? That’s the bleeding-heart liberal Robert Novak.
Slartibartfast–
If you think that “Mission Accomplished” means that the mission was accomplished, then I have no disagreement with you. In fact, I don’t think rilkefan, anarch, or anyone else here has any disagreement with you.
Yup, it means “the mission was accomplished”. Obviously.
Now: the part that is *not* obvious, any more on your reading than on mine, is *which* mission or combination of missions this refers to.
That’s what’s under dispute. We can all grant that the banner is intended to convey the message, to the audience it was shown to, that some mission was accomplished. I don’t think anyone has been suggesting anything else.
What mission? That’s the question. If you have already answered it, I would be grateful to you for simply cutting and pasting your earlier answer into a brief reply. Just specify the mission.
“You do not need to choose between relying on these assurances and releasing prisoners.”
True. And I have always agreed with you that is a bad policy.
But you should probably explore the dangers the British want to avoid as well. They want to avoid situations like in Israel (or previously like with the IRA) where bombs go off which are justified in the minds of terrorists by attempts to demand that their terrorist brothers be freed. They want to avoid situations like Gitmo where they would be pressed to reveal secret evidence. They want to avoid situations where the fact that they are holding such prisoners can be used against them.
I agree that their proffered solution isn’t a good one. But I don’t think ignoring the problems which cause them to reach for such a solution is going to let you argue against it.
There really should be an “effectively” after “argue against it”.
Let me see if I understand this correctly: you think there was some deception there, only you can’t say exactly what that deception it was. Is it pure belief that sustains this, or is there some evidence? Anarch’s pointed out some trappings of PR-ish activity, but that’s hardly a rare thing where the Chief Executive is involved. You only have to look back as far as the previous President to see things like that.
You can see I’m reluctant to point out the obvious, having previously done so. But, out of necessity:
The primary mission of the US military was to defeat the Iraqi Army. That mission was accomplished. In support of that mission, the Lincoln carrier group had a strong support role. That mission was accomplished. The Lincoln then returned home, seeing as its previous mission has been…accomplished. Congratulating and acknowledging the crew on a mission accomplished, then, might just well have been appropriate. You’ll note there was no similar “Mission Accomplished” celebration for the ground forces, because, you know, they still had a mission.
There. Now that I’ve done my part, please feel free to substantiate your theory that there was some nefarious deception involved, right after you tell me what that you think that deception was. Which you still haven’t done, I note.
“They want to avoid situations like in Israel (or previously like with the IRA) where bombs go off which are justified in the minds of terrorists by attempts to demand that their terrorist brothers be freed.”
I thought terrorists just wanted to kill regardless of western governments’ policies? Seriously, I don’t think rendering prisoners as opposed to immigration detention is going to convince a single person that it’s not worth murdering innocents after all.
“They want to avoid situations like Gitmo where they would be pressed to reveal secret evidence. They want to avoid situations where the fact that they are holding such prisoners can be used against them.”
In this case, the exact same evidence that justifies the deportation justifies the imprisonment. And deferral of removal (or British equivalent there of) is only granted if the prisoner says: “don’t send me there, I’ll be tortured” with the full knowledge that the alternative is being detained in Britain.
Again, I am convinced that decent deportation policies–due process and protection against torture–make it more likely that Muslim immigrants will be willing to report their suspicions about their neighbors to the police.
I understand the problem. I am saying that there is a better solution than abandoning the Convention Against Torture. Do you disagree? How is my proposed solution worse? If you cannot point to a reason, how I am ignoring the problem? If you cannot point to a reason, what’s the point of going on about how these are hard questions about which reasonable people can disagree? Yeah, to some extent, but to some extent they’re easy questions. And this “ooh, torture, quite a moral dilemma” attitude has allowed terrible things to happen in the U.S. I would hate to see England repeat our mistakes. They are hard questions, but not all answers are equally valid, and those who reject the current answers ought to be able to say so forcefully.
Slartibartfast–
Thanks. Sincerely. That really does help me to understand what you think.
In fact, I suggested up above that, once we cleared up our respective stances, there might not be that much disagreement at the base of it (see my 8/3 8:42p). It’s just that, up ’til now, I have not been able to figure out what your position *is*.
What’s mine? Well, I think I pretty much agree with CharleyCarp’s 8/3 7:59p:
“The Admin thought the war in Iraq was essentially over. As it turns out, they were wrong. They were wrong about a whole lot of things, and some of the mistakes were, in my view, inexcusable. This one, though, they had more than enough basis for: the Iraqi Army was done, the major cities had fallen, and the Hussein regime was utterly and totally ousted from all civil authority. The Pres can hardly be blamed for thinking he’d won it.”
Or rilkefan’s 8/4 11:09 ” “completely” is too strong. How about, “mostly”? Or “the hard, bloody part is done”? ”
I think that the message that the banner was intended to convey to the American people was that the objectives that underlay the invasion of Iraq were all essentially in the bag–they had either already been accomplished (e.g. the disperal of the Iraq Army and expulsion of Hussein from Baghdad), or would be swiftly accomplished thereafter (the discovery of the WMD, the dismantling of any terrorist cells that Hussein was fostering, the establishment of a friendly govt., etc.). Sure, there were a few loose ends to tidy up, but the geo-strategic gamble had paid off, and the foreign policy stance had been vindicated.
So–that’s what I think “Mission Accomplished” meant.
I’m not sure what you are referring to you in your comments about “deception”–I certainly am not charging *you* with any deception, and I don’t think I have used the word “deception” up above.
If I were to follow the house custom here on ObWi, I would start slinging accusations of mind-reading. But in fact, I think those accusations reflect an over-simplified understanding of how human communication works. *All* communication involves mind-reading–inferring beliefs from verbal and behavioral clues. Sometimes we successfully mind-read, and sometimes it gets garbled. When it gets garbled, the fault sometimes lies on the receiver’s side, and sometimes on the transmitter’s side.
So when you say that I “think there was some deception” in regard to the “Mission Accomplished” banner, I ask myself “hmm; what did I say that might have led to that impression? I must have put something badly. Maybe I should try to make my position more clear, more explicit.”
I mean–it’s not a completely ridiculous belief for you to attribute to me. I certainly *do* accuse the WH of deception in regard to many of its other policies and pronouncements. I *do* think, for instance, that they used lies and deception in regards to the case for their being major WMD programs still active in Iraq, esp. the nuclear program. And also in regards to Iraq’s alleged links to Al Qaeda.
But in this case, I agree with CharleyCarp–they wanted to convey the impression that they’d won the whole shooting-match, because *they themselves* believed they had won the whole shooting match. They weren’t trying to send out a deceptive message on this occasion–they really believed it.
Which is part of what’s so sad about it. They had successfully silenced and ignored all the voices that said the war as a whole might not be easy, that had said they should plan for Phase IV, that had said they would need more troops to finish what they started. They really thought it would be easy, and for a brief glorious moment on the carrier, they believed they had been proven right.
Nope, I’m not leveling any charges of deception in regards to the banner, except possibly self-deception, which is a very different thing.
But again–communication is a two-way street, and possibly the reason why you thought I was alleging some deception vis a vis the banner is because I put something badly. Point out my unclarity, and I’ll try to clear it up.
Meanwhile, we have now stated what each of us thinks the banner was intended to convey, and to whom, and now I think others will be able to judge which interpretation looks more plausible.
Ah, I got my wires crossed between discussing this with you and with Anarch. My apologies.
Interesting. Well, inasmuch as “the whole shooting match” consisted of defeat of the Iraqi Army, I think that’s indisuputably the case. If you think they thought they were done, all you have to do is look at various Centcom briefings in the subsequent couple of months and you’ll find Rumsfeld saying they had a lot of work in front of them. Let’s see if I can dig one out…oh yes, here’s one just eight days after Bush’s speech from the Lincoln, that pretty much says both Franks and Rumsfeld expected ground forces to be at work in Iraq for some time. There’s a lot there that you and I can disagree with, but please read it and tell me that either Franks or Rumsfeld thought it was all over. Was the insurgency fully anticipated? Obviously not. I’m not arguing that point.
I agree with Tad Brennan that at the time of the speech on the U. S. S. Abraham Lincoln, the only deception involved might well have been self-deception. But more deception came later.
We can quibble about whether it’s a President’s duty to give a congratulatory speech to returning forces, or whether this particular speech was premature. The whole event, though, was political theater, and the intended audience was far wider than the sailors on that ship.
President Bush’s flight to that carrier and his speech given there were largely political advertising. They were carefully orchestrated by the White House political staff. Now every Presidential appearance is a political event to some extent but this one was particularly choreographed.
The administration’s later attempt to distance itself from this event, pretending that the banner was all the work of the sailors, was a small deception, but to me a telling one. By the time it became an issue and arose in a Presidential press conference, it had become obvious that Iraq was not going as well as expected.
As did others, I happened to notice that the flag background on the banner was an exact replica of the background used in other White House staged events. There’s no doubt in my mind regarding the source of that image.
Oh, above I misstated the President’s exact words (from the press conference). In fact, he said (speaking of his staff) “they weren’t that ingenious,” not “they’re not that ingenious.”
Scrolling back up, Tad, and reading more closely, it appears that I owe you a more humble apology than I delivered. Please consider this fully contrite, and please do accept my heartfelt apologies for my heaping of undeserved scorn on you.
Whoa, whoa–
now, don’t go overboard, there, son.
I truly am grateful for the up-front apology, and I’ll try to provide the same the next time I screw up. (In fact, I think I remember having to apologize to you some months ago. Didn’t like it, but there it was.)
I’m just worried here that any sentence with both “contrite” *and* “heartfelt” in it amounts to apologizing for *more* scorn than you heaped. Keep that up and you’re going to wind up amassing an arsenal of pre-apologized scorn-balls you can hurl at me scot-free. “Hey, remember that over-the-top apology from last August? Well it covers *this* one, too!” Zing!
So, anyhow, thanks, and apology accepted.
Oh, but it was eminently dismissable, unless it’s your contention that the WH press office professes to be and is known as a reliable source of accurate information about the military.
No, but the WH Press Office professes to be and is a reliable source of statements about the official political position of the White House, which was the entire thrust of my contention. I’ll forebear from further response, though, since I’m not sure where our disagreement stands any more.
Yeah, they hadn’t quite returned all the way yet, had they?
None of which makes the message wrong. Everywhere the president goes is political advertising. If you think that’s something only Bush does, you weren’t paying attention during the last administration.
“Everywhere the president goes is political advertising”
The president doesn’t go everywhere in a faux-military outfit with a stuffed codpiece in a way designed for maximum national exposure.
Tad,
Are you trying to make the point that the war against the government of Saddam Hussein was not a “cakewalk” from a military perspecitve?
The analysis of many pro-War analyst seems to have been quite accurate that the Hussein government would fall easily.
Maybe we should give some of those nasty neocons some credit.
rilkefan,
When you criticize Hillary for all of her recent posing with the military then maybe we can take your remarks seriously.
Glenn–
I think there are two roughly equivalent ways I could put it, and I don’t think it matters much which way I go.
1) Maybe the optimistic pre-war assessments of the length and difficulty of the military conflict in Iraq were intended to include not only the initial phase of dispersing the army, but also the subsequent phases of securing the country and paving the way for civilian government. The “cakewalk” was going to take us all the way up to handing over the keys to a friendly Iraqi regime.
or
2) The optimistic pre-war assessments of the length and difficulty of the military conflict in Iraq were intended to include only the initial phase of dispersing the Iraq Army as a massed fighting force. The “cakewalk” was only meant to run from the Southern border up to Baghdad.
If 1) is what the neo-cons thought, then the assessments were clearly over-optimistic. Yes, the initial phases were fairly smooth, but the road to the end of significant military conflict has been nothing like a cakewalk–in fact, sad to say, we haven’t got there yet. And the over-optimism is part of why we haven’t got there yet.
On the other hand, if 2) is what the neo-cons meant, then they were right, and their optimistic assessment has been vindicated.
But if all they meant by the “cakewalk” was that it would be easy to disperse the Iraq army, then this gave them no reason to make the further decisions they made about the lack of planning for anything *after* that phase, and for the catastrophic decisions to underman the force, leave the arms depots open to pillagers, allow Baghdad to fall into chaos, and so on.
I mean, if all they meant was “we think we can shoot up all their tanks real quick”, then the right thing for sober political leaders to say would be “great, so that part won’t take many troops or resources. Now, how many *additional* troops and resources will we need for the subsequent phases of stabilization and reconstruction?”
But instead, the “cakewalk” rhetoric was used, not only to argue that we wouldn’t need many people to chase the Republican Guard from the field, but that we wouldn’t need to send that many troops over there **at all**. For the **whole conflict**, start to finish. And that was dead wrong.
So–you tell me. Was the cakewalk assessment accurate, but not relevant to making decisions about the war as a whole? Or was it intended to provide a base for making decisions about the war as a whole, and thus proven grossly, tragically innaccurate by events as they have unfolded?
“Now, how many *additional* troops and resources will we need for the subsequent phases of stabilization and reconstruction?”
In fact, that *is* what sober people like Shinseki were saying, which earned them the ridicule and mistreatment of the neo-cons.
Glenn–
And by the way, since we have gotten so far off-topic.
Do you pretty much agree with the Lederman analysis, endorsed by the main poster above, that the murder of the Iraqi general was
1) the outcome of “official U.S. policy and practice” of administering torture during interrogations, not an aberration or the work of “rotten apples”;
2) inconsistent with the WH’s claim that it scrupulously observes the GC in the Iraq theater?
And do you agree that the murder itself is abhorrent–maybe even more abhorrent than the fact that someone like Jes notes out loud that it occurred? Your post of 8/3 10:50 a almost made it look as though you took more offense at the fact that someone would say things we know to be true, than at the people who made those things come to be true.
I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here; you do condemn the fact that US personnel committed a murder, more vehemently than you condemn saying “we know that US personnel committed a murder”, right?
The analysis of many pro-War analyst seems to have been quite accurate that the Hussein government would fall easily.
Yeah, well, the analysis of many “pro-War analyst” also included a very high possibility that our troops would be attacked with the Hussein regime’s towering stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, so you know, blind squirrels, nuts, etc.
Glenn: When you criticize Hillary for all of her recent posing with the military then maybe we can take your remarks seriously.
If, at some point in the future, Hillary Clinton makes a fraudulent case for war, uses our soldiers to invade a country that poses little to no meaningful threat to us, fails to achieve any but the simplest objectives of that endeavor, and then struts around in front of the cameras on the deck of an aircraft carrier in military garb declaring victory, I’ll criticize the hell out of her. But guess what? She hasn’t.
The Senate Republican Policy Committee has just written a statement on Guantanamo. Same old same old until page 13, when they say that Congress should amend the habeas corpus statute to overturn Rasul v. Bush.
If there are Republicans who object to this they really ought to write to their Senators and say so. This is the official position of your party’s Senate leaders. McCain and Graham are so far outnumbered it’s not even funny.
Don’t hold your breath, Katherine. Civil rights, basic liberties, etc., are important; just not as important as tax cuts.
The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 was entitled “An act for the better securing the liberty of the subject, and for prevention of imprisonments beyond the seas.” Parliament passed it because Charles II was abusing his power, just as they had passed a predecessor act in 1640, directed at abuses of his father. (The 1640 Act ought to have been sufficient answer to the government in Padilla — because it provided that the King’s say-so was insufficient to justify a detention.)
I’m not sure Congress can overrule Rasul without some kind of general suspension of the Great Writ. I’d argue that the All Writs Act, the Constitution, and the common law, are in themselves sufficient, even without the hc specific provisions currently in title 28. Certainly if it turns out that prisoners in GB have rights under the Constitution — as was suggested in a footnote in Rasul — Congress will be unable to prevent their assertion without doing real damage to the rights the rest of us enjoy.
Then again, I suppose the geniuses who passed legislation designed to obtain de novo review of the Schiavo case aren’t particularly fearsome . . .
Wow, Katherine; that GOP Senate Policy Report is one big steaming pile of toxic codswallop.
I’m not familiar with the workings of that particular group, though. Are their Reports actual blueprints for future legislation, or more like a Party Plank? What does the Senate do with those reports: debate them? write legislation around them?
Actually, I’m not even sure why the GOP Senate Policy Committee is trying to give the Bush Admin legislative cover for its violations of habeas corpus, Consistutional law, court decisions, etc. The Bush Admin has managed quite handily to simply ignore laws and court decisions it finds inconvenient, with nary a peep from the Senate or House leadership.
Are they planning to have legislation in place cementing the Executive’s absolute police power in time for John Roberts to hear a challenge on the SCOTUS level? Because SFAICT, Roberts tends to side with the State when it comes to police powers. It would be interesting to see what he does if he’s faced with a law that renders SCOTUS jurisdiction over such matters irrelevant de jure as well as de facto.
Contrast the piece that Katherine points to, with the news article that Josh Marshall writes about, in which the Administration floats plans to empty out Gitmo and send ’em all home (thus effectively setting many of them free).
So we’ve got the Senate Republicans saying “they’re so dangerous and they have so much vital and time-sensitive intelligence that we need to throw away the key, and habeas corpus too for good measure!”
And then we’ve got the WH saying “well, actually the ones still in there now are mostly harmless, and the sell-by date on their info is *way* past, so I think we can send ’em home.”
Are the good senators due for an Emily Litella moment? Not that Bush wouldn’t like the imperial power of ignoring habeas corpus anyhow, just so he can.
“Are the good senators due for an Emily Litella moment?”
Nope. Yesterday is erased like it never happened; tomorrow doesn’t happen until the Party says it does; as long as they’ve got their talking points, they’re happy little apparatchiks.
“BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 5 – The American military said today that it had begun a major offensive in the rebellious desert region of….”
Liars!
So you missed Clinton in a flight jacket? What Bush wore is a flight suit, not a uniform. If I were to fly in the backseat of a Navy jet, it’s what I’d be wearing. I could wear one to work every day, too, with the knowledge that no one would mistake it for a uniform (although I’d get some funny looks, I’m sure). The Clinton jacket wasn’t a uniform, but neither was the flight suit.
And what’s the stuffed codpiece bit about? What you’re looking at is a harness. I know it’s titillating and all, so if you want a really good laugh, go to the rock gym and laugh at the guys in their sit-harnesses. If you’re fleet of foot, you may even escape injury.
I see that Gary is still confused about the lack of an absolute definition for “major”. Or Gary can simply point out that this “major offensive” consisted of thousands of sorties per day, and was supported by an entire carrier strike group. But perhaps an aircraft carrier (with carrier air wing, of course), two missile cruisers, one Aegis destroyer, one Spruance-class ASW destroyer, an Oliver Perry-class missile frigate, and a couple of Los Angeles-class atack submarines is on the same scale of “major” as this operation? I mean, surely there’s some way to equate several tens of billions of dollars’ worth of Naval equipment, displacing roughly 150,000 tons, and perhaps 8000 crew with a few tanks and aircraft and 800 Marines. Yes? No?
I’m not even getting into the USAF operational drawdown since May 2003, simply because the data is less available. I could find out, but it’d be whipping this already maggot-infested dead horse into a rather revolting smoothy.
Maybe I should just capitulate by saying: yes, it’s exactly right to equate the coordinated activities of multiple US combat services involving hundreds of aircraft, millions of tons of ordnance and several tens of thousands of ground troops on the march, with accompanying troop transport vehicles, tanks, mobile artillery, miscellaneous Bradley assault vehicles, etc. with an operation involving fewer than a thousand US troops and a few tanks. I’d have to abandon all capability to recognize any difference in scale, but if that’s what your request is, I’ll take it under consideration.
Slartibartfast: So you missed Clinton in a flight jacket?
Here are some more photos of Clinton in military garb prematurely declaring victory for conflicts based on fraudulent premises in which many hundreds of young Americans were sacrificed for no good reason. I’m sure the “Operation Restore Hope: Mission Accomplished!” banner is just out of frame (not that that conflict was based on fraud, or was begun by Clinton, or represented anything close to the loss of life we have seen in Iraq, disastrous as it was).
You know, there was a point in his life when George W. Bush would have done well to wear a flight suit more often, Slart. Timing is important.
What Bush wore is a flight suit, not a uniform.
Did someone here call it a uniform?
Look, a Martian!
Spoken like someone who’s had an entire thread pass them by.
I believe faux-military was used. What, other than a uniform, could possible have been objectionable? What was faux-military about it? Insignia? Or, maybe, it was function? I hope to God it wasn’t the color, otherwise I’m going to have people of…some service or another saluting me today.
After Johnny got through basic training he
Was a soldier through and through when he was done.
Its effects were so well rooted
That the next day he saluted
A Good Humor man, an usher, and a nun.
“It Makes a Fellow Proud to be a Soldier,” by Tom Lehrer
Slartibartfast: Look, a Martian!
Says the guy who pulled a “Look, Clinton!” Are we changing the rules mid-game?
Spoken like someone who’s had an entire thread pass them by.
What, are you referring to the parts of the thread where you argue, in essence, that since the banner didn’t specify which mission was accomplished, the Bush administration could have been talking about any mission? Lets just say that argument is about as convincing as the argument that “sexual relations” only means intercourse.
Bush has taken to extremes the politician’s tactic of keeping his speech intentionally vague to avoid accountability. I, for one, don’t think it is a good idea to reward this behavior, particularly when talking about matters of life and death.
As a response to the faux-military uniform comment? Hey, at least it was germane.
No, the parts that point to one or two missions that were in fact accomplished pretty much right around the time Bush made his speech from the carrier deck.
Your crusade to remove all possible ambiguity from that which comes from the mouths of politicians is noted, but ambiguity doesn’t in any way equate to “prematurely declaring victory”.
Slartibartfast: As a response to the faux-military uniform comment? Hey, at least it was germane.
Again, who said “uniform”? And if Clinton in a bomber jacket is germane, why the hell isn’t contrasting actual military service, the kind that necessitates wearing a flight suit, with a self-aggrandizing dress-up joyride for the cameras? Taking a shot at Bush’s evident lack of enthusiam for the service to which he committed himself is just gravy. Of course, since I already pointed out why the Clinton photos aren’t germane, would now be a good time to accuse you of not having read the thread?
Your crusade to remove all possible ambiguity from that which comes from the mouths of politicians is noted, but ambiguity doesn’t in any way equate to “prematurely declaring victory”.
“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on,” most certainly equates to a premature declaration of victory in Iraq.
Again, if the claim isn’t that it was a uniform, or that it was supposed to appear to be a uniform, then the claim has no point.
Because actual military service has nothing to do with the whole “Mission Accomplished” crapfest.
Because whether or not it was self-aggrandizing is irrelevant to the whole “Mission Accomplished” crapfest.
Gravy that’s irrelevant to the whole “Mission Accomplished” crapfest.
Yes, that “and still goes on” part certainly indicates that it’s all over, doesn’t it?
Slartibartfast–
This is very disappointing.
The “still goes on” phrase in Bush’s speech clearly refers to the War on Terror. I mean, just as a matter of diagramming the sentence, right?
No one has claimed that the Mission Accomplished banner was meant to suggest we had won the entire war on terror.
My claim–and the claim of others–is that the banner was meant to suggest that the War in Iraq was largely/mostly won, i.e. everything but the clean-up. You can see above what I have claimed it was intended to convey: nothing about the entire war on terror.
You know, if you didn’t think Gromit’s quote settled the case, you could have tried out some plausible moves. You could have said “sure, he declared victory in the battle of Iraq. But that only referred to the dispersal of the Iraqi army, not to the complete establishment of a peaceful occupation in Iraq.” You could maybe have said “the battle of Iraq” is not the same as “the entire Iraq War”. That would have been at least a bit plausible, and it would not have involved mis-reading English.
But to claim that Bush’s quote can be construed to mean that “the battle of Iraq”–the very one in which he had just declared victory–is “still going on”.
I mean, that’s just not very careful reading. At best.
Heh, Tad actually took some of the words right out of my mouth.
Bush does talk about securing some areas of Iraq that are still dangerous, and he does talk about starting to secure the WMD stockpiles, but he is declaring victory here. He is saying Iraq is done, we are now mopping up, though the WOT goes on. And to address Tad’s hypothetical objections, Bush refers to Afghanistan as the “battle of Afghanistan”. He is framing these conflicts as battles in the larger “War on Terror”, not as wars in and of themselves.
Slartibartfast: Again, if the claim isn’t that it was a uniform, or that it was supposed to appear to be a uniform, then the claim has no point.
Was it a civilian flight suit? Did he climb out of the cockpit of a civilian vehicle? Why didn’t he take Marine 1 to the carrier? The whole point was to make Bush look like a victorious warrior, returning from a successful mission. Whether it was a “uniform” or not is irrelevant.
And…what, Tad? What do you think we’re doing battle with in Iraq? Is Muqtada al-Sadr a legitimate, named successor to Saddam Hussein? Either we defeated the Iraqi Army, or we didn’t. Please choose one.
Still not backed by anything at all, I can’t help but notice. And the banner, I seem to recall, didn’t say anything about “largely/mostly won”.
It could have been, for all its military-ness. If a civilian contractor was flown out to the same carrier on the same plane, he’d be wearing the same suit.
Pretty clearly, no.
Taking a different military aircraft would mean what, exactly? You do know that Marine One is a military aircraft, don’t you?
Again, I ask for evidence. I don’t hold high hopes, though.
So is conjecture, Gromit.
Now, this is just crazy. Groundless, too, but the crazy part needs addressing, first. Tell me, Gromit, who in the whole United States could possibly have thought that the President was off personally fighting Iraq in this? I mean, if the administration really, REALLY wanted to foster that illusion, they’d have put him in as backseater in an F-18. Nobody I know would have bought that, either, but I work with some fairly smart people.
And…what, Tad? What do you think we’re doing battle with in Iraq? Is Muqtada al-Sadr a legitimate, named successor to Saddam Hussein? Either we defeated the Iraqi Army, or we didn’t. Please choose one.
So securing and stabilizing Iraq wasn’t part of the mission? Only defeating the Iraqi Army?
Taking a different military aircraft would mean what, exactly? You do know that Marine One is a military aircraft, don’t you?
Marine One’s sole purpose is the transport of civilian government officials. I could use the same sort of semantic hairsplitting to prove that a flight suit is a “uniform” (which it is, in the same sense that surgical scrubs, or a janitor’s coveralls are a “uniform”). But that sort of gotcha is juvenile. Anyway, I know you’re smart enough to understand what I meant here.
Tell me, Gromit, who in the whole United States could possibly have thought that the President was off personally fighting Iraq in this?
The same people who believe politicians really spend their time reading to children, or filling in potholes, which is to say, nobody, at least on an intellectual level. Yet these sorts of photo-ops keep coming. Why? Because they have an emotional appeal that can bypass our intellects.
I suppose if Bush dressed up in floppy red shoes and an orange wig, and arrived at an event in a tiny car to discuss circus-related policy, you’d accuse me of crazy conjecture for saying he was trying to look like a clown?
What is really crazy is that we have as President an Andover- and Yale-educated aristocrat who never held a real job in his life (save his stint in the TANG, perhaps. See? Gravy!) who positions himself as a folksy bow-legged populist who understands working people. Tell me, who in the whole United States could possibly fall for that?