Message to the irony impaired

It's been a week of torture pictures. I go to the coffee shop, look down, there they are on the front page of an unpurchased newspaper. I go to lunch at the tavern, grab a burger, look up and Lyndie England is giving me the thumbs up as she points to the private parts of a nameless Iraqi. These are inescapable images.

What the hell are we supposed to think about that?

Rush Limbaugh tells us it wasn't anything more than a fraternity prank. Of course, he'a an idiot.

Rumsfeld waffled all over the place-- "I think that -- I'm not a lawyer. My impression is that what has been charged thus far is abuse, which I believe technically is different from torture."-- before finally apologizing today. He also says it will get grimmer.

Meanwhile, president Bush and his spokesclone, Scott Mclellan, seem to be sticking to the same lame talking points. But you'd think the President would modify his stump speech an iota or two. I mean is he completely irony impaired? The following are from an interesting chronology of quotes from Bush as the scandal unfolded:

"A year ago, I did give the speech from the carrier, saying that we had achieved an important objective, that we'd accomplished a mission, which was the removal of Saddam Hussein. And as a result, there are no longer torture chambers or rape rooms or mass graves in Iraq."—Bush, remarks in the Rose Garden, April 30, 2004

"There are those who seek to derail the transition to democracy because they want to return to the days of mass graves and torture chambers and rape rooms. But that's not going to happen."—McClellan, White House press briefing, April 30, 2004

"Because we acted, torture rooms are closed, rape rooms no longer exist, mass graves are no longer a possibility in Iraq."—Bush, remarks at "Ask President Bush" event, Michigan, May 3, 2004

He then went on Arab TV and said some of the same stuff:

"Iraq was a unique situation because Saddam Hussein had constantly defied the world and had threatened his neighbors, had used weapons of mass destruction, had terrorist ties, had torture chambers …"—Bush, interview with Al Arabiya Television, May 5, 2004

Yeah. Saddam's torture rooms are closed, but ours, apparently, are open. Is he really asking the Arab people to see the difference between being tortured by Saddam and being tortured by the US? I understand the difference between the US and Saddam. The difference is, at least in the US, this is a scandal. But I have to sit in stupified wonder at the sheer guts of the guy. How can he go on Arab TV and spout the same tired justification for invading Iraq in an interview in which he is supposed to be apologizing for US torture? As Rummy might say, "...oh my goodness gracious." Or as I might say, it appears to me that this is just another example of Bush's total disconnection with people, and how he will sacrifice you, me and any other human on the planet on the altar of his crappy ideas.

On a lighter note, maybe the best analysis of the situation was offered by John Stewart on the Daily Show. He asserted that the "Mess-O-Potamia" has now graduated to a "Gigantic Mess-O-Potamia." I swear, you'll laugh till you cry.

A parade of Dorothys

What follows is an exchange between me and a Bush supporter on another message board. Read her letter. It is the soul of simplicity. We all know and love people like the author of this letter. Somewhere, in a sepia-colored town in flyover land, the flag-draped image of George W. Bush has lodged in her heart. It's as simple as the pledge of allegiance, the good earth, kids, apple pie. There is a lesson for democrats here. It is illustrative of both the simple genius of Bush's campaign and the daunting challenge we will face to counter it. It will be daunting because we must ask true-believers to distrust their eyes and hearts. Flyover land Bush voters are a parade of Dorothys, and somehow we have to convince them to walk over to the curtain and pull it back. If only the wizard we reveal were half as benign as the one Dorothy found.

A little set up: I was reading along a message thread when I saw a post from Wifemom, who said simply, "I think President Bush is a moral man." That really struck me. It is the simplest statements of beliefs, and so totally the opposite of what I believe that I couldn't resist the chance to follow up with her. So I posted back, "Wifemom, why do you think President Bush is a moral man?" I got the following response:

Chris,

When I said he was a "moral man" keep in mind I don't think he's a perfect man or made all perfect choices. I can't provide any points in reference to the war that he's a moral man. However, I like the fact that he's not afraid to talk about prayer and to pray, I like that he is against abortion,... I just think it's comforting to know for sure that I have a Christian President. That comes from my heart!

I am not what I consider very political minded. I haven't kept up with all the CNN and Foxnews stories about every aspect of this war. I'm not sure which spin to believe anyway. I read everyone's posts with interest. I might change my mind about the war, but not about my respect for the President of the United States, George Bush.

F.Y.I. I also support our soldiers. A friend just came back from Kuwait. He was an MP in Tequrit (sp?). He is proud to be serving our country. He says he doesn't know for sure whether or not they had WMD, but he does say that the people over there would break your heart. He doesn't know if we went in for the reasons we say but he does think it needed to be done. He's glad they are getting help. He plans to go back when his "leave" is up. He says that he's been around soldiers from about 8 different countries He says our soldiers are treated the best, have the best supplies and equipment, and receive the most support from home. It is my opinion that we are helping those that needed help.

Wifemom

Here's my response:

Wifemom:

Thanks for being honest. You are the kind of Bush supporter I want to understand. Keep in mind, I respect your position. I have loads of friends that list basically the same reasons why they voted for Bush the first time and will do so again.

I also support our troops. And what that means is that I realize they have been ordered to go to war by their civilian leaders. They are abroad conducting the nation's business. They need to do everything they can to stay alive and come home safely. I pray for that. There is no question that we have the best equipped, trained and most professional military in the history of man. When a military solution is required, we have the military to provide the solution.

I say all this in the hope that you will consider what follows with an open mind and heart.

I genuinely would like to understand why people like you, the bedrock of communities and families all over this country, continue to support George Bush when there is so much evidence that he isn't who he says he is. For sure, the George Bush you describe is the George Bush in whom he would like you to believe. You have recited back the talking points he has sold to his base: Devout Christian, anti-abortion, tough on terror, supports the troops.

But wifemom, I urge you look behind the images you see on tv and really and truly research his actions - not what he says he's gonna do, what he actually does. When you do that, using sources from the right, the left, and the middle, I think it will be hard not to conclude that George Bush is anti-family, anti-middle class and working people, anti-environment, anti-education, anti-free speech, anti- rest of the world. He is the least compassionate most corrupt president we have ever had. And he doesn't know it. That's how it is possible for him to be so sincere, to appear so "moral."

I have reached the conclusion that George Bush is about two things and two things only: The first is serving big business and the second is incorporating the moral position of a certain type of evangelical-Christianity into as much legislation as possible.

Ask yourself, wifemom, if you were in a similar position as George Bush would you make the same decisions? Would you decide to censor environmental impact statement on 9.11 so that all the negative information is removed knowing that people will suffer? Bush did. Would you order the EPA to halt testing on Mercury, which is known to cause birth defects, because it will provide evidence that the Clear Skies Act will result in much higher concentrations of mercury than is known to be safe knowing that more children will be born with birth defects? Bush did. Would you cut combat pay for the troops during a major deployment? Bush did. Would you lower worker safety standards, lower the minimum wage, raise healthcare costs, cut taxes for the rich so property taxes on the middle class go up, impose strict guidelines on education then cut the money for enforcement of those guidelines, cut money for fire departments and police enforcement during the war on terror while you were campaigning as a supporter of fire and police departments? Would you tell lies about Saddam Hussein to the American people so they will believe it is necessary to go to war, even if you knew he had no connection to 9.11?

With regards to the Christianity issue, I do not judge his faith. I only ask myself if I would make similar decisions. Often I find I cannot place Bush policies within a framework of Christian thinking. Bush makes compassionate sounding speeches, but his follow through is vindictive and punishing. Would you offer $15 billion dollars worth of aids relief to Africa during a State of the Union address, then tie it all to abstinence education knowing that vaccines and condoms would save many, many more lives. Would you tie all foreign education and healthcare aid to third-world countries to whether or not those countries perform abortions knowing that that money saves or improves the lives of the already born? Would you?

No matter how much you are comforted by the fact that you like the image of President Bush. Just keep in mind that it is an image. The reality is something else entirely.

Yours in peace,

Chris Dykstra

Grim, grimmer, grimmest

It is not that I am anti-war. I am anti-folly. It was obvious, even to me sitting there in the cheap seats back in January of last year, that the Iraq war qualified as folly. Nothing has changed my mind about that.

Until recently, I have been an advocate of "staying the course" in Iraq. Even though I would not have chosen to attack Iraq, I recognized that once Bush pulled the trigger, it was irrevocable. I strongly felt that the troops were set sail to do the nation's business on the orders of their civilian leaders that they needed to do everything they could do to come home safe. I recognized in a quick military victory an opportunity to "nation-build."

Now, several things have happened in short order that have shaken my belief that we have any chance of success in Iraq. The marines withdrew from Fallujah. The Coallition Authority placed a Saddam-era division commander, General Salah, charge of the city in a stunning about face. Then came the pictures of torture in Abu Ghraib prison, one of Saddam's horror chambers and now, apparently, one of ours. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

To top it off the administration's lackey, Ahmed Chalabai, has turned against them. Read Josh Marshall's post at Talking Points Memo, then head to Salon to read How Ahmed Chalabi conned the neocons.

Other's have dropped faint hopes of achieving anything worthwhile in Iraq.

From Tom Pain.com:

"Last week, conservative General William Odom—former head of the supersecret National Security Agency—became the first important former top military man to endorse the idea that the United States has bungled Iraq and needs to get out. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Odom said: "We have failed." He urged that U.S. forces be pulled out "from that shattered country as rapidly as possible.. The issue is how high a price we're going to pay—less by getting out sooner, or more by getting out later."

The Washington Times reports that 52 British diplomats are joining a dozen or so US diplomats and assorted US generals, in condeming the Iraq fiasco. They say we need to get out. They say there isn't anything we can achieve now except the further radicalization of neigboring states, more US casualties and more civilian deaths. That's their professional opinion. My friends at needlenose have always advocated just getting the heck out. When the nuts and berries crowd and the community of military professionals are on the same page, it might be time to listen up.