Stump Lane
in the dirt since history began

Still there is slavery.

Severe forms of human trafficking:

a. Sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such an act has not attained 18 years of age; or
b. The recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery. [US Department of State: Trafficking in Persons Report 2007]

A good day for my skin to crawl wondering about how many of the products I consume are produced in part by slavery. And for anyone who gets the opportunity to ask their lovable “leaders” if they might do something meaningful about it.

There is no longer any question. The Machine— Our system —as a whole, is undeniably EVIL.

ABC News: DOJ Shuns Hearing on Halliburton/KBR Rape Cases
Democracy Now!: Blackwater Sued Again For Sept. 9th Attack, Five Iraqis Dead, Ten Wounded

YOU: For one thing, Montag, the whole waterboarding discussion is SO over!

ME: Yeah, this thing has been rattling around inside my head for a few weeks now.

YOU: And who even knows who John Yoo is anymore? OBSCURE!

ME: [sigh]

As a refresher, John Yoo is the fellow who wrote the memo staking out the OFFAL administration’s legal justification for the use of (not) torture.

For the UNITED FUCKING STATES use of (NOT) TORTURE as an INSTRUMENT OF STATE POLICY.

Incidentally, Yoo is also memorable for once positing that it was in the president’s power to order the crushing of the testicles of the child of an uncooperative prisoner in order to get the location of a good fishing hole. (So long as the president thinks it necessary.)

Thus John Yoo “the Baptist” prepared the way for the US’s newest weapon: a 900 foot messiah that accepts monumental handjobs from Oral Roberts University and ejaculates Freedom. When he makes sweet sweet love, even removes his foot from Democratic Iraq’s throat long enough to go ATM, and bust the gift of Liberty across her mascara-and-tear-streaked face.

900 Foot Messiah says, “It’s consensual! No exploitation here!”

And, “Shut the fuck up, bitch!”

And a little mopping up and a satisfying piss later, “Who’s next?”

Thanks for that, John Yoo!

Yoo da MAN!

But seriously… (more…)

As President, would you sign into law an outright ban on the import of any product made with child labor or sweatshop labor? If so, what have you done to champion this cause in your current capacity?

[Prior question for the candidates here.]

White House Official: US “Kicking Ass” in Iraq — “We’re kicking ass,” he told Mark Vaile on the tarmac after the Deputy Prime Minister inquired politely of the President’s stopover in Iraq en route to Sydney. –

Does you think OFFAL lacks either the colossal wrecking balls of recklessness, or the sublime stubidity of dumbnessness required to carry out that-which-iz-implied in thist artickle?

No?

Well, I told you to fucking do something about it. MOAR THAN ONCE.

Sincerely,
Your Constituent Montag

[The Poor Man made me do it.]

National Review Online is waging a war on grammars with the title and subtitle combination “Winning the Iraq Wars: All of its many fronts.” in which Victor Davis Hanson reminds US why we continue to occupy Iraq.

[Emphasis added in all cases below.]

The present fighting is part of a fourth war for Iraq: Gulf War I, the twelve years of no-fly zones, the three-week war in 2003, and now the three-year-old insurrection that followed the removal of Saddam Hussein.

All this war numbering reeks of padding the stats. I remember reading that the War on Terror™— which we’ll later learn either encompasses or is interchangeable with Iraq —is actually World War 4. (We won WW3, the cold war.) At least if we lose in Iraq this time we’ll still be 3-1 in wars on Iraq.

But this last and most desperate struggle, unlike the others, is being waged on several fronts.

First, of course, is the fighting itself to preserve the elected democracy of Iraq. Twenty-five-hundred Americans have died for that idea — the chance of freedom for 26 million Iraqis, and the more long-term notion that the Arab Middle East’s first democracy will end the false dichotomy of Islamic theocracy or dictatorship. That non-choice was the embryo for the events of September 11.

After reading that last paragraph twenty five times, I think I understand what it says.

Don’t ask.

As for that embryo? We should have aborted it back in the eighties when we realized that Bin Laden was the daddy, rather then nourishing his hell spawn as it gestated in the womb of Soviet occupied Afghanistan. But then vitriolic Western Lefties like me wouldn’t have understood the moral complexities of that conflict any more than we do the current one…

Although it is not the sort of conventional war that Westerners excel at — the enemy has no uniforms, state organization, or real army — our military has performed brilliantly. Past mistakes made were largely political, such as not quickly turning over control to an interim Iraqi government in summer 2003 while allowing the Iraqis sole public exposure.

But these were tactical and procedural, not moral, errors. They have only delayed, but not aborted, the emergence of a stable democratic Iraqi government. For all the propaganda of al Jazeera, the wounded pride of the Arab Street, or the vitriol of the Western Left, years from now the truth will remain that our soldiers did not come to plunder or colonize, but were willing to die for others’ freedom when few others would. Neither Michael Moore nor Noam Chomsky can change that, because it is not opinion, but truth — something that the Greeks rightly defined as “not forgetting” or “something that cannot be forgotten” (alêtheia).

Clever. All philosophical truth statements should be phrased so that to disagree with them is to impugn the earnestness of our military servicemen and women. Of course “our soldiers did not come to plunder or colonize.” They came because they were ordered to Iraq by a civilian administration in the service of myriad institutions and interests, with myriad motives, many of which include, quite apparently, plundering.

Presented as it is, Hanson implies without saying it outright that: Our leaders didn’t develop an Iraq policy of preemptive military action and indefinite occupation because it would enable selected institutions to “plunder or colonize” Iraq; but to Protect Freedom.

I’m not sure that statements of The Other’s motives count as philosophical truth statements, (unknowable!) but to put forth the above sentiment as a true answer to the question “Why is there an Iraq War?” seems less than serious and obfuscates the real truth of the matter, whatever that may be.

It would almost seem pointless to continue with what follows from this ridiculous thesis, but…

(more…)

1. Trans-Atlantic air traveler in quarantine with dangerous TB — I wonder, will his fate be the same as that of Robert Daniels? — Surely there is a humane way to quarantine a person that looks less like punishment for becoming ill.
2. It can never be said that we at The Stump didn’t see this coming: Bush envisions U.S. presence in Iraq like S.Korea — The lead: …President George W. Bush would like to see a lengthy U.S. troop presence in Iraq like the one in South Korea to provide stability but not in a frontline combat role… — We said back in that March 18, 2006 post that the time for “a good faith discussion about this in the public arena” would end when “the White House propaganda squad decides it’s time to sell the idea of permanent bases to the American people.” Looks like that time has passed. –

OFFAL:

See, that’s the kind of attitude — he says, okay, [we should have just] let [the Iraqis] live under a tyrant [Saddam], and I just don’t agree. I obviously thought he had weapons, he didn’t have weapons; the world thought he had weapons. It was a surprise to me that he didn’t have the weapons of mass destruction everybody thought he had, but he had the capacity at some point in time to make weapons. It would have been a really dangerous world if we had the Iranians trying to develop a nuclear weapon, and Saddam Hussein competing for a nuclear weapon. You can imagine what the mentality of the Middle East would have been like. [White House: Press Conference by the President]

First of all: Depends on how you look at it, I suppose— what your definitions of the world and everybody are —but, “the world thought he had weapons,” and, “everybody thought,” are plainly false. Your Montag won’t say it’s a lie, because I fear this man is fucking delusional.

Second of all: Bwuh… wha… ba… Uhhh… What?

“Shut up, Montag. I’m on a roll. Remember when I looked into Putin’s eyes and saw his soul? Well, I also saw the future. (He’s got the crystal eye balls.) It was a ferocious, scary future. And the Middle East was totally mental! They all had the nuke-u-lar madness. That was some crazy shit, right there. Trust me, we’re better off with Saddam gone. Even a thousand al-Quaedas would be better than having some delusional sycophant to fascism… with nukes… gettin mental in the Middle East.”

Hold me. I’m scared.

ABC News’ The Blotter reports that an OFFAL authorization of covert operations aimed at the Iranian government marks a defeat for the vice president who favors military action:

“Vice President Cheney helped to lead the side favoring a military strike,” said former CIA official Riedel, “but I think they have come to the conclusion that a military strike has more downsides than upsides.” [This and all subsequent quotations, ABC News: Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran]

However, Your Montag might ask, which is more provocative:

• a covert, top secret, “nonlethal” black operation of intelligence collection, non-proliferation activity and a “coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran’s currency and international financial transactions.”? or…
• the revelation of such a (“covert,” “top secret,”) operation.

Hmmm…

Let’s play Find the Leak!

Who are these ‘anonymous sources’ of whom ABC News’ The Blotter speaks?

Possible suspects:

• The CIA — No way. — A CIA spokesperson said, “As a matter of course, we do not comment on allegations of covert activity.”
• The Administration — Of course not! — A National Security Council spokesperson, Gordon Johndroe, said, “The White House does not comment on intelligence matters.”
• The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and other key congressional leaders — Guilty! — Congress members occasionally disagree with the president. Therefore, they want the terrorists to win. Therefore, they undermine this peaceful, nonlethal, plan to defeat terrorism in all of it’s forms!

And what consequence will this irresponsible love of terror bring?

“And this covert action is now being escalated by the new U.S. directive, and that can very quickly lead to Iranian retaliation and a cycle of escalation can follow,” Nasr said.

Looks like we may need the VP’s military strike plans after all!

OFFAL:

It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength — and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq. … Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure — and that would be irresponsible. [Emphasis added.] [White House: President Bush Rejects Artificial Deadline, Vetoes Iraq War Supplemental]

What are some other ways extremists might go about plotting to take control of the country?

Iraq’s prime minister has created an entity within his government that U.S. and Iraqi military officials say is being used as a smokescreen to hide an extreme Shiite agenda that is worsening the country’s sectarian divide.

The Office of the Commander in Chief has the power to overrule other government ministries, according to U.S. military and intelligence sources.

Those sources say the 24-member office is abusing its power, increasingly overriding decisions made by the Iraqi Ministries of Defense and Interior and potentially undermining the entire U.S. effort in Iraq. [CNN: Shadowy Iraq office accused of sectarian agenda]

Respectfully, Irreverently, sir, what the fuck are We doing over there? Aside from holding Our finger in the dike.

Here is the goal, in OFFAL‘s own words:

…build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, upholds the rule of law, and fights extremists and radicals and killers alongside the United States in this war on terror. [White House.]

Either “somebody’s” not trying very hard, or “somebody” really fucked the football on this one. What makes “somebody” like that tick? What makes Senators Collins and Snowe think that, going forward, “somebody” will prove capable of implementing an effective plan to achieve Our goal? To unfuck the football.

Maybe I’m the wrong one here. Maybe the Senators’ from Maine votes don’t indicate a pro rank failure position on the war. Nonetheless, I become more and more convinced every day that the ‘more-of-the-same’ approach is for shit.

As Your Montag said the other day, “I just don’t fucking get it.”

BONUS FUN ROUND: Compare the tactics of “the Office” described in that CNN article with the tactics at the root of ‘Prosecutorgate.’ (Maybe our leaders see this type of thing as a legitimate example of “rule of law” governance, by which logic, ‘progress’ is being made in Iraq, making mine a moot argument.)

4.29.2007 — A news story sure to destroy reputations and careers. It’s already led to one resignation, and is predicted to spread shame across the landscape of Washington Power:

From her [Deborah Jeane Palfrey] California home, she e-mailed tips to the 132 women who worked across the Washington, D.C., area for the firm Pamela Martin & Associates. Her newsletters, now excerpted in court records, were a virtual how-to manual for avoiding all kinds of trouble in a business said to specialize in erotic fantasies. [Free Internet Press: Alleged Madam Abhors 'Injustice']

12.14.2005 — There was a news story with similar potential… If only We were human beings:

The addendum [to the Army field manual] provides dozens of examples and goes into exacting detail on what procedures may or may not be used, and in what circumstances. Army interrogators have never had a set of such specific guidelines that would help teach them how to walk right up to the line between legal and illegal interrogations. [New York Times: New Army Rules May Snarl Talks With McCain on Detainee Issue]

I just don’t fucking get it.

General Petraeus says we should keep surging:

The surge in Baghdad, which requires the addition of five combat brigades, all of which won’t arrive in Iraq until May or June, is still in its infancy, Petraeus said Thursday. While there has been an increase in some forms of violence, there are also signs of progress, he said, in a rare appearance before reporters in the Pentagon. But his message during the brief visit in Washington seemed to be that Americans – and, without saying it, Congress – need to give the effort more time.

“The situation is exceedingly complex and very tough,” he said. “Success will take continued commitment, perseverance, and sacrifice.” [Christian Science Monitor: Gen. Petraeus: Iraq strategy needs more time]

Ignoring the fact that “five combat brigades” is nearly 20,000 troops — the size of the surge that OFFAL sold us back in January — which would seem to indicate that the surge hasn’t even started yet…

Ignoring that, let’s take the argument at face value, and also note that the General is not the only one making this argument, while not requiring Your Montag to produce a bunch of citations proving so. The argument is presented thus:

The surge is working. Though we are facing resistance, progress is being made. We need to give the surge more time to be successful.

HMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Let us engage in a brief thought experiment. Let us replace a couple of words here and there:

The weapons inspections are working. Though we are facing resistance, progress is being made. We need to give the weapons inspections more time to be successful.

The arguments against giving the weapons inspections more time to be successful?

Then Secretary of State Colin Powell:

“The Iraq regime has responded to [Resolution] 1441 with empty claims, empty declarations and empty gestures,” Powell said. “It has not given the inspectors and the international community any concrete information in answer to a host of key questions.”

Powell also warned that the credibility of the Security Council could suffer as “Iraq’s defiance” continues to challenge the 15-member U.N. body.

He said that the issue was “not how much more time the inspectors need to search in the dark, it is how much more time Iraq should be given to turn on the lights and come clean. … Iraq’s time for choosing peaceful disarmament is coming to an end.” [PBS: U.N. INSPECTORS SAY QUESTIONS STILL REMAIN, CALL FOR MORE TIME IN IRAQ]

Can we not roughly make the same argument about the surge? Let’s keep in mind that even opponents of the surge must blame the Iraqis for their troubles. (Some things have not changed, you see.)

Reformulation of Powell from above [not an actual quote]:

The Iraqi people have responded to Our benevolent gift of Democracy with empty claims, empty declarations and empty gestures. They have not given the democratically elected Iraqi government and the coalition any concrete support in securing the country.

The credibility of the coalition could suffer as Iraq’s defiance continues to challenge Our continued exercise of naked power.

The issue is not how much more time the surge needs to establish a stable security situation, it is how much more time Iraq should be given to accept the gift of Freedom We have brought and accept the government We have helped them to establish. Iraq’s time for accepting democracy is coming to an end.

(Ok, so maybe that second paragraph is a bit too frank for the politicians… But anyway.)

Of course, the weapons inspections were doomed to fail because the weapons We told the inspectors to find, the weapons We said were there… WERE NOT.

I wish I thought that our Iraq adventure wasn’t also doomed to fail.

Look, the authors of this war fucked Iraq up big time. I can say this because I’m not running for office: Iraqi is worse off today than it was under Saddam Hussein. In terms of violent death, access to utilities, the ability to carry on normal everyday life… Yeah, yeah, Saddam was an evil tyrant. Good riddance. The war We brought them is also evil. I fear it is not even the lesser of the two evils.

Sadly, We are responsible for the current evil in Iraq. It will be a shame if we cannot fix it. I don’t know how. I don’t even know enough about military strategery or geopolitikery to say the surge is the wrong thing to do. But to me, the surge seems like more of the same fucked up shit we’ve been doing so far which sure as fuck ain’t working.

Fucking authors of this war.

PS: Here is an editorial from the San Francisco Gate that says some related stuff: Bush should stop shouting

(Or at least the part of yesterday’s post pertaining to the Iran rhetoric.)

Wes Clark: “War is not the answer”

Thanks for stopping by, General!

Your Montag is ready for a woman to be president. In fact, I think we need a woman to be president. We also need an African American president. One way or another, we pretty much need to break free of the whole powerful-backward-white-male-flat-Earthers acting like they own the world thing.

More importantly, I think we need a president who embraces a Good Neighbor approach to foreign policy. One willing to ‘take options off the table’ from time to time in the interest of fostering diplomacy.

So I have a problem with this:

ANNE MILLER: … I went to hear Senator Clinton speak in Concord and was not called on during the meeting, but afterwards approached the Senator and asked her about the comments [quoted below the fold] that she had made at the AIPAC meeting earlier in the week and asked her if she really would leave all options on the table and how could she threaten, in effect, other countries’ children with nuclear genocide. She looked me right in the eye, and she said, “No options are off the table. We cannot abide by a nuclear-armed Iran. It would be an existential threat to the United States.” [Democracy Now!: Sen. Hillary Clinton ... Says No Options Should Be Taken Off The Table on Iran]

For fuck’s sake, can we at least take nuclear fucking genocide off the table?!

And, haven’t we heard this, “No options are off the table,” shtick somewhere before?

By the by, Edwards is talking equally tough on Iran, too. [Quotes below the fold.]

Shouldn’t Democratic Presidential candidates try to differentiate their war mongering rhetoric from that of the Bush crowd?

Obama does a little better. [Again, quotes below the fold.] While keeping “all options on the table” he first advocates a “more aggressive approach to diplomacy.” Clark— who may or may not even be officially in the race —speaks similarly. [By now you know where the quotes will be.] And while Clark leaves a military strike option on the table, he mercifully avoids the phrasing “all options on the table.”

If it were socially acceptable to speak his name in polite company, I’d tell you that Kucinich isn’t convinced that there is any “there” there. And that he’d see an unsanctioned attack on Iran by the current administration as some sort of high crime or misdemeanor. [And, if it were socially acceptable to quote him in public, I'd admit to there being such a quote below the fold.]

It is of significant importance to note, that whatever their stance on Iran, one advantage all of these folks share:

1. They are not George Bush.

Up to now, my presumption has been that the only direction we can possibly go from here, after this president’s term ends, is “up.”

But, given the way the front runners are talking, is there any reason to believe that installing a democratic president would result in anything more than a slight change in foreign policy?

All of the above notwithstanding, I think at E-minus 624 (or so) days, perhaps we shouldn’t be so concerned with presidential candidacies. Maybe spend a little more time cajoling congress into getting a grip back on runaway executive branch power. It has occurred to me to wonder, though, if the new Democratic majority congress will even want to do this. (They could very well be licking their chops at the prospect of wielding such power themselves. Which might be nice to find out sometime before the next elections.)

So today, when conversation inevitably turns to the question of ‘who do you like in 2008?’ It might be worth asking, ‘who do you trust with increasingly unfettered presidential power to declare war; to reject laws, in part or totality, through the use of signing statements; to decide who is to be considered an enemy combatant, spy on them, detain them and torture them indefinitely in an undisclosed location?’

Continue for the candidates’ takes on our Iran options, as promised. (more…)