The following is a response to my post, No Habla "War Crime", followed by my response...

Hey there... I'm fixin' to lay down a heavy-duty reply... I hope my comment will be received in the same spirit as your post, which was well-contemplated and deeply felt.

One of the harsh realities of being in charge of the nation with the greatest military might known to mankind is sometimes, the weight of the lives of millions of citizens is what sinks the scale favoring a choice while the human rights of a self-professed ultra-lethal individual non-citizen will just have to be weightless, comparatively.

I am not here to defend Dick Cheney. I have a whole separate set of long standing issues with him. His speaking out against BO (hey, the Dems had "Dubya") bothers me a little less than it might otherwise largely thanks to the carpings of Carter. And Gore. And Clinton. And Clinton. And MoveOn (insulting GEN Petraeus). And the harridans of Code Pink. And the anarchist shitting on my flag. I remember all of that, and more.

Most of all, I want someone, anyone to come to the defense of my soldiers, to the defense of the other civil servants who signed on to make sure my country never, ever, gets attacked like that again. All those people, humans just like me and you, who have families in cities like New York and LA, too. Seriously, I consider it my duty to defend my warriors.

I used to work in the Library Tower, when it was called the Bank Tower. The days following 9-11 were filled with barely subsurface anxiety. The city moved in cement street barriers in front of it. We had to evacuate every time some sick fukk would call in a fake bomb threat. We lived like incipient zombies. We dreaded the clear, blue sky. We watched every single jumbo jet from the moment it poked around the edge of the building until it fully left our view.

People like me demanded, without reservation, that the monsters responsible be found and made to pay and to give up anything and anyone to further our search for the top monster, UBL. Every time I softened that demand inside myself, thinking of the pictures of caught men being roughed up, messed up, fukked up, I'd remember the people who jumped rather than incinerate in jet fuel. I remember the woman fully engulfed in flame who walked into the lobby of one of those buildings and endured as she was beheld in horror by the others escaping and firemen rushing in. I remember the hard hats carefully, earnestly, cleaning the gaping wound of 16 acres.

And any feelings of mercy or pity for Khalid Sheik Muhammed and the others would instantly evaporate. His rights meant absolutely nothing. And they still mean absolutely nothing. And they always will. That's just how it is... and that is just how it always will be. For me. And, likely, there are millions like me.

I will not resort to putting myself in his place in order to help me remember the higher purpose of the American-style democracy aspiring to ideals that soar in our hearts. That would be cowardice. We want to pull up during a stall, because it just feels wrong to point the bird down. And that's how it feels to me, the urgings and promptings to identify with the enemy feels like wanting to pull up.

How better to retreat, pre-surrending for our enemy's convenience, than to identify with him as our prisoner? I do not think that he is no different from me, or better put, that I am no different from he, but for our positions in space and time. My good fortune as an American citizen does not mean I must throw out the value of it as the highest score, and toss out his lower score because he's not an
American, in order to achieve a mean balance.

So while Dick Cheney does not resemble the intercessor I'd like to speak up on the behalf of those fellow citizens who work to find those responsible, he'll do. And thank goodness. For if no one stands up to an unchallenged ACLU, our soldiers, while still in combat, could expect to be stabbed in the back. By us. Us. No... no... no.

I think Dick Cheney would have preferred to not be discussing the interrogations, or the memos, or the briefings, or the photos or any of it at all. He is a cagey sonofabitch, no doubt. I'm pretty sure, he does not see himself as the fall guy for Bush. That doesn't fit his persona. I get the sense that he told the people he commanded that he would do whatever it took to cover their backs. I think that's what he's doing.

What I'm about to add is, and likely always be, something we will agree to disagree on. Reality demands that I acknowledge some shit works. We might not like how it works, but it does work.

Waterboarding did work. So, some of it will be dirty and images without context will outrage the immature, the unfamiliar, the uncritical and weak-minded. But what if some of what is revealed is success? Can we handle good news delivered even by someone we're pretty sure we hate?

I do not agree that waterboarding is torture. While some legal minds and decisions have deemed it so, that doesn't persuade me to agree. Humans often make, shall we say, interesting laws that we later determine to be mistakes. One of the grave concerns I have about BO is that he is a lawyer. I used to work for lawyers.

I certainly don't want anything released to me, a member of the Ungrateful Public, that will endanger the security of our soldiers. But some people do. I don't understand the animus of people who want to punish the actors of the previous administration, demonizing them all, especially if they're agents and warriors who acted in good faith. The lunacy that attends them makes me want them to drop dead. I see their lips moving but I don't care what they're saying. You ever feel that way?

I wish there was something I could say that would relieve that gnawing in your craw about America using waterboarding on our enemies. I think that will have to come to you at your pace, in due time, if at all. But I find myself unbothered by that because, well, I keep remembering the suffering of all the people on 9-11. Their voices, saying goodbye to their loved ones, knowing they were about to die in a field is what haunts me. Not the cries of Khalid.

We were really scared it would happen again... we were very scared. Any frightened beast, human or otherwise, will bring to bear all weapons and all resources to get out alive and in one piece. And when the fear lasts long enough, it converts to anger. You need your anger to keep the energy, the heat, right there, on the tips of your fingers, to stay focused, to settle for nothing less than victory. I've been there. And when the raw animal edge of me demanded I stop at nothing to survive... that's exactly what I did.

To borrow another Spanish slogan, "si se puede... asi es que, por supuesto, si se quiere." It is a truth about humans that, as devoted masters of our destinies and captains of our souls (or so I keep hearing), we will make it up as we go and we will see it our way until and unless we don't. This is an inalienable right... and a skill. We will not stop improvising clear up until the pupils fix. Nor should we. And if I have to lie to make you think I will, when I most certainly will not, then... ok.

Half of us detest the voting habits of the other half of America. Not just dislike, but detest. So to that has the odor of America's politics in recent generations degenerated. That smell does not signal an improvement of our republic.

I sensed you'd at least hear me out about this. Maybe even want to discuss it civilly. I'm hoping you won't judge me an apologist or a defender of the indefensible, at least, not without trying to talk some sense into me. ;) I genuinely fear the state of political discourse these days, particularly when conducted across the interwebs. This binary language... it really does tempt us to be more barbaric, rather than less. Ain't that a kick in the head....

Anyway, I hope that all made sense.

-alexa


Alexa,

First off, thank you for your extended and obviously heart-felt response.

Second off, there is a cricket hiding in my apartment that just won't SHUT THE HELL UP! (Though I still believe waterboarding it would be cruel:)

The issue that keeps gnawing at me is not that we waterboarded. What's stuck in my craw is that nobody seems to realize that the actual issue is whether or not the Bush Administration waterboarded merely to justify the invasion of Iraq; and if that is case, than doesn't that mean that waterboarding didn't work?

Waterboarding the enemy not to gather information, but simply to attain a certain response does not protect our citizens or our troops and, in fact, only makes us less secure and more susceptible to attack; (according to the Art of War, "moral influence" is the first of the 5 fundamental factors for success in war).


But your response illustrates the essential disconnect between the two parties - Is the moral issue concerning "Enhanced Interrogations" about "them" or about "us"? Do we not waterboard because we don't waterboard, or do we not waterboard because they don't waterboard?

I believe that we don't participate in government-sanctioned torture because we don't participate in government-sanctioned torture...regardless of who they are.
(The "Jesus/Confucius" view – "Do unto others.../What the superior man seeks is within himself...")


My friend, the greatest "American" that I've ever known, was on the 102nd floor of Tower #2, and was only there because he was working to put his sister through college. Do not assume that opponents of the Bush Administration's policies and actions did not suffer the same, if not a greater, emotional and psychological trauma as a result of 9/11. Recalling my friend's last voicemail still, and will always, illicit a visceral response so strong that I am left temporarily incoherent and physically useless.

Everybody was terrified by 9/11 – that's the objective of "terrorism." To remain vigilant is necessary but to remain terrified, and to devalue other's humanity, means it worked and that "they" are winning.

Please do not misunderstand or believe that I have "feelings of mercy or pity for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the others." If I were to be let into a room with KSM, I would cause him extreme physical harm. And that is my point: My intent to enter the room would not be to gather information, and I would not wait outside the door until I received a guarantee that my actions would not be punished.


It is not that I oppose the policies and actions of the Bush Administration because I don't understand the complexity or scale of their responsibilities – It is, in fact, the exact opposite.

As FBI interrogator, Ali Soufan, famously said this week, "It's easier to hit somebody than outsmart them." Running the USA was too important of a job to consistently take the easy way out and to constantly make the shortsighted decisions that are the culprit for most of our nation's current ills.

And it is not as if the current fervor over these memos was a far fetched idea during the confusing days immediately following 9/11. I agree that groupthink is very powerful but the assumption that our leaders were under tremendous strain and thus should be given a pass for their behavior is utterly ridiculous. On January 26, 2002 Colin Powell drafted a memo stating exactly what going down this path of reversing "over a century of U.S. policy and practice" would lead to: www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/02.01.26.pdf

When we went into Iraq I was the loudest one shouting "remember 9/11?" As a student in Los Angeles, majoring in theater, mine was not the most popular view. I was naïve, I was racist, I was wrong. But even knowing what we know now about WMD, "yellowcake", and no link to al-Qaeda, had we been out of Iraq in two years, without our soldiers continuing to be maimed and slaughtered there, the invasion would have been the right decision. The war in Iraq was strategically and tactically terribly mismanaged and the Bush Administration is at fault.

The truth is: Criticizing the Bush Administration IS coming to the defense of our "warriors." Sending our troops into (an unnecessary) war, without a clear objective or "end game," without the resources necessary for their survival, (ammo, armor, H2O), and then to enact a "stop-loss" policy which affectively forced them to serve against their will, while at the same time engaging in, and demanding, behavior that erases any moral influence that they may have, and THEN to not give them adequate care when they returned home is the antithesis of "supporting our troops."


You are absolutely right that Dick Cheney is a "cagey sonofabitch." But he is also a selfish coward and the poster child for "chicken-hawk."

Dick received 5 Vietnam draft deferments. In January of 1963, when he turned 22, Dick enrolled in Casper Community College, (after he had already attended Yale), and applied for his first student deferment in March. He transferred to the Univ. of Wyoming and sought his 2nd deferment in July.

22 days after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was approved and the war escalated rapidly, Dick got married, (he was still a student but being married REALLY protected him from the draft).
9 months and 2 days after the ban against drafting married men was lifted, Dick had his 1st daughter. 9 MONTHS and 2 DAYS! During the first trimester of his wife's pregnancy, Dick applied for a "hardship" exemption which excluded men with children from being drafted.

Dick always says that had he been drafted he would have served, and in all fairness, a lot of men avoided the Vietnam draft by legal means and the overwhelming majority of our vets joined voluntarily, but Dick's 5 draft deferments reveal that he believes his existence is more valuable than a lowly serviceman, and that he doesn't give 2 shits for the honor or importance of our military. If not for Dick's 5 draft deferments my Dad might not have taken shrapnel or had friends die in his arms. And if not for Dubya's sweet pilot gig in Alabama he might not think that being a soldier in Afghanistan is "romantic" (remember that?). It is the height of hypocrisy for Dick to question anybody else's patriotism, and please do not be tricked into thinking that Dick has any concerns other than self-preservation.

That being said, I LIKE DICK CHENEY! I love his resolve and his tenacity. Personality-wise I have a lot more in common with Dick, and Dubya, and John McCain than I do Barack Obama; but even if I were running for office against Obama, I would vote for Obama.

You need not worry that Obama is a lawyer, our "grave concern" should be that one day he wakes up and realizes that America does not deserve him.


Also during the Face the Nation interview Dick acknowledged what you believe are his motivations for his conitnuing public presense when he explained, "If I don't speak out than where do we find ourselves, Bob? Then the critics have a free run and there isn't anybody there on the other side to tell the truth."

If what we did was so honorable, and "the right thing to do," than why would Dick's absence mean that his critics would have a "free run"?

The reality is: Not speaking out would be the hard thing to do and, as is obvious from Dick's biography, the hard thing to do is most likely not even under consideration.


You don't think that waterboarding is torture. My intent is not to "attack the arguer," but have you ever been waterboarded? A lot of those who have, believe waterboarding is torture. And excuse my vulgarity, but qualifying waterboarding based on the victim is like saying, "Rape is only wrong if you don't rape a nymphomaniac."

The fact that this debate has devolved into "some shit works" is the exact reason why our government should not have sanctioned torture.

9/11 was devastating but the harsh reality is in 1993 al-Qaeda used a bomb to kill 6 people at the World Trade Center, and in 2001 they used box cutters to kill over 3000. There was a lack of attention to detail at the NSA and communication barriers between the FBI and CIA, but 9/11 still could have been avoided if airport security would have just simply paid attention to metal detectors.


I agree that reducing the opposition to less than human or inferior is a problem – Whether it's al-Qaeda, a Democrat, or a Republican – and that doing so is way too common and not healthy for our republic. But I believe that doing such is more prevalent in certain personality-types and a higher percentage of those personalities are "conservatives."

I am not too familiar with MoveOn or Code Pink and it is probably because I believe that a person's motivation should be considered – do they believe what they believe out of sympathy or out of malice? And I believe that a higher percentage of "conservatives" are motivated by malice.

I believe that our government is way too important to be just another team sport. And I believe that a higher percentage of "conservatives" view our government as merely a game of "Us versus Them."

I believe that anybody who thought President Clinton should have been impeached for lying about an extra-marital blowjob and then accused the President of "wagging the dog" after he ordered the bombings of al-Qaeda facilities in 1998 is partially responsible for 9/11. And I believe that a higher percentage of "conservatives" accused Clinton of "wagging the dog."

I believe that the current state of the Republican Party is hilarious and well deserved, but without Obama, the Democrats would go right back to being the Republicans' "whipping boy."

I believe that an educated populous is essential for a democracy, and I believe that the study of logic (argument) is just as important as an understanding of history. And I believe that both parties take advantage of the uneducated and uninformed but right now a higher percentage of "conservatives" are doing so.

I believe in Science, and I believe that knowledge is good. And I believe that a higher percentage of "conservatives" don't.

I believe that the beauty of our democracy is minority rights, not majority rule. And I believe that the ACLU is the essence of "America" because I believe that "shitting on my flag" is one of the highest expressions of freedom of speech.

I believe that because you actually read and consider views opposing yours that you do not represent "conservatives."

And I believe that I am right...but I could be wrong.

(And I believe that my initial intentions for this post were good, but it ultimately deteriorated into a hackneyed "This I Believe" essay.)

(Thank you for causing me to write a hackneyed "This I Believe" essay:)

(And I am leaning closer towards waterboarding this damn cricket!)

Como Se Dice "FUBAR"?

It's no wonder that Afghanistan and Iraq are still a mess - The Bush administration trying to teach democracy is like a Spanish teacher trying to teach Korean...over the phone!

"It's my way or the high road..."

McCain's "Just" Visiting

John McCain approved of and supports the Bush administration's invasion and subsequent "war in Iraq" but has recently been insinuating that Barack Obama isn't qualified to make policy decisions on Iraq because Obama hasn't visited Iraq in over four years. How many times did George W. Bush visit Iraq before he authorized the unilateral, preemptive, military action to overthrow its government?

Also, I’ve decided that one can be for the invasion of Iraq and against the handling of the war in Iraq, but one cannot be for the handling of the war in Iraq and for the invasion because all explanations that justify why Iraq is the clusterfuck that it is are reasons why the Bush administration should not have rushed into the "go-it-alone" invasion of Iraq.

-Rocky

Surrender Reason

This presidential campaign has got my juices flowing and hopefully I'll get back to frequent posting...

In response to being heckled during a speech Sen. John McCain said he would "never surrender in Iraq."

"Surrender"? Didn't we attack Iraq? Attackers can't "surrender," attackers can only "stop attacking."

When a rapist stops raping his victim and runs away, the cops don't say that the rapist "surrendered" to the victim.

Only defenders can "surrender." When attackers stop attacking it's not called "surrendering," it's called "leaving."

-Rocky