"The Upside of Terror," by Garrison Keillor

The upside of terror

Maybe a period of stark repression will be a rich and rewarding experience for all of us. Who needs habeas corpus anyway?

By Garrison Keillor

Oct. 25, 2006 |

We are engaged in a struggle between freedom and the forces of terror, my little macacas, and mostly I side with freedom, such as the freedom to look at big shots and stick out your tongue and blow, but of course terror has its place too. The dude strolling down our street at night does not break into our house to see what's available because he is terrified that if he's nabbed, his girlfriend Janine will run off to Philly with her ex-boyfriend Eddie who's been hanging around. She's the best thing in Benny's life right now. So he walks on by and leaves our stereo be.

The terror of everlasting hellfire kept me away from dances until I was 12 years old and away from smoking cigarettes until I was 15. So that's good. Dancing was briefly thrilling, and then I caught sight of myself in a mirror and I haven't gone to a dance since. Fear of ridicule is powerful too.

A lack of terror may encourage crooks to operate brazenly, knock over the candy stand, trip the nuns, hurl garbage over the balcony, and that's why you have cops, and also to keep the college kids from getting sick in our shrubbery.

But now the federal government is extending the frontiers of terror with the Military Commissions Act, legalizing torture and suspending habeas corpus and constructing a loose web of law by which you and I could be hung by our ankles in a meat locker for as long as somebody deems necessary. "Any person is punishable... " the law states, "who knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States" and when it comes to deciding what "knowingly and intentionally" might mean or who is the enemy, that's for a military commission to decide in secret, with or without you present. No Fifth Amendment, hearsay evidence admissible, no judicial review.

People came to America to escape this sort of justice. The midnight knock on the door, incarceration at the whim of men in shiny boots, confessions obtained with a section of hose, secret trial by star chamber. One is reminded of Germany, 1933, when the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act to give the Chancellor the power of summary arrest and imprisonment, a necessary tool for the defense of the homeland against traitors, Jew-lovers, terrorists.

Not that this is a bad thing. Who am I to say? Maybe we've been too lenient with enemies of the state. A period of stark repression might be a rich and rewarding experience for all of us. But when the Current Occupant signed the Act last week, the difference between freedom and terror did suddenly shrink somewhat. It makes you wonder: What if Mr. Cheney does not wish to give up power two years from now? Maybe he has other priorities. If an enemy of the United States -- a Democrat, for example -- appeared to be on the verge of election, perhaps Mr. Cheney, for the good of the country, will be forced to take the threat seriously and head for an undisclosed location and invoke his war powers and shovel a few thousand traitors into camps and call up his friends at Diebold and program the election results that are best for the country, or call the whole thing off.

OK by me if it's OK by you. I don't imagine that coffee sales will be affected or that Paris Hilton will be, like, "Whoa, this is so not cool, " and, like, text-message her buds to join her on a hunger strike. The greeters at Wal-Mart will still smile and the football season will go on. They might flash a bulletin at halftime, "Terror Threat Forces Postponement of Election, " and most people would be OK with that. If Mr. Cheney thinks it necessary to suspend the Constitution for a while, surely he has his reasons. The man inspires trust.

They won't have to torture me to get a good confession. I am a professional writer of fiction, my little monkeys, and if they turn the bright lights on yours truly, beans will spill by the bushel, names will be named, and dates, and stories will be told one after the other. Everybody who ever done me wrong, I am going to implicate them up to their dewlaps. A trial with hearsay evidence allowed and no cross-examination is tailor-made for a novelist. Throw me into that briar patch, Br'er Bush.

- - - - - - - - - - - - (Garrison Keillor's "A Prairie Home Companion" can be heard Saturday nights on public radio stations across the country. )

(c) 2006 by Garrison Keillor. All rights reserved. Distributed by Tribune Media Services, INC. -- By Garrison Keillor

Copyright 2006 Salon Media Group, Inc http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/salon031.html -- They always say time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself.
Andy Warhol (1928 - 1987), The Philosophy of Andy Warhol

Things do not change; we change.
Henry David Thoreau (1817 - 1862), Walden (1970)

Fwd: A Checklist for War . . . . + Comments by Keith Olbermann (A MUST READ!)

[Thanks to Bruce Springsteen, Eike, Sally Mahe, and David Enroth (Sky) for the following.]


War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing


War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing


War is something that I despise
For it means destruction of innocent lives
For it means tears in thousands of mothers' eyes
When their sons go out to fight to give their lives



War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing


Say it again
War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing



War
It's nothing but a heartbreaker
War
Friend only to the undertaker
War is the enemy of all mankind
The thought of war blows my mind
Handed down from generation to generation
Induction destruction
Who wants to die





War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing


Say it again
War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing



War has shattered many young men's dreams
Made them disabled bitter and mean





Life is too precious to be fighting wars
each day
War can't give life it can only take it away



War
It's nothing but a heartbreaker
War
Friend only to the undertaker


Peace love and understanding
There must be some place for these things today
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But Lord there's gotta be a better way


That's better than
War



War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing


Say it again
War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing


by Barret Strong, Norman Whitfield/Edwin Star




~ performed by Bruce Springsteen

*NOTE: Information on the song and its origins are discussed at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_(song) -- and related links.

Dear friends . . . . I was impressed with this succinct and wise perspective from a member of the URI Global Youth CC. Thank you, Eike, for this thoughtful communication to the global youth list serve. With care,

Sally Mahé
Director, Organizational Development
United Religions Initiative
San Francisco, CA USA

Dear Friends . . . . Once again we see that war is not an answer. Any war, no matter what arguments its leaders might have, includes violence and grief. And above all, no war can be planned. No matter what model and strategy the leaders tell us they might have, the reality will be different. Reality will be worse - as we can see once again.

It's sad, but what happens in Iraq at the moment is no surprise to me. All it does is to make me incredibly angry. I saw it. I couldn't do much, if anything. I suffer.

What to do? Built up a force that is much stronger than the once that make us suffer now. I am very happy to see us all unite in groups like this one. I am happy to see people like you working for peace, mutual understanding, a world united. It gives me hope. A difficult way lies in front of us and I know we must all deal with suffering. But if there is one thing that I feel for sure, it is the truth inside of us that we can all live together peacefully and should never give up trying.

I feel tested. Especially as a German whose country spoke against war ever after World War II - and is now sending troops out into the world again (Lebanon, Middle East this time). History has told us nothing?!

There must be a reason why we see all those things happening. It's crazy, but humanity probably needs all this to learn, change, and grow.

This is a blunt systemic view, switching off emotions, trying to put sense into the fact that millions die and suffer.

However, so far human societies have lead wars - and ended up in greater united forms afterwards. Europe evolved out of wars. The UN is a result of the Second World War. Greater Europe (the EU) is a result of the Cold War. Global peace groups have formed due to wars.

Does this mean we should simply live with wars? And wait for positive developments afterwards? No! We still need to try hard to prevent wars and work for peace at all times. But to see that wars lead human beings to a greater understanding and unity in the end is a shimmering light at the end of the tunnel.

The suffering remains. The hope might grow. Hope gives us positive energy. With positive energy we can make a change.

I wish all of you much hope and great success with your peace efforts! In pray for peace,

Eike . . . . Stuttgart, Germany

---

SPECIAL COMMENT -- "A MUST READ!!" [from Editor, Rick Mitchell]

By Keith Olbermann

Anchor, 'Countdown'

MSNBC

Oct 6, 2006

[Jewish Peace News(JPN)] In N.Y., Sparks Fly Over Criticism of Israel

Sunday, October 15, 2006, [Jewish Peace News(JPN)]

Sparks Fly at Israel Criticism

[JPN Commentary: The Anti Defamation League is at it again, attempting to squelch criticism of Israel, as well as criticism of itself as one of the organizations who stifle free and open debate on issues to do with Israel/Palestine. ADL and the American Jewish Committee's denial that they engaged in an effort to cancel Tony Judt's speech at the Polish consulate, and claiming that he is engaging in "wild conspiracy theories" is not remotely credible, since this is hardly the first time they are at it. ADL, for one, doesn't limit itself to obstructing participation of only the most visible critics of Israeli policies, but has, for example, blocked participation in debates on divestment by Jewish Voice for Peace members (Mitchell Plitnick and myself are two I'm aware of, and perhaps there were others). Sad to say, such tactics often achieve at least their immediate aim, and it's our job to find ways to bring this behavior to light, and to make it too costly for these self-anointed cops on the beat to keep engaging in such tactics. We also need to find ways to empower various civil organizations to sponsor open debates, and to resist pressure from the Israel lobby. Those of you who would like to watch/hear the debate on the "Israel Lobby" which was sponsored by the London Review of books - where Tony Judt was one of the panelists - can visit here. RG]

In N.Y., Sparks Fly Over Israel Criticism

Polish Consulate Says Jewish Groups Called To Oppose
Historian

Michael Powell, 9 October 2006

www.washingtonpost.com

NEW YORK -- Two major American Jewish organizations helped block a prominent New York University historian from speaking at the Polish consulate here last week, saying the academic was too critical of Israel and American Jewry.

The historian, Tony Judt, is Jewish and directs New York University's Remarque Institute, which promotes the study of Europe. Judt was scheduled to talk Oct. 4 to a nonprofit organization that rents space from the consulate. Judt's subject was the Israel lobby in the United States, and he planned to argue that this lobby has often stifled honest debate.

An hour before Judt was to arrive, the Polish Consul General Krzysztof Kasprzyk canceled the talk. He said the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee had called and he quickly concluded Judt was too controversial.

"The phone calls were very elegant but may be interpreted as exercising a delicate pressure," Kasprzyk said. "That's obvious -- we are adults and our IQs are high enough to understand that."

Judt, who was born and raised in England and lost much of his family in the Holocaust, took strong exception to the cancellation of his speech. He noted that he was forced to cancel another speech later this month at Manhattan College in the Bronx after a different Jewish group had complained. Other prominent academics have described encountering such problems, in some cases more severe, stretching over the past three decades.

The pattern, Judt says, is unmistakable and chilling.

"This is serious and frightening, and only in America -- not in Israel-- is this a problem," he said. "These are Jewish organizations that believe they should keep people who disagree with them on the Middle East away from anyone who might listen."

The leaders of the Jewish organizations denied asking the consulate to block Judt's speech and accused the professor of retailing "wild conspiracy theories" about their roles. But they applauded the consulate for rescinding Judt's invitation.

"I think they made the right decision," said Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. "He's taken the position that Israel shouldn't exist. That puts him on our radar."

David A. Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Congress, took a similar view. "I never asked for a particular action; I was calling as a friend of Poland," Harris said. "The message of that evening was going to be entirely contrary to the entire spirit of Polish foreign policy."

Judt has crossed rhetorical swords with the Jewish organizations on two key issues. Over the past few years he has written essays in the New York Review of Books, the London Review of Books and in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz arguing that power in Israel has shifted to religious
fundamentalists and territorial zealots, that woven into Zionism is a view of the Arab as the irreconcilable enemy, and that Israel might not survive as
a communal Jewish state.

The solution, he argues, lies in a slow and tortuous walk toward a binational and secular state.

He has, of late, defended an academic paper -- co-authored by professor Stephen M. Walt of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government and John J. Mearsheimer, a professor at the University of Chicago -- which argues the American Israel lobby has pushed policies that are not in the United States' best interests and in fact often encourage Israel to engage in self-destructive behavior.

These are deeply controversial views -- Foxman of the ADL and writer Christopher Hitchens, among others, have attacked the Walt and Mearsheimer paper as anti-Semitic. And Judt's advocacy of a binational state has drawn a flock of critics, the more angry of whom accuse him of "pandering to genocide" as the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America put it. Former Bush speechwriter David Frum said Judt was pursuing "genocide liberalism."

Foxman has referred to Judt's views of Israel as "an offensive caricature."

The Mearsheimer and Walt paper, however, has drawn praise in some quarters in Israel, particularly on the left. So, too some Israeli writers, not least Israeli historian and social critic Amos Elon, have praised Judt's writings on Israel. Nor are Judt's arguments without historical precedent: Massachusetts Institute of Technology linguist and political philosopher Noam Chomsky, who is Jewish, has advocated a binational solution in Israel, a view that three decades ago sparked such anger that police stoo guard at his college talks. More recently, the ADL repeatedly accused DePaul University professor Norman G. Finkelstein, who is Jewish and strongly opposes Israeli policies, of being a "Holocaust denier." These charges have proved baseless.

"There is an often organized and often spontaneous attempt to marginalize anyone in the Jewish world who offers a critique of Israeli policy," said Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of the liberal magazine Tikkun. "It's equated with anti-Semitism and Israel denial."

Foxman says such complaints are silly. "Nobody has called Judt an anti-Semite," Foxman said. "People who are critical of Israel and of the Jewish people often flaunt their Jewishness. Why isn't that an issue?"

Judt replies that he only reluctantly talks of his Jewishness, in no small part to inoculate himself against charges of anti-Semitism. "For many, the way to be Jewish in this country is to aggressively assert that the Holocaust is your identification tag," Judt said. "I know perfectly well my history, but it never occurred to me that my most prominent identity was as a Jew."

[JPN Commentary: Knesset member Azmi Bishara offers a scathing and eloquent critique of the political conditions the US is fostering in the Palestinian territories and throughout the Arab world. He describes the situation of the Palestinian people as having fallen to a new low, where the US-driven economic blockade is turning desperate people against each other. The political achievements of the Palestinians - a sense of national unity and a collective goal of liberation - are being effaced by the brute, basic need for food. The threat of starvation is being used as a weapon to reverse a democratic decision. Meanwhile, corrupt and brutal Arab elites who rule in the absence of any popular mandate are dubbed "moderates" by Washington because they oppose the Hamas government.

Bishara widens his analysis: where we see the US footprint in the region, we see a degradation of the public sphere; democratic or even national aspirations are replaced by a struggle just to survive. We see tribal warfare in Iraq; bread fights in Palestine; corruption and abuse throughout the region. Bishara readily puts an end to the myth that the US has any democratizing influence or intent in the Middle East.

At the same time, the existence of democratic structures of governance within the US itself gives US citizens both the real ability and urgent responsibility to oppose and bring a halt to these abuses abroad. JN]

--
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish truth. Through violence you murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."
-- Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Fwd: PlanforIraq.com -- Live Webcast Monday 7:30 ET

Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware) will speak on this audio webcast on Monday, 4:30 p.m. Pacific Time (6:30 Central, 7:30 eastern) re his Plan for Iraq. I believe this is an extremely significant proposal that is worthy of our attention and consideration. Please mark your calendar and listen in if you've access to a computer at that time. You can access the website and let it run in the background while you do other work or browse other websites, read email, etc. Just keep the sound on and browser window on in the background. After the webcast, send a message to HRFA@googlegroups.com re your reaction and maybe we can have a discussion on that group. I review and approve all messages before they are posted in order to delete spam (which we get a lot of -- mainly from people who claim they have recently inherited large sums of money in Nigeria, or wherever, and want to "share" it with us, right). But I do not censor comments of a political nature unless they are abusive, threatening, or otherwise outlandishly insane. That should be no problem for those who choose to listen to Senator Biden.

In my opinion, he represents one of the most promising Democratic candidates who have announced their intention to seek the Presidency in 2008. He is a senior senator with many years of experience in foreign relations -- which puts him in a class that few if any others can truthfully claim to have. It would bring a much-needed new dimension to the Oval Office, to say the very least. -- Rick Mitchell

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Joe Biden <info@uniteourstates.com>
Date: Oct 15, 2006 2:22 PM
Subject: PlanforIraq.com -- Live Webcast Monday 7:30 ET
To: Rick Mitchell <rick@ricksandy.net>

REMINDER: On Monday, October 16 at 7:30 PM ET, please join Senator Biden as he discusses the situation in Iraq and answers questions during a live audio webcast. You will find a link to the webcast on PlanForIraq.com. If you have any questions about Iraq or the plan, please email them to Questions@PlanForIraq.com before Monday evening. Thank you. Note: for some readers, links to PlanforIraq.com in our previous email did not work. If you were unable to visit the site or send a question, please follow this link: PlanForIraq.com. We believe the technical issues have been resolved and apologize for any inconvenience. Visit UniteOurStates.com | Make a Contribution Paid for by Unite Our States, Inc. Visit the web address below to tell your friends about this.  Tell-a-friend! If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for Unite Our States. This message was sent to rick@ricksandy.net. Visit your subscription management page to modify your email communication preferences or update your personal profile. To stop ALL email from Unite Our States, click to remove yourself from our lists (or reply via email with "remove or unsubscribe" in the subject line).

--
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish truth. Through violence you murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."
-- Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

***THIS IS POWERFUL*** - and it may be the beginning of the end of the Bush era. A MUST READ for everyone. VIDEO link included. Rick M.

Thanks to Dale Lloyd for this powerful commentary by Keith Olvermann. To see and hear him deliver it on his MSNBC program, COUNTDOWN, go to the following URL link:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15232.htm   (The video is 12 minutes long - Take the time to listen to it all. -- Rick M.)

(The written transcript from the video follows.)

A special comment about lying
Keith Olbermann on the difference between terrorists and critics
SPECIAL COMMENT
By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown' - MSNBC

While the leadership in Congress has self-destructed over the revelations of an unmatched, and unrelieved, march through a cesspool ...

While the leadership inside the White House has self-destructed over the revelations of a book with a glowing red cover ...

The president of the United States — unbowed, undeterred and unconnected to reality — has continued his extraordinary trek through our country rooting out the enemies of freedom: the Democrats.

Yesterday at a fundraiser for an Arizona congressman, Mr. Bush claimed, quote, "177 of the opposition party said, 'You know, we don't think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists.'"

The hell they did.

One hundred seventy-seven Democrats opposed the president's seizure of another part of the Constitution.

Not even the White House press office could actually name a single Democrat who had ever said the government shouldn't be listening to the conversations of terrorists.

President Bush hears what he wants.

Tuesday, at another fundraiser in California, he had said, "Democrats take a law enforcement approach to terrorism. That means America will wait until we're attacked again before we respond."

Mr. Bush fabricated that, too.

 

And evidently he has begun to fancy himself as a mind reader.

"If you listen closely to some of the leaders of the Democratic Party," the president said at another fundraiser Monday in Nevada, "it sounds like they think the best way to protect the American people is — wait until we're attacked again."

The president doesn't just hear what he wants.

He hears things that only he can hear.

It defies belief that this president and his administration could continue to find new unexplored political gutters into which they could wallow.

Yet they do.

It is startling enough that such things could be said out loud by any president of this nation.

Rhetorically, it is about an inch short of Mr. Bush accusing Democratic leaders, Democrats, the majority of Americans who disagree with his policies of treason.

But it is the context that truly makes the head spin.

Just 25 days ago, on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, this same man spoke to this nation and insisted, "We must put aside our differences and work together to meet the test that history has given us."

 

Mr. Bush, this is a test you have already failed.

If your commitment to "put aside differences and work together" is replaced in the span of just three weeks by claiming your political opponents prefer to wait to see this country attacked again, and by spewing fabrications about what they've said, then the questions your critics need to be asking are no longer about your policies.

They are, instead, solemn and even terrible questions, about your fitness to fulfill the responsibilities of your office.

No Democrat, sir, has ever said anything approaching the suggestion that the best means of self-defense is to "wait until we're attacked again."

No critic, no commentator, no reluctant Republican in the Senate has ever said anything that any responsible person could even have exaggerated into the slander you spoke in Nevada on Monday night, nor the slander you spoke in California on Tuesday, nor the slander you spoke in Arizona on Wednesday ... nor whatever is next.

You have dishonored your party, sir; you have dishonored your supporters; you have dishonored yourself.

But tonight the stark question we must face is — why?

Why has the ferocity of your venom against the Democrats now exceeded the ferocity of your venom against the terrorists?

Why have you chosen to go down in history as the president who made things up?

In less than one month you have gone from a flawed call to unity to this clarion call to hatred of Americans, by Americans.

If this is not simply the most shameless example of the rhetoric of political hackery, then it would have to be the cry of a leader crumbling under the weight of his own lies.

We have, of course, survived all manner of political hackery, of every shape, size and party. We will have to suffer it, for as long as the Republic stands.

But the premise of a president who comes across as a compulsive liar is nothing less than terrifying.

A president who since 9/11 will not listen, is not listening — and thanks to Bob Woodward's most recent account — evidently has never listened.

A president who since 9/11 so hates or fears other Americans that he accuses them of advocating deliberate inaction in the face of the enemy.

A president who since 9/11 has savaged the very freedoms he claims to be protecting from attack — attack by terrorists, or by Democrats, or by both — it is now impossible to find a consistent thread of logic as to who Mr. Bush believes the enemy is.

But if we know one thing for certain about Mr. Bush, it is this: This president — in his bullying of the Senate last month and in his slandering of the Democrats this month — has shown us that he believes whoever the enemies are, they are hiding themselves inside a dangerous cloak called the Constitution of the United States of America.

 

How often do we find priceless truth in the unlikeliest of places?

I tonight quote not Jefferson nor Voltaire, but Cigar Aficionado Magazine.

On Sept. 11th, 2003, the editor of that publication interviewed General Tommy Franks, at that point, just retired from his post as commander-in-chief of U.S. Central Command — of Cent-Com.

And amid his quaint defenses of the then-nagging absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or the continuing freedom of Osama bin Laden, General Franks said some of the most profound words of this generation.

He spoke of "the worst thing that can happen" to this country:

First, quoting, a "massive casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western World — it may be in the United States of America."

Then, the general continued, "the Western World, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we've seen for a couple of hundred years, in this grand experiment that we call democracy."

It was this super-patriotic warrior's fear that we would lose that most cherished liberty, because of another attack, one — again quoting General Franks — "that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass-casualty-producing event. Which, in fact, then begins to potentially unravel the fabric of our Constitution."

And here we are, the fabric of our Constitution being unraveled, anyway.

Habeus corpus neutered; the rights of self-defense now as malleable and impermanent as clay; a president stifling all critics by every means available and, when he runs out of those, by simply lying about what they said or felt.

And all this, even without the dreaded attack.

General Franks, like all of us, loves this country, and believes not just in its values, but in its continuity.

He has been trained to look for threats to that continuity from without.

He has, perhaps been as naïve as the rest of us, in failing to keep close enough vigil on the threats to that continuity from within.

Secretary of State Rice first cannot remember urgent cautionary meetings with counterterrorism officials before 9/11. Then within hours of this lie, her spokesman confirms the meetings in question. Then she dismisses those meetings as nothing new — yet insists she wanted the same cautions expressed to Secretaries Ashcroft and Rumsfeld.

Mr. Rumsfeld, meantime, has been unable to accept the most logical and simple influence of the most noble and neutral of advisers. He and his employer insist they rely on the "generals in the field." But dozens of those generals have now come forward to say how their words, their experiences, have been ignored.

And, of course, inherent in the Pentagon's war-making functions is the regulation of presidential war lust.

Enacting that regulation should include everything up to symbolically wrestling the Chief Executive to the floor.

Yet—and it is Pentagon transcripts that now tell us this—evidently Mr. Rumsfeld's strongest check on Mr. Bush's ambitions, was to get  somebody to excise the phrase "Mission Accomplished" out of the infamous Air Force Carrier speech of May 1st, 2003, even while the same empty words hung on a banner over the President's shoulder.

And the vice president is a chilling figure, still unable, it seems, to accept the conclusions of his own party's leaders in the Senate, that the foundations of his public position, are made out of sand.

 

There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

But he still says so.

There was no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaida.

But he still says so.

And thus, gripping firmly these figments of his own imagination, Mr. Cheney lives on, in defiance, and spreads—around him and before him—darkness, like some contagion of fear.

They are never wrong, and they never regret -- admirable in a French torch singer, cataclysmic in an American leader.

Thus, the sickening attempt to blame the Foley scandal on the negligence of others or "the Clinton era"—even though the Foley scandal began before the Lewinsky scandal.     

Thus, last month's enraged attacks on this administration's predecessors, about Osama bin Laden—a projection of their own negligence in the immediate months before 9/11.

Thus, the terrifying attempt to hamstring the fundament of our freedom—the Constitution—a triumph for al Qaida, for which the terrorists could not hope to achieve with a hundred 9/11's.

And thus, worst of all perhaps, these newest lies by President Bush about Democrats choosing to await another attack and not listen to the conversations of terrorists.

It is the terror and the guilt within your own heart, Mr. Bush, that you redirect at others who simply wish for you to temper your certainty with counsel.

It is the failure and the incompetence within your own memory, Mr. Bush, that leads you to demonize those who might merely quote to you the pleadings of Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

It is not the Democrats whose inaction in the face of the enemy you fear, Sir.

It is your own—before 9/11 - and (and you alone know this), perhaps afterwards.

Mr. President, these new lies go to the heart of what it is that you truly wish to preserve.

It is not our freedom, nor our country—your actions against the Constitution give irrefutable proof of that.

You want to preserve a political party's power. And obviously you'll sell this country out, to do it.

These are lies about the Democrats -- piled atop lies about Iraq -- which were piled atop lies about your preparations for al Qaida.

To you, perhaps, they feel like the weight of a million centuries -- as crushing, as immovable.

They are not.

If you add more lies to them, you cannot free yourself, and us, from them.

But if you stop -- if you stop fabricating quotes, and building straw-men, and inspiring those around you to do the same -- you may yet liberate yourself and this nation.

Please, sir, do not throw this country's principles away because your lies have made it such that you can no longer differentiate between the terrorists and the critics.

© 2006 MSNBC Interactive

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

A story of two parades -- New Orleans and Iraq

The Saints vs. The Falcons: Triumph or tragedy

From Where I Stand by Joan Chittister, OSB

October 2, 2006

Like most of the rest of the country, it seems, I watched the return of the New Orleans Saints to the Superdome. And like most of the rest of the country, too, up until that night, I doubt that I had ever seen either the Saints or their opponents, the Atlanta Falcons, play more than once.

These are not my teams. These are not the great teams of the country.

But this was no ordinary game. This was not simply couch-potato time in TV land. This game was not to be slept through or talked through or ignored. Here, in front of our very eyes, was a football game that had overtones of the mythical, the heroic, the epical.

We were clearly not simply here to watch football alone. We were here to see the American spirit rise unscathed from the grave of disaster -- where disaster was a decidedly unacceptable situation here in the Promised Land. This game had all the earmarks of a national renaissance.

And the city of New Orleans did everything it could to make it happen.

New Orleans loves a parade so the game, like so much in New Orleans over the years, started with one. People from every level of New Orleans marched into the stadium ahead of the team to the sound of Mardi Gras music. And well they should.

These were the first responders of the city who worked day and night to provide security and aid to those stranded during Hurricane Katrina.

They were the old jazz musicians of the city, the soul of New Orleans, who had once played on Bourbon Street and now were left looking for instruments to replace what had been lost in the flood.

These were representatives of once New Orleans families, now scattered across the country, who had returned to the Dome in which they almost died to prove that even though life moves on, there are some things we never leave.

This game, the announcers said, marked "The Rebirth of a City." Except everyone knew it wasn't. Not really. Not completely. Not yet anyway.

If anything, the game was, at best, the beginning of the rebirth of a city: provided that business would come back, of course -- as the team had; provided that the fans would come back -- as displaced fans from everywhere had that night; provided that the tourists would come back -- as they have yet to do.

Indeed, this was no ordinary game. It was a game that made us all sit up and think for a moment.

Underneath all the regular football rituals, this game carried with it an undercurrent of the unspoken. This game, unlike the usual weekly contests of professional athletes, went far beyond the betting line and the expectations that come with million dollar contracts. No, it wasn't the love of the sport that accounted for the level of excitement, of nostalgia, or personal investment, of pain. This was about far greater human endeavors than that. This game commemorated great human challenge, great ordinary heroes -- and great tragedy.

"The greatest natural tragedy in U.S. history," the commentators called Hurricane Katrina and its devastation of New Orleans, with almost forgotten parts of Mississippi and parts of the Gulf Coast with it. But what they failed to say often enough, what the glitz and the glamour, the rock concert climate and powerful partisanship of the place, is that in New Orleans, at least, the tragedy continues.

The figures tell some of the story -- but not all.

The now famous Ninth Ward is almost empty.

More than half the population of New Orleans -- some figures say two-thirds -- has disappeared somewhere.

According to The Washington Post (Katrina, One Year Later, Aug. 29, 2006, A14), more than 19,000 businesses were destroyed in the storm and more than 200,000 apartments and homes.

At least 1,800 people were declared dead, 700 missing.

Over a million people were displaced. In international language -- when we're talking about other countries -- we call such people "internal refugees."

Whole sections of this once colorful place with its happy admixture of Cajun culture, great food, party animals, and echoes of plantation beauty are quiet now. Destroyed. Pitiably abandoned.

And in the midst of need like this, of the $110 billion appropriated by the government for recovery in the area, only $44 billion of it has been spent.

The total cost of the devastation, according to Risk Management Solutions of New Jersey is $125 billion dollars. And every penny of it is necessary if there is really going to be a rebirth of New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast.

You could see the whole traumatizing, unfinished, paralyzing affect of it in the faces of people on the TV screen during that football game.

You could see it in the determination on the faces of each member of a team that was willing New Orleans to rise again.

You could also see it in the body language of the displaced families who watched the game on small TV sets from overcrowded basement rooms in the city.

You could see it most clearly in the cutaways of devastated houses and empty buildings and abandoned neighborhoods the network showed between segments of the game itself.

You could hear it in the pleas for aid from football players and musician groups and private funding sources across the country for an area in which 28 percent of the population was already living under the poverty line before the hurricane even hit.

In them, the tragedy was palpable. And we all wanted resurrection for them.

Which raises an even more troubling human question.

There was another ghost hanging over the Dome that night. As we saw scene after scene of total desolation go by in the poorest quarter of New Orleans, another tragedy went silently, steadily on -- just as traumatic for the innocent who find themselves caught up in it.

This other tragedy too has a parade: Humvees, tanks, bombers and foot soldiers. But it doesn't suffer from a lack of funds. No funds have been held back here. Furthermore, this tragedy wasn't natural. And it was certainly never necessary.

In Iraq now, between 43,000-48,000 non-combatants -- men, women and children -- have been killed.

The cost of the disaster in Iraq has reached $317 billion dollars. We've paid or borrowed or mortgaged the country for every cent of it and we're not done paying yet.

But in this case, we're not spending to rebuild a country in need; we're paying to tear it down. In this case, we are the hurricane.

From where I stand, it seems that the question must surely be, how is it that we can pay for destruction but not for development? What is there about us now, that fails to see the tragedy behind both parades?