So much for "bringing democracy to Iraq."
Dubya's occupation army has brought what might (after his own election) be called "American-style democracy" by halting elections in Iraqi cities and towns and appointing puppets, mainly brutal thugs from the old Iraqi army.
This local reaction sounds reasonable enough to me:
"They give us a general," said Bahith Sattar, a biology teacher and tribal leader in Samarra who was a candidate for mayor until that election was canceled last week. "What does that tell you, eh? First of all, an Iraqi general? They lost the last three wars! They're not even good generals. And they know nothing about running a city."
With the escalating series of attacks on Americans and British and the lies about "weapons of mass destruction" quickly unravelling, the prospects of a long-burning guerilla war in Iraq become more and more likely. Thank the "neo-cons" when this ends in disaster.
Bush & the End of Reason, By Nat Parry
A sample:
The United States is at a crossroads, with neither route offering an easy journey. In one direction lies a pretend land – where tax cuts increase revenue, where war is peace, where any twisted bits of intelligence justify whatever the leader wants and the people follow. In the other direction lies a painful struggle to bring accountability to political forces that have operated with impunity now for years.
Thank you, Ida.
The Guardian retracts a story from yesterday claiming that Paul Wolfowitz had been honest enough to admit that the oil war in Iraq was about oil.
Paul Wolfowitz was not that honest, so any congratulations for his candor were misplaced.
With no reason to lie any more, warmonger Paul Wolfowitz states that the Iraq war was about oil, something anyone with two neurons to rub together has known since before it started.
Funny, when I was saying this before the war, fascist warmongers screamed to high heaven that it wasn't and that I was a cynical paranoid. Now from the pig's lips, as it were, we hear that it was, indeed, an oil war.
You have the right to remain silent? Not any more, you don't. According to a case decided by the Supreme Court recently, it does not violate your Fifth Amendment rights even to be interrogated while near death from grievous injuries while in a hospital awaiting immediate surgery.
The Fresno Bee reports this gem from the totally off-the-rails Supreme Court, which is now apparently a fascist tribunal solely existing to justify the complete abandonment of the Constitution by any tortured abuse of logic imaginable.
From the dissent of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy:
This is no small matter. To tell our whole legal system that, when conducting a criminal investigation, police officers can use severe compulsion, even torture, with no present violation of the right against compelled self-incrimination can only diminish a celebrated provision in the Bill of Rights," Kennedy wrote. "A Constitution survives over time because the people share a common, historic commitment to certain simple but fundamental principles which preserve their freedom. Today's decision undermines one of those respected precepts.
The entire text of this travesty is available from Cornell CHAVEZ V. MARTINEZ (01-1444) 270 F.3d 852, reversed and remanded.
Here is Kennedy's dissent.
Justice Stevens' dissent opens with a transcript of the torture session which the Supreme Court, under the fascist sway of Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas, thinks is consistent with the protections of the Fifth Amendment. While this troika behaved in a completely predictable manner, O'Connor and Souter should be ashamed of themselves for undermining the foundation of the country.