'End This War': Hundreds of Thousands Protest Iraq War

Pictures from the march in Washington, D.C. last weekend. Peace.



To read the accompanying article, click here.

Credits: 1st photo - AP Photo/Noah Berger; 2nd photo - REUTERS/Jason Reed

this is disgusting

from the Inter Press Service, "US Army Whistleblowers Describe Routine, Severe Abuse":

Two sergeants and a captain in one of the U.S. Army's most decorated combat units have come forward with accounts of routine, systematic and often severe beatings committed against detainees at a base near Fallujah from 2003 through 2004.

According to their testimony, featured in a new report by Human Rights Watch (HRW), beatings and other forms of torture were often either ordered or approved by superior officers and took place on virtually a daily basis. The soldiers, all of whom had also been deployed to Afghanistan before coming to Iraq, testified that the same techniques were used in both countries.

The beatings were so severe that they resulted in broken bones 'every other week' at Forward Operating Base (FOB) Mercury, where detainees would ordinarily be held for three or four days before being transferred to Abu Ghraib. In one case, an Army cook broke the leg of a detainee with a metal baseball bat, according to one of the sergeants quoted in the report, entitled Leadership Failure.

Why is a cook having any contact at all with prisoners - let alone swinging a baseball bat at (at least) one of them?! The article goes on to describe how the Captain "said he had made persistent efforts over 17 months to raise concerns about the abuses and obtain clearer rules about the treatment of detainees but was consistently told by higher-ups to ignore abuses and to 'consider your career'." Their testimony completes belies "the Bush administration [claim] that only a handful of poorly trained reservists were responsible" for prisoner abuse.

It is a sad state of affairs when Republic Congressional Leaders feel they have to pass "legislation that would require the Pentagon to abide by the Geneva Conventions and the Army Field Manual in its treatment of all detainees."

Sadder still, and shameful, is the fact that "their effort has so far been frustrated by opposition from the George W. Bush administration, notably Vice President Dick Cheney, who has personally lobbied against the provision, and the Republican leadership in Congress."

Here's the truly disgusting part:

Suspected insurgents, according to the testimonies, were called PUCs, for "Persons Under Control," to distinguish them from prisoners of war, or POWs, a practice that first began in Afghanistan after the Pentagon announced that it did not consider detainees captured there subject to the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions for POWs.

PUCs were held in tents at FOB Mercury that were surrounded by concertina wire and were routinely subjected to abusive techniques that included "smoking", which was normally ordered by Military Intelligence before interrogations and involved 12 to 24 hours of stress positions, sleep or liquid deprivation, and physical exercises sometimes to the point of unconsciousness, and "f**king", which referred to beating or torturing detainees severely.

Front-line and other soldiers were invited to take part in both practices, according to the report, while, if the detainees were injured as a result of the abuse, a physicians' assistant would administer an analgesic and sign off on a report stating that the injury took place during capture.

The beatings and other abuses served mainly to relieve stress, according to the three soldiers. "On their day off people would show up all the time," said one sergeant. "Everyone in camp knew if you wanted to work out your frustration you show up at the PUC tent. In a way it was sport."

The soldiers blamed the abuses in large part on the failure of civilian and military leaders to clarify what was and was not permitted, particularly in light of the administration's position that the Geneva Convention, in which the unit had been trained, did not apply to detainees captured in Afghanistan.

"We knew where the Geneva Conventions drew the line, but then you get that confusion when the (Secretary of Defense) and the president make that statement," said the captain. After the invasion of Iraq, "none of the unit policies changed. Iraq was cast as part of the war on terror, not a separate entity in and of itself but a part of a larger war."

"Leadership failed to provide clear guidance so we just developed it," said one of the sergeants. "They wanted intel (intelligence). As long as no PUCs came up dead it happened. We heard rumours of PUCs dying so we were careful. We kept it to broken arms and legs and shit (like that)."

These people are human beings. They may be "enemies" of the US, but they are still human beings. Denying them the rights of the Geneva Conventions is inhumane. Ask John McCain how important respecting the Conventions is - how, when we abide by them, they save the lives of American Prisoners of War. He knows; that's why he's doing the right thing, sponsoring legislation that should be a no brainer. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have long maintained that prisoner abuse was the work of a few rogue individuals. Attorney General Gonzales conveniently failed to recall drafting the documentation that led to Bush rejecting Geneva Conventions for "enemy combatants" or "PUCs," arbitrary terms for arbitrarily differentiating among POWs. This report makes it clear that they created the atmosphere in which all such abuse took place, with a wink and a smile.

When breaking bones and beating people nearly to death becomes a sport condoned and encouraged by Bush and his administration, it is clearly time to step back and ask again what our purpose in Iraq really is and whether our actions are truly helping or sorely hurting that purpose. If our goal is to piss off the Muslim world, add fuel to the raging insurgency, and feed a generation of Anti-American hate while pretending to occupy some moral high ground, then I'd say the President can proudly declare: "Mission Accomplished."

*emphasis mine

it continues...

from CNN - 'Intelligent design' debate back in court - Sep 26, 2005:

"Intelligent design" is a religious theory that was inserted in a school district's curriculum with no concern for whether it had scientific underpinnings, a lawyer told a federal judge Monday as a landmark trial got under way.
...
But in his opening statement, the school district's attorney defended Dover's policy of requiring ninth-grade students to hear a brief statement about intelligent design before biology classes on evolution.
...
Arguing that intelligent design is a religious theory, not science, Rothschild said he would show that the language in the school district's own policy made clear its religious intent.

Dover is believed to be the first school system in the nation to require students be exposed to the intelligent design concept, under a policy adopted by a 6-3 vote in October 2004.
...
Brown University professor Kenneth Miller, the first witness called by the plaintiffs, said pieces of the theory of evolution are subject to debate, such as where gender comes from, but told the court: "There is no controversy within science over the core proposition of evolutionary theory."

On the other hand, he said, "Intelligent design is not a testable theory in any sense and as such it is not accepted by the scientific community."
...
The clash over intelligent-design is evident far beyond this rural district of about 3,500 students 20 miles south of Harrisburg. President Bush has weighed in, saying schools should present both concepts when teaching about the origins of life.
...
Richard Thompson, the Thomas More center's president and chief counsel, said Dover's policy takes a modest approach.

"All the Dover school board did was allow students to get a glimpse of a controversy that is really boiling over in the scientific community," Thompson said.

I've posted on this before, and there really isn't much to add to the article. It's only a shame that they ended with Thompson's quote, because it's a lie. While there may be a few in the scientific community who deny the merits of evolutionary theory, Prof. Miller spoke accurately in saying, "There is no controversy within science." And this is what is most frustrating: that proponents of this alleged "theory" of intelligent design insist that it is some kind of science. By their own admission, we cannot test the possibility of a designer. It therefore fails one of the basic principles of science: that hypotheses be testable and that procedures be repeatable. The Theory of Evolution is like the Theory of Gravity: questions remain about each, but they have been supported by huge amounts of research and data. Each was a hypothesis at one point in time, much like "intelligent design" is now. The difference between them, however, marks the difference between science and, well, philosophy. At best, "intelligent design" could be argued as a theory for philosophy (I mean, given that its proponents are fighting hard not to have it labeled a religious doctrine).

As a matter of fact, in many collegiate introductory philosophy classes, questions as basic as the beginning or origins of life will be considered. My Philosophy 101 class considered Creation as proof of a Creator (or Designer or Engineer or whatever) in a week, maybe two, then moved on. There simply is no science involved in "intelligent design" and it has no place in the science classroom. At the same time, accepting tenets of evolutionary theory does not therefore rule out the possibility of God (or any other creator, for that matter). We need to do a better job of religious education in our churches. And we need to stand up to those who would divide us for political purposes. A reasonable, Bible-believing person can accept evolution and believe in a God who is Creator of all that is and not be caught in a contradiction.

Our children deserve the best education we can provide. That means teaching science in the science classroom, philosphical reasoning and argument in philosophy, and religon in religious studies curricula and especially in the church.

Eggo waffles and a theological response

An early morning reflection...

As I sat here this morning nibbling my Eggo waffles and wondering what to write, a verse of scripture popped into my head: "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways." (1 Cor. 13:11) Uh oh, not a great way to start the day. And then another scripture came to mind: "I (Jesus) know your works; you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth." (Rev. 3:15-16) And reading a little further (3:20) we find this: "Listen! I am standing at the door, knocking; if you hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to you and eat with you, and you with me."

In my defense to Corinthians, I only picked up the waffles on a whim. I ate them often as a kid but I honestly can’t remember the last time I had them. And it’s true, what Revelation warns - they are hard to keep hot! Even when I burn them, they cool off way too fast. In their place, one burning question remains: If Jesus comes a-knockin', do I have to hide the waffles?

Understanding the Bible is not always easy. People often jump to crazy conclusions. Another case in point: A number of Christian public speakers have sought to explain, with scriptural citation, why God caused Hurricane Katrina. They remind me of the importance of personal and communal Bible study as a balance to our absurd tendencies. Next time I hear one of those guys blathering on like that, I think I’ll send them a short letter: "Leggo my Eggo!"

more on the buffoons...

Sorry for the time away ... I actually was well into this post yesterday when my computer restarted itself.

Anyway: last Thursday, I listened to Jerry Springer talk about the very quotes I mentioned in the previous post. And he made the point: if God cared so much about putting an end to terrorism (as in Colson's, "God sent Hurricane Katrina to show that we're not prepared for the next big attack!"), wouldn't it be easier for God to simply stop the guy with the back pack bomb, or the car filled with explosives? Duh! One well targeted heart attack would save a lot of misery, and certainly be a smarter and more creative approach than a devastating hurricane.

To Robertson's comments, it occurred to me that it is absolutely absurd to say God allowed or caused the hurricane as a defense against America's abortion rate. If that were the case, why devastate communities in Mississippi, one of the most difficult states in which to receive an abortion? There are only 3 or 4 locations in Mississippi where a woman can go for such a procedure (and none in Gulfport or Biloxi). Surely other "targets" would have made this point more clearly.

And here's more data (direct link not possible) to discount Robertson's ramblings as absurd: in Mississippi in 2000, 14% of all pregnancies and 16% of teen pregnancies resulted in abortion, accounting for .3% of abortions in the United States; Louisiana's share was higher, accounting for 1% of US abortions, but their percentage was lower, as 12% of all pregnancies and 13% of teen pregnancies resulted in abortion. If God were punishing America for legally allowing abortion, why hit states with proportionately low figures?

I was disappointed that Springer didn't pick up on Robertson's assertion that terrorists, too, act on God's behalf. But I want to follow up on Springer's comments a little further, because he made exactly the kind of statement I used to make after 9/11/01. While the usual suspects (Falwell & Robertson, e.g.) were busy blaming America, others were scrambling to show just how God was working to help. Look, they'd point out, the planes were relatively empty, and, My, an awful lot of people were late to work! God, they offered, was super-busy that morning, diverting traffic & resetting alarms, doing all kinds of things to stop people from winding up in harms way. Two responses scream back. First: What, then, do you say to the families of those who were killed in the attack? That God didn't care enough about them to protect them and save their lives? This shows their argument to be callous and presumptive, assuming to know something about how & why God 'saved' certain people from harm. Second: Instead of trying to effectively re-direct the lives of thousands of people, why didn't God just do something about the nineteen terrorists? This shows their argument to confess of some weakness of God's part, that God couldn't do this. God didn't even have to intervene on all 19 - for example, all God had to do was alert a handful of security guards of their presence, or cause a computer glitch to prevent them from boarding the planes while working in other ways to expose their plan. Don't misunderstand, I believe God was very much present and active, but one thing it appears clearly that God does not do is direct our day to day behaviors. And I assert that that is a good thing, that we are not simply marionettes on strings.

wow, it took 'em nearly two weeks!

from Media Matters, Robertson again proved capable of spewing hate and ignorance (oh, and some very anti-Christian theology):

Religious conservatives claim Katrina was God's omen, punishment for the United States

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, some religious conservatives have speculated that the storm was sent by God as an omen or as a punishment for America's alleged sins. Media Matters for America has documented such statements from three religious conservative media figures: Pat Robertson, Hal Lindsey, and Charles Colson.
...
ROBERTSON: "I was reading, yesterday, a book that was very interesting about what God has to say in the Old Testament about those who shed innocent blood. And he used the term that those who do this, 'the land will vomit you out.' That -- you look at your -- you look at the book of Leviticus and see what it says there. And this author of this said, 'well 'vomit out' means you are not able to defend yourself.' But have we found we are unable somehow to defend ourselves against some of the attacks that are coming against us, either by terrorists or now by natural disaster? Could they be connected in some way?"
...
LINDSEY: "It seems clear that the prophetic times I have been expecting for decades have finally arrived. And even worse, it appears that the judgment of America has begun."
...
COLSON: "Katrina gave us a preview of what America would look like if we fail to fight the war on terror. 'Did God have anything to do with Katrina?,' people ask. My answer is, he allowed it and perhaps he allowed it to get our attention so that we don't delude ourselves into thinking that all we have to do is put things back the way they were and life will be normal again."

Okay, so Lindsey is just a huge nut; unfortunately, he's a nut with a pretty big audience. Still, I'd put money on the fact that he will have to continue to "expect for decades" the end that he thinks has just begun. Colson decides that God destroyed the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people just to warn the United States not to go soft on terror? I'd like him to point that out in the Bible. Robertson, however, once again takes the cake: according to Robertson, God works on the side of terrorists who attack the United States. That's right. That's exactly what he suggests: Because we were defenseless against the hurricane, God sent it; we are defenseless against some attacks by terrorists; therefore, God must be sending them, too. And of course Robertson decides that the innocent blood we're shedding against God's will is by allowing abortions to take place. If God sent the terrorists to attack us, though, doesn't that make their blood innocent, too? Or even, somehow, holy? Yet we're shedding not only their blood but the blood of thousands of people who are innocent by any measure.

When are people going to wake up and see that this guy isn't a man of faith? Hell, none of these guys are, not really. They all have an agenda that blinds them to at least 90% of the Gospel. Or maybe Jesus didn't mean all those things he said about loving our enemy, practicing forgiveness, giving to anyone who asks for aid, proclaiming release to the captives, giving sight to the blind, oh, and not worrying about the 'last days'/ end times / end of the age because no one knows about that time except God.

trapped inside the nightmare...

Here's a story by two who were trapped in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina hit that is not to be missed. A highlight:

We also suspect the media will have been inundated with "hero" images of the National Guard, the troops and the police struggling to help the "victims" of the Hurricane. What you will not see, but what we witnessed,were the real heroes and sheroes of the hurricane relief effort: the working class of New Orleans. The maintenance workers who used a fork lift to carry the sick and disabled. The engineers, who rigged, nurtured and kept the generators running. The electricians who improvised thick extension cords stretching over blocks to share the little electricity we had in order to free cars stuck on rooftop parking lots. Nurses who took over for mechanical ventilators and spent many hours on end manually forcing air into the lungs of unconscious patients to keep them alive. Doormen who rescued folks stuck in elevators. Refinery workers who broke into boat yards, "stealing" boats to rescue their neighbors clinging to their roofs in flood waters. Mechanics who helped hot-wire any car that could be found to ferry people out of the City. And the food service workers who scoured the commercial kitchens improvising communal meals for hundreds of those stranded.

Read it.

we must live into our dreams, not live in them

from a New York Times editorial:

Revising 9/11

On the first three anniversaries of Sept. 11, 2001, the nation had the grim luxury of uncluttered memory. We looked back on that day's events as the most terrible thing that could happen on American soil. Today, we are cursed with an unwanted expansion of that vision.
...
[B]y the time [Hurricane Katrina] died down and the floodwaters stopped rising, it became clear that this hurricane would force us to revise 9/11, which, until now, had defined the limits of tragedy in America.

Without realizing it, we had internalized what happened four years ago in a rather tidy story arc: Terrorists struck with brutal violence and the country responded. Everyone rose to the occasion...

We felt that 9/11 had changed our lives in an instant, that we had been jerked out of a pleasant dream. The difference in the blow that Katrina struck was not merely that we could see it coming. It was that, as a nation, we thought we were already fully awake.

I end a long day of posting perhaps where I should have begun: by remembering the tragic violence that struck the United States four years ago. It was said that a slumbering giant was awakened that day; much as the attack on Pearl Harbor drew the U.S. into World War II, so the attack on New York City and the Pentagon, and the plane downed in Pennsylvania, awoke Americans to another great peril. It is true, we were awakened.

But were we awakened to a great menace, a clear and present danger? Or were we merely awakened from one form of self-delusion to another? After all, the attack of 9/11/01 happened, we might argue, because we fell asleep to world affairs. Americans simply were not paying attention to world events. The captivating headlines of that summer were about shark attacks: and that despite the fact that the number of such attacks was not unusually high. Then the Twin Towers were hit, smoke was seen over the Capitol, and we were shocked out of the security of the world we had created (if only in our minds) with one resounding question: Osama who?

It was a name most Americans were not familiar with. But some were; some had known him since they helped arm him, train him, and assist him and the Taliban in fighting against the Soviet Union. That he later turned on the US was an embarrassment. But because he was such an unknown to the American public, he was a much smaller embarrassment than was Saddam Hussein - "our son-of-a-bitch." Remember, it is possible that the chemical agents Saddam used to gas the Kurds were supplied to him by the United States.

But I digress. I love the NYT editorial's simply elegant suggestion that 9/11 jerked us out of one dream long enough for us to create a "rather tidy story arc" and then fall into another dream state. Our first dream was that all was well with the world. Our second dream was that all will be well with the world, if we just trust our leaders and go shopping. We traded our freedoms and personal liberties for an illusion of security. We bought a false story (that Saddam was an imminent, "mushroom-cloud" threat - sold to us, of course, by those most embarrassed by the way he turned on them/the US) because we wanted to return to our pleasant state of ignorance. We trusted; we trusted things would get done. Hurricane Katrina proved that nothing has been done that has made us more prepared for disaster. Even with warning, most responders (FEMA and Homeland Security topping the list) fell flat on their faces. The cost for our selfish ignorance? Suffering and death for thousands of people (mostly poor and mostly black).

What should we do to remember the victims of 9/11? What should we do to honor them and the victims of Hurricane Katrina? We should not allow ourselves to be lulled into another dream state. We should plug back in to the world. We should pay attention to world events (like the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and its spread in Pakistan), to scientific discoveries (like global warning, which hardly counts as a 'discovery' these days, except to a few deniers), to the plight of people in foreign places (like those suffering in Sudan; as often as President Bush has stood in the devastation that Hurricane Katrina wrought and referred to it as "this part of the world" [on Sept. 2: twice in Alabama before arriving in the disaster area, twice more in Biloxi, MS, and then four times in Kenner, LA!; and on Sept. 5: twice in a very short speech in Poplarville, MS], Louisiana and Mississippi are not in a foreign country). We should especially pay attention to the way that our lifestyle choices - everything from guzzling gas to shopping for the cheapest clothing - leads to the enslavement or even killing of innocent people.

Too many of our leaders in government and big business are hoping, right now, that Americans settle back into an even deeper cycle of sleep, as it were. We should pay attention to them, as well. Because while many do have the best interests of the American people at heart, the temptation to worship the throne of power and feed at the trough of the almighty dollar is constant. Do we have the strength and moral fortitude to stay awake? It will not be pleasant. It will force us to challenge much that we take for granted. But the alternative is simply more of the same: pleasant dreams for a time, followed by yet another rude awakening. And who knows? Next time it might be you or I who isn't privileged to wake up. Would we really want some cheap platitudes offered in our memory as a way of hypnotizing people back into their REM cycle?

Jesus used to say, "Let those with ears listen." Now, most everyone he met had ears that worked just fine, of course: the problem was that many people chose not to use them.

what would a Christian leader do?

Cornel West writes about Hurricane Katrina & Race:

In the end George Bush has to take responsibility. When [the rapper] Kanye West said the President does not care about black people, he was right, although the effects of his policies are different from what goes on in his soul. You have to distinguish between a racist intent and the racist consequences of his policies. Bush is still a 'frat boy', making jokes and trying to please everyone while the Neanderthals behind him push him more to the right.
…
Bush talks about God, but he has forgotten the point of prophetic Christianity is compassion and justice for those who have least. Hip-hop has the anger that comes out of post-industrial, free-market America, but it lacks the progressiveness that produces [organizations] that will threaten the status quo. There has not been a giant since King, someone prepared to die and create an insurgency where many are prepared to die to upset the corporate elite. The Democrats are spineless.
…
[N]ow that the aid is pouring in, vital as it is, do not confuse charity with justice. I'm not asking for a revolution, I am asking for reform. A Marshall Plan for the South could be the first step.

war without end may spell the end for life as we know it

Norman Solomon, writing about the post-9/11 manipulation of America, reminds us of a NYT editorial published by Rumsfeld on 9-27-01 and other, more prescient warnings:

Purporting to be no-nonsense, the message from the Pentagon's civilian head was expansive to the point of limitlessness: "Forget about 'exit strategies'; we're looking at a sustained engagement that carries no deadlines."
…
In late November 2002, a retired U.S. Army general, William Odom, told C-SPAN viewers: "Terrorism is not an enemy. It cannot be defeated. It's a tactic. It's about as sensible to say we declare war on night attacks and expect we're going to win that war. We're not going to win the war on terrorism. And it does whip up fear. Acts of terror have never brought down liberal democracies. Acts of parliament have closed a few."

Solomon concludes:

[M]ass media and politicians still facilitate the destructive policies of the Bush administration. From Baghdad to New Orleans to cities and towns that will never make headlines in the national press, the dominant corporate priorities have made a killing. Those priorities hold sway not only for the Iraq war but also for the entire "war on terrorism."

While military spending zooms upward, a downward slide continues for education, health care, housing, environmental protection, emergency preparedness and a wide array of other essentials. Across the United States, communities are suffering grim consequences. "Now it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war," Martin Luther King Jr. said in 1967. The same statement is profoundly true in 2005.

*emphasis mine

soldiers for hire; goons already on the job

In a NYT piece that explains much about the response to Hurricane Katrina but is soft on examining competing claims, I came across this interesting tid-bit:

Pentagon, White House and Justice officials debated for two days whether the president should seize control of the relief mission from Governor Blanco. But they worried about the political fallout of stepping on the state's authority, according to the officials involved in the discussions. They ultimately rejected the idea and instead decided to try to speed the arrival of National Guard forces, including many trained as military police.

Paul McHale, the assistant secretary of defense for homeland security, explained that decision in an interview this week. "Could we have physically moved combat forces into an American city, without the governor's consent, for purposes of using those forces - untrained at that point in law enforcement - for law enforcement duties? Yes."

But, he asked, "Would you have wanted that on your conscience?"

Funny.  The federal government had no problem securing soldiers-for-hire to patrol the streets of New Orleans:

Heavily armed paramilitary mercenaries from the Blackwater private security firm, infamous for their work in Iraq, are openly patrolling the streets of New Orleans.

But they aren’t government troops.  So that makes it okay.
Oh, and from the same NYT piece comes more stories that border on criminal:

Hundreds of firefighters, who responded to a nationwide call for help in the disaster, were held by the federal agency in Atlanta for days of training on community relations and sexual harassment before being sent on to the devastated area. The delay, some volunteers complained, meant lives were being lost in New Orleans.

"On the news every night you hear, 'How come everybody forgot us?' " said Joseph Manning, a firefighter from Washington, Pa., told The Dallas Morning News. "We didn't forget. We're stuck in Atlanta drinking beer."
…
William D. Vines, a former mayor of Fort Smith, Ark., helped deliver food and water to areas hit by the hurricane. But he said FEMA halted two trailer trucks carrying thousands of bottles of water to Camp Beauregard, near Alexandria, La., a staging area for the distribution of supplies.

"FEMA would not let the trucks unload," Mr. Vines said in an interview. "The drivers were stuck for several days on the side of the road about 10 miles from Camp Beauregard. FEMA said we had to have a 'tasker number.' What in the world is a tasker number? I have no idea. It's just paperwork, and it's ridiculous."

Senator Blanche Lincoln, Democrat of Arkansas, who interceded on behalf of Mr. Vines, said, "All our Congressional offices have had difficulty contacting FEMA. Governors' offices have had difficulty contacting FEMA." When the state of Arkansas repeatedly offered to send buses and planes to evacuate people displaced by flooding, she said, "they were told they could not go. I don't really know why."

On Aug. 31, Sheriff Edmund M. Sexton, Sr., of Tuscaloosa County, Ala., and president of the National Sheriffs' Association, sent out an alert urging members to pitch in.

"Folks were held up two, three days while they were working on the paperwork," he said.

Some sheriffs refused to wait. In Wayne County, Mich., which includes Detroit, Sheriff Warren C. Evans got a call from Mr. Sexton on Sept. 1 The next day, he led a convoy of six tractor-trailers, three rental trucks and 33 deputies, despite public pleas from Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm to wait for formal requests.

"I could look at CNN and see people dying, and I couldn't in good conscience wait for a coordinated response," he said. He dropped off food, water and medical supplies in Mobile and Gonzales, La., where a sheriffs' task force directed him to the French Quarter. By Saturday, Sept. 3, the Michigan team was conducting search and rescue missions.

"We lost thousands of lives that could have been saved," Sheriff Evans said.

on the day Brutus betrayed Caesar, our American Caesar betrayed his own brutality

from an Agence France Presse report:

A new draft US defense paper calls for preventive nuclear strikes against state and non-state adversaries in order to deter them from using weapons of mass destruction and urges US troops to "prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively."

The document, titled 'Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations' and dated March 15, was put together by the Pentagon's Joint Staff in at attempt to adapt current procedures to the fast-changing world after the September 11, 2001, attacks, said a defense official.

Wait, it's not as bad as it sounds...

But the official, who spoke to AFP late Saturday on condition of anonymity, said it has not yet been signed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and thus has not been made official policy.

"It's in the process of being considered," the official said.

Never mind.

This is despicable. It's like we're looking for a reason to return to the height of the Cold War, a reason to live just the push of a button away from annihilation. Our government leaders spend so much time and energy decrying those who seek nuclear weapons (think North Korea and Iran) as lunatics. Isn't it lunacy to draw up a policy that gives at least eight different excuses for setting the world on a path of utter destruction? What makes our leaders think, once a nuclear weapon is deployed, that no one will strike back? That no one will say, enough is enough, America is too proud? Because it wouldn't take much, in nuclear terms, for a rapid and devastating response. Under nuclear threat, Gandhi's wisdom needs a bit of an update: "A nuclear bomb for a nuclear bomb, and the whole world is a wasteland."

The article ends with the following comment - which I would love to hear more about because it sounds like baloney to me:

The doctrine reminds that while first use of nuclear weapons may draw condemnation, "no customary or conventional international law prohibits nations from employing nuclear weapons in armed conflict."

The Water is Going Down Slowly. The President's Popularity is Sinking Like a Stone

"Brownie's" out of the picture, sort-of, but the disconnect continues; from The Independent (UK):

...President Bush at first told his emergency management chief, Michael Brown, that he was doing 'a heck of a job', only to relieve him of his hurricane relief responsibilities on Friday.

Mr Brown, and the administration, had endured days of intense criticism about the dearth of federal aid for days after Katrina hit. And Mr Brown only confirmed the widespread impression that he was completely unsuitable for the job by telling reporters in flood-stricken Louisiana moments after being ordered back to Washington: "I'm going to go home and walk my dog and hug my wife and maybe get a good Mexican meal and a stiff margarita and a full night's sleep."

As many commentators were quick to point out, the victims he had let down and left behind were sadly not afforded the same opportunity. Even conservative commentators have expressed their amazement at the apparent frivolity of President Bush and his allies in the face of the worst natural disaster in American history.

Texas congressman Tom DeLay, arguably the most powerful man in the House of Representatives, added his voice to a string of gaffes from the Bush family and others by telling a group of evacuees in a Houston shelter that their experiences were not all that different from attending summer camp.

"Now tell me the truth boys," Mr DeLay said, "is this kind of fun?"

Oh yeah, the article also comments on latest poll numbers: Bush's popularity is under 40 percent and 65 percent now say the country is headed in the wrong direction!

*emphasis mine

some 'Informed Comment'

from one who knows his stuff:

US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield maintains that the US government can both take care of New Orleans and pursue the "global war on terror."

Uh, Donald, let's look at this situation. First, much of New Orleans is under water. You stole money that should have been spent on its levees for the Iraq War, and you stole state national guards from Louisiana to fight in Iraq. (The state national guards hadn't signed up to fight foreign wars and were surprised when you kidnapped them, sometimes for a whole year at a time.) So you haven't actually done a good job with the effects of Katrina in New Orleans. In fact, the job has been so bad that some wags are saying they can't believe you personally were not in charge of the recovery effort.

Then let's consider the war against al-Qaeda. ... Bin Laden and Zawahiri are at large and free men, which is your failure.

Then there is the war in Iraq. I don't need to tell you that that isn't going very well. ...

You left out the fourth war Bush is fighting, on the US poor. The average wage of the average American work[er] fell last quarter, amidst rising corporate profits. Bush cut billions in taxes on the rich, and then gave $300 checks to some poor people, who didn't seem to realize that by taking it they were giving up all sorts of government services and maybe even their social security payments.

So, Donald, maybe it is true that you can save New Orleans, occupy Iraq and fight a global war on terror all at the same time. But you, at leas[t], cannot actually do these things successfully. Which is why you should have resigned a long time ago.

Read more of his insight, and news from the Middle East, here.

*Emphasis mine.

Quote of the Day

from Honor Their Sacrifice, Jonathan Schell writes:

A majority of the American public now looks on the war as a mistake, but most of the leaders of the so-called opposition party have failed to articulate an antiwar position. In the resulting silence, only the deaths are speaking. The loss of soldiers' and civilians' lives is the price of the politicians' gutlessness.

*emphasis mine

timeline of failure

I've found two time-lines, so far. One is from ThinkProgress and it lays out the details in black and white, referencing and linking to official statements by the Governor and the President as well as numerous news outlets and other sources.

The second one is less detailed, but presents enough facts and legitimate sound-bites to convey the President's attitude. Oh, and it's in video format, a segment from the Daily Show. (I watched all the interviews excerpted here, and in fuller context Bush still sounded like a jerk.)

as if we needed more proof

These headlines speak for themselves:

Bush Launches Inquiry and Puts Himself in Charge of It
*simply outrageous
FEMA Blocking Photos of Katrina's Dead
*hmm...sounds familiar - like their pattern of denial
Barbara Bush: Houston Shelter is 'Working Very Well' for Poor
*this one from the New York Post!

I've seen enough.

I've resisted saying more about the disaster that was Hurricane Katrina - and the disaster that was the failure of our government to respond. I've resisted, because I've felt that the most important thing is focusing on those who need help, those still waiting for food, medicine, even rescue! I've also resisted, because our corporate media has awakened from its slumber and actually done it's job this time! (You should've heard me cheering as Ted Kopple gave Michael Brown, head of FEMA, a good whooping - exactly what he deserved, I might add.) But my anger and frustration have smoothed out now to where I can calmly recount the things that should not have happened:

Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Card should not have remained on vacation. From the moment the seriousness of the IMPENDING storm were clear (which, at the least, was 48 hours before Katrina made landfall), they should have been on top of the situation. Instead, they stayed on vacation, and as of 48 hours after, were seen: fund-raising (Bush), fishing (Cheney), shoe shopping (Rice), and not at all (Card). This should not have happened.

Buses and emergency transportation, which were needed, again, 48 hours before landfall, were not sent in until at least 48 hours after. One bus driver for FEMA reported being ready and in his bus Monday afternoon, yet his boss wouldn't let him leave until Friday morning. This should not have happened.

Soldiers in the National Guard and other Armed Forces should not have been sent beginning Tuesday, or Wednesday, or even later. Navy ships that could both house people and supply water should not have been sent Thursday and Friday. These military units should have been sent as close as possible on Saturday & Sunday, poised to move in Monday as soon as the storm passed. Instead, soldiers were seen across flooded rivers, up on dry ground, playing basketball because no one gave them any orders to help. This should not have happened.

Then again, the diminished troop strength and shortage of equiment (including at least 1/3 of Louisiana's National Guard and 50% of their equipment, even their wet-land vehicles!) hurt any response. These absent soldiers and supplies are stretched thin protecting and rebuilding in Iraq, leaving us in precarious predicaments at home of which we were well aware. Yet, they were sent anyway. This should not have happened.

Looters stealing everything from TVs and stereo equipment to drugs and guns made the situation worse for many and are a national disgrace. This should not have happened.

President Bush going on national television and declaring a zero tolerance policy toward looters, whether they were stealing TVs or food, water, and baby formula for survival, was also a national disgrace. This should not have happened.

Then again, I could go on about the things President Bush did and did not do. He flew over once and said it looked bad. Feeling the pressure, he went back and joked about his drinking days in New Orleans, praised those who had bungled operations while declaring that the response was not enough (which is it, Mr. President?), refused to answer direct questions about what went wrong and why more wasn't done, and then pointed out that, Hey, Trent Lott lost a house in this storm, too! That this happened, all of this, his lame, shrugged-shoulders response, should be no surprise to any of us by now.

There's plenty more I'm leaving out. Like how Wal-Mart (gotta give credit where it's due though I've plenty of bones to pick with them) tried to send in trucks full of water on either Tues or Wed, and FEMA refused to let them distribute it. Or how FEMA didn't know about the thousands of people who sought refuge at the Convention Center until Thursday. Or how the Bush administration continues to disavow global warming which did not cause this storm but definitely made it worse. Or how the Bush administration slashed money budgeted for levee support and an emergency response plan, even after Congress had approved some of the funds. And they didn't just slash it once, they slashed it year after year, against the protests of community leaders and reporting by the widely circulated Times-Picayune (which, by the way, predicted the possibility of such a disaster several years ago while Bush still claims 'No one could have predicted it.') and even against the protests of the Army Corps of Engineers. Or, speaking of predictions, how prior to 9/11, a major hurricane & flooding in New Orleans were predicted by the federal government as one of the three worst possible events that America could suffer (another being a terrorist attack on New York City, which, again, 'No one could have predicted it.') The price tag for this disaster will easily be 100 times what better protection and prevention would have cost, and that's just early estimates on how the economy will react. And I must offer at least one statement to 'big oil': these are the biggest looters of all, as their $1-$5 million gifts to the Red Cross are but a drop in the bucket compared to the billions they will rake in as a result of this tragedy.

I've rambled enough. My heart still breaks for all who suffer, for those who have lost loved ones and for those who have lost their whole livelihood. But it boils at the level of incompetence that has been displayed from the very top, and there is no doubt in my mind that no one deserves as much blame for the continuing tragedy as President Bush.

Now, a little faith context is appropriate:
The Old Testament calls us again and again to take care of the widows, orphans, and foreigners (strangers) among us: these are the people who had the least means for taking care of themselves. Jesus made this calling the heart of his ministry. Who was left behind as hundreds of thousands fled the storm? The elderly, the sick, the homeless, and thousands of working-poor who don't have a car, couldn't afford gas or a bus ticket or any other way out. For a 'Chrsitian nation,' we have a lot of work to do. Personal piety is not enough. Jesus made it his mission to break down barriers of class, wealth, and ethnicity as he worked to heal and set free. He challenged both the imperial powers that reigned in his time and also the complacent religious leaders of his day who were satisfied with their own self-gratification but turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the needs of their people. I should add that it is absolutely absurd and a grievous sin to declare that this storm was in some way a punishment from God: no, it only had the effect of highlighting the sins of humankind - our selfishness, greed, our lack of mercy, shortage of justice, and failure to walk faithfully with God in times of great need. There is one school of Christian thought which says: the focus is on getting myself to heaven with Jesus. There is another faith that says: we have a responsibility to work with Jesus/God/Holy Spirit on realizing heaven here & now, and that ain't none of us gonna get there unless we all get there together. Guess which one I hold as a more authentic faith? Jesus Christ fought against the neglect of the poorest and neediest while releasing those people from such bondage. We are free people, beneficiaries of Christ's grace, blessed to reach out while we reach up. It's time we started acting like it.

speaking of catastrophe

from Decades of Denial:
Guess who said it:

The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our nation.

Any guesses? Think someone recent, maybe a leftist climatologist or rogue oil executive? Nope - it was President Jimmy Carter, speaking in July, 1979.

Twenty-six years later, we're still fiddling while New Orleans sinks and gas prices rise.

The immediate cost is evident at my neighborhood service station: Regular gasoline there cost $3.29 a gallon yesterday, roughly 15 cents for each local mile driven.

The longer-term cost will be greater. Scientists already are debating whether we've waited too long to reverse the process of global warming. But surely intelligent policy could slow it down.

No one can say with certainty that a given storm, Katrina, resulted from global warming. But we can say with certainty that insurance companies have had to shell out billions more in catastrophic coverage over the last decade than previous decades. We can say with certainty that this summer has seen a remarkable surge in early-season hurricanes and tropical storms. We can say with certainty that mean temperatures in much of the world are on the rise. And we can say with certainty that American politicians, the public and the press have yet to make global warming or energy independence priority issues.

The time to do so is long overdue.

We were given the responsibility of being caretakers for creation. The worse job we do at that, the more creation seems to fight back.