ALLIANCE - Presidential confidant Karl Rove painted a bleak picture Wednesday of what would happen if the United States walked away from the global war on terror.
``We are foolish if we think we can turn away from this threat and draw inward, and they will not come,'' President Bush's chief political strategist told an audience of about 400 at the Mount Union Theater.
Right. Iraq is our Minas Tirith. Gee, where did I hear that stupidity before? You have to hand it to Bush's Brain to model the White House's political strategy on the desperate, imbecilic blatherings of a guy who just got stomped in an election not six months ago.
Did somebody--anybody--ever really believe this evil little toad was a political genius?
Oh, that's right! Bush did and does. Calls him his "turd blossom". And he got that half right.
Will someone please put the White House's chief political strategist in touch with the White House's CIA? They'll be more than happy to tell him Iraq is not keeping any terrorists put. Iraq is training and exporting them.
That's why world wide terrorism has actually increased since the Iraq War and not decreased.
In his speech, Rove said the White House ``is not about easy things. It is about making big, tough decisions.''
Actually, the White House--this White House--is all about screwing up, making things as difficult as they could possibly be, and then leaving the really tough decisions to "future presidents".
In a question-and-answer period after his speech, Rove was asked whose idea it was to start a pre-emptive war."
"I think it was Osama bin Laden's,'' Rove replied.
That's it.
Stop. Cut his mic. Seize his laptop. Take his keys. Change the locks. Give away his parking space. Empty out his desk, and box up the million or so missing emails and forward them to any Federal penitentiary of his choosing.
But enough.
Do not let this little, twisted, freakishly shameless liar say one more word on behalf of The People of the great United States of America.
Seriously.
Enough is enough.
bin Laden's in Pakistan. He was in Afghanistan. Until the Bush administration let him go. bin Laden hated Saddam. Saddam hated him. And both of them hated Iran.
So stop with the idiotic "they" thing, as well. You're talking about a bunch of different people who've got nothing to do with each other.
I get that Rove isn't talking to the rest of the civilized world, which would just laugh at him and pelt him with garbage. I get that Rove isn't talking to the sixty five percent of Americans who disapprove of nearly everything he does. I get that Rove isn't talking to career federal civil servants, who think that the only reason Karl Rove has not yet been indicted is simply that no prosecutor has yet asked Karl Rove the right question in front of a Grand Jury.
And I get that Karl Rove is talking to the 32% of Americans who would still support George Bush even if he performed a partial birth abortion for Sandra Day O'Connor to dispose of Bill Clinton's love child.
On live Tee Vee.
I get that. And I don't care. Those people don't surprise me anymore. They don't care about America, or the Constitution, or the Rule of Law, or Family Values, or any values or morals, or ethics at all.
They just care about "their" team beating "Them". Whether "Them" is Islamoseculardictatoranarchistfascists or "Them" is democrats. In America. Whatever. The thirty two percenters are up for Total War.
And you can't stop it ever. And you can't reason with it. These people are what they are. A virulent strain of human herpes that lie dormant for years, sometimes decades, but will always flare up, violently, in extremely unpleasant, lifestyle altering ways.
There's nothing you can ever do about it.
And that's horrible. But it's okay. An overwhelming number of Americans--and the entire rest of the world--reject these dead enders.
But, again, what's not okay is that an unelected, retarded little evil garden gnome who gleefully lies even to the few remaining simpletons and rubes who still trust him resides in the White House and speaks on behalf of The Great United States.
That's unacceptable.
Karl Rove is not worthy of his national heritage. And he is far too small and despicable to be allowed to tarnish it.
The Food and Drug Administration has known for years about contamination problems at a Georgia peanut butter plant and on California spinach farms that led to disease outbreaks that killed three people, sickened hundreds, and forced one of the biggest product recalls in U.S. history, documents and interviews show.
Overwhelmed by huge growth in the number of food processors and imports, however, the agency took only limited steps to address the problems and relied on producers to police themselves, according to agency documents.
Gee, never mind the fact that that is--what? Every federal agency that since Bush came into office that no longer works?
The FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the Defense Department, the Treasury Department, FEMA, the Education Department, the Justice Department, and even some departments that didn't even exist until Bush came into office, like, um, the Department of Homeland Security.
In the wake of September 11th, wasn't fear of terrorism in our food supply like a giant concern???
And six years later, the FDA, under Bush, who would do anything, including torture and murder people, and wage war to protect the Murcan people, is overwhelmed, not by terrorist threats, but by domestic spinach farms???
In six years, these people haven't done anything to protect the United States from terrorism.
The last six years have been the greatest, most unrelenting fraud in the history of the world.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Nine U.S. soldiers were killed Monday when a suicide car bomb struck near their patrol base in Diyala province, the U.S. military said in a statement.
Twenty other U.S. soldiers and one Iraqi civilian were wounded in the attack, the statement said.
Earlier, in a separate incident, the military said a U.S. soldier was killed in Muqtadya, northeast of Baghdad, by a roadside bomb.
Muqtadya is a city in Diyala province located about 25 miles (40 kilometers) northeast of the provincial capital of Baquba.
Earlier Monday, a suicide car bomber targeted a gathering of police vehicles in Baquba, killing six police officers, including a police general, a Diyala province police official said.
Despite the daily attacks across Iraq, thousands of Iraqis took to the streets Monday to protest a concrete wall surrounding Adhamiya, a Sunni neighborhood in Baghdad.
KABUL, Afghanistan - An Army sergeant complained in a rare opinion article that the U.S. flag flew at half-staff last week at the largest U.S. base in Afghanistan for those killed at Virginia Tech but the same honor is not given to fallen U.S. troops here and in Iraq.
In the article issued Monday by the public affairs office at Bagram military base north of Kabul, Sgt. Jim Wilt lamented that his comrades’ deaths have become a mere blip on the TV screen, lacking the “shock factor” to be honored by the Stars and Stripes as the deaths at Virginia Tech were.
“I find it ironic that the flags were flown at half-staff for the young men and women who were killed at VT, yet it is never lowered for the death of a U.S. service member,” Wilt wrote.
The reason is, of course, because the leaders of the modern Gee Oh Pee can picture themselves or their loved ones actually on a college campus.
Q Mr. President, how would you respond to the rather mistaken idea that the war in Iraq is becoming a war in Vietnam?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you. There's a lot of differences. First, the Iraqi people voted for a modern constitution, and then set up a government under that constitution…
Amazing, isn’t it?
Here’s a guy who fully supported the war in Vietnam—up to actually serving in it—who still supports it to this day, and who has said the only lesson we should learn from Vietnam is that we shouldn’t let the politicians interfere with War, and this guy is saying the difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that, in Iraq, there’s a legitimate government.
I’m not arguing Vietnam. I don’t care. It’s done. I’m just saying here’s a guy who till this day thinks Vietnam was worth fighting even though South Vietnam had an illegitimate government.
He's saying Iraq is worth fighting for, while Vietnam wasn't, even though he thinks Vietnam was worth fighting.
Does he even understand English?
Apparently not, as the Iraqis voted for a modern Constitution that said, quite clearly:
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
That's right. The Iraqis voted for a Constitution so modern it was based upon the fifteen hundred year old tenets of Islam. And yer Preznit thinks that's a modern Constitution.
And it was translated into English and everything.
Secondly, the -- that's as opposed to two divided countries: north and south. In my judgment, the vast majority of people want to live underneath that constitution they passed.
Again, this is a statement coming from a guy who still supports the war we fought in Vietnam. And he's saying, "Iraq is different from Vietnam because, unlike in Iraq, in Vietnam, there was no legitimate government and most of the people didn't want to live underneath the government of South Vietnam...but don't get me wrong! We were right to try to make them."
The Worst History Major Who Ever Lived goes on to say:
A major difference as far as here at home is concerned is that our military is an all-volunteer army, and we need to keep it that way. By the way, the way you keep it that way is to make sure our troops have all they need to do their job, and to make sure their families are happy.
I won't even get into the fact that the War Preznit who thinks a major difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that Iraq is being fought by an all volunteer army that needs to be kept that way in order to fight wars George Bush supports answered this question in this way in the first war he supported:
Among the questions Bush had to answer on his application forms was whether he wanted to go overseas. Bush checked the box that said: "do not volunteer."
Or, maybe I'm crazy. Maybe Bush is right! Iraq is winnable because we have an all volunteer army, whereas Vietnam was not winnable because dickheads, like Bush, could elect to "not volunteer".
It wasn't Bush's fault. Politicians in Washington gave him the option, after all. Unlike his administration.
Which has used "stop loss" orders to force tens of thousands of American troops to "volunteer" to serve in Iraq even after their voluntary terms of service were over.
"Stop-loss," a policy used by the Army to keep US soldiers and reservists in the military beyond the date when their service was supposed to end, has been used on more than 50,000 members of the armed forces since the war in Iraq began.
And called up the Independent Ready Reserves, who apparently are not real keen on "volunteering" anymore:
Only about one-fifth of 10,000 veteran officers in the Army’s Individual Ready Reserve say they’re willing to be deployed overseas, an Army survey shows. It suggests souring attitudes within the military toward U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And cracked down on "volunteers" who, like President George W. Bush, actually "do not volunteer":
NEW YORK -- Army prosecutions of desertion and other unauthorized absences have risen sharply in the last four years, resulting in thousands more negative discharges and prison time for both junior soldiers and combat-tested veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Army records show.
The increase in prosecutions is meant to serve as a deterrent to a growing number of soldiers who are ambivalent about heading -- or heading back -- to Iraq and might be looking for a way out, several Army lawyers said.
Using courts-martial for these violations, which before 2002 were treated mostly as unpunished nuisances, is a sign that active-duty forces are being stretched to their limits, said military lawyers and mental health specialists.
And has waived just about every requirement except having a pulse for "volunteer" service:
About 17% of the first-time recruits, or about 13,600, were accepted under waivers for various medical, moral or criminal problems, including misdemeanor arrests or drunk driving. That is a slight increase from last year, the Army said.
And offered modest bonuses to retain it's highly trained "volunteers":
As part of its effort, the
military is paying more to draw volunteers — double- to triple-figure
bonuses depending on rank. According to Wheeler, Special Forces are
getting anywhere from $140,000 to $160,000 to re-enlist.
And forcefully forced "volunteers" to "volunteer" more service:
April 11, 2007 — The Pentagon will extend the tours of duty for every active-duty soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan…
Forget small extensions and trickles of National Guard troops. Under the plan, deployments for active-duty soldiers will be extended from the current 12 months to 15 months.
Oh, gosh! If we had only had such "volunteers" in Vietnam, the War President himself might have been forced to "volunteer". Then Bush could have single-handedly flown his F-100 into downtown Hanoi, advanced under the cover of his media stunning cock blocker, and water boarded Ho Chi Minh into submission himself.
If only the dang politicians hadn't interfered with forcing young Muricans like Bush to "volunteer".
Well, what the heck? (See, I wrote "heck" in case David Broder was reading my blog and looking for foul mouthed vituperative bloggers. That desiccated douchebag is not going to fucking find one here, that's for damn sure!)
Why aren't there more volunteers? I mean, George W. Bush has been on the job, ensuring that American volunteers have, um, "all they need to do their job", which is retarded simian for, I guess, have the necessary equipment to fight this war.
Like, in the initial invasion of Iraq:
WASHINGTON , Feb. 2 — The first official Army history of the Iraq war reveals that American forces were plagued by a "morass" of supply shortages, radios that could not reach far-flung troops, disappointing psychological operations and virtually no reliable intelligence on how Saddam Hussein would defend Baghdad...
...Tank engines sat on warehouse shelves in Kuwait with no truck drivers to take them north. Broken-down trucks were scavenged for usable parts. Artillery units cannibalized parts from captured Iraqi guns to keep their howitzers operating. Army medics foraged medical supplies from combat hospitals.
In most cases, soldiers improvised solutions to keep the offensive rolling. But the study found that the Third Infantry Division, the Army's lead combat force, was within two weeks of being halted by a lack of spare parts, and Army logisticians had no effective distribution system.
And years afterwords:
Q: Yes, Mr. Secretary. Our soldiers have been fighting in Iraq for coming up on three years. A lot of us are getting ready to move north relatively soon. Our vehicles are not armored. We’re digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that’s already been shot up, dropped, busted, picking the best out of this scrap to put on our vehicles to take into combat. We do not have proper armament vehicles to carry with us north.
SEC. RUMSFELD: I talked to the General coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored. They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they’re not needed, to a place here where they are needed. I’m told that they are being – the Army is – I think it’s something like 400 a month are being done. And it’s essentially a matter of physics. It isn’t a matter of money. It isn’t a matter on the part of the Army of desire. It’s a matter of production and capability of doing it.
As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time..
Or still years and years later:
WASHINGTON - Nearly a year after Congress demanded action, the Pentagon has still failed to figure out a way to reimburse soldiers for body armor and equipment they purchased to better protect themselves while serving in Iraq.
Soldiers and their parents are still spending hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars for armor they say the military won’t provide. One U.S. senator said Wednesday he will try again to force the Pentagon to obey the reimbursement law it opposed from the outset and has so far not implemented.
Ugh.
So our soldiers have chronically not had what they needed--from ammo, to body armor, to equipment armor, to spare parts, to ammo, to enough troops--to do the job. But what about that part about keeping the families of "volunteers" happy?
Commissaries and the Defense Department’s stateside schools are in the crosshairs of Pentagon budget cutters, and military advocates, families and even base commanders are up in arms… The two initiatives are the latest in a string of actions by the Bush administration to cut or hold down growth in pay and benefits, including basic pay, combat pay, health-care benefits and the death gratuity paid to survivors of troops who die on active duty.
Lord, anything else the Worst President Evah and Stupidest History Major of All Time has to make the Murican people unnerstan?
There are some similarities, of course -- death is terrible.
Can you believe we actually pay a salary, travel expense, and a security detail for that kind of stupidity to be delivered to our tee vee screens?
Another similarity, of course, is that Vietnam was the first time a war was brought to our TV screens here in America on a regular basis. I'm looking around looking for baby boomers; I see a few of us here. It's a different -- it was the first time that the violence and horror of war was brought home. That's the way it is today.
And, no. Again, the dumbest History Major in the History of the World is wrong again. Well, technically, he's right. No other war was brought to our tee vee screens, mostly because we didn't have tee vee screens.
But the horror and death of World War II was brought to our local movie theaters. Every week. Week in and week out.
As was Korea.
And the horrors and devastation of World War One and our American Civil War were brought to us in print in the most graphic terms.
And Americans never shied away from the blood or the violence or the sacrifice.
Americans were never daunted by the challenges or the hardships.
Americans have never lost their will.
But, like during Vietnam, the war which George W. Bush tells us was fought for an illegitimate government that was never supported by its people, the American people have never fully lost their sense of right or wrong.
And, once again, like during Vietnam, the American people realize they are being led by a Texan who is entirely full of shit, who has led his people into a war on false pretenses, who has no idea what he's talking about, who has stupidly and dishonestly led his country into a disaster, and that this disaster has no outcome more positive than the American people getting out it as soon as possible.
Though, you know, to be fair to Bush, there is one big difference between Vietnam and Iraq. Johnson got us into Vietnam. And it was an incredibly stupid, wasteful, unnecessary, decade long fiasco.
Dick Cheney demonstrating how reptiles drink their coffee.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney says he is "willing to bet" that Democratic lawmakers will back down and approve a war-spending bill that doesn't call for U.S. troops to leave Iraq. A top Democratic leader shot back that Cheney has lost all public credibility.
With President Bush and Congress in a stalemate -- he plans to veto legislation that orders U.S. troops home, which the House and Senate plan to send him -- both sides are looking ahead. In an interview broadcast Sunday, Cheney predicted the Democrats will blink.
He said Congress will end up passing a "clean" bill that funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without any troop withdrawal timetables…
"There may be some people who are so irresponsible that they wouldn't support that," Cheney said.
Irresponsible.
That's tough talk from a guy who shot his friend in the face while hunting. Never mind that whole thing about committing a nation to war without anyplan on how to end it.
That was real responsible.
As for troop withdrawal timetables, gee, I wonder who those irresponsible "some people" might be...
67. Percentage of Americans who believe that Congress should allow funding only with a time limit (58 percent) or block all funding for the war in Iraq (9 percent), according to a new CBS poll.
Yeah, that's right--two out of three Americans.
He's a sociopathic monster and very nearly perfect in his utter stupidity, incompetence, and wrongheadedness.
But, I gotta tell you, it's almost worth having Dick Cheney around. Just for the laughs.
TPM Reader JP wrote in, so on the mark, saying this article in the Post reads like a joke piece ...
The White House wants to appoint a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies, but it has had trouble finding anyone able and willing to take the job, according to people close to the situation.
At least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks have declined to be considered for the position, the sources said, underscoring the administration's difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team after five years of warfare that have taxed the United States and its military.
The article's not the problem, mind you, but the subject matter. This is truly DC-czarism, 'we can't figure out what the hell we're doing so let's appoint a new bubble on the flowchart' run amok. Instead of 'czar' maybe we can just call the person 'training wheels'? Someone to oversee wars, the Pentagon, the State Department and everything else? Don't we elect that person every four years?
JP says it reminds him of this November 2005 piece from The Onion ...
In response to increasing criticism of his handling of the war in Iraq and the disaster in the Gulf Coast, as well as other issues, such as Social Security reform, the national deficit, and rising gas prices, President Bush is expected to appoint someone to run the U.S. as soon as Friday.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a better sign -- though wrapped in a humorous package -- of why this president really can't be trusted to be in charge of anything and why the Republic is genuinely in peril as long as this pitiful goof remains in office. Bush wants to find a general to do his job for him. But he can't get anyone to agree to do it.
And it is funny. Because it's true. Bushtold us as much when he originally ran for office and lost to Al Gore:
You might remember this astonishing moment, reported here by rabid right winger Michael Kelly, during the 2000 campaign:
In his [first foreign-policy address] Bush made seemingly knowledgeable mention of nuclear-arms reduction treaties, including START II. But when Russert asked Bush what number of nuclear weapons he would consider acceptable for the United States and for Russia, Bush could only reply: "That's going to depend upon generals helping me make that decision, Tim."
That's right! Candidate Bush brought up START II in his own foreign policy speech. And Candidate Bush trumpeted his position as a reason the American people should vote for him. But when he was actually asked, now that you bring it up, Govner, what exactly is your position?
Bush said, "That's going to depend on what other people tell me."
And his responses about nearly everything were like that. You know, Bush talked about a humble, isolationist foreign policy. Mostly because, after fifty years on this earth, and a Yale education, and a father who had been an ambassador, the head of the CIA, the Vice President, and the President, he didn't know dick about the world. Nothing.
Bush knew about Texas. And Saudi Arabia. After that, the globe was a big freaking mystery to him. He didn't know and, frankly, he didn't care.
Whenever anybody asked Bush about the world outside of Saudi America, he would laugh, call them "Stretch" or "Baldy" or "Legs", and tell 'em he's gonna have hisself a whole posse of for'n policy experts and four star genrils to tell him what to do.
Bush didn't need to know hisself nuthin'. Hell, if'n he wuz da Preznit, he'd have hisself a whole room full of computers! Just a wirrin' and a giggin' and a spittin' forth answers to questions people ain't even a asked yet!
Bush sounded like the quintessential upper management moron--he didn't need to know the details. Hell, he'd pay people to know the damn details! All he needed to do was yell loud enough and them little people would see to it that them problems fixed themselves!
In 2000, Bush was telling us, loud and clear, that he had no idea what he was talking about and, furthermore, if he somehow--God forbid!--sneaked his way into the White House, he had no intention of learning why he said the things that were all garbly gooked coming out of his smirk hole.
People were just going to tell him what had decided, and then some other people--hopefully generals, because right wing nuts love a good hat tip to the military when it comes to running our civilian gubment--were going to tell him why.
But nobody really cared about any of that because Al Gore was a crazy lying machine, who was so dishonest he wouldn't even admit to saying things the Bush campaign just completely invented, who insanely wore different clothes on different days, and who, finally, unlike the dumby we wound up with, always tried to be the smartest guy in the room, making Washington Post reporters feel like they probably wouldn't like to have a beer with him.
And it never occurred to those Washington Post reporters or Tim Russert that if Bush, admittedly, didn't know diddly squat about gubment, or history, or the world, he probably wouldn't know which people to listen to.
So we got this horrendous goober, who doesn't know anything and doesn't even bother trying to learn anything, as our President.
And since he never knew anything and, apparently, never will, he has no idea why the people who tell him things are wrong about everything.
And he can't think of any way to solve any problems, since he never understood them in the first place, other than hiring more people.
To tell him why he's decided what he's been told he's resolutely decided.
It's the total and final repudiation of those Clinton people.
FAIRFAX, Virginia (CNN) -- President Bush on Tuesday invited lawmakers of both parties to the White House to discuss the impasse on funding the Iraq war, as neither side showed signs of backing down…
"Instead of approving that vital funding, the Democrat leadership in Congress has spent the past 64 days pushing legislation that would undercut our troops, just as we're beginning to make progress in Baghdad," Bush said…
Um, George? Congress already approved your war funding.
In a mostly party line 51-47 vote, the Senate signed off on a bill providing $122 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And, um, I hate to be so darn negative about everything, but that progress? It isn't looking all that great.
"The longer Congress delays, the worse the impact on the men and women of the armed forces will be," [Bush said.]
Hmmm...really? Congress is having a negative impact on our men and women in the armed forces? And Bush is very concerned.
It's a truly remarkable statement from a man who started a war without provocation that has killed three thousand and wounded over twenty five thousand men and women in our armed forces. From a man whose unjustified and unneccessary war is breaking the National Guard and Reserves, and which has left two thirds of our National Guard units not ready for combat. From a guy whose war is burning up 17 billion dollars worth of military equipment every year. From a guy whose stupid, pointless war has turned record setting post September 11th military recruiting into the military accepting nearly one in five new recruits "under waivers for various medical, moral or criminal problems".
After five presidents spent twenty five years erasing the horrible stigma of Viet Nam from our military, Bush--who has committed out troops to an unwinnable, seemingly intractable Viet Nam like quagmire--is very concerned about the negative impact Congress is going to have on our men and women in uniform.
And, oh yeah, while he's furrowing his concerned brows for all our men and women in uniform, suffering at the cruel hands of Congress, he's also thinking about extending the tours of active duty soldiers and sending another 13000 National Guard men and women to Iraq.
For a war he started. For reasons which have turned out to be completely untrue. Completely.
Which has now gone on for four years and now we're told will take years for us to see if our surge is working.
Which it isn't. And it won't. Because there's nothing to be won in Iraq. Even idiots who talk about "winning" don't talk about what we're going to "win", or how "winning" will in some way be good for us or anywhere near worth the cost of lives and money and prestige we've spent on this catastrophe.
And Bush, who did all this, is very concerned about the impact Congress might have on our men and women in uniform, if they have their way.
And why shouldn't Bush be a hardass about this? After all, thirty percent of Americans approve of the job he's doing. And Bush's totally stupid and incompetent handling of Iraq completely destroyed the permanent Republican majority and resulted in one of the greatest political disasters in the history of our country.
It would be wise for Congress to let Bush have his way.
A little something I've had on my bulletin board for the last seven years.
"We fight the terrorists and we fight all of those who give them aid. America has a message for the nations of the world: If you harbor terrorists, you are terrorists. (Applause.) If you train or arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist. (Applause.) If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you're a terrorist, and you will be held accountable by the United States and our friends. (Applause.)"
That is the Bush Doctrine. That's it. You're either with us, or you're with the "terrorists". And if you're with the "terrorists", we reserve the right to invade your country, kill your leaders, and convert you all to Christianity.
Want to see it in action?
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- An Iranian opposition group based in Iraq, despite being considered terrorists by the United States, continues to receive protection from the American military in the face of Iraqi pressure to leave the country.
It's a paradox possible only because the United States considers the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, or MEK, a source of valuable intelligence on Iran…
However, the U.S. State Department officially considers the MEK a terrorist organization -- meaning no American can deal with it; U.S. banks must freeze its assets; and any American giving support to its members is committing a crime.
Pre-emptive war. Torture. Secret prisons. Warrantless wiretapping. First Amendment zones. Detaining our own citizens and foreign nationals without access to legal representation or the courts.
And, of course, harboring terrorists.
Do you realize that, since George W. Bush took office, there's virtually nothing a foreign government can do that the Great People of The United States can object to with a straight face?
Recent Comments