EULOGY FOR OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM

By all accounts, 23-year-old David Hickman (below, left) from Greensboro, N.C. was pretty excited about coming home for Christmas. It is widely reported that he called his mother on November 13 to say so, but that would be their last conversation. On November 14, Hickman, an infantryman, was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq. Critics of the Obama administration contend the president should never have announced in October that all U.S. troops would be withdrawn from Iraq by Christmas. According to some, Obama’s pronouncement only served to make the Iraqi insurgents step up their quest to knock off as many Americans as possible before the deadline. They may be right, and Hickman may be the unfortunate consequence of Obama’s grandstanding.

This week marked the official end of U.S. troop involvement in Iraq. It has been nine years since the U.S. involved itself in the ill-conceived “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” Many Americans believe it was not this country’s responsibility to ensure democracy in Iraq. It is now well known that the U.S. entered the war with faulty intelligence and under less than noble circumstances. It is known that President George W. Bush's aggressive stance toward Iraq after 9/11 was a knee jerk reaction that proved ill-fated and fatal for many Americans.

As usual, the numbers tell the story. According to the government’s own figures, here is the human toll: U.S. Troop Casualties - 4,486 US troops; 98% male. 91% non-officers; 82% active duty, 11% National Guard; 74% Caucasian, 9% African-American, 11% Latino. 19% killed by non-hostile causes. 54% of US casualties were under 25 years old. 72% were from the US Army.

Here is the ongoing human toll: US Troops Wounded - 32,226, 20% of which are serious brain or spinal injuries. (Total excludes psychological injuries.) US Troops with Serious Mental Health Problems - 30% of US troops develop serious mental health problems within 3 to 4 months of returning home.

We learned from the Vietnam War that the human toll exacts consequences that transcend generations. Vets who are mentally or psychologically disabled try to re-acculturate and live somewhat normal lives, but their injuries and psychological wounds affect spouses, children, co-workers and most anyone with whom they interact. We know anecdotally that marriages crumble, domestic abuse skyrockets and child abuse intensifies among many vets.

And so there was little celebration this week, and there won’t be ticker tape parades or victory services at the National Cathedral or anything to truly mark the end of this war. That is because we know that people who were 20-something when they lost their eyes or their arms or legs or sanity will spend decades trying to right themselves. And we know that many of those 4,486 US troop casualties had children that will never know their parent(s). And we know that people like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell who actively engaged the U.S. in this war will not be held legally accountable for their misguided decisions.

It is from the vets themselves that we learn the most about how bad decisions in Washington wreak havoc in lives from coast to coast. Watch and listen to vets recap their own experiences in a CNN report:
The war in Iraq was one of the most significant mistakes I've ever witnessed the American government make. With no weapons of mass destruction, and no evidentiary connection between Iraq and 9/11, 4,486 men and women were ordered to their deaths for absolutely no reason. That is how history will see the Iraq debacle.

It is critical that we recognize now the enormity of the error that was Iraq. I am hoping that our collective realization of the vulnerability and poor judgment of our government officials puts a kink in our blind trust of them. Every reasonable American knows now that we should never have gone to Iraq. If something similar happens in the future, we Americans are likely going to demand far more accountability from the president on down.

Like Vietnam, American history has nothing to be proud of with the Iraq war. Not a thing. And that, all by itself, should tell us Americans to become more engaged with the political process, to more carefully choose who will govern and to clearly convey to them what we expect.

MEET LIZ CHENEY: MEDIA HO

During the Bush years – come on you remember those long, loooonnnng Bush years – chances are you heard the name Mary Cheney a few times. The irony of the ultra-conservative Vice-President of the United States fathering a gay daughter was so delicious. Less visible was her older sister, Elizabeth. That’s odd, since “Liz” held high-ranking positions in the state department throughout the Bush years. That is, except for a break in 2004 when she interrupted her duties to work on her father’s re-election campaign. It was Liz’s job to gather the female vote, and by all accounts she did a stellar job. Still, if you ask the average American voter about Dick Cheney’s daughter, you’re likely to hear about Mary. Liz perfected the art of anonymity.

So, it begs the question: Why is Liz Cheney suddenly all over the airwaves, Internet news and information sites, and print publications? Her non-stop interviews running parallel with her father’s inexplicable media mongering is slightly suspect. Sometimes they even appear together and their clothing seems oddly color coordinated. It's slightly creepy. If I had the opportunity to ask Ms. Liz one question, I would just ask “Liz, what is it you want?” Really. What does Liz Cheney want from all of this media exposure? I mean there are already enough talking heads and pundits critiquing and countering every word the President says. The anti-Obama machine is oiled and running, and Liz has not come forward with anything new or revelatory. Even with her impressive credentials and substantial background in matters of State, Mr. & Mrs. America know very little of her and are not likely to offer her their full attention. So…what is Liz Cheney's motive with all of this sudden, chatty media exposure?

Liz is clearly (painfully?) her father’s daughter, as evidenced by some of the positions she espouses on the issues. On waterboarding, Liz says it is not torture; that current administration officials should assess whether the techniques used were effective in gathering intelligence information. The problem with this argument, which she is parroting from umpteen conservative pundits and columnists, is that it negates any other methods of gathering information. Liz, et al, never consider a less neanderthal approach. Also like some of her counterparts, Liz interrupts a lot and has little tolerance for viewpoints other than hers…and dad’s. Watch:

What Liz Cheney was not counting on when she embarked on her current media blitz was the intense scrutiny under which she would operate. It has become a favorite pastime/obsession with some media types to monitor every point she makes. Jason Linkins, who you may have read about here the other day in “Are You The Future of Journalism,” poked so many holes in Liz’s recent verbal spar with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, that it seems the empress has no clothes. Watch the exchange, and then click here to read Linkins’ rebuttal:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

If Liz Cheney wants to enter the national conversation, for whatever reasons or with whatever agenda she has, I say, 'Come on down,' Liz. But we citizens have a few ground rules and I’m more than a little surprised that you didn’t know about them. I just think I better lay them out for you:

1. When you commit to an interview during which you’re going to talk about what has or hasn’t been said publicly by officials, make sure you know what has or hasn’t been said by public officials. Otherwise, we citizens have a name for that: “Rewriting History.”
2. An interview is a con – ver – sa – tion. Both people get to speak, and in the best of times both people get to complete sentences before the other person speaks.
3. Experienced journalists like those with whom you have spoken lately, do their homework. We are in the information business. It is what we do. If we convey inaccurate information, it compromises our credibility. So, you may want to think twice before you condescend to the questioner. Chances are, we’re not saying something we haven’t checked, double-checked and re-checked before we say it. Can you say the same about yourself? Liz? Come on now….can you?

Liz Cheney appears to be a very self-assured woman. She expresses herself earnestly and assertively. She just seems to have forsaken the key element to undertaking a media tour that relies on knowledge of the issues – preparation. And she seems to have forgotten that the manner in which you earnestly assert yourself has a lot to do with how it is received by the masses. Say it with a sincere commitment to the truth and we’re probably listening, Liz. But say it with nothing more or less than disdain for those who don’t share your worldview, and we’re tuning out.

Cheney, Part II is getting on our collective nerves. And once that happens, we can’t really remember what the hell she said.

GREAT MOMENTS IN TV: VENTURA vs. HASSELBACK

What happens when former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura debates torture with neocon TV host Elisabeth Hasselback? Ventura, who has been waterboarded, appeared this morning on ABC's "The View." Interesting to hear from a guy who knows from where he speaks, as opposed to Hasselback who...well...not so much. This clip is priceless, especially Ventura's last line:

OF TORTURE AND CONSEQUENCES

I am one of those people who annoyingly and too frequently reminds people I know that life is a gift. So, in those rare moments in your life when someone you deeply care about talks of ending it all, or how much easier it would be to just “check out,” there I am, repeating my sometimes unwelcome mantra, “Life is a gift.”

That being said, you might guess how I feel about the latest debate over torture. I want to get ahold of torture proponents and remind them of a little something called the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the United Nations in 1984. Prior to that, in 1975, the General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Oh, and way before all that, in 1948, the U.N. enacted the the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which clearly stated ‘”No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Not only did all of this take place, but each of these instruments had safeguards in place that were supposed to ensure that any possible violations would be avoided.

So, tell me, what happened that a 21st century President of the United States, George W. Bush, found it permissible to allow simulated drowning (“waterboarding”) on his watch? And how is it that the self-proclaimed holiest among us, white evangelicals and Roman Catholics say in majority that torture can “sometimes” or “often” be justified? And tell me, when did life and death issues become fodder for glib, often uninformed talking heads on cable television, such as Sean Hannity and Keith Olberman? Watch this:



Further, has everybody conveniently forgotten about the U.S. Code? That’s the set of permanent U.S. Federal laws. I want to point out Title 18 of the Code: “Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.”

Listen, even if none of the above has any meaning to you, consider this: Even with its internationally tainted image, the United States is still looked upon as the epicenter of high civilization. If individuals at the highest levels of the American government demonstrate tolerance for something as uncivilized and inhumane as torture of human beings, will nations of lesser moral fiber and far lesser development not follow suit? If the U.S. does it, well it must be the thing to do, right? Irreversible precedents are being set here. Doesn’t anybody get that? Didn’t George W. Bush (right), Dick Cheney and Condaleeza Rice get that?

I could go on and on about how inhumane, unethical and primitive torture is. I could try to pull your heartstrings by reminding you that all of those individuals who have been tortured are human beings with somebody somewhere who loves them. I could try to scare you by reminding you that once we exercise leniency in the act of torturing other human beings, we open ourselves up to such an act if and when the global tables are turned on us. Instead, I think I’ll just appeal to your basic intelligence and sense of logic: If a person believes he or she is going to die as you simulate drowning on their person, isn’t it likely that they’ll say anything you want them to say? Even Olberman said that in his interview in the video you saw above. How accurate can information be when you are simply coercing someone to say what you want them to say by threatening their life? Aside from how disgusting the act itself is, the concept is idiotic.
So, how widespread is the use of “enhanced interrogation” techniques? That is what proponents of acts such as waterboarding call torture. Does it go way, way beyond Gitmo? Did Bush, Cheney, Condy, (left) et. al. cavalierly endorse the use of barbaric methods to get information that is probably not worth a damn anyway? Spain and the U.K. seem to think they did. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) concurs.

If torture was not okay in Nazi German, or in Rwanda, or in more than 150 countries in which Amnesty International has documented instances or torture, is it acceptable when the most highly civilized society in the world does it? I think not. It seems unfathomable that there is even debate about the use of torture. If the gracious and poised Ms. Rice condoned the use of “enhanced interrogation,” she must be held accountable. If the Prince of Darkness, Dick Cheney (right) encouraged the infliction of pain and suffering, even against terrorists, he likely disobeyed the law and should be punished. And since the buck clearly stopped at the desk of George W. Bush, it needs to be fully investigated, including interrogation of the former President, and ultimately appropriate punishment.

Yes, Virginia...They REALLY Said That

I am constantly amazed at the things that come out of the mouths of public figures. I am starting to think that some younger people in the public eye do not care that much what people hear them say, while some older people still don’t get the fact that whatever they say publicly will be heard around the world within seconds. A few recent examples:

JOE BIDEN: It could have been a non-news event when Vice-President Joe Biden appeared at Washington D.C.’s Union Station to announce $1.3 billion in stimulus funds for the nation’s rail industry. That is, until a Senator addressed him as “Mr. Vice President.” Biden’s response? “Give me a fucking break.” Poor Joe didn’t know the mic was hot. I don’t know about you, but I’m picturing an endless echo in the cavernous D.C. train station. Say it ain’t so Joe?

DICK CHENEY: The (mercifully) former Vice President, Dick Cheney, is evidently having a tough time adjusting to life out of the spotlight. He keeps talking. And talking. This week, Dick, as I now really enjoy calling him, had this to say about the country’s current financial crisis and Iraq:

Did Cheney just say “Stuff happens?” Note to Dick: Dick, how interesting that you still contend that the Bush administration did not create this financial havoc. Just one example of the last administration’s reckless spending: To date, according to the National Priorities Project, a research organization that analyzes how tax dollars are spent, the war has cost the U.S. $605,247,741,697. By the time you read this, that figure will be way low. As a reminder, this is an ongoing war that the American people do not support and the international community has largely abandoned. Oh, and although I believe you would see this as nothing more than an aside, I feel compelled to remind you that there are now 4,257 confirmed U.S. deaths as a result of this fully pointless war. Oh, and Dick, now that you are not terribly important anymore, you probably do not get all the latest updates on casualties, so I want you to know that one of the most recent is 22-year-old Jessica Y. Sarandrea, of Miami, FL. Jessica, a supply specialist, who was reportedly hit by shrapnel that pierced her liver and severed a main artery. Now that you have been retired, perhaps you’d have time to call Jessica’s husband, and her father, and her siblings, and get a true taste of how successful we have been in meeting our objectives in Iraq.

LAURA INGRAHAM: Honestly, aren’t the most extreme figures in the far right conservative movement starting to do some real damage to their cause? This week, radio host Laura Ingraham reacted on-air to some comments Meghan McCain (daughter of former presidential candidate Senator John McCain) made about conservative extremism. Rather than address the issues, Ingraham leveled blatant personal attacks against McCain. The worst of her comments came when she said this in a mocking “valley-girl” tone, supposedly imitating McCain: “Ok, I was really hoping that I was going to get that role in the Real World, but then I realized that, well, they don’t like plus-sized models. They only like the women who look a certain way. And on this 50th anniversary of Barbie, I really have something to say.”
Laura, once again you’re all about grabbing attention rather than establishing credibility. That does not make for real longevity in broadcasting, but then, you knew that.

ROSEANNE BARR: Don’t you love how everybody has become an instant psycho-analyst since 19-year-old Chris Brown allegedly pummeled 21-year-old Rihanna? Now Roseanne Barr (Dr. Roseanne?) weighs in on the story, insinuating that Rihanna is a violent, control freak. Oy. Roseanne says:
Rihanna "thinks she has him right where she wants him now. His career is over, and he is working her to help him get it back. She thinks that since he needs her and has shown some contrition that she can call the shots now. Violent people are control freaks, and she thinks she is in control right now. Violent couples also have passionate make up sex, and that keeps a lot of battered and beaten women hooked. Once she realizes that her fans and their parents are going to write her off completely and end her career as well as his if she stays with him, that might convince her not to do that."