Shaker SpaceCowboy just reported back on having contacted the offices of his two Democratic Senators, Lautenberg and Menendez, for voting for the torture bill. Both offices explained that the Senators voted for the amendments, and when they failed, they felt compelled to vote for the bill, anyway, because their choice was vote for it or do nothing.
SpaceCowboy expressed his concern about war critics possibly being deemed enemy combatants. The Lautenberg staffer “seems to think that our rights of speech and assembly would protect us.” The Menendez staffer “thought my comment about anyone being seen as an enemy combatant was a ‘real stretch,’ and laughed.”
What kind of fucking responses are those to a constituent who’s genuinely concerned about his/her rights of free speech and assembly being suppressed, who’s reading an NIE that singles out leftist groups as a possible threat to US interests and watching his/her Senators vote for a bill that allows people identified as possible threats to have their legal rights withheld?
How will our rights of speech and assembly protect us, if we’re deemed enemy combatants by people who won’t even define precisely what methods they use to derive such definitions? If they will, fine—but explain how. How is it a “real stretch” to be concerned about being deemed an enemy combatant, based on the NIE and the administration’s insistence on conflating dissenters with traitors and terrorist-sympathizers? If it is, fine—but explain how.
This condescending bullshit is infuriating. Flippantly dismissing legitimate and genuine concerns after the passage of a bill that “sends us back 900 years because it denies habeas corpus rights and allows the president to detain people indefinitely” is pathetic. Not only is it a rejection of the responsibility to care about the concerns of all constituents, not just those who agree with your decisions, but it is a patent refusal to acknowledge that this vote was bigger than the midterm elections, that it may have other repercussions aside from what ends up on the Senators’ voting records.
Can Senators Lautenberg and Menendez—and the 10 other Democrats who voted for this extraordinary bill—guarantee that our concerns are unjustified? Can they explain why we shouldn’t worry about the focus on leftist groups in the NIE? Can they even be bothered to acknowledge that our fears are worth addressing, or do they prefer to marginalize and belittle our concerns just like the administration and the GOP and the media?
In case it’s escaped their notice, we were the ones who were right about the Iraq War. It was they, not us, who voted for that mess. In fact, we’ve been right pretty much every step of the way about what Bush is going to do, how badly he’ll fuck something up, the ways in which he’ll skirt the laws, leaving Afghanistan, election tampering, the lurking catastrophe of cronyism, and every other huge disaster perpetrated by this administration. We’ve got a pretty good goddamned track record of looking down the road and seeing the final destination, and every time, we’ve been called paranoid and delusional and partisan and traitorous to discredit us, but we’ve been right nonetheless.
And we deserve some bloody answers. If we’re wrong this time—prove it.
Unbelievable
Shakes, ready your resume
NPR wants to hire a blogger. I think Melissa should apply:
Host (Blogs), NPR News & Administration Hosts and writes for blog that serves as users' daily guide to the events of the day and notable stories on the network and the Web; uses news judgment and a lively prose style to present a singular perspective, writing and reporting original items and drawing other NPR reporter/correspondents and listeners into analysis and discussion; may also host a podcast of the day's top on-air stories; and may serve as a public representative of National Public Radio, Inc. Bachelor's degree or equivalent combination of education and experience. At least five years of journalism experience, preferably daily news; familiarity with the blog form and a passionate desire to join the blogger "A" list; demonstrated excellence as a writer and storyteller; demonstrated ability to communicate in a sparkling personality and unique perspectives in writing; demonstrated ability to understand the difference between having an attitude and taking a (political) stand in the written word; a broad range of general news knowledge; well-developed curiosity in a wide range of subjects; ability to work quickly and efficiently under deadline pressure; ability and willingness to relocate; proven ability to consistently work well with others, demonstrating at all times respect for the diverse constituencies at NPR and within the public radio system; and a desire to be part of a new NPR venture. Prefer broadcast experience, the ability to be a voice of a podcast; previous blog writing experience; and familiarity with and an appreciation for public broadcasting.You can use all of us as references! (You should know that everyone who ever used me as a reference has always gotten the job they sought. It's just a little gift I have.)
Bush Speaks
I’m watching Bush’s address on the war on terror, and he’s talking about how—get ready to be surprised, Shakers!—9/11 changed everything. And how he’ll keep us safe by listening to incoming calls from al-Qaida so we know when they’re going to attack us. Uh huh. He’s also describing our “side” as “the side of peace and moderation.”
Now he’s talking about all the plans that were thwarted because of information we gleaned from detainees. Absolutely no qualifications about the realistic probability that these attacks could have been carried out; for all we know based on what he’s saying, one of the detainees said, “We thought about attacking X,” but had no ability to actually do it (much like the “terror cell” broken up in Florida), but he’s calling it a victory. And we have to take his word for it.
Now he’s just said: “Osama bin Laden and other terrorists are still in hiding. Our message to them is clear: No matter how long it takes, we’re gonna find you, and we’re gonna bring you to justice.” Huge applause.
Now this: “Recently parts of a classified document called the National Intelligence Estimate were leaked to the press… It’s an indication we’re getting close to an election. The NIE analyzes the threats we face… Its unauthorized distribution has set off a debate about the threats we face, particularly here in Washington… [The argument that the war in Iraq has made us less safe] buys into the terrorist propaganda that they are attacking us because we are provoking them. I want to remind America that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001.”
ARGH!
“We do not create terrorism by fighting terrorism… The terrorists war against us because they hate everything we stand for. We stand for freedom. We worship freedom… They can’t stand the thought that people get to go into the public square and express their differences with government.”
OMG.
They Know Jack
House Report Details 485 Contacts Between Abramoff Team and White House Officials:
A 95-page report, which was released by the House Government Reform Committee on Thursday evening, includes an analysis of more than 14,000 pages of documents provided to the panel by Abramoff's former lobbying firm, Greenberg Traurig.Bear in mind, Abramoff is a liar free of the burden of ethics, who may very well have billed his clients for meetings with White House officials that never took place in reality, in order to charge higher fees by exaggerating his influence. So it’s very unlikely that the White House was as accommodating as “485 contacts between Abramoff team and White House officials” sounds. Just because Abramoff emailed someone at the White House doesn’t mean they responded every time—and probably didn’t. Abramoff is nothing if not a fantasist. But the report does note some things that appear certain:
…In total, the committee was able to document 485 contacts between White House officials and Abramoff and his lobbying team at the firm Greenberg Traurig from January 2001 to March 2004, with 82 of those contacts occurring in Rove¹s office, including 10 with Rove personally. The panel also said that Abramoff billed his clients nearly $25,000 for meals and drinks with White House officials during that period.
During the period examined by the committee, Bush administration officials repeatedly intervened on behalf of Abramoff’s clients, including helping a Mississippi Indian tribe obtain $16 million in federal funds for a jail the tribe wanted to build.Basically, the relationship between Abramoff and the White House appears to be not as awesome as Abramoff would have one believe, and more troublesome than the White House would have one believe.
Abramoff was able to block the nomination of one Interior Department official using Christian conservative Ralph Reed as a go-between with Rove, according to e-mails between Abramoff and Reed.
…The committee was able to uncover numerous times when Abramoff and his associates attended social events with senior White House aides using tickets or passes supplied by Abramoff. For instance, Abramoff attended an NCAA Tournament college basketball game with Rove in March 2002. Afterward, Abramoff told an associate that Rove was “a great guy” who told him “anytime we need something, just let him know” via Rove’s assistant, Susan Ralston. Ralston worked for Abramoff before moving over to the White House.
And I highly doubt that anything will come of all this, unless it’s more trouble for Abramoff alone, because the GOP is not interested in pursuing it.
Torture Bill Passes 65-34
Twelve Democrats voted in favor: Carper (Del.), Johnson (S.D.), Landrieu (La.), Lautenberg (N.J.), Lieberman (Conn.), Menendez (N.J), Nelson (Fla.), Nelson (Neb.), Pryor (Ark.), Rockefeller (W. Va.), Salazar (Co.), Stabenow (Mich.).
One Republican voted against: Chafee (R.I.).
The lone Independent voted against: Jeffords (Vt.).
Greenwald:
Jay Rockefeller (who voted for this bill) is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. When he was defending the amendment he introduced to compel the CIA to disclose to the Senate and House Intelligence Committees information about their interrogation activities, he complained that the White House has concealed all information about the interrogation program and that the Intelligence Committee members (including him) therefore know nothing about it. His amendment to compel reports to Congress was defeated with all Republicans (except Chafee) voting against it. He proceeded to vote for the underlying bill anyway, thereby legalizing a program he admits he knows nothing about (and will continue to know nothing about).That is all.
During the debate on his amendment, Arlen Specter said that the bill sends us back 900 years because it denies habeas corpus rights and allows the President to detain people indefinitely. He also said the bill violates core Constitutional protections. Then he voted for it.
No Wonder They Love to Torture
Why not, when your victims are less than human and you can't tell them apart, anyway?
Trent Lott: Shining Example of a Human Being
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush barely mentioned the war in Iraq when he met with Republican senators behind closed doors in the Capitol Thursday morning and was not asked about the course of the war, Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, said.The real people out in the real world? Who the fuck are you talking about?
"No, none of that," Lott told reporters after the session when asked if the Iraq war was discussed. "You're the only ones who obsess on that. We don't and the real people out in the real world don't for the most part."
I think the families with loved ones overseas dying for this lie of a war are "obsessing" on this, you smug little prick.
So are 60% of Americans.
So are the vast majority of Iraqis.
So is pretty much the rest of the fucking world.
You bastard.
Lott went on to say he has difficulty understanding the motivations behind the violence in Iraq.Of course you don't. You've never had to suffer. You've never had your family members tortured and shot by an occupying force. You've never gone without electricity for months. You haven't the slightest clue in the world what hardship is.
You sanctimonious, vicious scumbag.
"It's hard for Americans, all of us, including me, to understand what's wrong with these people," he said. "Why do they kill people of other religions because of religion? Why do they hate the Israeli's and despise their right to exist? Why do they hate each other? Why do Sunnis kill Shiites? How do they tell the difference? They all look the same to me."
It's not hard for "Americans, all of us," to understand what's happening in Iraq. You, sir, have a problem with it, because you haven't got a drop of human feeling in your black, crusty heart. You have no idea what it's like to be anything other than a racist, rich, bigoted, overprivileged white man. You wave your bigotry like a flag when you refer to them as "those people," a term I'm sure you're used to using on your fucking porch in New Orleans, which I'm sure is rebuilt for you and Bush by now. You bastard.
"They all look the same to me." Welcome, Americans, to the new/old America. Where racism reigns supreme, and you have no rights unless you are in lockstep with Dear Leader.
This is what America has become.
A nation of racists and torturers.
And many Americans can't be bothered to care.
It is the nation of Trent Lott.
I weep for the future.
(Cross-posted in complete disgust)
"What is this dark side?"
I just got off the phone with Mama Shakes, and I was bitching to her about the torture bill, and telling her if she knocks on my door one day and no one answers, that she should look for me at Gitmo if there’s no forwarding address left behind.
She told me that one of our local papers had an opinion piece today that echoed many of my complaints, so I went to check it out. Here it is, in its entirety—and, mind you, this is a small paper in very conservative Indiana:
Recently, I read an article by the Rev. Andrew Greeley, a Catholic priest, titled, "Is U.S. like Germany of the '30s?"Thank you, Joyce Niksic.
Greeley wrote, "Today, many Americans celebrate a 'strong' leader who, like Woodrow Wilson, never wavers, never apologizes, never admits a mistake, never changes his mind, a leader with a firm, 'Christian' faith in his own righteousness. These Americans are delighted that he ignores the rest of the world and punishes the World Trade Center terrorism in Iraq. Mr. Bush is our kind of guy."
Today, America is threatened by President Bush, who displays the same kind of dangerous self-righteousness as Adolph Hitler did in Nazi Germany. And, like the fearful, uninformed and ill-informed German people, many fearful, uninformed and ill-informed Americans choose to believe the fallacies and myths instilled in them by the Bush administration, i.e., Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.
Propaganda spread by Nazi ideologues was that communist Russia was the center of what Hitler referred to as the "Judeo-Bolshevist conspiracy."
Sadly, many Americans today also believe Hitler was a communist and an atheist; he was neither a communist nor an atheist. In his book, "Mein Kampf," Hitler wrote, "Hence, today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator; by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
In fact, communists were the first group Hitler sought to destroy. He believed it was Germany's destiny and duty to destroy the evil Judeo-Bolshevists and save Western civilization from communism and the nefarious threat of the Jews. Like the Bush administration, Hitler instructed his generals that this was to be an ideological war to the finish, and German soldiers were not expected to fight according to the established rules of war.
Hitler's war against the communist East was not only to gain territory and resources for Germany. More importantly, it was a great ideological crusade for control of minds.
This fact is documented in "Mein Kampf," when Hitler wrote, "Thus, inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the 'remaking' of the Reich as they call it."
Bush stated he would turn the clock back 50 years in America. It is clear he has accomplished his goal.
Like the Bush administration's criminal war in Iraq, this mode of operation provided Hitler's industrial corporate backers easy access for their "Internet," i.e., take control of the world and all its resources by rule of totalitarian force.
Further, Greeley asks: "Can this model be useful to understand how contemporary America is engaged in a criminally unjust war that has turned much of the world against it, a war in which torture and murder have become routine? Has the combination of the World Trade Center attack and a president who believes his instruction comes from God unleashed the dark side of American heritage? What is this dark side? I suggest it is the mix of Calvinist religious righteousness and 'my-country-right-or-wrong' patriotism that dominated our treatment of blacks and American Indians for most of this country's history. The 'manifest destiny' of America was to do whatever it wanted to do, because it was strong, virtuous and chosen by God."
Today, we should question in depth, were Hitler — and now Bush — true believers or merely politically dexterous theists in pursuit of their political agendas?
FU
President Bush counterpunched at Democrats on Thursday, saying their criticism of the war in Iraq has turned their party into one of "cut-and-run" obstructionists.In other words, war critics are the greatest danger to America. Not terrorists. But people who believe, right along with the 16 US intelligence agencies who concluded as much in the NIE, that the Iraq War is making us less safe because it is creating more terrorists.
…The greatest danger to America is not the U.S. military presence in Iraq, but rather a premature withdrawal of U.S. forces from the war-torn nation, Bush said.
Fancy that.
Caption This Photo
President Bush waves as he arrives to make remarks at a 'Bob Riley for Governor' luncheon at the Birmingham Jefferson Convention Complex in Birmingham, Ala. Thursday, Sept. 28, 2006. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)
Who is Foley trying to kid?
No pun intended.
The story: Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) sent emails from his personal AOL account to a 16-year-old former Congressional page, asking him how old he is and what he wants for his birthday, and requesting a photo of him.
The concerned young man alerted congressional staffers to the e-mails. In one e-mail, the former page writes to a staffer, "Maybe it is just me being paranoid, but seriously. This freaked me out."The explanation: Congressman Foley’s office confirms he wrote the emails but claims they were “entirely appropriate and that their release is part of a smear campaign by his opponent.” The emails were “completely innocent” and “Foley is only guilty of being friendly.” Uh-huh. Also, it’s just their office policy to keep pictures of former interns, that’s all.
…The e-mails were sent from Foley's personal AOL account, and the exchange began within weeks after the page finished his program on Capitol Hill. In one, Foley writes, "did you have fun at your conference…what do you want for your birthday coming up…what stuff do you like to do."
In another Foley writes, "how are you weathering the hurricane…are you safe…send me an email pic of you as well…"
Let’s say that it is. Do they typically get copies of those pictures by personal requests from the Congressman’s personal email account? I doubt it.
And let’s also say, for shits and grins, that the Congressman was just “being friendly.” How many middle-aged men do you know that ask random 16-year-old kids what they want for their birthdays, and what “stuff” they like to do? Probably not too many, since most adults don’t give a flying shit about the daily happenings of teenagers they don’t know.
(Via.)
Fly, My Winged Monkeys
Just when I thought I couldn't get any more furious about the fun and games from this week, Crooks & Liars has to go and post this.
Seriously, who the fuck do they think they're kidding?
Damn Dems
Here’s why no filibuster:
The bill’s ultimate passage was assured on Wednesday when Democrats agreed to forgo a filibuster in return for consideration of the amendment. Any changes in the Senate bill, however, would have made it impossible for Republican leaders to meet their goal of sending the bill to the White House before adjourning on Friday to hit the campaign trail.So the Democrats cut a deal, exchanging their filibuster rights to get amendments heard which, if not passed, would make the bill that much more filibuster-worthy.
Fucking duh. They basically handed the GOP all the reason in the world not to pass the amendment. If they passed it, they would have had to delay sending it to the White House; if they didn’t, they met their goal—and in agreeing to “consider” the amendment, they guaranteed that the Dems wouldn’t filibuster.
Game over.
All that's missing is the plunk-plunk
Whether due to ennui, lethargy, or some other condition that rhymes with "whee," I have not been much in the mood lately for blogging on politics, culture, or on anything much more substantial than the state of my fantasy football team or a belated comparison of the candymakers Wonka. However, the latest report on Jeanine Pirro's foundering political fortunes is enough to momentarily rouse me from my torpor. Good heavens, what a high-profile mess. It strikes me that the Pirro campaign, with its attendant themes of frustrated political ambition, marital infidelity, and criminal intrigue (with a guest appearance by Bernard Kerik!), has devolved into perfect fodder for an episode of Law & Order. But which specific show in Dick Wolf's empire, I wonder? I vote for L&O: Criminal Intent: this storyline just begs for the full Goren treatment, with accompanying snarkiness from Eames. I smell Emmy!
(Cross-posted...sleepy now...)
Ugly Intersection
Chet: “An enormous majority of the American public—68%—either thinks that it's OK to torture people in at least some circumstances, or doesn't care enough to answer the question. Only 32% said it's never OK.”
More at the link, including a breakdown by religious affiliation. As I’ve said before, I can’t understand the reasoning of Christians who support torture, people who pray to a savior who, when facing certain torture and eventual death, fell to his knees and prayed that he might be spared.
And I also cannot begin to comprehend why anyone supports torture, other than simple hatred, since it doesn’t fucking work. Especially the way we practice it—rounding up people on the broadest of suspicions and hoping to extract information from them. The scenario that supporters of torture love to invoke to defend their position is the kind of crap that you see in the movies, or on 24, where agents capture someone whom they know to have information directly related to a plot, the thwarting of which will save lives.
“Tell me where the bomb’s going to be detonated, or I’ll squash your nuts between these bricks!”
“I give, I give! It’s going to go off at the Maple Tree Mall at 3:52pm central standard time!”
“What store, you scoundrel? What store?!” [Bricks are waved threateningly.]
“Outside the Cinnabon! Don’t hurt me!”
This is not the typical scenario with our detainees, whom our right to torture is currently being codified into law as we speak. Often, these are people with tenuous ties to suspected terrorists, or even proven ties to suspected terrorists—but rarely are we rounding up people mid-plot with detonators in their hands, left with the singular option to extract information from them by any means necessary to prevent an imminent explosion. We’re torturing people hoping to get information, the content and very existence of which we’re not even certain. Torture only works when interrogator and detainee both know that the detainee has a very specific piece of information that the interrogator wants. Otherwise, all kinds of bullshit might pour out of someone just to save themselves from further pain, whether they really know something we’d want to know or not. They’ll offer up names of other people who might not have any more information than they have, creating a never-ending cycle of useless “intelligence” that yields nothing but goose-chases and more futile torture—and angry victims.
Thus, irrespective of one’s opinions of the morality of torture, logically there’s no reason to support it, either. And yet here we sit, with 68% of America supporting it, and Congress about to pass a heinous bill in support of it, in a most spectacular intersection of the ignorance, fear, and hatred which has enabled the Bush administration since Day One.
Target: Leftist Groups
Per Paul’s post below, one of the most chilling aspects of the rejection of Specter’s amendment guaranteeing Habeas Corpus is, as I previously mentioned, that the underlying legislation allows “foreign civilians in the United States or even U.S. citizens” to be deemed enemy combatants and thusly “arrested and held without charge indefinitely on grounds that they supported hostilities against the United States.”
And lest there be any question that the administration is fixing to recognize any and all dissenters as enemy combatants, the recently declassified NIE report had a deeply disturbing tidbit tucked in at its end identifying terrorist threats other than the primarily discussed radical Islam: "Anti-U.S. and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests. The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint… We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to communicate, propagandize, recruit, train and obtain logistical and financial support."
Glenn Greenwald points out (via Echidne):
That this claim about "leftist" terrorist groups made it into the NIE summary is particularly significant in light of the torture and detention bill that is likely soon to be enacted into law. That bill defines "enemy combatant" very broadly (and the definition may be even broader by the time it is enacted) and could easily encompass domestic groups perceived by the administration to be supporting a "terrorist agenda."Um, yeah.
Similarly, the administration has claimed previously that it eavesdrops on the conversations of Americans only where there is reasonable grounds (as judged by the administration) to believe that one of the parties is affiliated with a terrorist group. Does that include "leftist" groups that use the Internet to organize? This NIE finding gives rise to this critical question: Are "leftist" groups one of the principal targets on the anti-terrorism agenda of the Bush administration, and if so, aren't the implications rather disturbing?
In addition to the nebulous definition of “enemy combatant,” so too is the definition of “leftist group” entirely vague. Does a blog community qualify as a leftist group? Are only groups that have the means and intent to organize going to be targets of scrutiny? Does organizing a peace protest qualify? Is wielding a “leftist” idea going to be considered as hostile to the United States as wielding a weapon?
These are all questions to which we don’t have answers. (Although recent history of government agents infiltrating peace groups surely points in the worst possible direction.) What we do know is that if the answer to any of them is “yes,” those of us who are summarily identified as enemy combatants will not be guaranteed the right to have a federal court review the legitimacy of our imprisonment on suspicion of involvement in terrorism.
Your Leaders, Ladies and Gentlemen
Senate Kills Habeas Amendment on Torture Bill
The Senate just killed an amendment to ensure federal courts could review the legitimacy of individual' imprisonment on suspicion of involvement in terrorism. The amendment had been proposed by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "It is a fundamental protection woven into the fabric of our Nation," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who supported the measure. It was defeated 48-51, largely along party lines.
Former torture victim Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), portrayed as a "maverick" by earlier bucking the White House on the issue of detainee treatment, voted against the amendment. The White House also opposes the changes the amendment would make to the bill. Sens. John Warner (R-VA) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who had also challenged the White House over the bill, joined McCain in voting against the amendment.
The Senate is expected to vote on -- and pass -- the entire bill later today.
Remind me again... what country is this?
(Tip 'o the Energy Dome to TPM.)
AWOL
Love the lede to this story:
Army Spc. Suzanne Swift spent five months in a seacoast town hiding out, smoking cigarettes and reading. Meanwhile, her military police unit was half a world away in Iraq.Just lounging about, eating bon-bons while being derelict in her duty. She certainly isn’t made to sound like a woman who’s been repeatedly sexually harassed by her superiors…which she is.
Swift, who served in Iraq from February 2004 to February 2005, claimed she had been harassed or abused by three noncommissioned officers — two in Iraq and one at Fort Lewis.Hmm…could that be some of that administrative discipline I’ve heard so much about?
The Army said it was able to substantiate one allegation, involving an noncommissioned officer at Fort Lewis, and took disciplinary action.
But it said it was unable to substantiate allegations that an NCO in Iraq sexually harassed her and another forced her into a sexual relationship.So Swift has been arrested and charged “with being absent without leave and missing movement” and “could face a reprimand or a court-martial,” though, curiously, the Army says it will delay disciplinary action against Swift in order to conduct a "thorough, impartial investigation" into her allegations. If they haven’t already conducted a thorough, impartial investigation, how is it, pray tell, that they are able to say they were unable to substantiate her allegations? Why do I get the impression that, so far, the Army has asked her accusers if what she asserts is true, and their “investigation” ended when they said no? Why do I further get the impression that if Swift’s mother hadn’t been “traveling to talk to groups that have taken up Swift's cause,” no action on the Army’s part to find out if her allegations were true ever would have been taken, but disciplinary action against Swift certainly would have?
Apparently the Congressional women’s caucus which held hearings into widespread sexual harassment problems in the combat theater haven’t made the Army any more prepared to accept that Swift, or any other female soldier, might be telling the truth about her experiences when she makes such allegations, or any more inclined to protect them.
Reality Still Kicking Bush’s Ass
In case our own NIE wasn’t evidence enough that the theory Bush refuses to believe holds water actually carries it quite niftily, a research paper prepared for Britain’s Ministry of Defense has found that "The war in Iraq...has acted as a recruiting sergeant for extremists across the Muslim world. Iraq has served to radicalise an already disillusioned youth and al-Qaeda has given them the will, intent, purpose and ideology to act."
Poodle-Boy continues to deny “a link between military action in Afghanistan and Iraq and Muslim radicalisation and extremism in the UK and abroad.”
