What, No Beheadings Today? Must Be Because You Are So FREE!

Can't We Throw Some Water on Bush and Make Him Melt Away?....This sure isn't Kansas anymore, is it, Toto?

Outrage fatigue? Get over it
Are you sick of being sick? Suffering way too much Bush-induced nausea? Well, tough
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

Wednesday, November 14, 2007


I know how it is. You've had it up to here. There are only so many stories about blood and death and pain you can take, only so many times you can hear about random shootings and corporate malfeasance and how BushCo's squad of scabrous flying monkeys have, say, supported torture or endorsed wiretapping or gouged the nation for another $200 billion to pay for a failed war. Your nerves are raw and your heart is tired and the media will just not shut the hell up already about the sadness and the war and the mayhem and the Cheney and the doom doom doom.

It is outrage fatigue, and it is epidemic. It's that feeling that we are being hammered unlike any time in recent history with so many appalling and disgusting and violently un-American incidents and scandals and manipulations that our b.s.-detectors are smoking like an old V-8 engine on a hot summer's day and it's all we can do to get up every day without screaming.

What's more, it's not the mere quantity of moral insults, either. It's the bizarre absurdity of the subject matter, the things we are being forced to consider, or reconsider, that seem to make it all so horrific.

Torture? Are you kidding? Allegedly the most civilized, the most morally aware nation on the planet and we are still debating, in the highest courts and government offices in the land, about whether the United States should strap human beings to gnarled metal benches in rancid foreign bunkers and inflict such inexplicable terror and fear upon them that they confess to things they didn't even do just to get us to stop? Is this the Middle Ages? Are we regressing back to the goddamn cave?

Oh my, yes, plethoric are the reasons you should be outraged indeed, and torture just might be one of the most incendiary reasons in the past few years. If nothing else, its disgusting return to U.S. political dialogue certainly means it's no time to be laying down arms in exhaustion, no matter how tempting it might be.

Take this fine example: Keith Olbermann, as is his wont, executed another pitch-perfect bout of outrage recently on his excellent MSNBC show, taking BushCo to task on the issue of waterboarding like you never hear in major on-air media anymore.

Olbermann only barely held on to his trademark fierce hyper-articulation against the sheer disgust he/we have to endure at the idea that a sitting American president obviously thinks medieval torture is a gul-dang swell idea, no matter what psychologists, military experts, ethicists, the United Nations, the Geneva Convention and Jesus himself all say.

It was wonderful, powerful stuff, a razor-sharp, highly informed media pundit who dares to presume an unusually high level of intelligence among his viewers, speaking truth to power in a way most liberal media-haters complain never really happens anymore. And of course, his subject was one of the most deserving of our moral outrage in recent history.

But then I read some of the reaction to Olbermann's diatribe on various political blogs and on some news-aggregate sites, with many saying, gosh Keith, lighten up already, who cares, enough with all the outrage and the spittle, wow I'm so sick of all this ranting and raving and gosh I'm tired of these smarty media people telling me how to think and hey maybe torture is good let's kill us some more, haw haw haw snort.

On the one hand, it is, you can argue, generally the way of the meaner-than-thou blogosphere, with all but the most professional and intelligent and positive-minded of outposts seeming to suffer an undue percentage of reactionary chyme in their comment areas, hordes of Net-drunk twentysomethings and extremists and shut-ins who have way too much free time and merely chime in to see their sneers "published" and to prove how much more jaded and apathetic they are than the next person, while adding zero to the conversation.

But maybe it's worse than that. Because this is where it can happen, where you can get sucked into the vortex of whining and bitterness and where you might feel part of yourself wanting to wallow too, desiring to avoid doing the actual moral and spiritual work of dissecting and researching and analysing something as politically messy and morally ugly as torture for yourself, opting instead for the easy path, for closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears and going, nyah nyah nyah shut up shut up SHUT UP! Hey, it sure beats thinking.

Or maybe we can flip it around. Maybe, with the right intent, the exact reverse can happen, and you see this ocean of nasty ennui, this pile of oft-misspelled, poorly punctuated reactionary effluvia as, in and of itself, something to be a bit livid about.

Maybe, in other words, you can enjoy, as one blogger put it, a big dose of "fatigue outrage," the feeling of disgust you get when faced with all those people who think mental lethargy and laziness is, like, way funny, dude.

In other words, enough with the childish, frat-boy-grade complaints about media overload and too many rants and outrage fatigue. You have to earn that sort of thing. If you never give a crap about engaging the world, if you never want to think deeply about complex issues and care about ramifications and see what truly resonates with your own informed spirit and then stand up for what you believe, this pretty much eliminates your right to sneer at others who do.

It is, for me, all about modulation. It is about remembering that outrage does not necessarily equal misery. Outrage does not mean you must wallow in fear and fatalism and yank out your hair and wake up every morning hating the world and hating yourself and hating humanity for being so stupid/numb/blind and wondering how the hell you can escape it all.

Outrage is rich with humanistic understanding. It is not some evangelical Christian parent "outraged" that her kid saw a woman's nipple on TV. It is not some right-wing Family Council "outraged" that someone put S&M outfits on Barbie, or that some art gallery is displaying Jesus as a woman, or that scientists dared to say that stem cell research does not equal abortion, or that the mayor isn't taking care of all the potholes and stray kitties. That's not outrage, that's reactionary whining.

True outrage, like Olbermann's, like (occasionally, hopefully) this column's, like what you should ideally be experiencing on a daily basis while Bush is in office, is honed and sharp and poignant. It contains a powerful sense of deeply informed decency, and therefore has a true feel for when that sense has been violated. Outrage has meat and substance and intellectual nourishment. It is actually healthy.

Smart, informed outrage engages you and fires your heart, your mind. It is fuel. It is the reason you claim you enjoy being an American, to question malevolent government actions and take a stand and demand accountability where there has, for the past seven years, been none. Bottom line: We simply cannot let them convince us, by way of an all-out assault on science, sex, love, et al, that the good fight just ain't worth fighting.

After all, the flying monkeys are far from done raiding the closet and stealing your babies and making a mockery of everything wise and calm and open-hearted people hold dear. And baby, if you ain't outraged about that, something is very wrong indeed.

World War III...What Is Happening NOW?

Thursday, October 25, 2007
Bush desperately seeking World War III

At a recent press briefing Bush was asked about Vladimir Putin's plans to hold on to power when his term runs out. Bush smirked and quipped: "I've been planning that myself." We should take Bush at his word. We should take that remark just as seriously as his recent veiled threat of World War III. We should take it as seriously as we should have taken his remark about how much easier it would all be "...if this was a dictatorship!"

So I told people [European leaders] that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested" in ensuring Iran not gain the capacity to develop such weapons.

--George W. Bush, Sociopath-in-Chief

How seriously should we take Bush's offhand remarks? His quips and unguarded remarks are the only truths to come out of his mouth. That applies to sinister references to summary executions in his 2003 State of the Union address: "Let's just say they are no longer a threat to the United States of America." It applies as well to his wistful longing for "dictatorship". Certainly, Bush is articulate only when he speaks of death, torture, vengence, warfare, execution, or punishment. He never stumbles, he never struggles to find the right word to describe pain, death or suffering!!

More recently, the temporal proximity of his "warnings" of WWIII and his "quip" about staying in power after his term, may be clues to what is in fact talked about inside the Oval Office.

Despite the president's occasional contempt for the law, THREAT LEVEL doesn't believe that he's going to declare a state of emergency and cancel the 2008 election. But in July, we filed some FOIA requests anyway. We asked five Justice Department offices for documents produced or revised after August 2001 "addressing the feasibility, advisability or lawfulness of deferring, rescheduling or canceling a US national election."

Bush Quips He Might Stay in Power (Threat Level Plays Along

Simply, the mechanisms by which Bush achieves his permanent dictatorship are already in place. Another terrorist attack will do the trick. [See How a Second Terrorist Attack Will Benefit George W. Bush] Measured against our standard, the Bush administration is a catastrophe. Measured against Bush's hidden agenda, he is very near to achieving what Richard Nixon could not --an absolute dictatorship in the United States. That means, of course, that Bush will have reduced Congress to a debating club, the Supreme Court to a mere advisory panel. Sadly, it is SCOTUS who helped write themselves out of a real job. Fools!

The most ominous new development is the Bush administration's push to name the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization.

"The U.S. has designated any number of states over the years as state sponsors of terrorism," says Leverett. "But here for the first time the U.S. is saying that part of a government is itself a terrorist organization."

This is what Leverett and Mann fear will happen: The diplomatic effort in the United Nations will fail when it becomes clear that Russia's and China's geopolitical ambitions will not accommodate the inconvenience of energy sanctions against Iran.

--The Secret History of the Impending War with Iran

What Bush has done already may be summarized briefly:

* He lied the nation into two wars. Neither have been won, neither had anything to do with the perpetrators of 911!
* Against our own US criminal codes and numerous international treaties, Bush has arrogated unto himself the power to abduct, imprison and torture anyone that he decides is an "enemy". He has assumed for himself a title: "Decider".
* He has built up a private army, a Praetorian Guard, to enforce his edicts: Blackwater USA.

Is Bush capable of starting WWIII, nuking Iran, staying put after his term ends? In a word --yes! Bush "gets off" on death. Immediately prior to his announcement that the US military was in action in Iraq, Bush --unaware that cameras were on and broadcasting --"pumped his fist" and declared: "I feel GOOD!"

Bush savors the little hints he drops, disguising them as "quips" or un-funny jokes. Tucker Carlson reported that Bush puckered his lips to mock Carla Fay Tucker's final plea for her life. "Please, Mr. Bush, don't kill me", he whined. As Governor of Texas, Bush chalked up 152 "kills" of many who were never competently defended, who were convicted upon phony or unreliable evidence, whose cases were tainted by dubious psychiatric evidence.

One need not be a licensed therapist to call him a sociopathic nut job, a threat to humankind and Western Civilization. He is clearly without empathy --that human quality upon which ethics and morality are based. Dr. Gustav Gilbert was the American psychologist who interviewed Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg. Based on his research there, Gilbert concluded that evil was best described as an utter lack of empathy. Bush is, therefore, at the very least, a psychopathic monster, for the theologically inclined --a Satan incarnate.

"Sociopathy can be recognized early in an individual. Before the age of around 15 - 16 years, a child showing sociopathic traits is titled with conduct disorder. Signs of this early stage of sociopathy might include immunity to parental punishment and pain. Other signs may be the torturing of animals, fire setting, vandalism, consistent lying, theft, or aggression towards others. Nothing usually works in trying to change the behavior of this type of child. Therefore, the parent(s) usually give up, making the situation worse. But it must be noted that many children with conduct disorder do not progress on to sociopaths. After the age of 15 - 16, those who continue to show sociopathic signs are then labeled as having sociopathy or antisocial personality disorder

Carter & Golant, 1998; Sabbatini, 1998; See also: Horton, The Sociopath

Old friends who knew Bush as a boy describe a diabolical monster who reveled in inflicting pain and suffering. They verify a well-circulated story that the Junior Bush used to shove firecrackers up horned frogs to watch them explode when he tossed them into the air. The New York Times reported that at Yale during his Skull and Bones days, Bush indulged the sadistic practice of "branding" fraternity pledges with "brands" made of metal coat hangers. The blind folded pledges still have the scars to prove it. Li'l George promised never do it again but never figured out why others thought it such a "big deal". Tragically for the world, li'l George now has nukes with which to bully the world.

Dick Cheney, Halliburton's plant inside the Bush administration, can be counted on to look after the interests of big, no-bid contractors, primarily his own Halliburton. It says a lot about him that he actually likes being called "Darth". Recently the Guardian reported that "Darth" may be winning the behind the scenes maneauvering in Bush's evil empire.

The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.

The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: “Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo.”

--Guardian Unlimited

A false-flag operation is most certainly on the table. Every US president has made such plans, notably Nixon's "Operation Garden Plot" and Reagan's "REX 84 Alpha". "Executive Directive 51" is absurdly vague about when and how Bush may declare his dictatorship, describing only a "catastrophic emergency."

Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the US population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.

--"Executive Directive 51"

In other words, Bush will simply declare an emergency following any "second terrorist" attack, terrorism being whatever Bush decides it is.

The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.

"The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action," Mr Cronin said. "The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself."

Almost half of the US's 277 warships are stationed close to Iran, including two aircraft carrier groups. The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise left Virginia last week for the Gulf. A Pentagon spokesman said it was to replace the USS Nimitz and there would be no overlap that would mean three carriers in Gulf at the same time.

--Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran, Guardian Unlimited

Bush will declare martial law, postpone the 2008 elections indefinitely, and assume a title: Imperial Decider Guy, or some other bullshit title of his psychotic imagining

Scenario for 2008: Sometime in middle to late summer, perhaps early fall, a "terrorist attack," or a natural disaster occurs, allowing Bush to suspend the elections in the name of "national security," and take the control of the government via the "National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51" and "Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20," released by the WH May 9th of this year. He could remain in control as long as he wanted. Now, wouldn't THAT be an interesting nightmare?

--Naomi Wolf, Huffington Post

Given the quagmire in Iraq, Bush will be "forced" to nuke Iran, having secretly hoped for the opportunity. Iran will blockade the straits of Hormuz and attack US fleets in the Gulf and Mediterranean. World War III will have begun.

Bush will call his dictatorship a "Constitutional Continuity" enabled for the sake of the father...uh..."the homeland".

Aided and abetted by right-wing Republicans and spineless Democrats in Congress he has rendered the Constitution utterly useless as an instrument for protecting the people from his authoritarian excesses. He has offered his profane opinion of the Constitution thus, "... it's just a God-damned piece of paper''

--Doug Thompson in Capitol Hill Blue, Dec 5, 2005.

Quietly, and without solemn ceremony, the law of the land, the very rule of law, i.e, the US Constitution will be set aside, as, in fact, it already has been. A few "bitter enders" may object only to find themselves interred in FEMA camps, KBR contructed "detention centers" built to accommodate anyone opposing the Imperial Decider Guy.

When Bush ordered the war of aggression against Iraq, Saddam was in the process of converting petro-dollars to Euros. Among US motivations for Middle East wars of aggression, the war against Iraq has not had the effect of shoring up the dollar. Bush fails again. Bush seems content, however, to balance the US trade deficit upon the backs of the middle class and the poor, already bearing the brunt of his tax cuts for tiny rich elites.

The terms sociopath or psychopath often bring to mind images of sadistically violent individuals such as Ted Bundy or the fictional character of Dr. Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter in the book and movie The Silence of the Lambs. But I believe the defining characteristic traits of sociopaths actually cover a much broader spectrum of individuals than most of us would ever imagine. The sociopath is that truly self-absorbed individual with no conscience or feeling for others [emphasis mine, LH] and for whom social rules have no meaning. I believe that most all of us know or have come in contact with sociopathic individuals without even knowing it.

-- Horton, The Sociopath

Indeed, we have. He occupies the Oval Office, a lofty perch from which he bullies the world and threatens, perhaps forever, the precious few chances we have for peace, plenty and prosperity.

John Bruhns, Iraq Veteran

Why I fight and why we all must.
by John Bruhns (DC) · 10/07/2007 11:39:00 AM ET
Discuss this post here: Comments (230) · digg it · reddit · FARK · · Link

(Bumped -- This is a MUST read from John Bruhns)

As the war drums were beating for Iraq I knew something was wrong. I was paying attention to President Bush as he continually accused Saddam Hussein of possessing weapons of mass destruction and being linked to terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda. Yet, there was no solid proof that any of Bush's accusations had any validity to them. I guess if you repeat the same lies over and over again they begin to sound true. How else could Bush have tricked the nation into an unjust and unnecessary war in Iraq?

At the time I was stationed at Fort Riley, Kansas. It seemed as if the moment I arrived there in June 2002 the only message being sent from the top down was to be ready for war with Iraq. We trained vigorously that summer for war. And in January 2003 my unit deployed to Fort Irwin, California for a month long desert warfare training exercise. Immediately upon returning from Fort Irwin my unit received orders to deploy to Kuwait for the military buildup to topple Saddam Hussein and his government in Iraq.

We scrambled to get our gear and equipment ready for what would be the inevitable war with Iraq. It took a couple weeks to prepare, get medically screened, and write out our wills. Then we were put on standby to deploy at a moments notice.

There was a mixed sentiment among the troops I had served with at the time. For some troops Bush's word was enough for them to go to Iraq to fight and die for what they believed was necessary for our country. There were some who didn't pay attention to the politics. They felt that they were soldiers who had no other option but to go to war and take their chances. In a sense, that is what good soldiers do. I felt alone for the most part because I kept paying attention to what Bush was saying and what the UN weapons inspectors were reporting. To me it just wasn't adding up.

But before I could blink my eyes I was on the border of Kuwait and Iraq ready to invade on day one. It wasn't long before we received our attack orders and pushed into Iraq.

It was a rough ride to Baghdad. Right from the start 150,000 troops were cluttered and stacked upon each other with our vehicles breaking down due to the harsh terrain of the southern Iraqi desert. We were in the middle of nowhere and out in the open. If there were ever a time for Saddam to use his weapons of mass destruction it would have been the perfect opportunity for him. We were in the perfect location for him to attack us -- out in the open desert with no other population. He could have launched the alleged stockpile of WMD directly upon the US military and killed no one but our troops. If Bush really was convinced that Saddam had such a massive WMD arsenal why would he place us in the most vulnerable position for him to use them on us? Probably because Bush knew they did not exist otherwise he never would have allowed such a stupid battle plan to take place.

We pushed into Baghdad facing heavy resistance from the primarily Shiite populated cities in southern Iraq. It was strange being that the Shiites were Saddam's enemies who he had oppressed for decades. To me it was clear that they hated us more than Saddam because we were invaders from the west. Saddam might have been a horrible man, but we were worse in their eyes. It was frightening to realize that the people who Saddam murdered by the thousands actually preferred him to us.

My stay in Baghdad was not much different. It was very confusing because the enemy was so unidentifiable. We didn't know who we were fighting, and that made it extremely difficult to distinguish between the civilian population and the insurgents. As time goes on you stop distinguishing between the two. My perception was that we were fighting the Iraqi people who resented our presence in their country -- not Al-Qaeda as George Bush kept drilling into the minds of the American people.

We were attacked almost on a daily basis by rocket propelled grenades, AK-47 assault rifles, improvised explosive devices, and mortars. This kind of violent activity led to thousands of pre-dawn raids on Iraqi homes. And when you kick in the door you enter the homes as if you are going after Bin Laden himself. In a sense we started to treat the Iraqi people as if they are all terrorists causing them to resent us even more. In the following days of each raid violent activity would double and for some reason no one could understand why.

I participated in the training of the Iraqi Security Forces. Their training cycle was one week long and it was extremely insufficient. There was no trust factor between us and them. During their weapons qualification I can recall being told by my range NCO to stand directly behind the Iraqi soldier just in case he tried to turn the weapon on us. My instructions were to "jump him and kill him." When the training cycle was over we incorporated them into our units to accompany us on missions in order to train them. Prior to the missions we never told them where we were going because we were positive that the insurgency had infiltrated the Iraqi Security Forces. If they knew where the mission would take place they could tip off the larger insurgency element and set us up for an ambush. Almost all of them covered their faces out of fear or shame of being seen with American troops in their communities. As a rifle team leader leading a team of Iraqis wearing hoods and carrying AK-47 assault rifles down a narrow alley in Baghdad it is needless to say that my anxiety level was through the roof.

Before I left Iraq I made a promise to myself that I would do everything in my power to stop this war if I was lucky enough to make it home.

Upon honorable discharge from the US Army in February 2005 I relocated to the Washington, DC area. I immediately became a vocal critic of the war and traveled the halls of Congress going door to door hoping to share my experiences with those who empowered Bush to send us to war. For a few months it fell on deaf ears, but after a while some members of Congress began to listen.

From there on I spoke at rallies, demonstrations, town hall meetings, and on behalf of anti Iraq war candidates running for office. I joined the Democratic leadership in promoting legislation that called for an end to the war.

It's been years now and sometimes I feel out of breath and tired from screaming at the top of my lungs for end to this madness in Iraq. But we are still there and it appears that there is really no end in sight.

Even General Patraeus can't say that we are safer because of the war in Iraq. During our troop surge the Iraqi government fell apart. We have granted amnesty to Sunni militias in Anbar with American blood on their hands, and we are now arming and financing them out of desperation to stop the violence. We are doing the same for Shiite militias loyal to Al Sadr who is a mass murderer of US troops. The Iraqi government, police force, and security forces are rampant with corruption. Is this the Iraq that our troops were sent off to die for? If Bush cared the slightest bit I would love to ask him that question.

Now it has been suggested by General Petraeus that the surge has been such a success that we can bring home 30,000 troops by this summer. Really? That would mean that if there were any gains made by the surge they will evaporate almost immediately into thin air. We will be right back were we started with fewer troops in an extremely hostile environment -- The Rumsfeld Doctrine. What then? Do we have another surge? Is that possible with a broken military? OF COURSE NOT.

Bush and his loyalists in Congress won't even allow our troops to rest after mulitple deployments that go above and beyond the call of duty.

During the last Democratic presidential debate the front runners for the nomination could not even guarantee that our troops would be home by the end of their first term in 2013. For me that is just tragic to hear.

The American people want an end to this war so badly. If the politicians will not listen it is our duty as Americans to make them listen. We owe it to our country and our troops to ensure that our members of Congress no longer allow themselves to be bullied by a coward like George W. Bush. If Bush vetoes legislation for our troops and an end to the war Congress must shove it right back in his face. We must act now while there is still a chance to make Congress do their job as a co-equal branch of government and start bringing this war to an end. They need to be equally as defiant as Bush has been for the last 7 years and fight fire with fire when it comes to this President. After all, that is what we elected them to do.

I will fight for an end to this war with my last breath. We all must.


John Bruhns
Iraq Veteran