A New America of Cowardice, Fear and Shame

12 Democratic Senators voted for what has come to be labeled "The Detainee Bill" because they are cowards. They were too afraid of seeming weak to do the right thing. Perhaps they do not realize that what they did was to insure they go down in history as just that, cowards who put fear for their own personal political careers ahead of the Constitution each and every one of them swore to uphold. We have come to expect this kind of treason from republicans for different reasons, but these democrats have openly admitted it was out of fear of seeming soft on terror. These 12 individuals are just that…soft on terror, especially the kind that is openly legislated from the floor of our own United States Senate.

I for one am sick of hearing how they just can’t do anything to stop this and their how hands are tied. Your whimpering can not drown out the fact that it is your own cowardice that binds you and that is what you will be remembered for.

The Roll Call of Democratic Shame

Tom Carper of Delaware

Tim Johnson of South Dakota

Mary Landrieu of Louisiana

Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey

Menendez of New Jersey

Bill Nelson of Florida

Ben Nelson of Nebraska

Senator Pryor of Arkansas

Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia

Ken Salazar of Colorado

Debbie Stabenow of Michigan

Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut

Chris at Royally Kranked sent me this post today. Thanks Chris for your words and your courage to use them.

The rage is palpable, the absolute anger & fury at the loathsome circumstances & individuals who now endorse & legislate physical torture, and more importantly, the right to be legally immune to the consequences of any mistakes made in doing so say, torturing the wrong person-shake my soul with an anger not felt since the first immediate days of the failure of Govt when it came to Katrina’s human-cost aftermath.

In no particular order:

If the US occupation of Iraq is truly the front lines in a supposed “War On Terrorists”, just how has US torture of people in this Administration’s custody cut down on the violence raging in Iraq, most especially Baghdad, and/or Afghanistan?

Advanced any current US-centered positive political agenda in the current Iraq Govt?

Made us safer in the US by torturing the wrong people?

Why wouldn’t someone logically want revenge for being wrongly tortured as a direct result of deliberate Administration and GOP policies & personnel?

Lessened the financial annihilation of the US treasury due to the ongoing Iraq carnage/occupation?

The worst part of W’s delight in torture is that it won’t achieve its stated objective, namely keeping us safer from another Sept 11 attack, not when this President & Administration willfully & deliberately focus on the wrong terrorist group/aspect/scenario while paying lip service with their self-congratulations of supposedly keeping us safer from the terrorists.

Forget a non-nuclear Iran, al-Qaeda & the Taliban are now free-with Pakistan's blessing-to roam the Waziristan region, on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.

Osama bin Laden's got a massive bankroll, and Pakistan has an actual nuclear arsenal.

By cutting & running from finishing off the Taliban, al-Qaeda & UbL in Afghanistan, W has now allowed a resurgent Taliban & al-Qaeda closer to their ultimate prize, Pakistan's nuclear weapon.

And there are elements sympathetic to both groups located in the Pakistan Intelligence Services.

Serving as a psychological backdrop to all this is W's clear cowardice when he used the Affirmative Action of his family name to leapfrog over 500 MORE qualified applicants for that Air National Guard spot.

Apparently, W thinks that calling himself a "War President" will let him forget all about that physical cowardice he's always shown when the moment counts most, such as avoiding physical combat, or refusing to alter his fund-raising vacation for an additional three days after Katrina hit, New Orleans & the Gulf Coast drowned and people died.

No doubt also that W thought he'd purge that troublesome cowardice from his memory if he could be the President who oversaw a robust military engagement that could get the US past the traumas inflicted by the Vietnam conflict.

Also entering into W's decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein was the fact that Bush Sr. decided doing that very thing was too high a price to pay for what would have to be a US occupation in order to accomplish that particular US objective.

W's always wanted to show up his own father, W's only validation ever comes about by proving his unwarranted superiority over all others, a mindset common to uncorrected spoiled brats who ALWAYS leave others to clean up the mess the brats cause.

Well, surprise, surprise, because of W's disastrous leadership, the US military is not only overstretched to the breaking point, but instead of one humiliating military defeat, we're looking at two, as both Iraq now & Afghanistan again are turning into safe havens for terrorist groups intent on doing harm to US interests and citizens all around the world.

W has NO ability to directly get the violence levels down in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor can he fail to be faulted for allowing a resurgent al-Qaeda & the Taliban to plan on how best to actually acquire at least some of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, an aim easier to accomplish with help from sympathizers in both the Pakistan military and intelligence services.

If W's desire to overshadow his father by deposing Saddam Hussein hadn't outweighed W's responsibility to achieve justice for those killed & injured on Sept 11, this vile rebirth of both the Taliban & al-Qaeda wouldn't be happening now.

Here's something W's apparently never considered, but it should scare the living Hell out of anyone truly worried about another massive terrorist attack on US Soil.

What happens if foreign-based terrorist groups provide the funding, materials, resources and training needed to attack US targets but hire out various US militia type groups/individuals-like Tim McVeigh-to provide the actual muscle and carry out the attack itself?

But how much of a threat does this Administration consider any US extremist or group holding the same beliefs of permanent US military & economic superiority as President Bush Jr.?

I suspect W is far more interested in spying on political opponents, as opposed to those US extremists like Tim McVeigh or Eric Rudolph, who would actually do us harm through terrorist acts.


If I was W, I wouldn't be popping the Champagne corks just yet.

Soon after signing this vile legislation, it will undoubtedly be challenged specifically over the Habeas Corpus provision.

And it will be struck down as being clearly unconstitutional, and W will be told that if he wants to kill off Habeas Corpus, he'll have to do it via a Constitutional Amendment.

Let's also be clear about why W is so insistent on torturing those in US custody, and how gutting Habeas Corpus protections enters into it.

It's obvious who the ultimate targets of W's undeniable paranoia are, US citizens, political enemies and persistent reporters.

Every single politician who voted for this "Appeasement Of Real Terrorists" bill needs to answer some questions before the elections.

1. Do you support the rape, torture and murder of children to get information from their parents, and if not, just what will you do to stop such a sickening scenario from being carried out by this President?

2. If Habeas Corpus is too pesky a standard to uphold, will you now sign legally binding documents giving up your or your family's rights to claim Habeas Corpus in the event you or your family is ever arrested?

3. How, logically, are you NOT giving support to those who want to use the same rules you voted for against those US citizens or soldiers held in custody overseas?

4. How, logically, is it all right for the US to pursue these rules but not all right for anti-US Govts to use those very same rules against US soldiers held in their custody?

5. How are those who voted for this travesty so sure that a President they despise somewhere down the road won't be using the very same unchecked powers against themselves, say, a President Hillary Clinton deciding that, without any warrants necessary, she has to see the membership rolls and financial data of, say, 2nd Amendment groups like the NRA?

That last question is always my favorite, as those it's asked of then have to finally confront their idiocy head on, and the best phrasing is along the lines of "Why are you so willing to provide your own rope for your own hanging"?

Yes, the vote yesterday was no doubt cheered by other W-loving "Freedom Haters" like Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and it's also obvious that the only reason W gives a damn about this Congressional rollover is to cover his own ass legally from being held accountable-rightly-for war crimes he directly authorized.

But this law will be struck down, and, absent a Constitutional Amendment, so will W's latest "Get Out Of Jail Free" card as well.

Any candidate who voted for this obscenity should be asked why the military was wrong about keeping torture illegal.

They should also be asked why the US troops are now dying and getting maimed to gut Habeas Corpus, a Constitutional protection that makes our legal system one that we used to point to with pride in the past, despite all the numerous and documented problems we see with the legal system on an everyday basis.

How are soldiers dying for freedom when the President trashes, at every possible opportunity, the same Constitution he's sworn to uphold?

Make no mistake; this is one of the most shameful episodes in our country’s history, and one that should be as disputed and destroyed as soon as possible, destroyed by the one thing stronger than even bullets & fear.

Electoral outcomes based on courage & anger aimed at those responsible for inflicting such unneeded misery, pain & corruption on those forced by economic circumstances to do the actual deadly, traumatic & supremely dirty work their Defense Dept Civilian Leadership has absolutely no concept of in terms of sheer terror and eventually mind-numbing brutality of the quickest, most unjust kind.

See enough of your squad-mates blown to pieces instantly, with no warning of any kind before the blast, and eventually, the conditions will definitely cause otherwise good-natured people to want to start inflicting misery and carnage on those they were sent to supposedly liberate and its conditions that are best described as “Hellish”.

In fact, mentally, there’s only one thing worse than being on the physical end of torture as an official policy. Performing torture on an actual, unwilling other, for the very first time, especially if the torturer has never before even thought about deliberately inflicting pain on an unwilling other.

Because it endorsed the horrors inherent in both the tortured and first time torturers, this Administration has inflicted horrific physical and mental trauma on people this President doesn’t care about in the least.

I challenge those who endorse torture to undergo the same procedures, to the same extent and time limit endorsed for others, themselves, and lay out the scenario whereby the state is held accountable for mistakenly torturing the wrong people.

For President Bush Jr., I wish absolutely no physical harm and a long life, but with one key, sadistic proviso:

That, like his mental inability to dodge his clear cowardice earlier in his life, W be mentally forced to acknowledge how despised he is.

Even people who don’t know all the particulars about the vile parasite hailed as Sen. Joe McCarthy still have an instinctive revulsion at the name itself.

And that’s what I want for W, a long life consumed by the knowledge that he will always be despised by right-thinking people everywhere, and that W not be able to hide from this unpleasant reality even in the deepest recesses of his heart and soul.

Royally Kranked


Related Posts with Thumbnails