Bloodthirsty

We Americans like to think of ourselves as a peace-loving nation. We aren't.

Sure, some of us are, possibly many, maybe even a majority. Maybe not. But there's a strong current of blood lust not even a step up from savagery that runs through many Americans' violent and ugly view of the world.

Iran's nuclear ambitions? Don't ask questions. Don't talk. Don't bother with economic coercion. Attack.

To your lastpoint: eliminate their capability now, so they cannot use it later. Do not make the mistake of thinking they won't. and, talking will not get us there. --ronreganfan [sic] (4/9/2009 12:18 PM EDT)

Pirates from lawless Somalia? Don't negotiate the release of their hostages, backed by the threat of force. Attack everyone everywhere.

Yesterday, April 8th, 2009, Somali pirates attacked an American merchant ship. To the government of Somalia, I say the following: You must get contol of your population and end their piracy right now. If you don’t, we will. If ending their piracy means destroying what little there is of your sorry nation, we will destroy your sorry nation. If any Somali pirate ever again attacks an American ship, we will act accordingly. Do not appeal for mercy. Do not mistake our resolve. --camper9574 (4/9/2009 5:22 AM EDT)

Negotiation is not an option. Get Captain Phillips back safely, then take quick and severe action.
If some innocents get in the way then they should not have been in the area. --icepack (4/9/2009 7:30 AM EDT)

These idiots have no idea how vast the Indian Ocean is. (Note: I have no qualms whatsoever about defending shipping. I'm just not willing to kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out.)

North Korean missile? Never mind that Kim Jong Il is probably sick. Never mind that this society will collapse under its own weight quite soon. Attack.

Newt Gingrich says he would have disabled the long-range missile before it ever left the launch pad. --from the CNN story

Yes, the US should have bombed the launch pad as soon as the threat became known. Now the North Koreans will think they can get away with it every time. --Cameron (April 6th, 2009 4:00 pm ET)

Fortunately, many commenters on the Jack Cafferty story of Jingo Newt recognize the Republican war drumbeat for what it is.

This is what the bully faction of the conservative movement has to offer: perpetual war. Fer chrissake, in 2003, they wanted to invade France for merely verbal disagreements with the Bushists.

We're already in theater in two wars, maxed out on both our soldiers and our credit cards. If we fought all the wars the wingnuts want us to fight, we would be on a permanent war footing. And our deficits? We'd never see a balanced budget again.

The stupidest attitude of all that the bully faction of the Republican Party sweats out through every pore is that if you don't agree with their every carpet-bombing knee-jerk reflex, you must want to befriend every enemy and show America's throat to their knives.

So, of course, it's all Obama's fault that these conflicts heated up. It's all Obama's fault that he hasn't yet killed anyone. Never mind that all three of these problems have been going on for years. Nope, the wingnuts' selective amnesia prevents them from ever seeing problems in context, where those problems are more complicated.

Guantanamo, torture, and habeas corpus

John McCain was against it before he was for it. If he'll compromise his "principles" on torture, there's nothing he won't compromise.

McCain challenged the White House by sponsoring a bill banning the torture of detainees in military custody, a move that made him a target of conservative attacks. But in a compromise with fellow Republicans, McCain allowed the bill to include a provision that removed the detainees' right to contest their imprisonment in federal court.

In 2006, he supported the Military Commissions Act, which provided military trials for some of the detainees, but allows evidence obtained through torture. In February, McCain sided with Bush by opposing restrictions on the CIA's use of tactics widely considered to be torture, prompting some human rights activists to accuse McCain of betraying his own cause to woo conservatives in the presidential race.

Hillary Clinton temporized and kept her head down. She'll acquiesce to abuses in order to stay a player.

Hillary Clinton was a freshman senator with only a year in office when Bush began to bring detainees to Guantanamo Bay in January 2002. She and many fellow Democrats in Congress said so little in opposition to the prison during those early years that right-leaning commentator William Safire accused them of giving Bush a blank check in his treatment of detainees. "Not a peep out of Hillary Clinton," he wrote.

(God, I hate to agree with Safire.)

Barack Obama, on the other hand, stood up to be counted:

"He said, 'I don't know which way this shakes out politically, but this is wrong, and you can count on me,' " said Thomas Wilner, one of 80 Guantanamo Bay defense lawyers who has since signed a public letter supporting Obama's candidacy. "A lot of people were afraid that they would look weak on terrorism. He really understood that our greatest strength is our values."

For this, he gets called un-American!

Bet they all wear flag pins

This is the military-industrial complex hard at its number one goal. Guess what. It's not peace. Or war, for that matter. It's profit, suckled from the government teat.

Kudos to Farah Stockman and the Boston Globe for pursuing this story.

Gulf of credibility

Updated.

The Navy - our Navy - is reporting Iranian harassment in the Persian Gulf. Under ordinary civilian leadership, despite the harsh lesson of the Gulf of Tonkin, I would reflexively credit these reports as true, as I did in the Gulf of Sidra.

Under the rain of bullshit during the reign of the Bushists, it's much harder. Even events that actually did happen, such as this one, get meaning imputed to them that they just don't deserve. One core lesson of Iraq - that the Cheney shadow government is happy to trump up a cause of war - cannot be ignored.

Here's what I think:

• The Iranian "gunboats" were very light Zero-like boats. The boats were small but hard-hulled, probably fiberglass.
  
• If the Navy had perceived the objects the Iranians dropped to be a threat, the incident would not have transpired without weapons fire. The U.S. ships would have shot them up. They were nothing.
• Admiral Roughead is overselling this incident to please the Bushists.
• The Iranians were playing chicken; there are idiots in Iran who want war, too. They probably had no idea of the personal space a navy needs in a tight strait. They're probably too young to have even heard of the Exocet.
• Vice Admiral Cosgriff did not specify that the translated content of the "aggressive transmissions" was known to the vessels' captains in real time. How credible is it that three minor vessels would have a Farsi translator on board when the whole U.S. military can't field more than a few dozen Arabic translators? The transmissions were in English. Oddly, in ABC's video, they were easier to hear than the American radio operator.
  

The upshot: I'd guess that there was a routine incident report that someone in Washington spun to prominence, something the commanders at sea put out of their minds as soon as it was over.

My skepticism is the consequence of the Bushists' gulf of credibility. The high military officers who have taken their propaganda orders from the White House will have to be retired by the next Democratic President, if only to restore the honor of their services.

Kafkanamo

The inmates at Guantanamo can argue for their release. They can even present evidence. Doesn't mean we have to listen. K's innocence or guilt is not important.

The Bushists again care not at all for the rule of law, even from their own Supreme Court.

(See, I told you Farah Stockman could do good work.)

Duh!

The Boston Globe has this nugget on p.2:

A White House report to Congress on Friday concluded that the development of Iraq's security forces has been "slower than hoped."

Doesn't the White House ever get embarrassed?

Note: In the Globe story, not a single quote from a war or escalation opponent. Not even one.

Unthinkable

Duhbya can't think of anything to change except his slogans. So, the Boston Globe tells us:

President Bush will endorse the broad outlines of a plan to bring home 30,000 troops from Iraq by the middle of next year if conditions are favorable, a senior administration official said yesterday.

Is it just me, or is this the same bullshit we've been hearing since the "end" of major combat operations in 2003, four years ago, stripped only of "stay the course"?

The media also can't frame this story any other way. Nancy Pelosi has a juicy quote that gets right to the heart of the dispute. It should have been paragraph 3, but instead it is relegated to the last paragraph. All seven of the quotes or paraphrases on the web front come from Republican - except the one from Joe Lieberman. Now that's balance!

Farah Stockman and Bryan Bender have done good work in the past, so I'm guessing this story's Republican slant comes from the ever credulous Peter Canellos, the Globe's DC bureau chief.

For Duhbya and the media, any other narrative is unthinkable.