The straight poop, from one solid ol' gal: Molly Ivins

AUSTIN, Texas -- As Riley used to say on an ancient television sitcom, "This is a revoltin' development." There seems to be a bit of a campaign on the right to blame Newsweek for the anti-American riots in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other Islamic countries.

Uh, people, I hate to tell you this, but the story about Americans abusing the Koran in order to enrage prisoners has been out there for quite some time. The first mention I found of it is March 17, 2004, when the Independent of London interviewed the first British citizen released from Guantanamo Bay. The prisoner said he had been physically beaten but did not consider that as bad as the psychological torture, which he described extensively. Jamal al-Harith, a computer programmer from Manchester, said 70 percent of the inmates had gone on a hunger strike after a guard kicked a copy of the Koran. The strike was ended by force-feeding.

Then came the report, widely covered in American media last December, by the International Red Cross concerning torture at Gitmo. I wrote at the time: "In the name of Jesus Christ Almighty, why are people representing our government, paid by us, writing filth on the Korans of helpless prisoners? Is this American? Is this Christian? What are our moral values? Where are the clergymen on this? Speak up, speak out."

The reports kept coming: Dec. 30, 2004, "Released Moroccan Guantanamo Detainee Tells Islamist Paper of His Ordeal," reported the Financial Times. "They watched you each time you went to the toilet; the American soldiers used to tear up copies of Koran and throw them in the toilet. ..." said the released prisoner.

On Jan. 9, 2005, Andrew Sullivan, writing in The Sunday Times of London, said: "We now know a great deal about what has gone on in U.S. detention facilities under the Bush administration. Several government and Red Cross reports detail the way many detainees have been treated. We know for certain that the United States has tortured five inmates to death. We know that 23 others have died in U.S. custody under suspicious circumstances. We know that torture has been practiced by almost every branch of the U.S. military in sites all over the world -- from Abu Ghraib to Tikrit, Mosul, Basra, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.

"We know that no incidents of abuse have been reported in regular internment facilities and that hundreds have occurred in prisons geared to getting intelligence. We know that thousands of men, women and children were grabbed almost at random from their homes in Baghdad, taken to Saddam's former torture palace and subjected to abuse, murder, beatings, semi-crucifixions and rape.

"All of this is detailed in the official reports. What has been perpetrated in secret prisons to 'ghost detainees' hidden from Red Cross inspection, we do not know. We may never know.

"This is America? While White House lawyers were arguing about what separates torture from legitimate 'coercive interrogation techniques,' the following was taking place: Prisoners were hanged for hours or days from bars or doors in semi-crucifixions; they were repeatedly beaten unconscious, woken and then beaten again for days on end; they were sodomized; they were urinated on, kicked in the head, had their ribs broken, and were subjected to electric shocks.

"Some Muslims had pork or alcohol forced down their throats; they had tape placed over their mouths for reciting the Koran; many Muslims were forced to be naked in front of each other, members of the opposite sex and sometimes their own families. It was routine for the abuses to be photographed in order to threaten the showing of the humiliating footage to family members."

The New York Times reported on May 1 on the same investigation Newsweek was writing about and interviewed a released Kuwaiti, who spoke of three major hunger strikes, one of them touched off by "guards' handling copies of the Koran, which had been tossed into a pile and stomped on. A senior officer delivered an apology over the camp's loudspeaker system, pledging that such abuses would stop. Interpreters, standing outside each prison block, translated the officer's apology. A former interrogator at Guantanamo, in an interview with the Times, confirmed the accounts of the hunger strikes, including the public expression of regret over the treatment of the Korans."

So where does all this leave us? With a story that is not only true, but previously reported numerous times. So let's drop the "Lynch Newsweek" bull. Seventeen people have died in these riots. They didn't die because of anything Newsweek did -- the riots were caused by what our government has done.

Get your minds around it. Our country is guilty of torture. To quote myself once more: "What are you going to do about this? It's your country, your money, your government. You own this country, you run it, you are the board of directors. They are doing this in your name. The people we elected to public office do what you want them to. Perhaps you should get in touch with them."


Originally Published on Tuesday May 17, 2005

A brief note the syndicate included with the online version of this:

All newspaper editors want to know what their readers like. If you would like to read this feature in your local newspaper, please do not hesitate to share your enthusiasm with your local newspaper editor.

cmac

Molly Ivins is perhaps the most Texas style eloquent speaker and writer I've heard. When she cuts up W's bacon, it done been cut up, Imo tell you what.

Did you catch any of British MP George Galloway's appearance before Minn. senator Norm Coleman's witch hunt regarding the Oil for Food Scandal? Dude *****ed slapped Coleman up one side and down t'other. That's how they do it in Ol' England. None of this false bowing and scraping while sharpening the knife they're going to stick in "The Honorable Senator's" back. If anyone knows where a video of this can be seen, please post it. Coleman rings my bull**** alarm about as loud as it can get rung. I bring it up because Galloway called Coleman's investigation "the mother of all smokescreens," and that can be said about this Newsweek brew ha-ha as well. Truth gonna come out in the wash, count on it. I guess W missed the part in the bible where it is written, "Be sure your sin will find you out."

Galloway can be read about at:

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/NationNF.asp?ArticleID=165898

the gov that preceded Dubyah, Ann Richards, was a much better speaker than Ivens. Richards, like Ivens, never understood that Dubyah is and does exactly what he says. That Bush is his own master. Instead, they created that Rove-Machiavelli mystique as an election ploy that failed.

But the story is an article of faith for folks who hate Bush, how else to explain losing to a complete dunder-headed loser?

Well, as Lincoln suggested about fooling the people, here's a clue: the people who vote are not stupid and are rarely fooled for long. Over half of the voters recently stayed with an old story and the man whom they trusted and understood rather than take a chance on a new story from somebody they didn't know or trust.

In other words, it doesn't really matter what Ivens says about ol' Dubbie just like it didn't matter worth a damn what rightie-tighties said (and some dim bulbs continue to say) about ol' Bill. They are the peoples' choices, not the pundits'. Thank god.

I don't recall Ivens calling W a loser. She makes convincing case that W is stupid, corrupt, and mean spirited, but how can someone who keeps winning elections be called a loser?

That more than half the voters voted for W would seem like good evidence that he is worthy of the office to which he was re-elected. The problem is, he has been proven to be a liar (I know you refuse to accept that characterization, but it has been proven so many times I see no point in debating it) and incompetent. That he is a liar is a fact. That he is incompetent is an opinion, but one in which I have high confidence.

So, his continued political success proves something, but it does not prove that he is worthy of the office because there is conclusive proof to the contrary on that issue.

OK Bot, I'll bite. You're right, Ivins is a better writer than speaker. So tell me, if the voting public has so much insight, exactly what is going real swimmingly in America today? Economy's booming? My personal finances would be looking pretty good if I had just borrowed a few $Billion that I had no worries about paying back.

The man plays to people's love of self and their utter, unshakeable belief that we are the greatest nation on earth...just because! Clilnton had what, around 70 to 80% approval rating at various points? And Bush hit the same or higher numbers? We do not have two seperate 80% blocks of the voting public. Why is it that so many people would embrace both? I'm thinking maybe it's blind, not especially critical, allegiance.

And I'm sorry, Rove is a master propagandist. Always keeping Bush on message - in other words, don't let any new troublesome info deter him from repeating, ad naseum, his/their version of the world and how to make it safe for GHOD - fearing 'Mer'cans.

He's not a liar. Nyaaah-nyahhhh!!!

Newsweek is a subsidiary of CBS....who is owned by CNN and all are controlled by the DNC....................you have to be a biased sob just to get an interview...and seriously deluded to get hired.

__________________
Proud owner of ....
1971 280SE W108
1979 300SD W116
1983 300D W123
1975 Ironhead Sportster chopper
1987 GMC 3/4 ton 4X4 Diesel
1989 Honda Civic (Heavily modified)
---------------------
Section 609 MVAC Certified
---------------------
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche

You've got all the answers, without any doubt. You are absolutely correct, perfectly accurate and teh majority of Americans were so stupid as to be deceived.

And that's why your side lost.


It is simple, really.

There is an implicit assumption of self-evidence that is in reality nonexistent to the majority of voters. Since the majority fail to accept the self-evidence of what you believe, they must be either stupid, duped, misled, hate-filled, or part of the conspiracy.

OTOH, there is another simple explanation.

They looked at the candidates, looked at the respective records, looked at the respective visions and rejected your party's. But don't worry. The next election will provide your boys and girls with another opportunity at governance. If they lose, which is likely, the Repo-men will be writhing and gnashing their teeth blaming everybody but themselves.

Bot

Bot, what is this "your party" crap? I am adrift and alone in the political sea. It is a painful story, actually. Saddened, I begin to cry.

If you have a couple of hours, I'll tell you about a small part of what I've been wrong about in the last few years. Don't be hitting me with that blanket put-down, thank you so much.

Again, you are using sarcasm instead of answering a question. Is that because you have no good answer? Here 'tis once more: Exactly what is going real swimmingly in America today? Economy's booming? My personal finances would be looking pretty good if I had just borrowed a few $Billion that I had no worries about paying back. The man is a full on rolling disaster. Convince me otherwise.

Give it a shot, brilliance man.

Do you think the majority of people have ever in history supported a leader they later came to scorn and wish they had never seen? Golly, I guess the majority is always right. Of course, in America, the majority will, supposedly, rule, if the black box voting machine system doesn't somehow screw up, but I can't imagine anyone being tempted by the $ Buh -buh - billions of dollars that are at stake in a presidential election. Oh - oh, I can hear the howls of outrage even now....

Sigh...

Oh god, why did you make me the way I am....(wretching, wracking, ***** sobs)

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

Folks are generally doing okay. They don't feel threatened and they don't feel oppressed. They believe that their own lives are better today than on 9/11, and that is important. It is trite but true that for America, the planet changed on 9/11. Americans no longer care that the economy was booming along through most of the Clinton Administration. That was then when teh world did not threaten Americans directly. The citizens who care to vote hold political power over those who don't and the folks who do not vote don't give a damn. Even if they did, they muted themselves.

In my own case, my std of living is increasing at a modest, steady rate. My kids perform above average in school, and are interested in citizenship and current events: We take them with us to vote and we never miss any election. My kids were rasied to be independent thinkers and to follow their own moral compass, not their parents', not some pastor. They are generous to a fault yet demanding of themselves and others.

Is any of that Dubbies fault, responsibility, or beneficence? Heck no. I hope I never get to the point in my life that I believe my happiness, liberty, and life depend on some damned-fool bureaucracy.

Well, that is a fairly good answer, acutally. I too have faith that the common people will rise above gub-mint.

However, the debt/spending thing is outta hand. When I asked what is going well, I basically meant, going well with his leadership and what would be the overall legacy of it. I don't want to be only a gloom and doomer. I understand what you mean about Zinn and Chomsky. I saw a DVD of Zinn recently and his face generally had an angry, sort of dissipated look. Chomsky has a generally arrogant Ivory tower vibe. Nonetheless, some of their info is unique and valuable, IMO, and too many people want to shoot those messengers.

My problem with Bush is that he appeals to people's irrational self-love, i.e., "we're number 1." I don't think there is a #1. A lot of what you decribe that is going well is, like you say, independent of W. My concern is that his assinine spending and war-making are going to leave us in a deep whole with all sorts of sqandered lead time on issues that really matter, primarily resource depletion and our inability and unwillingness to move to dramatically lower levels of consumption.

For example, after 9/11, I was filled with "let's kick their ass" the sort of which I never could get into during Vietnam. I hear our State Waste Utility advertise for recycling aluminum all the time. I'm thinking, W could say just a few sentences about recycling aluminum for airplane manf. for the war effort. We throw away enough Alum. every year to rebuild the entire U.S. commercial air fleet 4 times over, at least I'm pretty sure that is right.

People were begging for Presidential advice on what they could do to help the war effort and all he could come up with was, "go shopping." State waste management boards around the country would have loved him if he had made a few comments about "Aluminum...for VICTORY!" This sort of thing would never cross his mind. He probably thinks that recylcing Alum. takes jobs away from Bauxite miners and smelters!(?!)

Enough, enough....

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

The USA in WWII had a genuine shortage of manpower and resources, that's why the gummint asked for (and demanded) sacrifices and infringement on constitutional liberties.

There are no shortages of manpower or materiale in this war. Asking folks to gather Al and such is kind of silly.

There is a resource that is not readily available that does impose a heavy burden on us and calls on us to make sacrifices, yet you compalin about it when it is asked of you.

B

Oh, yeah? Well, well, you're a poo poo head. So there.

What? Too cryptic. Perhaps you mean going to war any and every time some ambitious chicken hawk president asks you to?

Aluminum is abundant? Bot, cmon you're a scientiest. Yes, bauxite is one of the most abudant ores supposedly, but the mining and smelting of it require huge amounts of electricity and produce massive amounts of waste. Oh yes, we have electricity to burn. Hay -ell, we'll just go over to Eye-raque and ship some 'o that natural gas over here to it's rightful owners so we can keep the supply of aluminum going to Lockheed and PepsiCo.

Recycling alum eliminates some 95% plus of the energy requirement to get a coke can in some kid's hand.

Why is it that solid waste boards are advertising for people to recycle? Could it be that it's getting harder and harder to find places to dump the stuff?

I'm sorry, W and cronies would consider saying anything about recycling aluminum as being hopelessly woo-woo, sissified, left wing radical diddling.

That's why he's such a fool. He doesn't know how to access human resources that fall outside of his narrow preconceptions, sort of like a psuedo green scientist I know, though he's not a fool.

ps: Do you hafff to quote the whole damn piece when you're the post directly following? Damn, I'm cranky.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

I'm certainly NOT arguing against recycling Al. Heck, I would like more recycling and more stringency in requirements for manufactruing of recyclable goods. But that has NOTHING to do with strategic raw materials. We have no need for controls or enhancement on strategic raw materials for war making.

Of course I was bein gintentionally cryptic. And I will continue to be for a few more iterations.

When rationing was imposed in WWII, do you beleive that everybody pitched right in with happy smiles on tehir faces? Of course not. There were conspiracy theorists who believed that rationing was a plot for various politcial or industrial purposes; there were profiteers and blackmarketeers, etc. Through teh rosy lenses of time we see the filtered version of the country in time of war. The reality does not conform. Many people strenuously objected to rationing, believing it was another FDR ploy to control private enterprise, etc.

We see the same phenomena today concerning the current war effort.

It's a different time, different circumstances and war-making is wildly different. It would be surprising beyond rationality if we reacted today as we did in 1941 (1939 for everybody else).

What resource are we called upon to sacrifice in order to successfully accomplish the strategic goals of victory?