I don’t believe there will be any ‘rebellion’. The Bush fanatics will stick with him til Hell literally freezes over. They still form a sizable block of (block)heads.
I don’t know if the political apathy of the great majority of people in this country would be broken by yet another series of wars in the Middle East. I am afraid that most people would not care unless it hit them in the metaphorical or literal breadbasket.
The thing is, this WOULD. By then it would be too late to do anything.
I just hope that there is some way of preventing it.
As for the gulags, why should this be a surprise? Can anyone explain why we are allowed to run a prison camp in Cuba, a country that our government has worked for decades to destabilize? Why should we not use the Russian gulags, when we are also using their old bases in the Eastern countries?
The whole business makes me very sick.

Posted by: hopping madbunny | Nov 3 2005 0:05 utc | 4

A thoughtful rumination by the barkeep–except for one thing: how could anyone expect anything of value to come from a government that seized power in December of 2000? These crooks and fascists were (and are) utterly lacking in honor, prudence, common-sense, intelligence, and respect for their fellow man–above all for those fellows who finally couldn’t put up with our cynical indifference (in the spring and summer of 2001) to the violence being enacted on the West Bank (yes, I really do believe that September 11 was a response to that dreadful process). We sowed the wind and we reaped the whirlwind; it was obvious at the time, even as it was obvious that the damaged goods sitting in our highest “elected” (stolen, rather) office could never do anything right, or well, or with care. We knew this; surely the barkeep knew this, and I can’t understand why he, or anyone else, would have expected, however dimly, that this bad, demented gang could process a tragedy of many phases into a needed and necessary action of any kind. To put it another way: a frontal military attack on bin Laden, in Afghanistan, made no strategic sense at the time, and has proven to be a disaster ever since. Undoing that guy is as complicated as the process of setting him up in the first place–an initiative that took us a decade and several billions of dollars before it really bore fruit (in the form, as we know, of Al Qaida).
I guess we’re going to have to suffer a lot more before we get some clarity about ourselves–about the string of disasters going back (at least) to the overthrow (for the Middle East) of Mossadegh, to the overthrow (for Latin America) of Arbenz, and to our rejection (for Southeast Asia) of the Geneva accords. We’ll be lucky if we’ve learned our lesson by 2054–the centenary (if in fact there is one) of these three emblematic misdeeds.

Posted by: alabama | Nov 3 2005 0:20 utc | 6

Here is an excerpt from an e-mail I recieved this morning. Point is that I think these people know they’ll have a reblellion on their hands and they are gearing up to handle it. They have videos and pictures of quite a few potential rebels.
“I have just returned from a totally peaceful demonstration for peace, which took place at the Post Office at 5th and H Sts. I was appalled at the overwhelming, excessive police presence at this event. There must have been two-dozen heavily armed officers from the CHP, Federal Marshals, and PD. They had a police helicopter, and Evidence Technician, took many photographs and much video of us as we peacefully exercised our First Amendment rights. Numerous citizens were cited for failing to cross the street to the satisfaction of the police.
This outrageous and totally unnecessary police presence was an insult to our community and a deliberate attempt to silence the citizens through military style intimidation. I have called on all members of the City Council, the Mayor, and the Police Chief to investigate and account for this horrible police action. The police and the city owe the citizens of this community an immediate apology……”
Max

Posted by: Max Andersen | Nov 3 2005 1:00 utc | 8

Billmon–If torture is okay, why is Saddam on trial for it and why did we attack his country because he tortured people? I’m confused…..

Posted by: ccmask | Nov 3 2005 1:04 utc | 10

billmon
you opposed vigorpusly the dorty war in vrntral & latin america. why was it so hard for you to draw the parallel with what was happening, what is happening & what is to come in the middle east
did the sleight of hand work al quaeda/iraq/taliban/hezbollah etc etc
what s happening today has happend before directed from yr state dept – the scale is different but as slothrop would remind us they were in the end formed by baser economic imperatives

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 3 2005 1:14 utc | 12

A thoughtful, judicious analysis, but “.. that’s not the way the world really works anymore ..”
Maybe George has lost his “easy certainty”, but “my instincts” are that the headbangers are still firmly in control. They’ve added two fair sized countries to the empire for one indictment against an expendable nonentity.
If Bush manages to regain his “easy certainty”, then they will “act again”, “creating other new realities”, and — we will be left to just study what they did.
“My instincts” also tell me that they don’t give a fuck about rebellion in the ranks (or the next poll), but that they can not afford to wait much longer. I can’t really imagine them hanging around waiting for everything to unravel or waiting for 2006 or 2008 or whatever when it is much more exciting to be creating ‘new realities’.

Posted by: DM | Nov 3 2005 1:48 utc | 14

It will be interesting to see how the Right convinces most of the Middle that torture and endless war are actually good things (and yes, it will happen). How long after that until they convince the same people that the only way to save democracy is to end it? And after that, how long until they go after people like Billmon?

Posted by: BANG! | Nov 3 2005 2:10 utc | 16

billmon
you opposed vigourusly the dirty war in central & latin america. why was it so hard for you to draw the parallel with what was happening, what is happening & what is to come in the middle east
did the sleight of hand work al quaeda/iraq/taliban/hezbollah etc etc
what s happening today has happened before directed from yr state dept – the scale is different but as slothrop would remind us they were in the end informed by baser economic imperatives

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 3 2005 2:16 utc | 18

Such radiant afflatus in your recent writing. Shows what a little hope’ll do.
One point: the war in Afghanistan is now feted by, as far as I know, most members of the politica/pundit class as a crucible of democratization. This devotion to “democracy” has proven vastly ignorant of the region’s politics and history. So, I suppose, I expect I suppose, more than acceptance by you of that war justified by the argument US was attacked by Afghanistan. Rather, I’d expect from you a better a justification of that War based on the principle of international consensus, etc.
I mention this only because the ostensibly justified response of the US (& quasi-coalition) attack is lacking not only by the original flawed logic the Taliban, the state of A., were responsible for 9/11, but the subsequently more tortured justification for colonial occupation of Afghanistan by Americans to democratize it.
It sounds as if you defend in this piece unilateralist nation-building justified by, gasp, neocons.
Question: what would a just war aimed at overthrowing the taliban and democratizing afghanistan look like? How could it be just?

Posted by: slothrop | Nov 3 2005 2:25 utc | 20

i cannot concieve of what a just war would have looked like. a war between the five families, perhaps
al quaeda were a construction of american foreign policy in ever sense – the complicity of those operations also saw the flowering of the secret police in pakistan & the birth of dr khans ‘islamic’ a bomb
certainly the death sqauds of latin america were just a policy adjunct of the state department & profit of any kind was the major priority – idology was just a baton to crack the skull of the opposition – it was never a serious political position – nor ever threatened u s interest. even in columbia – where one didn’t allow a little drug trafficking to destroy friendships – on the contrary – they could do business together
ah but the arabs are another apple entirely, are they not – clearly in the war against the russians in afghanistan – those wily arabs developed an appareil – a double appareil if you like – paid for almost entirely by the american taxpayer – a sort of ford foundation grant – for terrorists
& everything was honky dory until one or two of the hotheads – in absence of anything approaching pan arabism – started to take their political aspirations seriouslly – so much so they were getting hardons dreaming of new caliphates under their private school trained morality
& being a rather well trained old bolshevik myself – i do not have to be a conspiracy theorist to suggest that the scale of the operation on sept 11 is inconceivable without the complicity of the elephantine intelligence services in the u s. it was not the work of one millionaire another a somewhat distirbed surgeon & a couple of saudian arabian prettyboys with a morrocan of french origin who did business school. give me a break. the middle east was condemned to be the first frontier in the coming war against china & that is that
slothrop, don’t you worry now – if the idea of a just war has not become clearer then war after war after war will make it clearer when they’e sending your grandchildren t fight the devlish chinese

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 3 2005 3:00 utc | 22

rgiap
Let’s just say I need to be convinced America can ever assert power in an ethical way. I need to be convinced America has not already forfeited the possibility of morally justified use of power.
Maybe, America as a collection of ideas about “freedom” and “right” no longer deserves survival. Ancien Regime.

Posted by: slothrop | Nov 3 2005 3:08 utc | 24

Eventually, we have to go back to that first path anyway, since it is the only one that has any chance of success. That requires changing not only an administration, though, but an entire American mindset. It will take decades to realize that this change is needed.

Posted by: donna | Nov 3 2005 3:48 utc | 26

Higher Calling
If you have *any* exposure to Higher at all, and I mean, any, at any level, you instantly recognize the hallmarks of a well-‘managed’ war on terror in Iraq.
They could call it the War on Bubblegum and wage it on the Moon, they would still ‘manage’ to manage it the same way: massive, I mean, massive, injections of deficit spending and trackless unaccountability, in FAR auditing sense, although infinite, I mean, *infinite* bean-counting, justifying, proselytizing, pravda-izing, whole *legions*, I mean, legions of middle-managers, totally devoid of human emotion,
filling out DoD procurement forms, justification paper-overs, warehousing tracking slips, and job-
kitting overseas weapons deployment manifests.
Oh, the humanity, spread on Jobster.com, 10,000’s of open systems analyst jobs at DoD contractors, names like Lockheed, Boeing, L-3, Raytheon, in places like Centennial, Lexington, Huntsville and Alexandria, DoD companies touting six-sigma management expertise at spending maximum burnrate your Fed tax dollars on some Future Fighter AF 2025 War of Forever!
Dcaa.mil, Dcma.mil, Smdc.mil, an infinity of black holes, of whirling dementia, of effusive vomiting.
If you have *any* direct exposure to Higher, have ever sat in the inner circle, even as a plebe, even as a droogie report dropper-offer, then you know the smell, that rank coppery smell of death, and fresh blood, and mountains of long green, shrinkwrapped.
So it’s no surprise at all when the Fed awards IDIQ non-compete to Cheney’s Halliburton, even though he was former head and still on their payroll, and still holding options and futures, even though there is no reason to expect that WE will be exposed to domestic terror, even though the UN declared GW II *counter-productive* against it!
And it’s no surprise at all when Fed awards IDIQ non-compete to Rumsfeld’s Gilead, even though he was former head and still holding $25M’s in options and futures in Gilead, even though there is no reason to expect that WE will be exposed to avian flu, even though WHO declared tamiflu non-active against it!
And it’s no surprise at all when Fed awards IDIQ in New Orleans, then immediately diverts $17,000M, our hard-earned aid-pledged tax monies, to “undisclosed Fed projects”, while they reneg on their promise of aid to Pakistan, our bought-and-paid ally, and the insurance companies *still* haven’t paid on Katrina.
You can smell Ken Lay all over it. A Charles Keating smell, that old white male sour-genitals stank, the winey spice of skin-cancer and butt-boils, the blue- eyed spice of Prozak and “I got mine” Xanax perfume.
The feral dogs of the wilderness howled in 2000, and then howled in rabid ferocity on 9/11. The yard dogs scarce perked up their ears, they were so well fed.
And then the feral dogs grew quiet, not wanting to attract attention to themselves, as the yard dogs growled a bit, and the fur stood up on their backs. But they turned away, and chewed on the well-oiled bones of 2004 with placid content, mute.
They’re here!
Now the house dogs begin to yelp quietly under their breath, the curtains are rustling, a tapping at the windows, something … is … in … the … house!
Out in the yard, they are all slaughtered, and out in the wilderness, the sounds of hunting bugles and war horses. Now, at last, the house dogs realizing, WE … are … alone.
The Beast … is back.
Come to Papa!!

Posted by: tante aime | Nov 3 2005 4:08 utc | 28

Essentially I think Billmon is right about where we are now. The fools who got us in this mess are disintegrating, largely because they are only capable of the hard power option, and like General Pickett, can only wander about in a daze when their glorious assults have failed (and failed miserably). These people are too stupid to see the inherent deficiency and limitations in using fear and force as the only denominator. The Iraqi escapade has failed on all accounts to deliver the so called democracy OR a workable resource exploitation scheme (outside KBR), so the discontentment grows exponentially and political alliances consolidate in opposition. This is not to say that some newfound moral aversion has developed to foreign policy adventurism, probably not, but I think for these guys, the handwriting is on the wall — their way not only does’nt work, its counterproductive, and “this, will not stand”, by any criteria( & most especially the corporate ethic). The de-fanging process, that began after the last election and the SS thing, has now developed into a life of its own which — at this point, nobody in particular can control, least of all the (W) administration. Whose hands are hog-tied by all the political fallout (investigations, investigations, investigations) to the extent that any pre-emptive action against Syria or Iran, would have to be really pre-emptive, without congressional debate and even less (zero) international sympathy or support, lacking the usual UN hogwash ramp-up scenario, not to mention a funding regimen. Lastly, I would also agree (with Billmon) that people in the US would rebel both with the vote and in other ways if the war were to widen, especially if it were done without the usual foreplay of internal and external debate. I think the american public is a reliable co-conspiritor to such adventurism only when the cost can plausably be deferred to the other, not unlike walking by someone being assulted in the street, not wanting to be involved. But when they are forced to become involved, either as more military fodder or policing their neighbor, it may be a huge miscalculation and the screw may well indeed turn revealing the other side of the culture of contradiction — and that would be the elite-hating, vice loving, fuck you government side lurking benieth the military loving, god worshiping, patriotic side.

Posted by: anna missed | Nov 3 2005 5:00 utc | 30

I don’t know about you guys, but having my worst fears realized breaks my heart.
I can’t stand the things that are being done in my name. I literally can’t stand it.

Posted by: fourlegsgood | Nov 3 2005 5:10 utc | 32

The grassroots of all our horrors started and are continuing with these treasonous bastards.

Posted by: pb | Nov 3 2005 6:04 utc | 34

Entirely on-topic:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GH20Dj01.html
Ask yourself this: We know that GWBWH pulled US out
of the tailspin with cheap credit, propping up the
US market to artificially high P/E’s of 22 or more,
and propping up housing to, at my guesst, 20% a year
more than natural long-term 7% natural price growth.
And, he unleashed the dogs of war, and of crude oil,
in the hundreds of billions in raw net profit.
The Four Horsemen of our Apocalypse: Wall Street,
Real Estate, Military Industrial, and Global Oil.
Of those four, which one did the GWBWH then tax?
If you haven’t been paying attention, your mortgage
tax credit on your artificially-high housing value
is being chopped up and fed to their hunting dogs.
“It was a very, very good year.”
Ken Lay

Posted by: tante aime | Nov 3 2005 7:13 utc | 36

How many Americans have been killed by terrorism since 9/11?
(The resistance in Iraq doesn’t count. I’m also leaving off 4 Americans killed in Israel – Gaza and a bus bombing, and one missionary in the Philippines.)
How many terrorists have been arrested, jailed, accused, – and either judged and sentenced according to US law or are waiting for that judgement ?
(Random bodies picked up in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, illegally held without charge or a lawyer don’t count.)
How many people are wanted / indicted for 9/11 by the FBI?
(Binny doesn’t count; he’s dead, and not indicted.)
Answers: about 15, all in Saudi (one in Kuwait); one: Moussaoui – zero.
The current ‘most wanted’ list from the FBI lists no-one accused of anything to do with 9/11. The list is almost the same list as that of 01 (pre 9/11) – the only difference is that three names have been dropped: Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who is in prison in Afghanistan (afaik?) and Mustafa Mohammed Fadhil and Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, who are either dead, imprisoned, or no longer wanted.
FBI home page
BBC 01 list

Posted by: Noisette | Nov 3 2005 8:46 utc | 38

Billmon,
I need to preface what I am about to say. I think you are a magnificent writer. I think you are a thoughtful and purposeful arbitrator in this hellacious world of the political blogosphere. You work very hard to address all sides of most issues and explain why you feel the way you feel. You represent the kind of writer that has the power to enlighten the masses.
Thus, it was with no small sense of sadness that I read this post. It is so… how shall I put it? Limited… maybe.
You start off with a memory of 9/11 and you spoke of three possible roads that could lead from such a monumental incident. You then went to great lengths to explain these three roads and how you had arrived at your conclusion as to which of the three roads we had taken as a nation.
Unfortunately, however, it was the fourth road that has lead us to where we now stand.
What is this fourth road? It is the assumption that America is good and that bad things, therefore, will only be done by others (or in response to bad things they’ve done).
9/11 was a horrific act. Those responsible deserve horrific punishment. Up to this point we are in agreement. Where we diverge is when you “automatically” assume that these events were perpetrated by those targeted by our government. I, on the other hand (and many others like me), would’ve preferred to see where the evidence led.
Most professional investigators (and this includes journalists) learn very early on that the best way to solve a crime is to determine who would stand to benefit the most from the crime. In investigative circles, this is known as “following the money.” With respect to 9/11, there was all sorts of “money” to follow. And while I have no interest in rehashing conspiracy theories here with anyone, most will agree there is ample evidence to implicate a whole lot of people (foreign and domestic) in at least tacit complicity in this heinous crime. I am not here to argue who did it. I am here to argue against the assumption that someone did it based on unrebutted heresay.
Getting back to your post, the reason why we are now stuck in both of the last two of your three roads (face it, we have both the clandestine CIA operations and the escalating military fiasco) is that so many people like you took at face value whatever the government said about 9/11. You all skipped right over the real question of “Who did this?” and went straight to “What are we going to do to them?”
If you are going to stoop to this menial level of critical analysis, why then should you complain when your government takes advantage of your blind faith in their moral rectitude for their own gain?
The American people have made this mistake over and over again. We blind ourselves to the corruptibility of our leaders. We allow them the benefit of the doubt when we should not. Historically, we have been burned by this blind faith over and over again. 9/11 was catastrophic… but it was not without precident. Our political leaders have used brutal methods and criminal means regularly and yet are seldom, if ever, held to account. No party or affiliation is exempt here. Democrats and Republicans are equally at fault.
My theory about this is that people are often loath to condemn someone for whom they voted, something akin to a family member sticking up for an accused relative. We don’t want to believe they did it, so we try to convince ourselves that they didn’t. But now, our political leaders have been let off for so long and for so much that they now consider it “the criminalization of politics” when anyone attempts to reign in their overtly criminal behavior.
And this anti-social personality disorder is spilling over into the populace. You need look no further than your own column to find evidence of it. What rational human being would justify any sort of clandestine search, torture and destroy scenario simply because it was better than an ever-expanding counterinsurgency war?
Billmon would, for one. And why would he do that? Hmmm… I don’t know… It seemed good at the time…
If you can justify it Billmon, why criticize the government for doing the same? After all, by that rationale, you have just given credence to the nefarious “we are fighting them there so we won’t have to fight them here” line. Couldn’t that just as easily be translated into Billmon-ese like this >>> “An ever-expanding counterinsurgency war over there is better than an ever-expanding counterinsurgency war here.”
What’s good for Afghanistan, Billmon, is good for everyone. Killing innocents in a gulag archipelago is no different than killing them with a 500lb bomb in downtown Fallujah.
The government said the Afghanis were responsible for 9/11 and, as a result, you felt bombing them was inevitable. Why then do you now doubt the government when they say that all those held in these “gulags” are very, very guilty, or that only a few “bad apples” were involved in torture, or that it’s a good idea to invade Syria and Iran? Have they provided you with any less evidence than they did against Afghanistan?
As for me, the only evidence I’ve seen regarding the actual happenings of 9/11 was supplied to me by one of the primary suspects (our government)–and they went to great lengths to destroy any evidence that would cast doubt on their interpretation of (or involvement in) these events. I am not saying they are culpable, or even complicit; I am only saying I don’t trust them any more than those whom they accuse. Because of this, I am unconvinced that even the invasion of Afghanistan was necessary. But hey! It sure made the invasion of Iraq a lot easier, didn’t it? And then, when we had a war going on two fronts and all those pesky “enemy combatants” to deal with, the idea of foreign interrogation facilities became easier to swallow, especially if they were all far away and all the people in them were really, really, really bad… So why question the government now, Billmon?
See how things just kind of stack up when you let the guy holding the big bag of money convince you that the little mexican kid riding his bike down the street is really the one who robbed the bank because he has brown skin and hates “rich americans”…
If you really want to stop the military escalation and prevent the ongoing “black ops” our government is involved in around the globe, you need to drop the mindset that there are certain things our government just wouldn’t do. Until we can look critically at every possibility, those in power in our government will use your “blind faith” to their advantage and the rest of the world will pay the price for it.

Posted by: Patrick McGonegal | Nov 3 2005 8:55 utc | 40

The Neocons, the most hawkish of a damned large pool of hawks, use military force as a blunt instrument because its what they understand.
They misuse the intelligence community and SF forces because they are enamored by the mystique and believe in the overarching power of fear, in all its aspects.
They pander to the base predjudices and ‘superior’ racist undertones of the ‘average’ American.
The average American is indoctrinated to believe in myths … Truth, Justice, Liberty … the greatest Democracy … the Land of the Free … the exceptionalism of America …
The ingrained belief in these myths mixed with a latently violent and confrontational society as well as that predjudiced racism makes us the new Aryans … the UberMenshen(?).
We are not special.
We are not the worlds policeman, we never were, it was a ‘cover’ for enacting actions of pure national self-interest. We have no right to a life of priveledge at the cost of the health, no lives, of men, women and children beyond our shores.
We have no entitlement to the resources of other peoples, especially by force, overt or covert.
The events of the last four years have crystallized the perceptions of peoples around the world as to what America, not individual Americans, actually represents.
We are not a nation of the Laws or Rights of Man, we do not protect Free Speech, we are habitual military aggressors.
Deluded belief in hollywood style national vengeance is not honorable nor justice.
Our leadership, our elites, and especially our ‘system’ is seen by the majority of the worlds people as the greatest threat to humanity. Fact. None of this is so called Anti-Americanism, a complete deflection.
The majority of the populations of our remaining allies rail against our policies, but even more so our acts.
The carefully crafted myth of the power and inevitability of our enduring global dominance since WWII is a rickety house of cards.
The spider web of military alliances and constant covert intelligence and manipulative foriegn political intrigues are dependent on the ‘others’, non-Americans, believing or at least acquiescing to the myth.
Its gone. Wake up.
Empires throughout history only survive any length of time if they have the three legs of the stool of Empire: Political, economic and military might. Otherwise they topple.
We don’t have a political ideology to sell or rally the ‘others’, because utltimately it’s all about the avarice of a tiny minority of elites.
Our economic power has clearly been in decline. An empire cannot survive once it transits to net debtor as opposed to net creditor status.
Afghanistan, Iraq, et al were the acts of a desperate empire attempting to use its one remaining transitory ‘ace’, overwhelming military might to attempt to forestall the inevitable medium term rise of China (2015-2025), the new superpower, as well as the subsequent abandonment of us by our former ‘allies’ as our power, our dominance wanes.
The tragedy we are living through is not about Al-Qaeda or Islamic terrorism or islamic fundametalism and the threat it poses. That is just another in a long string of false justifications.
You have more chance of being savaged to death by your neighbours dog than being blown up by a terorists bomb. Oh, and by the way they’ve been doing it, the terrorists, since time began,it ain’t nothin’ new.
Yet, because of the actions Bush & Co have taken we have merely accelerated the undermining of national myths, especially amongst the ‘others’, and emboldened them.
If we do not abandon the ‘structure’ we’ve crafted over the last 50 odd years, transform, it will collapse and then we can say howdy to the American equivalent of post Soviet Russia, bereft of influence and power, largely devoid of friends, former ‘allied’ nations, of ‘convenience’.
Bush & Co don’t realise it, but they have triggered a truly global conflict, that is only in small part about radical Islam, more about the shape and nature of the world as previously ‘defined’ by the US.
The stakes are high and the risks extreme.
China, Russia, Latina America and others are simply standing largely on the sidelines as our empire of myths collapses, infrequently ‘assisting’ its demise, here and there, along the way.
We are not the New Romans.
None of the paths mentioned, lead to victory.
We have unknowingly initiated a global insurgency. And we cannot win thier ‘Hearts and Minds’, nor are we interested in doing so, and therefore, we cannot win.
The Patriot Act and the latest British and Australian Anti-terrorism laws are not about fighting terrorism. They create the precedents for even harsher incremental ‘laws’ to deal with the domestic dissent as the insurgency increases in brutality and inhumanity … a rearguard action to again attempt to maintain the status quo …
We cannot raze cities and sow the land with salt and still expect to survive amongst the community of nations, let alone the ‘others’ reciprocal acts of vengeance, further feeding future cyclical acts of ruthlessness. We now cannot step down, nor stand aside, having escalated the ‘conflict’ again and again as our only solution.
We must sincerely reform our society and enter the community of nations, of people, in all thier diversity, rather than standing on the outside, looking down from on high. Reform or face the inevitable alternative …

The shallow consider liberty a release from all law, from every constraint. The wise man sees in it, on the contrary, the potent Law of Laws.
– Walt Whitman
He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.
– Albert Einstein
When the rich wage war, it’s the poor who die.
– Jean-Paul Sartre
Traditional nationalism cannot survive the fissioning of the atom. One world or none.
– Stuart Chase

Posted by: Outraged | Nov 3 2005 10:08 utc | 42

remembereringgiap (@8:01 PM), I think Powell & Co. (Negroponte included) are presiding over a thorough (and drawn-out) purge of neocons from State, DOD, and the CIA (the FBI as well, if it was ever penetrated in the first place). Cheney’s finished, and Rumsfeld’s been reduced to preventing Bush from tasking him with the avarian flu problem (hence the timely revelation of his stock-position, and his prompt “recusal” from any active role in the fighting of the thing, or so it seems to me). Those two guys are done for.
Given AIPAC’S iron grip on the Democratic Party (Senator Clinton’s pilgrimage du jour being a sign of what I’m talking about), this war will continue until the people suffering from it directly send a really long, clear signal that they’ve had enough. Those suffering folks are not to be found in the USA, chiefly; rather, they can be found in Iraq, Israel, Turkey, and Egypt. Whether they can also be found in Western Europe is another question, and something of a mystery to me: France, for example (as one French friend has suggested), may be on the verge of turning its Mediterranean littoral into a “green wall” (Ça nous attend, peut-être….Qu’en pensez-vous?…..

Posted by: alabama | Nov 3 2005 12:00 utc | 44

Absofrikkinlutely correct, manonfyre. A burning away of the deception. They never had the power. It was always deception. They’re history, and a most unpleasant chapter.
And you ask the perfect question…”How will the American people respond?” Better yet, how will each of us respond? How can we all purge and be renewed?
This is the most difficult part. How to not blow the opportunity. How to regain pride and walk away from this trap of degradation, and depravity. How to abandon the fear and reconnect with confidence. How to have faith in the future. How to participate and shape the course of our country, and end this fool victim game. How to be honest with ourselves. And how to not be afraid of loving our country.
We’re stuck here, with one another. Might as well make the most of it.

Posted by: jm | Nov 3 2005 13:31 utc | 46

We’re talking about a couple dozen people, really — all the major “bad actors.”
That is the most bloated, fetid, scurrilous apologia for the crimes of the Bush/Cheney regime I have yet seen!

Posted by: b real | Nov 3 2005 16:42 utc | 48

Unfortunately, I don’t think the American people have too much of a problem with our string of gulags. Just as they really don’t have much of a problem with torture. Since the Post story came out, I also don’t detect a crush of news stories as other news organization clamor to cover the story.
The American people have turned against the war because the Cheney Rove Administration promised them Christmas every day. If they could have prevailed in Iraq, we’d be on our way to Syria and/or Iran right now.
The problem is that Americans (1) love war so long as they don’t have to fight it and (2) are so insular and arrogant that they don’t understand what’s happening in the real world.
And, as Billlmon says, we’re going to pay the price for it. Bush may be down to 35 percent in the polls, but he’s still going to be president until Jan. 20, 2009. A truly chilling thought.

Posted by: Phil from New York | Nov 3 2005 16:56 utc | 50

Your “Dirty War” comments didn’t do much for me this morning. I tried earlier to disagree, but having read through readers’ comments, my own looked shallow and silly. What I have read, in toto,has been valuable. Your writing, usually right on, provoked a mass response that leaves me richer and wiser — and, most important, more hopeful.
Thanks again, to all of you.

Posted by: Marjie Colson | Nov 3 2005 18:50 utc | 52

@Patrick Mc–You said what I was trying to say much better.
@Manonfyre-
I am not arguing that the Neo-cons are not sick twisted greedy bastards. And I too am scared to death that their incompetance and take no prisoners approach makes the entire world a much more dangerous place.
But I am arguing against seeing a return to the realist order and neo-liberal democrats as much of an improvement. Under Clinton, up to 1M Iraqis died under sanctions. We are responsible directly, by arming, training, and directing the coup in Rwanda which killed 800,000, but gave us worldwide control of the mineral Coltan and the riches of the Congo. Again, the Congo, 2-3 Million killed under Clinton, but because it doesn’t make the headlines and they are feckless Africans, it is not as important as Iraq. Who profited from the turmoil in the Congo? American multinationals. Under Clinton, blacks in South Africa became even more impovershed than under apartheid, while he posed for photo-ops with Mandela. Clinton supported the murderous thugs in Nigeria that have polluted the whole river basin and killed, poisoned and kicked out up to 1 Million people. Under Clinton, the whole continent of South America was hollowed out by democratic supported neo-liberal policies, leading to countless deaths and illnesses. Have you visited Chile? The whole country has been strip mined and de-forested. What about the Clinton escalated drug wars where we dropped endless pesticides on Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. Then we have the “humanitarian” aerial bombing in Serbia, the killing of innocents in Kosovo. I could go on and on.
What I am saying is that if you actually add up all the deaths and suffering in the world caused by American military and foreign policy, you will find that under Clinton far more people died per year than under Bush. That may seem counterintuitive, and it certainly requires a greater grasp of world events than the New York Times has, but it is true. And it is uncomfortable for many to accept this.
The use of the blunt instrument of military power to effect foreign policy is less effective than soft power, and therefore a last option. Because Bush has not acknowledged this long established fact and has overcommitted the military, and frayed political alliances, America is no longer as free to engage in below the radar hanky panky as it once was. And it is just this below the News Cycle stuff that creates far more death and suffering than any Shock and Awe bombing campaign could. Why do we remember the one million Japanese killed by nuclear bombing more than the greater amount killed by firebombing, or yet , the up to 20 M who starved to death in Russia during World War II? Every death should have equal weight, regardless of how it was inflicted. It is a testament to the propaganda system that it doesn’t.
The goal of ruling elites, as it has always been, is to create inequality in the world, to steal from the Have-Nots and give to the Haves–a policy of reverse Robin Hoodism. (Actually, the Robin Hood myth evolved precisely because of these age-old policies.) It doesn’t matter whether you dress it up in Clintonian “feel your pain” or Bushite sadism. The ruling elite are up in arms because Bush is not doing as good as Clinton–the military being a particularly costly way to effect change.
I would also argue that the elites, aware of America’s waning world influence, are attempting to create conditions in this country similar to ones the neo-liberals, like Jeffrey Sachs, created in Russia 15-20 years ago: Gut the entire social safety net, and concentrate business power, wealth and ownership in the hands of a few elite. That way, if America goes down, as it inevitably will, they will not be the ones to suffer; indeed they are positioned to profit by it. But we, the people, will suffer immensely.

Posted by: Malooga | Nov 3 2005 19:49 utc | 54

I am absolutely on board with Malooga on this one. Although the detestable sociopaths we currently enjoy make us nostalgic for a “return to normalcy”, we have tremendously romanticised that bygone “normalcy”. We did not get to where we currently are in the space of five short years. We have been incrementally upping the ante for a long, long time now. Neocons did not rise out of a vacuum.
Once again, this is why the slogan “Anybody But Bush” rang so hollow to so many during the 2004 campaign. The sickness that we see is not limited to a few partisan “bad apples”; both the Republican and Democrat parties in the United States are and have been rotten to the core for a long time now. Clinton’s escapades in the former Yugoslavia and “oopsies” with aspirin factories were exemplary of the Imperial exceptionalism that have so easily morphed into the doctrine of pre-emptive war.
Does it make me a neocon apologist to point out that the opposition party is no opposition to the underlying social sickness? Am I going to be reviled for being revulsed for the talk above about “deserved beheadings” coming from people who should know better? (I’d recommend you check out the definition of enantiodromia once again; none of us are immune to it.)
If Malooga is going to be made a pariah for pointing up inconvenient truths, he at least is not going to be alone in it. Neither William Jefferson Clinton nor the party of Democrats should be a sacred cow and treating them that way is just another form of the blind loyalty we find so contemptuous in a genuine Bush apologist. If we are talking about real social reform of cultural pathologies let’s not be so selective about which symptoms are in need of treatment.

Posted by: Monolycus | Nov 3 2005 20:31 utc | 56

Following on from Malooga at 3.48.
Indeed, the ‘left’ or the more ‘progressive’ wing in the US adopted a view-point about 9/11 that differed as to causes: US culpability on the world stage and the inevitablility of blowback – vs. evil enemies, foreign forces / elements, devils, motivated by inalterable hate (all those freedoms! ) waiting to pounce..
Both agreed the terrorist aim was to ‘destroy America / Americans’, or at least shock it by wrecking symbols, even if the causes were viewed differently.
Strategy to react thus was finally the same: loosely, invade Afghanistan, demand Binny be handed over, address root causes, stamp out terrorism, etc. Then the spin about Iraq, accepted.
In this way, the Demos showed they were complicit with the hawkish strategy, and contented themselves with throwing sops to the more delicate part of the public, who would prefer to see the killing of some 2,800 Americans as just retribution for past sins, therefore somehow legitimate (!), the atrocity also the outcome of ineptness, poor organisation, bad intell services, an Air Force asleep, a clueless doped-up President, etc.
Mea culpa! Can be fixed! Hillary in 2008!
The discourse about guilt and the rationalisations of the 9/11 attacks (BAD USA! Slap! Slap!) only served as an extra motives for some kind of viforous (sic, a telling typo) action.
The left could wring its hands and nevertheless propose to set up an egalitarian draft for everyone (Kerry, all must participate in the madness –), better coordination, less walls between services (a big point with Fitz, although he is at present prosecuting the lack of walls and loose gossip…go figure…), all of it pussy footing, while pretending to take on board the important issues.
What exactly those were, beyond cultural gaps, meaning the weirdness of Muslims or Ay-rabs, their utterly strange mentality, leading to the imperative need to adapt to them, understand! we never heard anything about.
— More than a bit caricatural, I know. Still.

Posted by: Noisette | Nov 3 2005 20:46 utc | 58

I appreciated Billmon’s insight into why he believed the attack on Afghanistan was a good thing at the time. Well a less evil thing anyway.
We all have our’heros’ whom we continue to respect long after their clay feet have been exposed. For me one of those is Muammar Khadafi and no; lets not debate the fellow’s virtues or lack of them. Very quickly afater 9/11 Muammar Khadafi expressed his condolences to the Amerikan people and went on to say that the death of so many innocents was a tragedy and he hoped this tragedy wouldn’t be used to justify other similar deaths of innocents.
I thought that this not only sounded heartfelt it was generous from someone whose daughter had been blown to smithereens by ReaBushCo.
The MSM, particularly the US based variants, chose not to see it that way and deliberately insinuated that this terrorist was trying to protect his fellow travellers.
I think it would be wise not to be all judgemental about what Billmon has revealed by explaining how it is he came to support the invasion of Afghanistan. Many members of the US media got carried away, like everyone else I have a theory about how/why this happened but we need to look at the real issue here.
That is until those who supported this invasion can feel it’s OK to admit to being wrong, those who supported it in the media are unlikely to admit anything. This means they will be in a corner where the only exit seems to be “Just say more of the same”.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Nov 3 2005 21:40 utc | 60

i just had a problem w/the use of the word ‘ inevitable ‘w/ reagrds to war w/afghanistan. also, i never meant to imply the problems we are facing as a nation are a result of a few people. i just think a good start is rooting out the evil ones in control.

Posted by: annie | Nov 3 2005 22:28 utc | 62

This is a great thread, just like a good bar room brawl. At the end of the tussle, who cares who is right–its time for another round!
But it aint over yet!
Osama? OSAMA? OSAMA?
C’mon, all you’se out there who believed Afghanistan was necessary.
What ever happened to Osama?
We were going to
root him out
smoke him out
ferret him out
grope him out
him and his ratty old packet of US flight schedules.
Not HELP him out.
So what ever happened to Osama,
and his Sancho, the Z-man,
on this path–1, 2, or 3
which one we are on.
Remember the CIA produced video of “Osama’s Wonderful Dinner in Kandahar”,
where Osama had gained fifty pounds,
and shrunk five inches,
and didn’t really even look like Osama,
but still admitted culpability for 9-11?
Oh, the Memory Hole, the Memory Hole,
the glorious, inglorious, vainglorious Memory Hole
allowing us to make any argument we want,
based on any evidence we want.
And what do we get:
the MSM, instapundit.
Argumentitus Scleroticus,
the fetid Black Hole of American Exceptionalism.
There were, in truth, many, many paths we could have taken.
We could have supported energy efficiency,
or redistributive economics,
or even Spagetti Monsterism–
But which path did we take,
which path do we ALWAYS take?
Why, the path to war of course.
It is so easy.
It is so simple.
It is the one the sheeple are conditioned to accept.
It is, after all, the one we are prepared for.
The one we have been preparing for.
The one we have always been prepared for.
The ONLY path we are prepared for.
The “Monday Night Football” of America’s foreign policy.
C’mon an’ get ready!
Ready for a party–
Bring all your hormones!
The other guys are assholes!
Its time to get it on now,
I say, let’s “Bring ‘Em On”, now,
Grab a beer, and let’s get ready for a fight!
After all, it must be Monday Night!
Sigh…
Alas,
A path so well worn
we could follow it in our sleep
which is how we do follow it.
The whole society
in a collective fugue:
step by step
lemmings see
lemmings do.
So, bang the drum slowly
and play the fife lowly
Instant Imperial-Mix
American Style Democracy.
They say, you can’t have McDonalds
without McDonell-Douglas.
I say,
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO OSAMA?

Posted by: Malooga | Nov 3 2005 23:13 utc | 64

malooga
i think that whole ‘painting of the schoolrooms’ publicity they tried to sell is so cruel in its reality but also in its intent
they never want the savages to learn anyway – but what they have always misunderstood is that the war against the turns the battle into a university & a school of learning as it has always done
of course if people are prepared to be a trairot to their people they can always get an education at the – scholl of americas – or watever it is called today – learn how to torture & kill yr own people l, ll & lll, turn yr hatred to personal profit l, ll & lll, how to create an oligarch l, ll & lll
these brutes who would treat the education of the children of iraq forget where civilisation was born & who gave us the alphabet?

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 3 2005 23:51 utc | 66

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO OSAMA?Open Letter…

Posted by: Malooga | Nov 4 2005 1:09 utc | 68

manofyre-
This is just a friendly bar argument, and I will sometimes take controversial positions to get beyond rote thinking. It was a bad turn of phrase.
I do agree that the Cheney gang would scare even themselves if they looked in the mirror at Halloween. But if you want to talk ” global fascist dictatorship” then you must question why the same facist Patriot Act terror laws–allowing anyone to be jailed, at any time, for any reason– have been enacted in the UK, Australia, and are being looked at all over the “first world.” The answer to that goes beyond the Cheney gang, to what I would call the imperatives of “Late Stage Capitalism”–the need to keep moving forward, sharklike, centralizing control and making a profit, as the earth’s resources can no longer withstand these rates of depletion. The stuff going on in biotech and with GM food would not be accepted by anyone on this planet if they truly understood the implications of it. So you could make Ralph Nader the President, and if we don’t find a way too reverse growth and return to harmony with the ecosphere, we would still be faced with the slow, creeping, cancerous growth of facism. I wish I could see my way around it, but I can’t.
It has been very interesting to watch Krugman’s thinking evolve over the years. I have spoken with him a little and would love a few hours over a beer to dig into his mind.
And yes, I would kiss Nixon if he would rise from the dead and take over, though maybe not if Henry came along…..

Posted by: Malooga | Nov 4 2005 2:19 utc | 70

jj’s link … and how very true re the Dems …

Posted by: Outraged | Nov 4 2005 3:08 utc | 72

Jim Petras reviews NeoNut takeover, ending in agreement w/my view that “Realists” now in mad rush to stop them before they strike again. Interesting Comparison to Joe McCarthy.
The CIA is deeply offended by the neocon usurpation of their intelligence role, their direct channels to the President, their loyalty to Israel. The military is extremely angry at their exclusion from the councils of government over questions of war, the disastrous war policy which have depleted the armed forces of recruits, devastated troop morale, and the neocons’ grotesque ignorance of the costs of a colonial occupation. It is no wonder that General Tommy Frank referred to Douglas Feith as “the stupidest bastard I have ever met.”
The current institutional war recalls an earlier conflict between the rightwing Senator Joseph McCarthy and the Defense Department. At the time during the mid 1950’s, Senator McCarty was accumulating power first by purging trade unions, Hollywood, the universities, and promoting likeminded conservative officials. He successfully extended his investigations and purges to the State Department and finally tried to do the same to the military. It was here that Senator McCarthy met his Waterloo, his attack backfired, the Army stood its ground, refuted his accusations and discredited his fabrications and grab for power.
In the meantime, the neocons are not at all daunted by the trials of their colleagues in AIPAC and the Vice President’s office: they are pressing straight ahead for the US to attack Syria and Iran, via economic sanctions and military bombing. On October 30, 2005 the former head of the Israel Secret Police (Shin Bet) told AIPAC to escalate their campaign to pressure in the US to attack Iran (Israel National News.com). There was a near unanimous vote in the US Congress in favor of economic sanctions against Syria. Despite mass demonstrations, and because of a ‘captured’ congress, it appears paradoxically that the only force capable of defeating the neocon juggernaut, like the earlier Joe McCarthy, are powerful voices in the state threatened by new disastrous wars not of their making. link

Posted by: jj | Nov 4 2005 4:11 utc | 74

The feminists were decrying the Taliban in Afghanistan for years and nobody, Dem nor Repub, gave a fig. The Taliban followed the predictable despot’s path from making war on its women to making war on its neighbors to harboring Osama bin Laden’s troops who were already making war on the usa [long before 9-11].
When the Bush admin announced it would invade Afghanistan, for a brief moment we thought finally somebody was going to address the injustice. But it soon became clear, even before the Iraq debacle began, that oil pipelines and corporate profits and cynical posturing were the real Bush agenda in Afghanistan. After all, they themselves follow the same despotic war-making on women and war making in the world formulas that the Taliban exhibited.

Posted by: gylangirl | Nov 4 2005 4:43 utc | 76