2005: the year America learns the meaning of "A-nuff"

There he was at last, standing in front of a banner emblazoned with the seal of the "Western White House - Crawford, Texas." We'd been wondering why we hadn't heard from George W. Bush. It had been days since the Tsunami struck and all we'd heard was that he was busy at his ranch clearing brush and riding his mountain bike ... and, we were reassured, "monitoring developments." Finally, here he was at last.



So what finally moved him to speak out? Was it the mounting death toll?

No.

Maybe the home videos graphically illustrating the violence with which the first wave crashed ashore?

Nope.

Perhaps the first aerial photos showing the extent of the devastation?

No, not that either.

Or the story of the retired American couple who held for dear life onto a tree until she could no longer hold on and lost her grip and then he let go too to be with her?

No, even that didn't move the leader of the free world to come forward.

What finally moved the diminutive POTUS to address the public was his annoyance at what he seemed to see as veiled criticism of his masculinity by Americans and the rest of the world as they complained about the inadequacy of his piker's pledge of financial support to help with Tsunami disaster recovery.



"Americans are a generous people. Last year alone the United States spent $2.4 billion for disaster relief alone," Bush said. Then, after pausing for emphasis, he repeated the number, this time syllable-by-syllable.



"Is that enough? I guess I'm not in a position to know," he concluded using his fingers to place quotation marks around the word "enough," however, still stuck in his syllable-by-syllable cadence, he slipped and pronounced it "A-nuff."



In the end, does it really matter that George W. Bush doesn't know when "enough is enough?"



In fact, in today's world, it does matter. And it ought to be a concern for each and every American, even the most conservative Red State residing Republicans who are now eagerly bashing as ingrates all who dare question America's largesse. Here is why:

According to research conducted by the Global Market Institute, foreign consumers in droves are turning against U.S. brands and companies. One third of all consumers in Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, and the United Kingdom said that U.S. foreign policy, particularly Bush's "war on terror" and the occupation of Iraq, were a real turn-off and that they were shying away from U.S. goods as a result. In fact, twenty percent of respondents in Europe and Canada said they consciously avoided buying U.S. products as a protest against those policies. Brands most closely identified with the U.S., such as Marlboro, America Online, McDonald's, American Airlines, and Exxon-Mobil are particularly at risk, but the trend is spreading. According to the Financial Times of London consumers in Europe and Asia are becoming increasingly resistant to having "brand America rammed down their throats."

So how about this scenario for 2005: What if the world concludes that U.S. Imperialism is actually the greatest threat to world peace. And what if they decide that a dramatically weakened U.S. would actually make the world a much safer place?



Of course they'd know that they wouldn't stand a chance directly challenging the largest and most violent military force ever assembled in human history. But recognizing that the value of the U.S. dollar is already at record lows and losing value each day, might they consider what would happen if they simply decided that they didn't want to buy U.S. stuff anymore?



What would happen in 2005 if the rest of the world finally said, "enough is enough?" Would that be "A-nuff" for Mr. Bush?



Global Market Institute (WA) - World Poll: Half of European Consumers Distrust American Companies

2005: the year America learns the meaning of "A-nuff"

There he was at last, standing in front of a banner emblazoned with the seal of the "Western White House - Crawford, Texas." We'd been wondering why we hadn't heard from George W. Bush. It had been days since the Tsunami struck and all we'd heard was that he was busy at his ranch clearing brush and riding his mountain bike ... and, we were reassured, "monitoring developments." Finally, here he was at last.



So what finally moved him to speak out? Was it the mounting death toll?

No.

Maybe the home videos graphically illustrating the violence with which the first wave crashed ashore?

Nope.

Perhaps the first aerial photos showing the extent of the devastation?

No, not that either.

Or the story of the retired American couple who held for dear life onto a tree until she could no longer hold on and lost her grip and then he let go too to be with her?

No, even that didn't move the leader of the free world to come forward.

What finally moved the diminutive POTUS to address the public was his annoyance at what he seemed to see as veiled criticism of his masculinity by Americans and the rest of the world as they complained about the inadequacy of his piker's pledge of financial support to help with Tsunami disaster recovery.



"Americans are a generous people. Last year alone the United States spent $2.4 billion for disaster relief alone," Bush said. Then, after pausing for emphasis, he repeated the number, this time syllable-by-syllable.



"Is that enough? I guess I'm not in a position to know," he concluded using his fingers to place quotation marks around the word "enough," however, still stuck in his syllable-by-syllable cadence, he slipped and pronounced it "A-nuff."



In the end, does it really matter that George W. Bush doesn't know when "enough is enough?"



In fact, in today's world, it does matter. And it ought to be a concern for each and every American, even the most conservative Red State residing Republicans who are now eagerly bashing as ingrates all who dare question America's largesse. Here is why:

According to research conducted by the Global Market Institute, foreign consumers in droves are turning against U.S. brands and companies. One third of all consumers in Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, and the United Kingdom said that U.S. foreign policy, particularly Bush's "war on terror" and the occupation of Iraq, were a real turn-off and that they were shying away from U.S. goods as a result. In fact, twenty percent of respondents in Europe and Canada said they consciously avoided buying U.S. products as a protest against those policies. Brands most closely identified with the U.S., such as Marlboro, America Online, McDonald's, American Airlines, and Exxon-Mobil are particularly at risk, but the trend is spreading. According to the Financial Times of London consumers in Europe and Asia are becoming increasingly resistant to having "brand America rammed down their throats."

So how about this scenario for 2005: What if the world concludes that U.S. Imperialism is actually the greatest threat to world peace. And what if they decide that a dramatically weakened U.S. would actually make the world a much safer place?



Of course they'd know that they wouldn't stand a chance directly challenging the largest and most violent military force ever assembled in human history. But recognizing that the value of the U.S. dollar is already at record lows and losing value each day, might they consider what would happen if they simply decided that they didn't want to buy U.S. stuff anymore?



What would happen in 2005 if the rest of the world finally said, "enough is enough?" Would that be "A-nuff" for Mr. Bush?



Global Market Institute (WA) - World Poll: Half of European Consumers Distrust American Companies

While nobody's watching

It is happening again. The difference is, this time, nobody seems to notice, or even care. Of course the media, and most Americans, lost interest once John Kerry rushed to concede the day after election day.



"That settles that, right? Since we've got a looser, we must have a winner."



But in Ohio the battle rages on. Republican Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell (who also served as Chair of the Bush/Cheney campaign) has flat-out refused to appear at a deposition preceding a Supreme Court lawsuit. President George Bush, Vice-President Richard Cheney and White House Political Advisor Karl Rove have all received notice that they will be deposed this week. And thousands of sworn affidavits detailing election day fraud continue to pile up.



But nobody's watching. Nobody cares.



The last stop will come next week when members of Congress meet in Washington to evaluate and certify the Electoral College vote. Most of us were unaware of this required step until footage of the 2001 certification meeting appeared in Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 911.



Representative John Conyers (D-MI), says that numerous members of the Congressional Black Caucus will challenge the Electoral College vote, as they did in 2001. But according to the arcane rules of the Electoral College the assent of at least one U.S. Senator is required for the challenge to go forward. You'll recall that in 2001 no Senator came forward, and thus far none has for 2005 either.



But nobody will be watching, and nobody will care.



After that, what really happened in Ohio will be pretty much academic, won't it? No reason to be concerned that the shenanigans that swayed another U.S. presidential election might affect George W. Bush's credibility when, later in the month, he praises the election of the former exiled Iraqi freedom fighter Ahmad Chalabi ... oh no, wait, he's the crook isn't he? ... when he praises the election of U.S. appointed Prime Minister Ayad Allawi as the new leader of Iraq, then demands that all Iraqis lay down their weapons and brands those who don't as "terrorists."



Remember the logic here: As George always tells us, freedom and democracy are a gift from the almighty and George is only the humble conduit of god's plan. Lying, cheating, fraud, misrepresentation and theft? Those are not the qualities of a servant of the lord, and therefore George could not possibly have been involved.



What were you thinking anyway? Grow up, take it like a man. Peel off that Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker. Besides, it's time for the Super Bowl.



The Free Press (OH) - Ohio GOP Election Officials Ducking Subpoenas as Kerry Enters Stolen Vote Fray

While nobody's watching

It is happening again. The difference is, this time, nobody seems to notice, or even care. Of course the media, and most Americans, lost interest once John Kerry rushed to concede the day after election day.



"That settles that, right? Since we've got a looser, we must have a winner."



But in Ohio the battle rages on. Republican Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell (who also served as Chair of the Bush/Cheney campaign) has flat-out refused to appear at a deposition preceding a Supreme Court lawsuit. President George Bush, Vice-President Richard Cheney and White House Political Advisor Karl Rove have all received notice that they will be deposed this week. And thousands of sworn affidavits detailing election day fraud continue to pile up.



But nobody's watching. Nobody cares.



The last stop will come next week when members of Congress meet in Washington to evaluate and certify the Electoral College vote. Most of us were unaware of this required step until footage of the 2001 certification meeting appeared in Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 911.



Representative John Conyers (D-MI), says that numerous members of the Congressional Black Caucus will challenge the Electoral College vote, as they did in 2001. But according to the arcane rules of the Electoral College the assent of at least one U.S. Senator is required for the challenge to go forward. You'll recall that in 2001 no Senator came forward, and thus far none has for 2005 either.



But nobody will be watching, and nobody will care.



After that, what really happened in Ohio will be pretty much academic, won't it? No reason to be concerned that the shenanigans that swayed another U.S. presidential election might affect George W. Bush's credibility when, later in the month, he praises the election of the former exiled Iraqi freedom fighter Ahmad Chalabi ... oh no, wait, he's the crook isn't he? ... when he praises the election of U.S. appointed Prime Minister Ayad Allawi as the new leader of Iraq, then demands that all Iraqis lay down their weapons and brands those who don't as "terrorists."



Remember the logic here: As George always tells us, freedom and democracy are a gift from the almighty and George is only the humble conduit of god's plan. Lying, cheating, fraud, misrepresentation and theft? Those are not the qualities of a servant of the lord, and therefore George could not possibly have been involved.



What were you thinking anyway? Grow up, take it like a man. Peel off that Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker. Besides, it's time for the Super Bowl.



The Free Press (OH) - Ohio GOP Election Officials Ducking Subpoenas as Kerry Enters Stolen Vote Fray

The Incredible Power of God

On Sunday morning god woke up and decided that it was time to re-arrange the continental plates. Seconds later the sea floor under the Indian Ocean jutted up some 50 feet and the entire island of Sumatra was shoved 100 feet to the northwest.



Within a couple of hours the Tsunami resulting from this act of god had crashed ashore and killed 100,000 or so unsuspecting human beings.



When some of the survivors were interviewed the next day they eagerly thanked god for sparing them.



Incredible.



U.S. Geological Survey - Magnitude 9.0: Off the West Coast of Northern Sumatra, 2004 December 26, 00:58:49 UTC



Scotsman (UK) - Relief Tinged with Sadness as Tourists Fly Home

The Incredible Power of God

On Sunday morning god woke up and decided that it was time to re-arrange the continental plates. Seconds later the sea floor under the Indian Ocean jutted up some 50 feet and the entire island of Sumatra was shoved 100 feet to the northwest.



Within a couple of hours the Tsunami resulting from this act of god had crashed ashore and killed 100,000 or so unsuspecting human beings.



When some of the survivors were interviewed the next day they eagerly thanked god for sparing them.



Incredible.



U.S. Geological Survey - Magnitude 9.0: Off the West Coast of Northern Sumatra, 2004 December 26, 00:58:49 UTC



Scotsman (UK) - Relief Tinged with Sadness as Tourists Fly Home

Steinbeck's Libraries Closed

John Steinbeck's hometown will close all of it's public libraries this summer in a cost cutting move in order to avoid raising taxes, making the blue-collar town of 150,000 the most populous U.S. city without a public library.



So now, if a citizen wants to read the Grapes of Wrath, or Cannery Row, or perhaps about life in Salinas as portrayed in East of Eden, he or she will just have to go to Barnes & Noble, or perhaps order it up from Amazon (except that the public access internet terminals at the library will be closed too).



It is not clear exactly where the John Steinbeck historical archives and the Steinbeck literature collection, which are a part of the public library, will go ... perhaps Ebay.



Chicago Sun-Times - Steinbeck's Hometown Closing Libraries

Steinbeck's Libraries Closed

John Steinbeck's hometown will close all of it's public libraries this summer in a cost cutting move in order to avoid raising taxes, making the blue-collar town of 150,000 the most populous U.S. city without a public library.



So now, if a citizen wants to read the Grapes of Wrath, or Cannery Row, or perhaps about life in Salinas as portrayed in East of Eden, he or she will just have to go to Barnes & Noble, or perhaps order it up from Amazon (except that the public access internet terminals at the library will be closed too).



It is not clear exactly where the John Steinbeck historical archives and the Steinbeck literature collection, which are a part of the public library, will go ... perhaps Ebay.



Chicago Sun-Times - Steinbeck's Hometown Closing Libraries

George Bush Learns the Lessons of History

George W. Bush is managing his war on Iraq to have minimum impact on everyday Americans. In fact, he's succeeded in making this war nearly invisible to most of us.



As U.S. troops face the relentless violence in Iraq, each death and injury tears a hole in a small circle of family and friends. Meanwhile, for everyone else in America, the war is proceeding without a cost greater than a little unease and sorrow when watching the evening news.



Since the Civil War, Americans have raised taxes to fund all of the nation's wars, but when Congress returns next month, Bush's first priority will be making permanent the huge tax cuts he won during his first term.



And so we all proceed with our lives, perhaps pausing long enough to slap a "support the troops" magnet on the car, as though nothing is out of the ordinary ... as though we're not at war at all.



Apparently recognizing that the war on Vietnam was "lost on the homefront, not on the battlefield," Bush has devised an elegant strategy: keeping the war as far as possible from the citizens keeps them content and happy, generally oblivious to the carnage being carried out in their name, and effectively blunts serious internal opposition.



Who would have guessed that Bush is such a student of history. Seventy years before, recognizing that his country had lost World War I "on the homefront, not on the battlefield," the Chancellor of Germany used the same strategy to lead his people down the path toward World War II.



Los Angeles Times - Bush Sending the Wrong Message as Chaos Smolders in Iraq

George Bush Learns the Lessons of History

George W. Bush is managing his war on Iraq to have minimum impact on everyday Americans. In fact, he's succeeded in making this war nearly invisible to most of us.



As U.S. troops face the relentless violence in Iraq, each death and injury tears a hole in a small circle of family and friends. Meanwhile, for everyone else in America, the war is proceeding without a cost greater than a little unease and sorrow when watching the evening news.



Since the Civil War, Americans have raised taxes to fund all of the nation's wars, but when Congress returns next month, Bush's first priority will be making permanent the huge tax cuts he won during his first term.



And so we all proceed with our lives, perhaps pausing long enough to slap a "support the troops" magnet on the car, as though nothing is out of the ordinary ... as though we're not at war at all.



Apparently recognizing that the war on Vietnam was "lost on the homefront, not on the battlefield," Bush has devised an elegant strategy: keeping the war as far as possible from the citizens keeps them content and happy, generally oblivious to the carnage being carried out in their name, and effectively blunts serious internal opposition.



Who would have guessed that Bush is such a student of history. Seventy years before, recognizing that his country had lost World War I "on the homefront, not on the battlefield," the Chancellor of Germany used the same strategy to lead his people down the path toward World War II.



Los Angeles Times - Bush Sending the Wrong Message as Chaos Smolders in Iraq

Efficiently Prolonging the Horrors of War

Only ten percent of soldiers injured in Iraq have died from their war wounds. That's the lowest casualty fatality rate ever. By contrast, 24 percent of soldiers wounded in the Vietnam War or the Persian Gulf War did not survive.



Technological advances and the deployment of surgical SWAT teams at the front lines have made this low death rate possible. Traveling in Humvees with hand-held ultrasound machines, portable ventilators, supplies of red blood cells and an array of surgical tools and pharmaceuticals, the teams focus on stabilizing patients and moving them for further treatment in less than two hours.



But the remarkable lifesaving rate is creating a generation of severely wounded young veterans. The combination of body armor and new systems of battlefield medical care makes it possible for the wounded to survive injuries that were unsurvivable before.



In the rush to George W. Bush's war on Iraq we've not yet focused on how to rehabilitate, physically and emotionally, a human being who has suffered this kind of damage, and who may well have to cope with living out a normal lifespan without legs or arms or sight.



It used to be that the number of deaths reflected the violence of a war but now that number more accurately measures the efficiency of surgical teams.



New England Journal of Medicine - Notes of a Surgeon: Casualties of War



New England Journal of Medicine - Caring for the Wounded in Iraq -- A Photo Essay

Efficiently Prolonging the Horrors of War

Only ten percent of soldiers injured in Iraq have died from their war wounds. That's the lowest casualty fatality rate ever. By contrast, 24 percent of soldiers wounded in the Vietnam War or the Persian Gulf War did not survive.



Technological advances and the deployment of surgical SWAT teams at the front lines have made this low death rate possible. Traveling in Humvees with hand-held ultrasound machines, portable ventilators, supplies of red blood cells and an array of surgical tools and pharmaceuticals, the teams focus on stabilizing patients and moving them for further treatment in less than two hours.



But the remarkable lifesaving rate is creating a generation of severely wounded young veterans. The combination of body armor and new systems of battlefield medical care makes it possible for the wounded to survive injuries that were unsurvivable before.



In the rush to George W. Bush's war on Iraq we've not yet focused on how to rehabilitate, physically and emotionally, a human being who has suffered this kind of damage, and who may well have to cope with living out a normal lifespan without legs or arms or sight.



It used to be that the number of deaths reflected the violence of a war but now that number more accurately measures the efficiency of surgical teams.



New England Journal of Medicine - Notes of a Surgeon: Casualties of War



New England Journal of Medicine - Caring for the Wounded in Iraq -- A Photo Essay

Pictures of Christmas

Doing his best Wyatt Earp impersonation, George W. Bush says, "Y'all have a very merry Christmas now, y'ear?"





REUTERS/Mannie Garcia



In his Christmas Message released by the White House with a simultaneous greeting to "those observing Kwanzaa," George W. Bush said, "Christmastime reminds each of us that we have a duty to love our neighbor just as we would like to be loved ourselves."



Meanwhile, on the road between Samarra and Tikrit, a child was killed and three others wounded in a roadside bomb attack, and in Baghdad nine people died and 14 were seriously wounded when a butane truck, which was wired with explosives, blew up in the upscale Mansour district, which houses many foreign missions and is home to top Iraqi government officials.



The attacks occurred just as Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was wrapping up his surprise Christmas Eve visit during which he told the troops, "Once again, we've seen the truth that terrorists can attack at any time, at any place, using any tactic. It is physically impossible to defend in every place against every conceivable technique." Still, he continued, the U.S. soldiers were helping to replicate what he described as a "breathtaking" success in Afghanistan, concluding, "Maybe I should answer questions ... No, let's just sing 'Jingle Bells.' "



Aljazeera (Qatar) - Unrest sweeps Iraq

Pictures of Christmas

Doing his best Wyatt Earp impersonation, George W. Bush says, "Y'all have a very merry Christmas now, y'ear?"





REUTERS/Mannie Garcia



In his Christmas Message released by the White House with a simultaneous greeting to "those observing Kwanzaa," George W. Bush said, "Christmastime reminds each of us that we have a duty to love our neighbor just as we would like to be loved ourselves."



Meanwhile, on the road between Samarra and Tikrit, a child was killed and three others wounded in a roadside bomb attack, and in Baghdad nine people died and 14 were seriously wounded when a butane truck, which was wired with explosives, blew up in the upscale Mansour district, which houses many foreign missions and is home to top Iraqi government officials.



The attacks occurred just as Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was wrapping up his surprise Christmas Eve visit during which he told the troops, "Once again, we've seen the truth that terrorists can attack at any time, at any place, using any tactic. It is physically impossible to defend in every place against every conceivable technique." Still, he continued, the U.S. soldiers were helping to replicate what he described as a "breathtaking" success in Afghanistan, concluding, "Maybe I should answer questions ... No, let's just sing 'Jingle Bells.' "



Aljazeera (Qatar) - Unrest sweeps Iraq

Bush Monkeys: The Immutable Power of Art Meets the New America

At first it was just a little painting of George W. Bush on display as a part of an exhibition at New York's Chelsea Market. But then, after Bush supporters threatened to boycott the market, managers of the public space shut down the whole show.



The portrait, called Bush Monkeys, is the work of artist Chris Savido. From a distance, Bush Monkeys appears to be an unremarkable portrait of Bush, but upon closer examination, the 18 x 24 acrylic-on-canvas work proves to be a double image: Bush's face is actually made up of monkeys in a marsh.



This week the banned painting found a new home, projected on a giant billboard in Manhattan. In response to the censorship of the art show, anonymous donors paid to have the painting projected above the entrance to the Holland Tunnel, where it will be seen by roughly 400,000 commuters every day.



Savido says the painting is a reaction to Bush's blurring of the traditional separation of church and state in the U.S. "The chimps symbolize the shared biological ancestry of all humanity (including that of President Bush)." The artist plans to put the original painting up for sale on EBay with the proceeds going to buy body armor for U.S. troops in Iraq.



CBC News (Canada) - Banned Bush portrait finds new home




Bush Monkeys is the work of artist Chris Savido

Bush Monkeys: The Immutable Power of Art Meets the New America

At first it was just a little painting of George W. Bush on display as a part of an exhibition at New York's Chelsea Market. But then, after Bush supporters threatened to boycott the market, managers of the public space shut down the whole show.



The portrait, called Bush Monkeys, is the work of artist Chris Savido. From a distance, Bush Monkeys appears to be an unremarkable portrait of Bush, but upon closer examination, the 18 x 24 acrylic-on-canvas work proves to be a double image: Bush's face is actually made up of monkeys in a marsh.



This week the banned painting found a new home, projected on a giant billboard in Manhattan. In response to the censorship of the art show, anonymous donors paid to have the painting projected above the entrance to the Holland Tunnel, where it will be seen by roughly 400,000 commuters every day.



Savido says the painting is a reaction to Bush's blurring of the traditional separation of church and state in the U.S. "The chimps symbolize the shared biological ancestry of all humanity (including that of President Bush)." The artist plans to put the original painting up for sale on EBay with the proceeds going to buy body armor for U.S. troops in Iraq.



CBC News (Canada) - Banned Bush portrait finds new home




Bush Monkeys is the work of artist Chris Savido

It's sad when we lose a loss of life...

"Any time of the year it's a time of sorrow and sadness when we lose a loss of life," stuttered George W. Bush.



(Don't blame Woodburydadd! That's an exact quote from the official White House press release, in which the Leader of the War on Terror goes on to say, "I'm confident democracy will prevail in Iraq. I know a free Iraq will lead to a more peaceful world. So we ask for God's blessings on all who are involved in that vital mission. Thank you very much. Have a good holiday*.")



Meanwhile, in Britain at least some of their leaders are willing to fess up to the public. "It will take 10 to 15 years at least [before troops can be fully withdrawn]. It is another Cyprus. The Iraqis just cannot cope with the security situation and won't be able to for years," said a senior member of the Commons Defence Select Committee (which was unable to visit Baghdad because the security situation was too dangerous).



Let's do a little math: Thus far the U.S. has had 1,321 killed and 9,844 wounded in George W. Bush's adventure in Iraq. Now, just using the averages (ignoring for the moment that the rate is increasing), that would mean we can expect 9,700 to 13,800 dead and somewhere between 72,000 103,000 wounded by the time this is over.



Using the same analysis the number of confirmed Iraqi dead would be in the range of 62,500 and 89,500.



Independent (UK) - Ten more years? Senior MPs warn British troops will be in Iraq for a decade, as Blair in Baghdad proclaims: 'We are not a nation of quitters'

* Christian leaders immediately announced a boycott of the Bush Administration in protest of George W. Bush's use of the politically correct term holiday instead of the preferred Merry Christmas. "The War against Christmas is a tactic of the new fascism: a culturally hedonistic barbarism, a sensual gluttony that Pope John Paul II has aptly entitled 'the culture of death.' "



(Just kidding. They didn't really announce a boycott of George W. Bush ... but the quotation from Tidings, the newspaper of the Catholic Los Angeles Archdiocese of Los Angeles, is real.)

It's sad when we lose a loss of life...

"Any time of the year it's a time of sorrow and sadness when we lose a loss of life," stuttered George W. Bush.



(Don't blame Woodburydadd! That's an exact quote from the official White House press release, in which the Leader of the War on Terror goes on to say, "I'm confident democracy will prevail in Iraq. I know a free Iraq will lead to a more peaceful world. So we ask for God's blessings on all who are involved in that vital mission. Thank you very much. Have a good holiday*.")



Meanwhile, in Britain at least some of their leaders are willing to fess up to the public. "It will take 10 to 15 years at least [before troops can be fully withdrawn]. It is another Cyprus. The Iraqis just cannot cope with the security situation and won't be able to for years," said a senior member of the Commons Defence Select Committee (which was unable to visit Baghdad because the security situation was too dangerous).



Let's do a little math: Thus far the U.S. has had 1,321 killed and 9,844 wounded in George W. Bush's adventure in Iraq. Now, just using the averages (ignoring for the moment that the rate is increasing), that would mean we can expect 9,700 to 13,800 dead and somewhere between 72,000 103,000 wounded by the time this is over.



Using the same analysis the number of confirmed Iraqi dead would be in the range of 62,500 and 89,500.



Independent (UK) - Ten more years? Senior MPs warn British troops will be in Iraq for a decade, as Blair in Baghdad proclaims: 'We are not a nation of quitters'

* Christian leaders immediately announced a boycott of the Bush Administration in protest of George W. Bush's use of the politically correct term holiday instead of the preferred Merry Christmas. "The War against Christmas is a tactic of the new fascism: a culturally hedonistic barbarism, a sensual gluttony that Pope John Paul II has aptly entitled 'the culture of death.' "



(Just kidding. They didn't really announce a boycott of George W. Bush ... but the quotation from Tidings, the newspaper of the Catholic Los Angeles Archdiocese of Los Angeles, is real.)

The Ghosts of Abu Gharib

from www.BushSpeaks.com

The Ghosts of Abu Gharib

from www.BushSpeaks.com

Hometown Hero: He's Only a Pawn in Their Game

The story is powerful mythology:

The brave young soldier, gravely wounded trying to save the lives of his comrades during the Battle of Fallujah, orders military doctors to cut off his finger rather than destroy his wedding ring as they operate to save his life. "But that would mean destroying my wedding ring," he said. "My wife is the strongest woman I know. She's basically running two people's lives since I've been gone. I don't think I could ever repay her or show her how grateful ... how much I love my wife, my soul mate."



In a cruel twist of fate, during the chaos of the battlefield surgical hospital the ring is lost anyway. But just a month later, recuperating at home, Marine Lance Cpl. David Battle, gets a Christmas surprise when a local merchant replaces the ring and treats L/Cpl Battle and his young wife ... they were married just weeks before the Battle of Fallujah ... to a limousine ride and night in the Presidential Suite of a local hotel.



L/Cpl Battle ... who, it turns out, was a high school football star ... says "I always wanted to give something back to my country because the country has been so good to my mother and father," and then makes personal appearances at Toys for Tots fundraisers around town.

No one in the media, not even the foreign press, has done anything but take this story for granted. There isn't a reporter or editor willing question the story of the brave citizen soldier (high school football hero no less!) who was willing to make such a sacrifice.



No one has asked what kind of an unethical doctor would agree to amputate a finger to save a ring, even if the patient requested it, especially given that the patient was in shock and already anesthetized.



And no one is willing to ask about the convenient plot twist where the precious ring is lost. Perhaps misplacing the ring is understandable, but no one has wondered how the dramatic episode could make such an impression that someone took the time to make a record of the soldier's words of devotion to his young wife, and yet still misplaced the physical object that was at the point of it all.



Let's face it, this plot-line wouldn't hold up as the next Law and Order episode. Yet people who watch that show every week are buying L/Cpl Battle's story lock, stock, and barrel.



These are the things that ought to make citizens skeptical about what their government says, and especially about what it says at a time of war. Without taking away from L/Cpl Battle's personal integrity at all, this story has become a powerful piece of propaganda, and the young soldier merely a pawn in a much larger game.



And as propaganda this is a beauty. It is a plausible story that underscores the propagandist's message while discouraging rational examination. Somewhere there is a surgeon or a medical technician of some sort who knows what really happened in the operating room and where the ring went, but as the story grows it becomes less and less likely that he or she will ever come forward with the rest of the story.



There are three forces that demand stories like L/Cpl Battle's and continue to create them and use people like him for different purposes:



First, to convince soldiers to do the things they must do in battle requires deep psychological conditioning, something akin to brainwashing. Legends like the one about L/Cpl Battle are powerful tools to help coerce ordinary human beings to commit the inhuman acts that are commonplace in battle.



Second, another kind brainwashing on a mass scale is required to convince an entire society to accommodate and support war. We start with lies, preferably really big ones. Who can forget Condoleeza Rice's "mushroom cloud" comments? Then we bolster them with carefully constructed stories. Remember, early in the war, the story of Pvt Jessica Lynch who bravely fought the enemy when she innocently took a wrong turn into a bad neighborhood in Baghdad after dark and then had to be liberated in another act of valiantry from a hospital that the dark enemy had seized? And now we have L/Cpl David Battle (is his last name a mere coincidence?), gallantly sacrificing his finger for the love of his wife (a cynic might note that the sacrifice of life and limb for mere physical possessions is an even more appropriately American trait).



Third, and an obviously unpatriotic point of view, each time an individual in battle decides to pull the trigger he or she makes a moral judgment, one for which he or she pays moral consequences. They make that moral judgment each and every moment they are involved in war, which sooner or later causes them to become morally ambivalent (how else can you explain the torture of fellow human beings at Abu Gahrib?). One of the things that keeps these individuals from coming completely unglued when they get back home is the mythology that we build up with stories like the one about L/Cpl Battle.



No doubt L/Cpl Battle will quickly fade from the scene, as did Pvt Lynch. When she was interviewed recently Pvt Lynch was remarkably forthcoming and guileless. She freely admits that she has little memory of the events of that evening or the following weeks. She thinks the popular story could be true, and since she's been told the story over and over she thinks it might be true, but she does not really remember it that way ... all of the earmarks of successful propaganda.



A few months from now L/Cpl Battle will still be missing his finger and will still be living with the memories of the things he had to do in Fallujah, but the propaganda will have worked its magic and we still will not have asked the important questions about what really happened, and who put L/Cpl Battle in that awful position and why.



San Diego Union - SoCal Marine Who Sacrificed Finger for Ring Gets New Wedding Band



WIS-TV (SC) - SoCal Marine Sacrifices Finger for Wedding Ring

Hometown Hero: He's Only a Pawn in Their Game

The story is powerful mythology:

The brave young soldier, gravely wounded trying to save the lives of his comrades during the Battle of Fallujah, orders military doctors to cut off his finger rather than destroy his wedding ring as they operate to save his life. "But that would mean destroying my wedding ring," he said. "My wife is the strongest woman I know. She's basically running two people's lives since I've been gone. I don't think I could ever repay her or show her how grateful ... how much I love my wife, my soul mate."



In a cruel twist of fate, during the chaos of the battlefield surgical hospital the ring is lost anyway. But just a month later, recuperating at home, Marine Lance Cpl. David Battle, gets a Christmas surprise when a local merchant replaces the ring and treats L/Cpl Battle and his young wife ... they were married just weeks before the Battle of Fallujah ... to a limousine ride and night in the Presidential Suite of a local hotel.



L/Cpl Battle ... who, it turns out, was a high school football star ... says "I always wanted to give something back to my country because the country has been so good to my mother and father," and then makes personal appearances at Toys for Tots fundraisers around town.

No one in the media, not even the foreign press, has done anything but take this story for granted. There isn't a reporter or editor willing question the story of the brave citizen soldier (high school football hero no less!) who was willing to make such a sacrifice.



No one has asked what kind of an unethical doctor would agree to amputate a finger to save a ring, even if the patient requested it, especially given that the patient was in shock and already anesthetized.



And no one is willing to ask about the convenient plot twist where the precious ring is lost. Perhaps misplacing the ring is understandable, but no one has wondered how the dramatic episode could make such an impression that someone took the time to make a record of the soldier's words of devotion to his young wife, and yet still misplaced the physical object that was at the point of it all.



Let's face it, this plot-line wouldn't hold up as the next Law and Order episode. Yet people who watch that show every week are buying L/Cpl Battle's story lock, stock, and barrel.



These are the things that ought to make citizens skeptical about what their government says, and especially about what it says at a time of war. Without taking away from L/Cpl Battle's personal integrity at all, this story has become a powerful piece of propaganda, and the young soldier merely a pawn in a much larger game.



And as propaganda this is a beauty. It is a plausible story that underscores the propagandist's message while discouraging rational examination. Somewhere there is a surgeon or a medical technician of some sort who knows what really happened in the operating room and where the ring went, but as the story grows it becomes less and less likely that he or she will ever come forward with the rest of the story.



There are three forces that demand stories like L/Cpl Battle's and continue to create them and use people like him for different purposes:



First, to convince soldiers to do the things they must do in battle requires deep psychological conditioning, something akin to brainwashing. Legends like the one about L/Cpl Battle are powerful tools to help coerce ordinary human beings to commit the inhuman acts that are commonplace in battle.



Second, another kind brainwashing on a mass scale is required to convince an entire society to accommodate and support war. We start with lies, preferably really big ones. Who can forget Condoleeza Rice's "mushroom cloud" comments? Then we bolster them with carefully constructed stories. Remember, early in the war, the story of Pvt Jessica Lynch who bravely fought the enemy when she innocently took a wrong turn into a bad neighborhood in Baghdad after dark and then had to be liberated in another act of valiantry from a hospital that the dark enemy had seized? And now we have L/Cpl David Battle (is his last name a mere coincidence?), gallantly sacrificing his finger for the love of his wife (a cynic might note that the sacrifice of life and limb for mere physical possessions is an even more appropriately American trait).



Third, and an obviously unpatriotic point of view, each time an individual in battle decides to pull the trigger he or she makes a moral judgment, one for which he or she pays moral consequences. They make that moral judgment each and every moment they are involved in war, which sooner or later causes them to become morally ambivalent (how else can you explain the torture of fellow human beings at Abu Gahrib?). One of the things that keeps these individuals from coming completely unglued when they get back home is the mythology that we build up with stories like the one about L/Cpl Battle.



No doubt L/Cpl Battle will quickly fade from the scene, as did Pvt Lynch. When she was interviewed recently Pvt Lynch was remarkably forthcoming and guileless. She freely admits that she has little memory of the events of that evening or the following weeks. She thinks the popular story could be true, and since she's been told the story over and over she thinks it might be true, but she does not really remember it that way ... all of the earmarks of successful propaganda.



A few months from now L/Cpl Battle will still be missing his finger and will still be living with the memories of the things he had to do in Fallujah, but the propaganda will have worked its magic and we still will not have asked the important questions about what really happened, and who put L/Cpl Battle in that awful position and why.



San Diego Union - SoCal Marine Who Sacrificed Finger for Ring Gets New Wedding Band



WIS-TV (SC) - SoCal Marine Sacrifices Finger for Wedding Ring

Evidence Gained Through Torture Justifies Secret Imprisonment by U.S.

Does this sound like America, or some 1950s version of life behind the Iron Curtain? Secret "evidence" obtained by torture can be used to arrest and imprison you forever without anyone knowing about it.



According to Bush Administration policy, that's exactly what's happening now in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba: Evidence gained by torture is being used by the U.S. military to decide whether or not to imprison foreigners indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and other secret prisons around the world.



The issue is the determination of whether or not the individual in question is an "enemy combatant," because enemy combatants, so the reasoning goes, are not entitled to the same rights and privileges as citizens of a foreign country.



So, the American approach to international justice is this: First we torture some poor fellow until he rats out his neighbor in order to make the torture stop. Then we grab the neighbor and throw him in jail forever without ever telling anyone.



According to the Bush Administration what makes this all okay is that torture is against U.S. policy and any allegations of torture are "forwarded through command channels for military discipline" (just like those at Abu Gharib, no doubt).



And, the rest of the world should rest assured that America is providing "due process" to these enemy combatants. The Bush Administration has set up "combatant status review tribunals" (after the Supreme Court forced them to in June), consisting of three colonels and lieutenant colonels that individually review each case.



Never mind that detainees cannot have lawyers at the combatant status review proceedings and cannot see any secret evidence against them, (reviewing the military's evidence for holding foreign detainees could have "practical and collateral consequences ... at a time of war" explains a helpful Pentagon lawyer), they are getting a fair hearing, believe us.



Thus far the panels have reviewed 440 of the prisoners and released only one.



Which, no doubt, just goes to prove that we were right to arrest these enemies in the first place.



Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | U.S. OKs Evidence Gained Through Torture

Evidence Gained Through Torture Justifies Secret Imprisonment by U.S.

Does this sound like America, or some 1950s version of life behind the Iron Curtain? Secret "evidence" obtained by torture can be used to arrest and imprison you forever without anyone knowing about it.



According to Bush Administration policy, that's exactly what's happening now in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba: Evidence gained by torture is being used by the U.S. military to decide whether or not to imprison foreigners indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and other secret prisons around the world.



The issue is the determination of whether or not the individual in question is an "enemy combatant," because enemy combatants, so the reasoning goes, are not entitled to the same rights and privileges as citizens of a foreign country.



So, the American approach to international justice is this: First we torture some poor fellow until he rats out his neighbor in order to make the torture stop. Then we grab the neighbor and throw him in jail forever without ever telling anyone.



According to the Bush Administration what makes this all okay is that torture is against U.S. policy and any allegations of torture are "forwarded through command channels for military discipline" (just like those at Abu Gharib, no doubt).



And, the rest of the world should rest assured that America is providing "due process" to these enemy combatants. The Bush Administration has set up "combatant status review tribunals" (after the Supreme Court forced them to in June), consisting of three colonels and lieutenant colonels that individually review each case.



Never mind that detainees cannot have lawyers at the combatant status review proceedings and cannot see any secret evidence against them, (reviewing the military's evidence for holding foreign detainees could have "practical and collateral consequences ... at a time of war" explains a helpful Pentagon lawyer), they are getting a fair hearing, believe us.



Thus far the panels have reviewed 440 of the prisoners and released only one.



Which, no doubt, just goes to prove that we were right to arrest these enemies in the first place.



Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | U.S. OKs Evidence Gained Through Torture

The Looser

The CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department have all warned President Bush that the United States and is loosing the war in Iraq.



Well, they didn't really say we are "loosing the war." What they said is we "aren't winning the battle against Iraqi insurgents," the people who are trying to derail Iraq's January 30 elections. Since they are the ones we "aren't winning" against, that would seem to mean that they must be "winning" in their efforts to stop the elections. I think.



Nevertheless, Bush Administration officials, who agreed to speak only on condition of anonymity because intelligence estimates are classified, said the battle in Iraq wasn't lost and that successful elections might yet be held next month even though the warnings - including one delivered to George W. Bush by CIA Director Porter Goss - indicated that U.S. forces hadn't been able to stop the insurgents' intimidation of Iraqi voters, candidates and others who want to participate in the elections.



Prediction: Under the barrels of U.S. guns some sort of election will take place in Iraq as scheduled on January 30. U.S. appointed dictator Iyad Allawi will be declared the landslide victor in "the first free elections in Iraq." Then anyone who is opposed will be called a "terrorist and enemy of freedom."



Bradenton Herald (FL) - U.S. losing Iraq Battle, Bush Told