Bush Administration to pardon itself on torture if new bill passes

Bush on the couch: Decadent perversity – Blumenthal

No matter the horrors of Iraq, Bush clings to his faith in victory, and a new biography discloses how he releases his anxiety by humiliating his aides.

Sidney Blumenthal

There has never been a moment when we were not winning in Iraq. Victory has followed victory, from “Mission Accomplished” to the purple fingers of the Iraqi election to, most recently, President Bush’s meeting at Camp Cupcake in Anbar province with Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, the Sunni leader of the group Anbar Awakening (who was
assassinated a week later).

Turning point has followed turning point, from Bush’s proclamation two years ago of his “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq” to his announcement last week of his “Return on Success”. “We’re kicking ass,” he briefed the Australian deputy prime minister on Sept. 6 about his latest visit to Iraq.

In his quasi-farewell address to the nation on Sept. 13, Bush assigned any possible shortcomings to General David Petraeus and bequeathed his policy “beyond my presidency” to his successor.

After Bush pretended to deliberate over whether he would agree to his own policy as presented by his general in well-rehearsed performances before Congress – “President Bush Accepts Recommendations” read a headline on the White House Web site – he established an ideal division of responsibility. Bush could claim credit for the “Return
on Success”, whenever that might be, while Petraeus would be charged with whatever might go wrong.

One week after Petraeus flashed his metrics, a whole new set of facts on the ground suddenly emerged: an admission (previously denied) by Petraeus that the United States was arming the Sunnis, who might use those weapons in the next phase of Iraq’s civil war; the release of a Pentagon report that there is “an increase in intra-Shi’a violence
throughout the South” (a report conveniently withheld as Petraeus was testifying); the Iraqi government’s expulsion of Blackwater, a private security firm with close ties to the administration, after a band of its guards gunned down Iraqi civilians; the restriction of
all nonmilitary U.S. personnel in Iraq to the Green Zone; a report by the Iraqi Red Crescent that about 1 million people are internal refugees as a result of ethnic cleansing (apart from the more than 2 million refugees who have fled the country); and the announcement by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of an investigation into the State Department’s inspector general for quashing scrutiny and embarrassing studies of fraud in the construction of the US Embassy in Baghdad, among other projects.

As these events played out, Petraeus was detailed as Bush’s Willy Loman to preside over the cooling of the special relationship with America’s most important ally in the coalition of the willing. The general traveled to London to meet with Prime Minister Gordon Brown on the policy from which he is rapidly disengaging, already having
withdrawn British forces in Basra to its airport before final evacuation. Such is the face of victory 10 days after Petraeus’ march through Capitol Hill.

In his semiretirement, Bush engaged in appeals to history, which he now says on nearly every occasion will absolve him. Early on and riding high, he expressed contempt for history. “History, we’ll all be dead,” he sneered to Bob Woodward in an interview for Bush at War, a panegyric to Bush the triumphant after the Afghanistan invasion and before Iraq. Now Bush cites history as justification for everything he does. “You can’t possibly figure out the history of the Bush presidency – until I’m dead,” he told Robert Draper, his authorized biographer, in an interview for Dead Certain.

The use of the words “history” and “dead” between the Woodward and Draper interviews makes for a world of difference – the difference between a president who couldn’t care less and one who cares desperately but can’t admit it.

Bush incessantly invokes a host of presidents past – Truman, Lincoln and Washington – as appropriate comparisons, and also talks of Winston Churchill. Frederick Kagan, the neoconservative instigator of “the surge,” refers to it as “Gettysburg,” a leap of historical imagination that transforms Bush into the Great Emancipator.

In his unstoppable commentary about himself, Bush has become as certain of his exalted place in history as he is of his policy’s rightness. He projects his image into the future, willing his enshrinement as a great president. History has become a magical incantation for him, a kind of prayerful refuge where he is safe from having to think in the present. For Bush, history is supernatural, a deus ex machina, nothing less than a kind of divine intervention enabling him to enter presidential Valhalla. Through his fantasy about history as afterlife – the stairway to paradise – he rationalizes his current course.

Democracy Now! Headlines, Friday 28 September

Transcript: Saddam Offered Exile to Avoid War

A newly-leaked
transcript from one month before the U.S. invasion of Iraq shows
President Bush was aware that Saddam Hussein offered to go into exile
if he was allowed to bring one billion dollars and information on
weapons of mass destruction. The disclosure is contained in a record of
a meeting between President Bush and then Spanish Prime Minister Jose
Maria Aznar in Febrary 2003. The Middle East analyst Juan Cole
speculates that Saddam likely wanted to bring with him information that
showed Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush had helped fund
and support his weapons program. Possessing that information, Cole
says, would have protected Saddam from future retaliation out of fear
of embarrassing the White House. The transcript also shows President
Bush hoped the UN Security Council would support the war in part
because “[it] would save us fifty billion dollars.” The fifty billion
figure was the initial estimate of what the invasion would cost. Bush
also made clear he expected U.S. forces to invade Iraq within a month
of the conversation regardless of UN approval. Bush and Aznar met on
February 22nd — the U.S.-led invasion began on March 19th. Bush also
reportedly said Europeans are opposed to the invasion because they’re
indifferent to Saddam’s atrocities. He said: “Maybe it’s because he’s
dark-skinned, far away and Muslim — a lot of Europeans think he’s OK.”
White House spokesperson Gordon Johndroe declined comment on the
transcript.

More on this, including links to the original transcript and its translation here and here.

Senate Votes to “Combat, Contain” Iran

Meanwhile the Senate has also approved a measure critics say could help
open the door to military action against Iran. The resolution calls on
the State Department to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps
a terrorist organization. Senators approved an amendment from Senators
Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Jon Kyl of Arizona threatening to
“combat, contain and [stop]” Iran via ‘military instruments.” Senator
Jim Webb of Virginia called the vote “Cheney’s fondest pipe dream” and
said it could “read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional
validation for military action.” The final vote was seventy-six to
twenty-two. Democratic Presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton
voted in favor of the measure. Rival hopeful Senator Barack Obama did
not vote.

Powered by ScribeFire.

worth reading… 09/19/2007

Can the White House intimidate Iran? Pepe Escobar

Was Israeli raid a dry run for attack on Iran? | The Observer

People & Planet vs Carbon offsetting – Cheatneutral.com