The Mighty CAN Fall But Rarely Do! Why Is That?

John Bohner, House Minority Leader, has said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should either come up with evidence that the CIA misled her regarding the use of "enhanced" interrogation techniques or apologize to the CIA. That got me to wondering if there is a difference between being misled and being lied to. Boehner, apparently, does not think there is.

Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. Sir Walter Scott

The question is who is being deceived and who is doing the deceiving!

Boehner went on to emphasize the fact that "lying to the Congress of the United States is a crime". Now there's a novel solution as to how to clean house. Literally. Actually prosecute every member of both houses and the administration who lies to the U.S. Congress. I'm not sure anyone would be left!

If it is a crime there must be a punishment, though in the tight knit club that is our government, it's rarely, if ever, doled out! I went searching and found the applicable code on the Cornell University Law School web site.

ITITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > § 1001

§ 1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

Boehner, in suggesting that she turn said evidence over to the justice department so that any intelligence officials at fault could be prosecuted, in essence has given Ms. Pelosi a pass. If she is the one lying is she exempt from the law? For crying out loud, look what happened to Martha Stewart for "misleading" the FBI!

What about all the lies that were forth coming from the preceding Republican administration? Mr. Boehner's party! While there has been the usual posturing, no one seems to have the stomach to pursue such matters. Maybe laying five years on some of these folks would give them pause. Nothing else seems to get their attention.

Someone is lying. We'll never know who. The ranks have been closed and Ms. Pelosi will be protected. She may be diminished, but she will be protected. Do you wonder why I'm cynical?

How Do You Plan An "Exit" Strategy?

I read with interest where a group of anti-war Democrats are frustrated due to the lack of an exit strategy for the war in Afghanistan. It seems to me since we've just changed commanders and have yet to figure out how to actually fight the war, their frustration may prove misplaced. They might rather be frustrated by the nature of the war.

Wars aren't like they used to be. We fight an enemy without uniforms and really without a country. They fight a guerrilla war. We're not particularly good at it. To say it's "unconventional" warfare is an understatement. What else would you call it when we have to bribe war lords to side with us! We did it in Iraq; we're trying it in Afghanistan. This does not lend itself to a strategy, nor an ally, I would count on!

Congress was always demanding an exit strategy from the Bush administration on Iraq. None was forthcoming. We still don't have one set in stone. How many times since Obama took office have the end date and function of the troops that will remain been changed?

Afghanistan presents the same problems plus a few new wrinkles. Like the front is moving into an entirely different country - Pakistan. At least the Pakistani army is more capable than the Afghans or the Iraqis, whose army we disbanded!

One thing that needs to be remembered is the Afghanistan segment of the "war against terror", redubbed as the "Overseas Contingency Operation" by the administration, is extremely complex. There are goals, like subduing the opium trade, education, the teaching of modern agricultural techniques, etc. that best be left to civilian agencies and certainly not ours alone. Our military is there to root out Al-Qaeda, the Pakistanis want to beat back the Taliban and President Karzai wants to hold on to power. Do the goals mesh or is everyone tripping over one another?

One Congressman commented he was concerned about "mission creep". That is a valid concern; it's already happening. Al-Qaeda has free range in two countries now. How we contain them and how long it might take is a question that cannot be answered. Ask the Russians. I'm sure their exit strategy, if they had one, was the defeat they suffered. It's another conflict that most likely cannot be won.

Those Democrats looking for an exit strategy need look no further than Iraq to understand it's unlikely to happen.

I see the situation escalating before it starts to diminish. Not a pleasant thought. In looking back, do remember that after 9/11 the then ruling Taliban told us we could have Bin Laden, who was known to be in Afghanistan, if we could show proof he was the mastermind behind the attack. The Bush administration in essence told them they didn't "need no stinkin' proof". The rest is history.

Perhaps none of this would be happening if we had provided that proof. There is a lesson there.

Of Partisan Politics And Personal Agendas

I have never seen anything like the political scene we've been witnessing the past few weeks. I get the feeling the entire United States government is imploding.

From the President on down, everything is in chaos. To the President's credit, he is coming off some of his campaign promises that were based on assumptions rather than hard fact. He is being accused of weakness. I support him fully for I see it as coming to grips with reality.

Congress, on the other hand, is a different story. Every President I can remember has made the pledge to change the way Washington does business, including Obama. None have succeeded, including Obama. It's not for the lack of trying. Partisanship has run so deep and bitter for so long I don't see it changing without a major turnover of our elected officials, beginning with the leadership.

That partisanship and bitterness is what is causing the unraveling we're currently witnessing. The prisoner abuse conflict, what defines torture, who authorized it and how should they be made to pay. Cheney out there clinging to the hope he can convince the people Obama is keeping us less safe. The firing of the federal attorneys. So much from the past administration is filling the news and the time our elected officials are supposed to be working for our present and our future!

Obama has made it clear it's time to move forward. What's done is done, new leadership is in place. But no. The Republicans, who are fading quickly into obscurity, cling to their righteousness through the voices of talk show hosts. They have no leadership.

The Democrats, in a desperate attempt to escape the accusations of complicity, are scrapping against one another like junk yard dogs. Gitmo, torture, who said what to who when. All from times long past. Is anyone tending the store?

There is something inherently wrong with the way we are served when a Senator switches parties to better his chances of being re-elected. There is something inherently wrong with the practice of filling leadership positions on the basis of seniority rather than ability.

There is something inherently wrong when we, the constituents, keep sending the same people back to Washington because of the pork they've provided.

It has become a Catch 22. It takes experience to navigate Washington politics, yet when one becomes so sensitised to that climate so as to be effective, recognition of the realities outside the beltway fade. With that, true representation tends to fade and personal agendas, ambitions, rise.

Washington politics is like a narcotic. It's addictive, the perks equal the highest of highs and coming off that high is ferociously fought. The thought of returning to the real world and losing the power, the perks and the celebrity is more than most are willing to do. Staying high and oblivious is preferable to coping in the real world with the rest of us.

What's happening now reminds me of those anti-meth bill boards you see spotlighting the ravages of the addiction. The addiction is now taking it's toll. Nancy Pelosi is aging before our eyes. Smirks from all parties are less frequent. Dick Cheney's mental stability seems frail. It's fascinating and frightening all at the same time.

Politics is not the opiate of the masses in this case, it is the opiate of those who have become addicts of their own making inside Washington.

Have we, the people, been the enabler?

When Friends Are Worse Than Enemies!

Well, they're out there! The photos of prisoner abuse.

According to The Daily Kos they were released by an Australian network. Truth be told, when I was looking for pictures for yesterday's post I saw many of them but thought they were among those already released.

I never bought into the argument that releasing them would show the world we mean it when we say no more. What it shows the world is what was done. No one is going to care which administration was in power when it happened. What will be remembered is that it's what the Americans did with their prisoners!

According to the article the channel SBS obtained the photos in 2006 after Abu Ghraib but were not among the photos distributed at the time and are believed to among those the President wanted to block. That hasn't been made totally clear, but there couldn't be much worse among any still unreleased. This photo is one I felt I could post. Even though I make points graphic when I feel it appropriate, there are some lines that even I won't cross. Take that as you may.

So what is it? Not only the Islamic world doesn't trust us; it appears that other countries feel it is their due to take decisions which should be ours, away from us. No, that isn't true. It isn't Australia. It's the Australian media. I have no doubt our media would have done the same given the opportunity. Has all the media succumbed to paparazzi mentality? Anything for a story; a scoop? The Australian media, nor it's country, had no part of the decision making process, they had no hand in the execution of the abuse nor were any of them victims of it.

Freedom of the press? If they've had these photos since 2006 why wait until now? Now, when a new administration is trying mightily to turn around the grievances of the past administration? Where's the responsibility? Is it strictly for the sensationalism of seeing men demeaned? Is it meant to embarrass the American government? What?

The article indicates there are more to come. This is a sorry day indeed. Our President was trying to do right by our soldiers and has been denied. Not by our Congress nor our media but by a foreign entity.

What is the world coming to? In early June Obama is scheduled to travel to Egypt to make a major speech. The photos are "out" there. This is the first time I've really had a queasy feeling in my stomach about the safety of our President on foreign soil.

I have no idea what the world is coming to. In time, it's senses, I hope!

Be Careful What You Wish For!

I often wonder if either politicians or the media "get it". The current news cycle seems to be little more than whether or not we should torture. Chris Matthews almost drools at the thought of really getting the bad guys. It's frightening.

There are always the "What if you knew the bad guys had information about an imminent attack. Would you torture them to get the details?" questions. Gene Robinson is the only one I've heard question, to Lynn Cheney no less, just how anyone would have that information in the first place.

There has been little discussion regarding just what actually comprises torture other than water boarding. Then the discussion turns even more political. Has Obama waffled on the release of "enhanced interrogation" photos? What ever became of the promise of transparency in this administration?

As M*A*S*H's Colonel Potter would say, "Horse pucky"! Obama's military commanders strongly urged him to reconsider his inclination to release the photos. Wisely, he listened. Reconsidering and changing ones mind is not waffling! It's showing good judgement when a wise argument has been made.

Why anyone would want to see what we've actually done or contracted to have done is beyond me. That isn't the point. It's the perception the rest of the world will have. More importantly the perception the Islamic world will have. It needs no help to make it more negative!

Forget the argument as to whether or not torture actually works. I'm sure there are times it does and times it does not. The point the military commanders are trying to make is that our enemies can and will give worse than they get. To put our service men and women at greater risk than they already are would be irresponsibly reckless.

Photos speak volumes and are fair game to be interpreted in any manner the observer wishes, be it accurate or not. Those so anxious to have them released would do well to remember not only the Islamic rage that accompanied the Abu Ghraib fiasco but also the emotions that are stirred, even today, of the Holocaust atrocities. The Jewish community will never let it go. Why should the Islamic community be any more generous with what they see as a total humiliation of their religious beliefs.

Jon Stewart summed it up one night when he explained he understood the rage and shared the same blood lust, but the point he made is one we should all consider. This country is better than he is.

I will never understand a culture that is so fanatical that it will stone to death it's own people. And worse. Or behead captives like Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl and so many others.

I do understand that flame of hatred is no ember. It is burning strong and flares out of control frequently. Why should we add fuel to it by releasing photos which would be proof positive that there was a day our country was not better than the sum of it's peoples' rage?