Bush's Fav Words

The outgoing U.S. President George W. Bush is often the butt of jokes, especially for his way (or the lack of it) with words. The above image carries the words Bush loved to use in his eight State of the Union addresses. Must say one thing: American politicians are obsessed with words like freedom, liberty, and above all, the name of their own country.

David Addington: Cheney's Brain

George W. Bush is spending his last year as the president of the world’s most powerful country. Through his two terms in the office, people’s attitude toward Bush has swung wildly; his approval ratings shot up through the roof just after 9/11, while in recent years, they have touched the nadir.

However, if there is one person most people (expect neo-conservatives) dislike (I guess I am exception) it is Dick Cheney, Bush’s deputy. The guy is seen as the brains behind the War on Terror, invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo Bay detention centre, and controversial torture techniques like water-boarding.

However, few people have heard of David Addington. The guy is the brain behind Dick Cheney’s machinations. One of the most powerful behind-the-scenes operators, Addington has, in the process, hurt the ego of many a powerful American politicians.

Last week, Addington was summoned by a U.S. House Committee. Here’s a blow-by-blow account of what transpired in the stormy session. (This is an excerpt from the New Indian Express, which, in turn, culled it from Washington Post – so copyright rests with the original author(s) of the report.) Pl note that italics are mine, for added emphasis.

David Addington was there under subpoena. And he wasn't happy about it.

Could the president ever be justified in breaking the law? “I’m not going to answer a legal opinion on every imaginable set of facts any human being could think of,” Addington growled. Did he consult Congress when interpreting torture laws?

“That’s irrelevant,” he barked. Would it be legal to torture a detainee’s child? “I’m not here to render legal advice to your committee,” he snarled. “You do have attorneys of your own.” He had the grace of Gollum as he quarrelled with his questioners. In response to one of the chairman’s questions, he neither looked up nor spoke before finishing a note he was writing to himself. When Rep Debbie Wasserman Schultz questioned his failure to remember conversations about interrogation techniques, he only looked at her and asked: “Is there a question pending, ma’am?” Finally at the end of the hearing, Addington was asked whether he would meet privately to discuss classified matters. “You have my number,” he said. “If you issue a subpoena, we’ll go through this again.” Think of Addington as the id of the Bush White House. Though his hidden hand is often merely suspected — in signing statements, torture policy and other brazen assertions of executive power — Addington’s unbridled hostility was live and unfiltered Thursday.

He sat slouched in his chair, scratching his moustache, as Jerry Nadler of New York, chairman of the Constitution subcommittee, warned about “the unaccountable monarchy” before offering Addington five minutes to make an opening statement. Addington spoke for a minute and 12 seconds — most of which was devoted to correcting two errors in Nadler’s introduction. “Is that the entirety of your statement?” the chairman asked.

“Yes, thank you,” Addington replied.

“I’m ready to answer your questions.” He sure was. When John Conyers, Democrat–Michigan, inquired about Addington’s pet legal concept, a “unitary executive theory” that confers extreme powers on the president, Addington dished out disdain. “I frankly don’t know what you mean by unitary theory” Addington replied.

“Have you ever heard of that theory before?” “I see it in the newspapers all the time,” Addington replied.

“Do you support it?” “I don’t know what it is.” The usually mild Conyers was angry. “You’re telling me you don’t know what the unitary theory means?” “I don’t know what you mean by it,” Addington answered.

“Do you know what you mean by it?” “I know exactly what I mean by it.” Addington went on to explain how the enemy’s actions — “smoke was still rising. ... 3,000 Americans were just killed” — justified his legal reasoning. And he showed abundant disdain for dissenters, such as Rep Arthur Davis, Democrat – Alabama, who asked whether Addington consulted lawmakers about anti-torture statutes. “There is no reason their opinion would be relevant,” he answered.

Addington’s insolence appeared to embolden another witness on the panel John Yoo who took Rep Keith Ellison, Democrat – Minnesota, on a semantic spin when asked about whether a torture memo was implemented.

“What do you mean by ‘implemented’?” Yoo asked.

“Mr Yoo,” Ellison pressed, “are you denying knowledge of what the word ‘implement’ means?”

“You’re asking me to define what you mean by the word?” “No, I’m asking you to define what you mean by the word ‘implement’.” “It can mean a wide number of things,” Yoo demurred.
After several such dances around the questions, Rep Steve Cohen, Democrat – Tennessee, offered his grudging respect: “You guys are great on ‘Beat the Clock’,” he said.

“I don’t play basketball,” Yoo replied.

“That was a game show,” Cohen explained.

But Yoo was not about to win a nastiness contest with Addington. As Wasserman Schultz, Democrat – Florida, questioned him, he put his chin in his hand, stroked his beard and cut off the congresswoman with an offer of advice “that may be helpful to you in asking your questions.” Schultz, declining the offer, asked him to describe an interrogation he witnessed in Guantanamo Bay Cuba. “You could look and see mouths moving,” Addington answered. “I infer that there was communication going on.” Cohen asked Addington to explain his curious theory that the vice president is not part of the executive branch.

Addington explained that the vice president “belongs to neither” branch but is “attached by the Constitution” to the Congress.

“So he’s kind of a barnacle?” Cohen inquired.

“I don’t consider the Constitution a barnacle,” he said reproachfully.

Cheney’s Cheney continued to dole out the scorn (“You asked that question earlier today and I’ll give you the same answer.”) until Bill Delahunt, Democrat – Massachussetts, the last questioner, inquired about waterboarding. “I can’t talk to you — al-Qaida may watch these meetings,” Addington said.

“I’m glad they finally have a chance to see you, Mr Addington,” Delahunt joked.

“I’m sure you’re pleased,” he growled.

---------------

What guts! What temerity! I like this guy.

If you wish to watch the complete Q&A session video, here it is. Pls note that the video is 1 hour 26 min long. It's an engrossing watch.

U.S. Strategy to Stay Put in Iraq

Iraq is one of the most under-reported nations in our part of the world. Ever since the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, the country has been devastated by sectarian violence, suicide bombings, worsening security situation, and human rights abuses by all parties involved. If this was not enough, arbitrary detentions, Kurdish attacks, grinding poverty, and rising unemployment have only exacerbated the already fragile existence of the ordinary Iraqi.

In April 2003, the Americans were welcomed with open hands by desperate Iraqis as they broke free from the 24-year tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein. In our part of the world, there is a saying: Guests should not overstay. It’s not that the Americans had invaded just to liberate the Iraqis from Saddam’s iron fist; they had come to stay put. The invasion was the first step to establish a strong base, not merely a foothold, in one of the most oil- & gas-rich nations in the world.

While the invasion ‘easily’ opened the door to Iraq, controlling and securing the country has taken a severe toll on the Americans – both in terms of money and men. In fact, it has become a major headache for policy honchos in the White House, Capitol Hill, and the Pentagon.

The war in Iraq is the costliest war in American history, with some estimates topping $1 trillion. It has also taken the lives of over 4000 American soldiers, the highest toll in any single war theatre since the end of the Cold War.

The American troop presence in Iraq is geared to meet the geo-strategic objectives of the world's lone superpower. The U.S. also looks at Iraq as a doorway to the energy storehouse of the world - Central Asia. With troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. has effectively encircled another thorn in its flesh: Iran. (I will focus on the Iran angle in another post.)

On June 5, The Independent published a startling revelation of American strategy to turn Iraq into a country-size military base. Here's an excerpt:

“Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

“Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its “war on terror” in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.”

The U.S. has already the hackles of the various Iraqi groups, opposed to the presence of the American troops, especially the Iran-backed Shiite groups.

The influential former Iranian president, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, has castigated the U.S. saying that "[The] essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves before the Americans, if it is sealed".

The U.S. plan is expected to generate heated debate within Iraq and without. I expect some crackling fireworks in the next few days.

Source:
Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-secret-plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html

9/11 hatched by the CIA?

How often have you heard that the 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy hatched by the CIA, hand in glove with the Bush Administration? Another famous conspiracy theory is that these spectacular attacks were the end result of a plot hatched by The Mossad.

Were these attacks really conspired by the CIA / Bush Administration / The Mossad? How about a rebuttal from Al-Qaeda itself?

Check this Video.

When all else fails, cry conspiracy.