That's it?

It appears to be true that all the big honchos in the Bush administration, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, et al, met in the White House to discuss the particulars of “intensive interrogation” (torture). That is, what techniques could be used and on whom. It seems strange to me that they would have done so. I mean, why couldn’t they just leave it up to the CIA, or whatever organization would ordinarily be responsible for such things? I can see no reason for their doing otherwise unless, perhaps, they were worried about the legality or illegality of what they were doing. As they seemingly didn’t mind ordering the worst, this would not seem to be the explanation. So were they, perhaps, just reveling in power, getting their jollies by doing this? Interesting that although Ashcroft knew what they were engaged in was improper he participated anyway (after all, he was only the Attorney General of the U.S.). He apparently said, “history will not look kindly on this.” I guess he must have felt like Bush, by the time history judges us we’ll all be dead. Bush has admitted that he knew about this. So that’s it? People at the highest levels of this administration participated in discussing and ordering torture, a clear war crime, and the President has now admitted to knowing about it. So that’s it? I mean, doesn’t anyone find this disturbing? Shouldn’t people be outraged? Shouldn’t these war criminals be brought to justice? Oh, I forgot, justice is no longer part of the democratic system here in the U.S. I confess this is about the most outrageous thing I have ever heard of and no one seems to care much. Maybe by the time the Bush/Cheney Brafia have all retired on their fortunes from war profiteering, someone, some historian, may actually inquire about this apparently not very important episode during the Nightmare Years. I guess in the interim the participants can meet annually to giggle about the “heady” old days when they had so much fun. Nothing “sick” about this, just good clean sport. More fun than shooting those pen raised, wing-clipped pheasants or shooting your hunting friend full in the face with buckshot. Hahahahaha.

I recommend that the candidates for the Presidency spend the rest of the time before the election arguing about whether people in Pennsylvania (or elsewhere) are bitter or not. Obama seems to think they are, Clinton and McCain don’t really think, they just grasp at straws. As one of the main definitions of bitter is “hard to accept or bear,” and as many of them have lost their jobs and in some cases their pensions as well, and more are probably losing their homes, you might think that would be hard to accept or bear. But maybe not, maybe like Clinton says, they’re just optimistic and hard-working people (apparently oblivious to their plight?). I guess they could spend a lot of time on whether or not Obama is just an “elitist” (like them), or whether he was “speaking down” to them (by pointing out the obvious), or whatever. Oh well, what’s another completely pointless and ridiculous argument, when there’s nothing else to talk about, like, Iraq, recession, health care, Iran, Israel/Palestine, or etc. Anyway, pay no attention to me, I’m just bitter and angry and I’m not even out of work. I’d like to say, I’m not going to take it any more, but what choice do I have? No one seems to be able to curb these people no matter how egregious, illegal, or unconstitutional their behavior becomes. I guess our new American motto has become, “just grin and bear it.”Aaaaagh!

LKBIQ:
“There are men in the world who derive as stern an exaltation from the proximity of disaster and ruin, as others from success.”
Sir Winston Churchill