Keep Talkin' Dick

Woman sues restaurant after
décor (a 50 pound Moose head
with antlers) falls on her head.

Keep talkin’, Dick, it’s your only chance, or would be if Obama and Holder weren’t also fast becoming fellow war criminals. I’m reasonably certain that the U.S. constitution and U.S. laws require the President and the Attorney General to prosecute war criminals. As Obama and Holder, so far at least, have failed to do so, this would, I surmise, make them fellow travelers. Perhaps I am the only one obsessed with the idea that Bush/Cheney should have to stand trial for their (both admitted and un-admitted) war crimes, at least we don’t hear much about it.

I have previously discussed why it is that Dick (the Slimy) Cheney is compelled to constantly criticize Obama for failing to adequately protect our country. By attempting to make and keep this a political issue, if any action were taken by the Obama administration against him, he and his followers would immediately claim it was because he was criticizing Obama, that is, it would be purely political. Cheney does not dare just keep quiet as he would lose whatever protection this strategy might possibly offer him. This fits nicely with his recent remarks about Obama not wanting to think of our fight with al Quaida as “war.” For Cheney it would be dangerous for what is happening not to be considered a “war.” Very few people are sympathetic to torturing ordinary criminals, whereas there are at least quite a few who believe torturing “war criminals” might well be justified. Cheney may be evil as hell, and he may have been wrong about virtually everything, but he is not really stupid. He knows perfectly well that Obama is not soft on terrorists and is not neglecting the defense of our country. But he needs this to be “war,” not merely international crime, because the claim of being at “war” is the only possible justification he could have for the torture that he seems to have delighted in, and keeps insisting, “worked.”

And speaking of “war,” the “war on terror” is definitely not “war.” Obama is quite right to point out that you cannot be at “war” against a tactic, but there is more to it than that. There has been no declaration of “war,” merely the use of that term for fighting terrorists. Thus in reality the “war on terror” is no more a “war” that the “war on drugs,” or the “war on obesity,” or even the “war on Christmas.” Of course it was in the best interest of Bush/Cheney to call it “war,” as it helps to make Bush a “war president,” and it gives Cheney an excuse to torture (how eagerly he embraced “the dark side”).

I guess that technically speaking we are not at “war” at all, as Congress, which alone has the authority to declare war, has not done so to my knowledge in the case of either Iraq or Afghanistan, and they certainly have not done so yet against Iran or even Yemen, whom we are now attacking. So, we are fighting in Afghanistan because they harbored terrorists, and we are now fighting (surreptitiously) in Pakistan because they are harboring terrorists, and now we are attacking Yemen because they are harboring terrorists, and so on. Following this logic we will no doubt soon be attacking Berlin and London, as well as Somalia, Kenya, and god knows who all else. But wait a minute, maybe not. Yemen has oil, London and Berlin do not. Maybe we only attack countries that have oil and harbor terrorists. Actually, who knows what we are doing, it is all so stupid that it makes no sense whatsoever. There are a relatively small number of international terrorists scattered around the world that are trying to perform criminal acts against different countries. These people are criminals, not soldiers, they do not represent nations or any known polity. They will probably never be completely defeated, certainly not by armies, and should be treated as ordinary criminals. We should definitely not be fighting them with the full force of our military, thus eventually bankrupting ourselves just as Osama bin Laden planned and predicted. I doubt that the military/industrial/political complex cares very much who we are fighting or why, as long as we keep on doing it. If we were suddenly to be attacked by creatures from outer space you can bet we’d all be on the same side, Iran, Israel, Iraq, Kenya, Yemen, Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, and even Monaco. Perhaps an attack from outer space might be a good thing, we could call it a “war” against war, and be proud to be fighting once again, a “good war.”

LKBIQ:
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.
Jack Handey

TILT:
I read somewhere today (on google) that Donald Rumsfeld bought a mansion called Mount Misery.