The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Weekend blogging, alas, took second a back seat to more immediate concerns--a serious enough case of the grippe to turn Saturday and Sunday into endurance contests. Ugh. Getting sick when you're old is no fun.

I managed to stay literate to the extent that I was able to sit or lounge, finally starting a VERY nice Christmas gift from two very good friends--a copy of Stuff Happens--signed by author David Hare--which ran at the National Theatre in London last fall. My friends were able to see the show and I'm VERY glad I made their Christmas list.

This weekend was much better for Wilbert Rideau. Rideau was released from prison Saturday after a jury (brought to Lake Charles from Ouachita Parish to counter publicity) found him guilty of manslaughter in the death of Julia Ferguson in 1961. Originally convicted of murder and sentenced to death--three times--until the US Supreme court decision Furman v. Georgia changed the decision to life in prison, Rideau's case is a little complicated to summarize in just a few paragraphs, so anyone interested might want to look at wilbertrideau.com. The extremely short version is that by actually rehabilitating himself, Mr. Rideau earned the emnity of the state as opposed to its mercy. The website hasn't been updated all that recently, but there are a number of still-relevant observations, including the fact that all of those on death row when Rideau was convicted, with one exception (he died in prison), were eventually released, the longest serving 34 years (Rideau served 44 years).

This is not to justify his crimes--Mr. Rideau killed a person, and shot two others in the course of committing armed robbery. However, equal justice under the law is a central tenet of ANY system that purports to be fair. Rideau did NOT receive equal justice. He was treated unequally, and the evidence suggests he was treated this way BECAUSE he chose to do something with his life behind bars.

By the way--let's also have a rousing Bronx cheer for four Louisiana governers who showed all the backbone of a jellyfish when it came to Rideau's case. Governors Edwards, Treen, Roemer, and Foster could've joined the ranks of vertebrates, but chose to slither close to the ground on this instead. And kudos to the folks from Ouachita Parish who dispassionately heard the evidence, and judged accordingly. Rideau WAS guilty--of manslaughter. The man has served his time--let him get on with his life.

That was the good. As to the bad, well, the Kool-Aid and rose-tinted shade true believers in the Bush administration apparently can't get enough Iraq-type success--Quagmires R' Us, according to Sy Hersh, have put US commandos in Iran to look for Weapons of Mass Destruction and possibly prepare for armed raids, air strikes, or, believe it or not, invasion.

Goddamn.

I'm hoping this is more smoke and mirrors as opposed to genuine planning, but Team Bush has shown a "damn the facts, full speed ahead" approach to everything they've gotten their grubby little fingers on thus far. And given the moron in chief's propensity for not wanting to hear any "bad" news, it's entirely possible they're thinking of broadening the quagmire. After all, it's just soldiers' lives, right? It's just civilians, right? Riverbend, by the way, has an excellent observation: 9/11 horror "justified" a response that's been, well, in my words, quite savage--yet Iraqis are supposed to accept invasion, occupation, and death as a matter of course. Her latest post is definitely worth reading.

Finally, when it comes to ugly, Chimpy McFlightsuit sure knows how to turn a phrase--or, when the phrase turns on him, he's learned how to express an almost culpa:Today in Iraq, a couple of days ago, carried a link to the entire "bring 'em on" statement--judge for yourself whether he was simply "rallying the troops," like a good cheerleader, or if his behavior was more along the lines of King George the Witless. Juan Cole makes some observations about the dauphin's response to Barbara Walters when asked about the distinct lack of WMD's in Iraq:

Bush's response contains three elements.

1) The US was not alone in being wrong about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. All the other nations did, too.

2) Saddam was dangerous.

3) Absolutely.

When is someone going to call him on this inanity? The Belgians didn't have intelligence assets inside Iraq that could have given them an independent view of the question. Whatever the world believed, it mostly believed because the United States disseminated the information.

Moreover, it is not true that there were no dissenters. The State Department's own Intelligence and Research Division dissented. French military intelligence dissented. What Bush is saying is either untrue or meaningless.

As I have pointed out before, Saddam without weapons of mass destruction could not have been "dangerous" to the United States. Just parroting "dangerous" doesn't create real danger. Danger has to come from an intent and ability to strike the US. Saddam had neither. He wasn't dangerous to the US. It is absurd that this poor, weak, ramshackle 3rd world state should have been seen as "dangerous" to a superpower. That is just propaganda.

Calling Saddam "dangerous" as an existential element without regard to the evidence falls under the propaganda techniques of name-calling and stirring irrational fear.

As for "Absolutely," it is a weasel word. It is not an argument. It is a species of hand waving. It is cheap.

Bush has figured out, apparently, that some in the American public respond, rather like the apes to which they deny they are related, to posture, grunting and body language rather than to reason and evidence. When I see him smirking and gesturing, I can't help thinking of the ape General Thade (Tim Roth) in Tim Burton's remake of the Planet of the Apes, which used scientific findings about primate behavior and hierarchy to inform the acting.

"Absolutely" used in this way is a vocalization that actually functions as an intimidating agonistic display meant to close off further dialogue by the silverback.

What would happen if we turned away from the world of political theater to the real world? We would find a study by the National Intelligence Council which is quite alarming about Iraq and the future.

And, as to the Thade's accomplishment in invading Iraq? Cole goes on:

The National Intelligence Council, the think tank of the CIA, has concluded that Iraq has now succeeded Afghanistan as the training ground for professionalized terrorists.

Oh, almost forgot: the ancient site of Babylon, being used as a military base, has been damaged by coalition personnel. While this might not be as immediately tragic as the loss of life, it certainly doesn't speak well of us. And, on that subject, I guess anyone stopping by noted the conclusion of Spc. Graner's trial--he was found guilty on nine of ten counts of abuse of prisoners, and sentenced to ten years. In addition, he was demoted in rank, and will receive a dishonorable discharge. Some Iraqis are already expressing discontent with the length of his sentence and/or lack or remorse. To be honest, I think ten years is probably enough, provided he serves the complete sentence--and provided that the charges were accurate. However, as Rising Hegemon notes--pictorally--Graner seems to have a learning disability. Attaturk suggests this might not be an impediment to a political career with the GOP.