I wrote the following comment to an article in Smirking Chimp a while ago. It is pertinent to this story too:

smirkingchimp.com/thread/16804#comment-129108

First things first

It's good to keep this criminal practice in the spotlight, but if we don't examine its background, we will end up doing nothing about it, and the perpetrators will be free to torture again and again.

It is clear from all experts in criminology and investigation that torture is near-useless in obtaining useful information or in prevention of future crimes. The Bush regime knows this as well as anyone.

Therefore, they had another reason for torturing. The purpose can only be for - irony of ironies - terrorism. The hope of the BCR (Bush criminal regime) can only be to terrorize people around the world into submission. That includes here, for all citizens, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

Any student of history or human behavior could have predicted the drive for empire wouldn't work, but the Bush gang proceeded without hesitation. I believe this was for several reasons. One was to deflect attention from the genuine crimes this regime committed domestically: the negligence (or worse) in advance of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the deception used to rush the country into attacking "Iraq," the drive for worldwide empire, and, most importantly, to establish an infrastructure for a police state.

All these crimes, and the many more committed by this regime over the past eight years, followed a pattern that reveals the intentions of their perpetrators: abolish the Constitution and secure the reins of government in perpetuity.

The Bush criminal regime has failed in its effort to secure its longevity, but we should be clear about its intentions. There are still a few months left for this gang to engage in more mayhem, in the vain hopes of staying in power.

I can forgive the Congress for not impeaching, believing that the most important thing is orderly succession. The bush gang, desperate to avoid prosecution, would do whatever in its power to prevent it. That would include using its vast resources in the corporate media, the military, the various Federal law enforcement agencies, and eliciting cooperation from state and local police agencies.

If we make it to Jan 20, 2009 with a new president, especially if it is not McCain, we stand a good chance of bringing the Bush regime to justice. For that reason, it is vital to support the election of Barack Obama. He isn't perfect, and I would rather have him advocate the same things that Ralph Nader does, but he's our best hope.

I think we have to settle for the best we can get. It is unlikely that an Obama regime will be even remotely as criminal as the Bush gang, and he is likely to make great progress in many areas. He almost certainly won't be promoting torture. His support of the FISA bill may actually have been a stealth vote. He's that smart. After he's in office we can go to work on vigorous support for real law and order.

The "Democrats" deserve to lose. They may not be as nasty as the "Republicans," but they are playing the same game. It is not about actually doing something for the good of humanity, but about money and the exercise of power. Any election campaign is about image-making, and image-breaking.

It is likely to get even nastier. One thing that may save the "Democrats" is that Barack Obama earned his political stripes in Chicago, which has its own brand of down-and-dirty.

Still, what about doing something to foster civilization, both here and worldwide? I don't expect much, if anything, from either candidate. Obama is talking about increasing our role in "Afghanistan" and basically giving the same diplomatic and/or military support to "Georgia" that McCain is peddling. He calls "Iran" a threat, and his approach to that country is not fundamentally different from what is fomented by the "foreign policy establishment."

I see Obama is appearing on the Bill O'Reilly show. That pretty much settles it. He boycotted Fox for months because they spread the rumor that he attended a Madrassa. That would have been a good case of standing on principle, but now he goes a-begging for acceptance and approval. If it were me, I would make it a campaign promise to remove Fox's FCC license if elected, and look into criminal prosecution of its executives and propagandists.

But not the "Democrats." They won't even impeach the most criminal president in our entire history. I repeat: they won't even impeach the most criminal president in our entire history. That makes them complicit, criminals themselves.

So who really cares if the "Democrats" are gun-shy of going nasty. It's just a strategic choice, a method to create an image to fool the voters.

By the way, John McCain was on a bombing run intended for civilians in Hanoi when he was shot down. He was on his 23d bombing "mission," in a plane (A4 Skyhawk) that flies at a maximum altitude of 45,000 ft. Some hero.

This was a fun read. Good, observant writing. Great sense of humor. No predjudgement. I don't think I've ever read anything about the human side of "Republicans," such as it is. In one shift he manages to capture the essence of the "Republican" soul.

It would be interesting to witness the moods of these same people when the McCain campaign implodes. Palin's connection to the Alaskan Independence Party will be enough, but her record and trashy personal life will likely cause her to depart the ticket.

In two months the "hero" shtick will be pretty tiresome. If being tortured makes one a hero, then the next cabinet should be chosen from the masses who have endured in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. If being shot down on a bombing run intended for civilians makes one a hero, then Timothy McVeigh should have been accorded the same status.