Bush's USA: A Nation In Denial

Yesterday I made the mistake of revisiting the IraqTheModel blog, where gung-ho Bushists gather to feel good about the havoc they are wreaking on Iraq, egged on by some opportunistic Iraqi dentists on the CIA's payroll. If you want to get up close and personal with the ugly face of modern America, the comments section at IraqTheModel is it.

For example, in response to my allegations that Margaret Hussan's murder was faked to deflect attention from the marine murder video (see below), one poster said:

I think the marine made one mistake...he should have saved one bullet for the NBC reporter.

Another said, in all seriousness:

Whats your point? 98% of the respondents in a Fox News poll found nothing wrong with the actions of the American Marine you are refering to. No story there.....why try to deflect critizism? None of the major media in this country is even bothering.

When challenged, the poster even provided this URL link to support the claim.

What does that say about the USA today? I know, the link is just to Bill O'Reilly's bizarro Fox sub-culture, but this is the kind of thing that reminds you just how many people DID vote for Bush (even if the election was still stolen). This is a nation in denial.

Today, Ted Rall asks why families of soldiers dying in Iraq are being told "he died for his country"?

What does it mean to fight (or die) for the United States?

Our soldiers may be doing their duty, fighting fiercely, and giving their lives in the bargain. But since Iraq neither threatens our freedom nor our borders, they're neither protecting our freedoms or fighting for America. The best anyone can say is that they're fighting for our country's geopolitical interests--and what those are is subject to interpretation.

"Private ______ died for his country's geopolitical interests." Huh. Doesn't quite have the same ring.

Elsewhere today, Molly Ivins looks at continuing torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay:

It is both peculiar and chilling to find oneself discussing the problem of American torture...

One's first response to the report by the International Red Cross about torture at our prison at Guantanamo is denial. "I don't want to think about it; I don't want to hear about it; we're the good guys, they're the bad guys; shut up. And besides, they attacked us first."

... The first requirement here is that we look at what we are doing -- and not blink, not use euphemisms. Despite the Red Cross' polite language, this is not "tantamount to torture." It's torture. It is not "detainee abuse." It's torture. If they were doing it to you, you would know it was torture...

Our country, the one you and I are responsible for, has imprisoned these "illegal combatants" for three years now. What the hell else do we expect to get out of them? We don't even release their names or say what they're charged with -- whether they're Taliban, Al Qaeda or just some farmers who happened to get in the way (in Afghanistan, farmers and soldiers are apt to be the same).

If this hasn't been established in three years, when will it be? How long are they to be subjected to "humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions"?

In the name of Jesus Christ Almighty, why are people representing our government, paid by us, writing filth on the Korans of helpless prisoners? Is this American? Is it Christian? What are our moral values? Where are the clergymen on this? Speak out, speak up.

... My question is: What are you going to do about this? It's your country, your money, your government. You own it, you run it, you are the board of directors. They are doing this in your name. The people we elect to public office do what you want them to. Perhaps you should get in touch with them.