Bush, Cheney, et al. may not be held accountable, but not for lack of evidence. The literature documenting their crimes is massive, in dozens of books--and in many of Thom's tightly focused essays such the one today.
My own modest effor is a book I'm just now completing, "Defeated Democracy and Criminal War: the Backstories of America's Interlocked Tragedies." The book documents with 587 footnotes the deceit, dishonesty, and criminal behavior of the Bush Administration. Just one example: awaiting his signature when Bush took office was a standing offer from the Taliban to assassinate Osama bin Laden or surrender him into U.S. custody. The offer was formally rejected by Bush first in early February, again in March, once more in June, again in August--just days before 9/11--and then once more four days after that. The Bush Administration also rejected Saddam Hussein's offer to enter into voluntary exile in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt--just weeks before Iraq was invaded. To justify a "war on terrorism" Bush needed iconic terrorists alive, at large, and in residence in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Etc. etc.
My book calls explicitly for the Bush Administration to be held accountable. If we can indict Donald Trump for comparatively trivial crimes, why can't we bring George Bush to justice for slaughtering nearly a million people and squandering $8 trillion?
Great 'one and done' on Afghanistan and Iraq! And 1,000,000 Iraqi/Afghan people are dead and as Thom said yesterday, thousands of our people, then and now. Tricking sincere, patriotic young men and women into being cannon fodder is alive and well. "Blow sh!t up, we'll make more!" A side note; Afghanistan supplies 90+% of the world's heroin. The country also has a native plant that produces meth - that trade runs at about $1 billion a year, alone. Big money in drug running.... I knew an ex-special forces guy who said the US military used to ship it out by the truckload. One of his friends made a lot of money doing it. Nothing like the cash liquidity of the drug trade to fund military ops and get yourself one of those $500 million Yachts. The supply chain runs through Iraq, too. Hmmm.
When asked why the vehicles used by the Armed Forces in Iraq were not properly fitted with armor protection plates, Rummy then Sec of Defense arrogantly proclaimed ‘you go to war with the equipment you have’! Indeed, the lack of war plans were disastrous to our brave Soldiers. Cheney, ‘we don’t do nation building’! Rummy’s callus disregard for the lives of our troops belies the fact that this was an ‘elective war’! Saudi Arabia supplied at least 15 of the hijackers BUT invaded Iraq!!??
Papa Bush was part of an investment group that was handling the house of saud’s money!? No way little bush was going to kill the golden goose funding the investment houses in the US.
This is a link to a gut wrenching first hand account of Bush-Cheney-Rummy elective war.
I once worked as staff for the president of IBM research. We would meet with the leaders of various research projects (along with their department heads). In one discussion, a top researcher said they were giving the same speech over and over again. The president's response was (something like) 'if it is worth saying once, it is worth repeating'. I felt at the time it was insightful and pointed to the power of repetition in reinforcing memory and original value. Your reference to Santayana was right-on.
Saddam Hussein had many faults, but radical Islamist fundamentalism wasn't one of them. He ran the most secular regime in the Middle East; women were allowed in all the professions. He had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens, none were Iraqis. Osama bin Laden was a Saudi citizen. If we were to go to war against anybody, it should have been Saudi Arabia, which still subsidizes the Wahhabi schools that preach jihad all over the Arab world.
Two things come to mind about Bush/Cheney. The first is that Bush during his second term talked openly about the proof that was not there for the weapons of mass destruction. He actually joked about it. The second was the fact that Pelosi made the decision not to impeach Bush. Her attitude was he wasn't "worth it". If her kid had been killed there, I wonder if she would have thought differently. See that's the problem with good Catholic girls, they think their god will take care of these bastards. She didn't do her job. I sure hope her god gets around to prosecuting Bush and Cheney. I will admit Pelosi had a real dilemma on her hands, since she was in-line for the presidency.
What I really hope happens is that the ICC gets their hands on both of them. We could have two presidents and a vice-president all in prison at the same time. The Iraq War literally wiped the smile off my face---being a veteran and seeing our troops misused was traumatic. Seeing the people responsible for all that horror on trial might make me smile a bit and give the victims a little comfort.
Thanks Thom, Absolutely essenial and I appreciate your preface "Given the costs of both these wars — and the current possibility of our being drawn deeper into conflict in both Ukraine and Taiwan — it’s an important moment to discuss our history of wars, both illegal and unnecessary and those that are arguably essential to the survival of democracy in the world."
Ukraine is the 21st century version of the Sudentenland, but with destruction and slaughter as is the custom of the Russians.
All eyes are on Moldova, next, it has an old line Soviet and hostile government on it's eastern flank called Transnistra, which is too weak on it's own to do anything, and Moldova itself is too weak to repel an aggression.
However the real threat is the Suwalki gap. Look at the map , the border that separates Poland and Lithuania is the Suwalki gap, an indefensible plain that has been the hiway of armies from the Teutonic Knights and Napoleon to Hitler.
The gap separates Russia from it's warm water port on the Baltic, Kalininagrad. The gap is separated from Russia by Belarus, which is nothing more than a satrap of Putin. For all intents and purposes Belarus is Russian.
The easiest route to Kalinigrad is via the Lithuanian side of the Suwalki Gap, and that means attacking Lithuania, which means invoking Art 5 of NATO.
His war on Ukraine has weakened him militarily (exposing his armed forces as a Potemkin Village), and internationally but he is irrationally committed, just like Trump. He can't back down, he can't retreat, he has no fall back position, he is irrevocably committed to this path of destruction, even if it is self destruction. All he can do is double down.
And that includes threatening thermonuclear warfare which he knows is enough to have America and the west wetting it's pants, because we have grown too soft.
I do not believe that Putin will launch nukes,not even tactical nukes (which are the equivalent of a Hiroshima bomb, He may be crazy but he isn't suicidal, he may not love anything, but himself, his kids and mistresses, but he loves his creature comforts, his dachas, his private jets, his yachts.
And more importantly his nuclear arsenal is 40 to 50 years old, sitting on top of missiles that are just as old. These are not arrows you can place in a quiver and forget about. Ask anyone who has put a car in storage for 20 years, technology degrades. If anyone is holding on to a 5 inch floppy or even a 3.5 inch floppy, if you can find an old 286AT or even an old Pentium, plug in it,insert floppy and see what you get. I have thumb drives that have degraded, because they weren't being used. I have thumb drives that have degraded and won't be recognized that were being used.
Nukes and missiles require constant maintenance, guidance equipment degrades. The Russian Generals and Officers have been skimming maintenance money, to buy dachas and properties in the west.
The threat of thermo nuclear war is being kept alive, in our minds, as a form of population control.
The generation of nuclear drills, and diving under your school desk, are now senior citizens and voters, the baby boomers, hippies turned Trump humpers.
I missed that programming as I am of the Silent Generation, born at the tail end of the depression and before Hitler invaded Poland. So no reflexive response from me. When the protesters were fleeing to Canada and being drafted, I was on my 2nd re enlistment and "enjoying the delights" of a country the locals called Nam Viet (or south Viet), Hanoi was in Bach Viet (or north Viet).
As you obsess about Putin and your cabal of MSNBC liberals act as if war crimes started with his invasion of Ukraine , it is Barack Obama who is to blame for his cowardly dismissal of what is thus far the war crime of the century as perpetrated by Geroge W Bush, Dick Cheney, Condyleeza Rice, Colin Powell and Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Let us not forget Joe Biden's plan to colonize Iraq by partitioning it, more proof of the racist and highly questionable judgment he has shown over the years (and today). It was Obama who made the milquetoast excuse that we should look to the future and not at the past in obviating an investigation into war crimes in Iraq. It was Joe Biden who was a proponent of making certain America was not part of the International Criminal Court he wants to use to try Putin for war crimes. Consider this quote from Iraqi writer Feurat Alani and then look in the mirror, because unfortunately this does apply to you Thom:
"Bush, Cheney, Condyleeza Rice, Rumsfeld they're all war criminals but they will not be put on trial...the attitudes of Americans and a lot of Europeans to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in so many ways shows the double standards and the hierarchy of human worth that a lot of people on this planet believe in. Who really is a full human being that you can empathize with because they look like us or because they are European...and whose death really doesn't count, whether they are Palestinian or Yemeni or Syrian or Iraqi or Afghani, whose death doesn't even register, and a million deaths becomes just a statistic because they are not viewed as having lived full lives because their lives do not resemble our lives. So Putin is considered a war criminal but we live in a country where war criminals are still going around appearing on TV dancing on the Ellen Degeneres show and Bush talks about his paintings."
'War Made Easy' - The Iraq War 20 years later - New Documentary
Since the end of WWII, the MIC of the USofA has grown and continues to grow. We have 754 military bases around the world, 6 to 7 times more than the next nation. We have a WAR budget approaching $1 Trillion, more than the budget of the next 10 or 11 national budgets.
Killing justified with “good reasons.” Putin believes bombing Ukrainians is for good reasons. USofA believes helping Ukrainians kill Russians is for good reasons.
“War becomes perpetual when used as rationale for PEACE."
There was a push for Attorney General Eric Holder to prosecute Bush's henchmen who wrote the torture memos, and then Bush himself, Obama said "we need to look forward, not backward" essentially halting any possibility of accountability for the war crime of the century. Likely because he knew he was committing war crimes himself: https://harvardpolitics.com/obama-war-criminal/
There seems to be a “political norm” among our political leaders over the years NOT to go after previous political leaders/presidents who’ve knowingly, either before the fact or afterwards, lied to the American public or have committed crimes.
When John Adams was president, he got the Alien and Sedition Act passed into law, just so he could go after his political opponents. Many were jailed. Newspapers were shut down. Some even destroyed by Adams’ supporters. Those times are now being repeated, though not to the extreme as under Adams, today. At least not yet, in spite of the constant threats by the GQPTP leadership and Trumpet’s followers to “Lock him/her up!” What legal/criminal consequences did John Adams face? None of any real consequence, as far as I know. Then, we had Jackson and his mistreatment of the Native Americans. Jackson is still remembered as a “national hero.”
The president I’d like to highlight as the leader of not going after traitorous criminals is Abraham Lincoln. Now, near me out.
From “courses.lumenlearning.com’” is the following: “The end of the Civil War saw the beginning of Reconstruction. Lincoln moved quickly to achieve the war’s ultimate goal: reunification of the country. He proposed a generous and non-punitive plan to return the Confederacy into the United States. Republicans in Congress protested, saying the president’s plan too lenient to the Rebels. The greatest flaw of Lincoln’s plan was that it appeared to forgive traitors instead of guaranteeing civil rights to former slaves. President Lincoln oversaw the passage of the 13th Amendment ending slavery, but he did not live to see its ratification.
From the outset of the rebellion in 1861, Lincoln’s main goal was to bring the Southern states back into the fold in order to restore the Union. In December, 1863, Lincoln began his process of reunification by unveiling a 3-part proposal known as the 10% Plan, giving a general pardon to all Southerners, except high-ranking Confederate government and military leaders; required 10 % of the 1860 voting population in the rebel states to take an oath of allegiance to the US; accept the emancipation of slaves; and declared that once those voters took those oaths, the restored states would draft new state constitutions.
“Lincoln hoped that the leniency of the plan—90 percent of the 1860 voters did not have to swear allegiance to the Union or to emancipation—would bring about a quick resolution and make emancipation more acceptable. This approach appealed to some in the moderates in the Republican Party. However, the proposal drew fire from a larger faction of Republicans in Congress who did not want to deal moderately with the South. These members of Congress, the “Radical Republicans.” The Radical Republicans demanded harsher terms for the Confederacy and protection for former slaves, going far beyond what the Lincoln wanted.
In February, 1864, two Radical Republicans, Sen. Benjamin Wade and Rep.Henry Davis, offered their own. Their Wade-Davis Bill called for a majority of voters and government officials in Confederate states to take an ”Ironclad Oath,” swearing that they had never supported the Confederacy or made war against the US. Those who could not or would not take the oath would be unable to take part in the future political life of the South. Congress passed the Wade-Davis Bill, and sent it to Lincoln for his signature. The president used the pocket veto to kill the bill. Lincoln understood that no Southern state would have met the criteria of the Wade-Davis Bill, and its passage would simply delay the reconstruction of the South.
“Despite the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, the legal status of slaves remained unresolved. To deal with the uncertainties, the Republicans made the abolition of slavery a top priority in its 1864 party platform.
Lincoln and Radical Republicans made good on this campaign promise in 1864 and 1865. A proposed constitutional amendment, outlawing slavery, passed the Senate in April 1864, and the House in January 1865. The amendment then made its way to the states, including in the South. In December 1865, the 13th Amendment was added to the Constitution.
“Lincoln’s assassination elevated Vice President Andrew Johnson, a Democrat, to the presidency in 1865. Johnson found himself tasked with rebuilding the South. Lincoln’s view as president had been that secession by the Southern states was never legal; that is, they had never left the Union.Therefore, they still had rights to self-government as states.
In keeping with Lincoln’s plan, Johnson desired to quickly repatriate the South back into the Union on lenient terms and heal the wounds of the nation. This position angered many in the Republican Party. The Radical Republican plan for Reconstruction looked to overturn southern society, specifically to end the plantation system. Johnson disappointed Radical Republicans when he rejected their idea that the federal government could provide voting rights for freed slaves.
“In fact, Johnson’s ‘Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction’ in May, 1865, provided sweeping ‘amnesty and pardon’ to rebellious Southerners. It returned their property, with the notable exception of their former slaves, and it asked only that they affirm their support for the Constitution of the United States. Those Southerners excepted from this amnesty included the Confederate political leadership, high-ranking military officers, and persons with taxable property worth more than $20,000. For this class of wealthy Southerners to regain their rights, they would have to swallow their pride and request a personal pardon from Johnson himself.
“For the Southern states, the requirements for readmission to the Union were fairly straightforward. States were required to hold a state convention where they would repeal their respective, Ordinances of Secession plus ratify the 13th Amendment. By the end of 1865, several former Confederate leaders were in the Union capital looking to claim their seats in Congress. Among them was Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the Confederacy, who had spent several months in a Boston jail. By early 1866 Johnson announced that all former Confederate states had satisfied the necessary requirements and nothing more needed to be done; the Union had been restored.
“Radical Republicans and their northern constituents, resented his lenient treatment of the former Confederate states, and especially the return of former Confederate leaders like Alexander Stephens to Congress. They refused to acknowledge the southern state governments he allowed. They would not permit senators and representatives from the former Confederate states to take their places in Congress.
Since Lincoln and Johnson, both, wanted to be forgiving towards the traitorous Southerners, we had two presidents bet their political lives on re-uniting the country without the death penalty being meted out, except for those who four who were hanged for being collaborators with Booth’s assignation of Lincoln. Confederate President, Jefferson Davis was imprisoned for several years, as were a few other high-ranking Confederate politicians.
“Seven weeks after Robert E. Lee’s surrender at Appomattox Court House, Judge John C. Underwood demanded justice, while providing instructions to a federal grand jury in Norfolk, Virginia. He defined treason as “wholesale murder” that “embraces in its sweep all the crimes of the Decalogue.” This horrific act, Underwood said, had murdered tens of thousands of young Americans during the recent war, “by the slaughter on the battlefields, and by starvation in the most loathsome dungeons.” He was outraged that the men most responsible for the rebellion – “with hands dripping with the blood of our slaughtered innocents and martyred President” – were yet still at large.
‘Underwood urged the grand jurors to send a message to their countrymen, that future rebellions would not be tolerated. He concluded his remarks by advising that Gen. Lee would not be protected from prosecution by his agreement with Gen. Grant at Appomattox in April, 1865. ‘On June 7, 1865, Underwood’s grand jury indicted Gen. Lee for treason. Gen. Lee faced death by hanging, if found guilty of the charges.”
Americans today might not know about Lee’s indictment by the Norfolk grand jury. The actual indictment went missing for 72 years and many scholars remain unaware that it has been found. All told, 39 Confederate leaders would be indicted for treason by Underwood’s court. Somehow, we seem to have erased this event from our collective memory.
“Despite President Andrew Johnson’s commitment to prosecuting the indicted rebels, the charges were eventually dropped in February 1869. In the end, the very understandable desire for reconciliation among both northerners and southerners after the war was deemed more important than the obligation to punish those who tried to destroy the Republic. The pervasive idea that the Civil War was just a misunderstanding between “men and women of good faith on both sides,” is a direct result of the decision to drop the treason charges against the Confederate leadership.’
General Lee, while losing his rights of citizenship, never spent one day in prison. This is what I see as something that can help Trumpet from being prosecuted and/or found guilty in a trial, and being imprisoned. I’m NOT saying I agree with this possibility. I can’t stand Trumpet and believe he should be the “exception to the rule” and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But again, from our own history, I see a direction toward not imprisoning traitors very long. Also, they may not have the perks of full citizenship, but, they’re not killed. We have a history of trying to “forgive and forget” the illegal and/or illicit actions of our leaders, no matter how criminal their actions are.
I strongly disagree with your position on advocating support for Ukraine. There are no good actors to be found, including the Nazi leaning Ukranians. The USA, who basically dictates to NATO has indicated pretty clearly that it has and is advocating to surround Russia with military bases, missiles in the So. China Sea and aligning the eastern Eurasian countries as well. War is profitable to the military, the governments, the weapons manufacturers and more. Do the people of any nation, victim or perpetrator enjoy any of the spoils? No! We, the people of every country involve pay for it and suffer for the enormous expenses of war in blood and dollars, and maybe more important, make enemies all around the world after we've pretended that we were 'bringing democracy, when our own democracy here at our home is actually on it's knees being beaten to near death by all these wars. Sadly, none of the many criminals who enable this, in the very highest of offices, before or since 911 have paid. Actually I'm shocked and very disappointed to read your piece today.
End The Violence! Or our world will die by the explosion of violence everywhere, including violence perpetrated against Nature, The Earth, and Women.
Bush, Cheney, et al. may not be held accountable, but not for lack of evidence. The literature documenting their crimes is massive, in dozens of books--and in many of Thom's tightly focused essays such the one today.
My own modest effor is a book I'm just now completing, "Defeated Democracy and Criminal War: the Backstories of America's Interlocked Tragedies." The book documents with 587 footnotes the deceit, dishonesty, and criminal behavior of the Bush Administration. Just one example: awaiting his signature when Bush took office was a standing offer from the Taliban to assassinate Osama bin Laden or surrender him into U.S. custody. The offer was formally rejected by Bush first in early February, again in March, once more in June, again in August--just days before 9/11--and then once more four days after that. The Bush Administration also rejected Saddam Hussein's offer to enter into voluntary exile in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt--just weeks before Iraq was invaded. To justify a "war on terrorism" Bush needed iconic terrorists alive, at large, and in residence in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Etc. etc.
My book calls explicitly for the Bush Administration to be held accountable. If we can indict Donald Trump for comparatively trivial crimes, why can't we bring George Bush to justice for slaughtering nearly a million people and squandering $8 trillion?
Great 'one and done' on Afghanistan and Iraq! And 1,000,000 Iraqi/Afghan people are dead and as Thom said yesterday, thousands of our people, then and now. Tricking sincere, patriotic young men and women into being cannon fodder is alive and well. "Blow sh!t up, we'll make more!" A side note; Afghanistan supplies 90+% of the world's heroin. The country also has a native plant that produces meth - that trade runs at about $1 billion a year, alone. Big money in drug running.... I knew an ex-special forces guy who said the US military used to ship it out by the truckload. One of his friends made a lot of money doing it. Nothing like the cash liquidity of the drug trade to fund military ops and get yourself one of those $500 million Yachts. The supply chain runs through Iraq, too. Hmmm.
When asked why the vehicles used by the Armed Forces in Iraq were not properly fitted with armor protection plates, Rummy then Sec of Defense arrogantly proclaimed ‘you go to war with the equipment you have’! Indeed, the lack of war plans were disastrous to our brave Soldiers. Cheney, ‘we don’t do nation building’! Rummy’s callus disregard for the lives of our troops belies the fact that this was an ‘elective war’! Saudi Arabia supplied at least 15 of the hijackers BUT invaded Iraq!!??
Papa Bush was part of an investment group that was handling the house of saud’s money!? No way little bush was going to kill the golden goose funding the investment houses in the US.
This is a link to a gut wrenching first hand account of Bush-Cheney-Rummy elective war.
https://plus.thebulwark.com/p/iraq-war-invasion-20th-anniversary?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoyMzMxOTQzNywicG9zdF9pZCI6MTA5NDE3Mzk2LCJpYXQiOjE2NzkyNzE1NjAsImV4cCI6MTY4MTg2MzU2MCwiaXNzIjoicHViLTg3MjgxIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.Z2HE69eFL55ps6KUvjgO9Qa4DsoG_T5fRbzZwuPRs_g&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Thank you.
I once worked as staff for the president of IBM research. We would meet with the leaders of various research projects (along with their department heads). In one discussion, a top researcher said they were giving the same speech over and over again. The president's response was (something like) 'if it is worth saying once, it is worth repeating'. I felt at the time it was insightful and pointed to the power of repetition in reinforcing memory and original value. Your reference to Santayana was right-on.
Saddam Hussein had many faults, but radical Islamist fundamentalism wasn't one of them. He ran the most secular regime in the Middle East; women were allowed in all the professions. He had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens, none were Iraqis. Osama bin Laden was a Saudi citizen. If we were to go to war against anybody, it should have been Saudi Arabia, which still subsidizes the Wahhabi schools that preach jihad all over the Arab world.
Two things come to mind about Bush/Cheney. The first is that Bush during his second term talked openly about the proof that was not there for the weapons of mass destruction. He actually joked about it. The second was the fact that Pelosi made the decision not to impeach Bush. Her attitude was he wasn't "worth it". If her kid had been killed there, I wonder if she would have thought differently. See that's the problem with good Catholic girls, they think their god will take care of these bastards. She didn't do her job. I sure hope her god gets around to prosecuting Bush and Cheney. I will admit Pelosi had a real dilemma on her hands, since she was in-line for the presidency.
What I really hope happens is that the ICC gets their hands on both of them. We could have two presidents and a vice-president all in prison at the same time. The Iraq War literally wiped the smile off my face---being a veteran and seeing our troops misused was traumatic. Seeing the people responsible for all that horror on trial might make me smile a bit and give the victims a little comfort.
Thanks Thom, Absolutely essenial and I appreciate your preface "Given the costs of both these wars — and the current possibility of our being drawn deeper into conflict in both Ukraine and Taiwan — it’s an important moment to discuss our history of wars, both illegal and unnecessary and those that are arguably essential to the survival of democracy in the world."
Ukraine is the 21st century version of the Sudentenland, but with destruction and slaughter as is the custom of the Russians.
All eyes are on Moldova, next, it has an old line Soviet and hostile government on it's eastern flank called Transnistra, which is too weak on it's own to do anything, and Moldova itself is too weak to repel an aggression.
However the real threat is the Suwalki gap. Look at the map , the border that separates Poland and Lithuania is the Suwalki gap, an indefensible plain that has been the hiway of armies from the Teutonic Knights and Napoleon to Hitler.
The gap separates Russia from it's warm water port on the Baltic, Kalininagrad. The gap is separated from Russia by Belarus, which is nothing more than a satrap of Putin. For all intents and purposes Belarus is Russian.
The easiest route to Kalinigrad is via the Lithuanian side of the Suwalki Gap, and that means attacking Lithuania, which means invoking Art 5 of NATO.
His war on Ukraine has weakened him militarily (exposing his armed forces as a Potemkin Village), and internationally but he is irrationally committed, just like Trump. He can't back down, he can't retreat, he has no fall back position, he is irrevocably committed to this path of destruction, even if it is self destruction. All he can do is double down.
And that includes threatening thermonuclear warfare which he knows is enough to have America and the west wetting it's pants, because we have grown too soft.
I do not believe that Putin will launch nukes,not even tactical nukes (which are the equivalent of a Hiroshima bomb, He may be crazy but he isn't suicidal, he may not love anything, but himself, his kids and mistresses, but he loves his creature comforts, his dachas, his private jets, his yachts.
And more importantly his nuclear arsenal is 40 to 50 years old, sitting on top of missiles that are just as old. These are not arrows you can place in a quiver and forget about. Ask anyone who has put a car in storage for 20 years, technology degrades. If anyone is holding on to a 5 inch floppy or even a 3.5 inch floppy, if you can find an old 286AT or even an old Pentium, plug in it,insert floppy and see what you get. I have thumb drives that have degraded, because they weren't being used. I have thumb drives that have degraded and won't be recognized that were being used.
Nukes and missiles require constant maintenance, guidance equipment degrades. The Russian Generals and Officers have been skimming maintenance money, to buy dachas and properties in the west.
The threat of thermo nuclear war is being kept alive, in our minds, as a form of population control.
The generation of nuclear drills, and diving under your school desk, are now senior citizens and voters, the baby boomers, hippies turned Trump humpers.
I missed that programming as I am of the Silent Generation, born at the tail end of the depression and before Hitler invaded Poland. So no reflexive response from me. When the protesters were fleeing to Canada and being drafted, I was on my 2nd re enlistment and "enjoying the delights" of a country the locals called Nam Viet (or south Viet), Hanoi was in Bach Viet (or north Viet).
As you obsess about Putin and your cabal of MSNBC liberals act as if war crimes started with his invasion of Ukraine , it is Barack Obama who is to blame for his cowardly dismissal of what is thus far the war crime of the century as perpetrated by Geroge W Bush, Dick Cheney, Condyleeza Rice, Colin Powell and Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Let us not forget Joe Biden's plan to colonize Iraq by partitioning it, more proof of the racist and highly questionable judgment he has shown over the years (and today). It was Obama who made the milquetoast excuse that we should look to the future and not at the past in obviating an investigation into war crimes in Iraq. It was Joe Biden who was a proponent of making certain America was not part of the International Criminal Court he wants to use to try Putin for war crimes. Consider this quote from Iraqi writer Feurat Alani and then look in the mirror, because unfortunately this does apply to you Thom:
"Bush, Cheney, Condyleeza Rice, Rumsfeld they're all war criminals but they will not be put on trial...the attitudes of Americans and a lot of Europeans to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in so many ways shows the double standards and the hierarchy of human worth that a lot of people on this planet believe in. Who really is a full human being that you can empathize with because they look like us or because they are European...and whose death really doesn't count, whether they are Palestinian or Yemeni or Syrian or Iraqi or Afghani, whose death doesn't even register, and a million deaths becomes just a statistic because they are not viewed as having lived full lives because their lives do not resemble our lives. So Putin is considered a war criminal but we live in a country where war criminals are still going around appearing on TV dancing on the Ellen Degeneres show and Bush talks about his paintings."
'War Made Easy' - The Iraq War 20 years later - New Documentary
Since the end of WWII, the MIC of the USofA has grown and continues to grow. We have 754 military bases around the world, 6 to 7 times more than the next nation. We have a WAR budget approaching $1 Trillion, more than the budget of the next 10 or 11 national budgets.
Killing justified with “good reasons.” Putin believes bombing Ukrainians is for good reasons. USofA believes helping Ukrainians kill Russians is for good reasons.
“War becomes perpetual when used as rationale for PEACE."
Media hires military experts to promote WAR.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Peec60DZxsQ
There was a push for Attorney General Eric Holder to prosecute Bush's henchmen who wrote the torture memos, and then Bush himself, Obama said "we need to look forward, not backward" essentially halting any possibility of accountability for the war crime of the century. Likely because he knew he was committing war crimes himself: https://harvardpolitics.com/obama-war-criminal/
There seems to be a “political norm” among our political leaders over the years NOT to go after previous political leaders/presidents who’ve knowingly, either before the fact or afterwards, lied to the American public or have committed crimes.
When John Adams was president, he got the Alien and Sedition Act passed into law, just so he could go after his political opponents. Many were jailed. Newspapers were shut down. Some even destroyed by Adams’ supporters. Those times are now being repeated, though not to the extreme as under Adams, today. At least not yet, in spite of the constant threats by the GQPTP leadership and Trumpet’s followers to “Lock him/her up!” What legal/criminal consequences did John Adams face? None of any real consequence, as far as I know. Then, we had Jackson and his mistreatment of the Native Americans. Jackson is still remembered as a “national hero.”
The president I’d like to highlight as the leader of not going after traitorous criminals is Abraham Lincoln. Now, near me out.
From “courses.lumenlearning.com’” is the following: “The end of the Civil War saw the beginning of Reconstruction. Lincoln moved quickly to achieve the war’s ultimate goal: reunification of the country. He proposed a generous and non-punitive plan to return the Confederacy into the United States. Republicans in Congress protested, saying the president’s plan too lenient to the Rebels. The greatest flaw of Lincoln’s plan was that it appeared to forgive traitors instead of guaranteeing civil rights to former slaves. President Lincoln oversaw the passage of the 13th Amendment ending slavery, but he did not live to see its ratification.
From the outset of the rebellion in 1861, Lincoln’s main goal was to bring the Southern states back into the fold in order to restore the Union. In December, 1863, Lincoln began his process of reunification by unveiling a 3-part proposal known as the 10% Plan, giving a general pardon to all Southerners, except high-ranking Confederate government and military leaders; required 10 % of the 1860 voting population in the rebel states to take an oath of allegiance to the US; accept the emancipation of slaves; and declared that once those voters took those oaths, the restored states would draft new state constitutions.
“Lincoln hoped that the leniency of the plan—90 percent of the 1860 voters did not have to swear allegiance to the Union or to emancipation—would bring about a quick resolution and make emancipation more acceptable. This approach appealed to some in the moderates in the Republican Party. However, the proposal drew fire from a larger faction of Republicans in Congress who did not want to deal moderately with the South. These members of Congress, the “Radical Republicans.” The Radical Republicans demanded harsher terms for the Confederacy and protection for former slaves, going far beyond what the Lincoln wanted.
In February, 1864, two Radical Republicans, Sen. Benjamin Wade and Rep.Henry Davis, offered their own. Their Wade-Davis Bill called for a majority of voters and government officials in Confederate states to take an ”Ironclad Oath,” swearing that they had never supported the Confederacy or made war against the US. Those who could not or would not take the oath would be unable to take part in the future political life of the South. Congress passed the Wade-Davis Bill, and sent it to Lincoln for his signature. The president used the pocket veto to kill the bill. Lincoln understood that no Southern state would have met the criteria of the Wade-Davis Bill, and its passage would simply delay the reconstruction of the South.
“Despite the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, the legal status of slaves remained unresolved. To deal with the uncertainties, the Republicans made the abolition of slavery a top priority in its 1864 party platform.
Lincoln and Radical Republicans made good on this campaign promise in 1864 and 1865. A proposed constitutional amendment, outlawing slavery, passed the Senate in April 1864, and the House in January 1865. The amendment then made its way to the states, including in the South. In December 1865, the 13th Amendment was added to the Constitution.
“Lincoln’s assassination elevated Vice President Andrew Johnson, a Democrat, to the presidency in 1865. Johnson found himself tasked with rebuilding the South. Lincoln’s view as president had been that secession by the Southern states was never legal; that is, they had never left the Union.Therefore, they still had rights to self-government as states.
In keeping with Lincoln’s plan, Johnson desired to quickly repatriate the South back into the Union on lenient terms and heal the wounds of the nation. This position angered many in the Republican Party. The Radical Republican plan for Reconstruction looked to overturn southern society, specifically to end the plantation system. Johnson disappointed Radical Republicans when he rejected their idea that the federal government could provide voting rights for freed slaves.
“In fact, Johnson’s ‘Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction’ in May, 1865, provided sweeping ‘amnesty and pardon’ to rebellious Southerners. It returned their property, with the notable exception of their former slaves, and it asked only that they affirm their support for the Constitution of the United States. Those Southerners excepted from this amnesty included the Confederate political leadership, high-ranking military officers, and persons with taxable property worth more than $20,000. For this class of wealthy Southerners to regain their rights, they would have to swallow their pride and request a personal pardon from Johnson himself.
“For the Southern states, the requirements for readmission to the Union were fairly straightforward. States were required to hold a state convention where they would repeal their respective, Ordinances of Secession plus ratify the 13th Amendment. By the end of 1865, several former Confederate leaders were in the Union capital looking to claim their seats in Congress. Among them was Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the Confederacy, who had spent several months in a Boston jail. By early 1866 Johnson announced that all former Confederate states had satisfied the necessary requirements and nothing more needed to be done; the Union had been restored.
“Radical Republicans and their northern constituents, resented his lenient treatment of the former Confederate states, and especially the return of former Confederate leaders like Alexander Stephens to Congress. They refused to acknowledge the southern state governments he allowed. They would not permit senators and representatives from the former Confederate states to take their places in Congress.
Since Lincoln and Johnson, both, wanted to be forgiving towards the traitorous Southerners, we had two presidents bet their political lives on re-uniting the country without the death penalty being meted out, except for those who four who were hanged for being collaborators with Booth’s assignation of Lincoln. Confederate President, Jefferson Davis was imprisoned for several years, as were a few other high-ranking Confederate politicians.
From: history news network.org, we find:
“Seven weeks after Robert E. Lee’s surrender at Appomattox Court House, Judge John C. Underwood demanded justice, while providing instructions to a federal grand jury in Norfolk, Virginia. He defined treason as “wholesale murder” that “embraces in its sweep all the crimes of the Decalogue.” This horrific act, Underwood said, had murdered tens of thousands of young Americans during the recent war, “by the slaughter on the battlefields, and by starvation in the most loathsome dungeons.” He was outraged that the men most responsible for the rebellion – “with hands dripping with the blood of our slaughtered innocents and martyred President” – were yet still at large.
‘Underwood urged the grand jurors to send a message to their countrymen, that future rebellions would not be tolerated. He concluded his remarks by advising that Gen. Lee would not be protected from prosecution by his agreement with Gen. Grant at Appomattox in April, 1865. ‘On June 7, 1865, Underwood’s grand jury indicted Gen. Lee for treason. Gen. Lee faced death by hanging, if found guilty of the charges.”
Americans today might not know about Lee’s indictment by the Norfolk grand jury. The actual indictment went missing for 72 years and many scholars remain unaware that it has been found. All told, 39 Confederate leaders would be indicted for treason by Underwood’s court. Somehow, we seem to have erased this event from our collective memory.
“Despite President Andrew Johnson’s commitment to prosecuting the indicted rebels, the charges were eventually dropped in February 1869. In the end, the very understandable desire for reconciliation among both northerners and southerners after the war was deemed more important than the obligation to punish those who tried to destroy the Republic. The pervasive idea that the Civil War was just a misunderstanding between “men and women of good faith on both sides,” is a direct result of the decision to drop the treason charges against the Confederate leadership.’
General Lee, while losing his rights of citizenship, never spent one day in prison. This is what I see as something that can help Trumpet from being prosecuted and/or found guilty in a trial, and being imprisoned. I’m NOT saying I agree with this possibility. I can’t stand Trumpet and believe he should be the “exception to the rule” and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But again, from our own history, I see a direction toward not imprisoning traitors very long. Also, they may not have the perks of full citizenship, but, they’re not killed. We have a history of trying to “forgive and forget” the illegal and/or illicit actions of our leaders, no matter how criminal their actions are.
I strongly disagree with your position on advocating support for Ukraine. There are no good actors to be found, including the Nazi leaning Ukranians. The USA, who basically dictates to NATO has indicated pretty clearly that it has and is advocating to surround Russia with military bases, missiles in the So. China Sea and aligning the eastern Eurasian countries as well. War is profitable to the military, the governments, the weapons manufacturers and more. Do the people of any nation, victim or perpetrator enjoy any of the spoils? No! We, the people of every country involve pay for it and suffer for the enormous expenses of war in blood and dollars, and maybe more important, make enemies all around the world after we've pretended that we were 'bringing democracy, when our own democracy here at our home is actually on it's knees being beaten to near death by all these wars. Sadly, none of the many criminals who enable this, in the very highest of offices, before or since 911 have paid. Actually I'm shocked and very disappointed to read your piece today.
End The Violence! Or our world will die by the explosion of violence everywhere, including violence perpetrated against Nature, The Earth, and Women.