Their Depravity and Obscenity are Boundless
By Mona
.
In “The Soldier’s Creed,” there is a particularly compelling principle: “I will never leave a fallen comrade.” This is a cherished belief, and it has been so since soldiers and chroniclers and philosophers thought about wars and great, common endeavors. Across time and space, cultures, each in its own way, have given voice to this most basic of beliefs. They have done it, we know, to give heart to those who embark on a common mission, to give them confidence that they will not be given up under duress. A process that yields up Scooter Libby to a zealous prosecutor is justice gone awry…..He can’t be left behind as a casualty of a war our country had once proudly claimed as its own. [my emphasis]
These people are sheerly repulsive. There are some photographs available online of hideously maimed Iraq war vets. Then there are the dead ones. I’m not going to include such a graphic because I am not comfortable with the morality of using such depictions in a political rant. But use your imagination, and ponder they who rhapsodize about “Soldier’s Creeds” and etc. for Scooter effing Libby in the context of the Iraq war, with its actual dead and disabled.
.
Grotesque.
Comment by Tequila —
June 8, 2007 @ 9:44 am
Truly mindboggling. I can’t even think of a civilized response to this.
Comment by Eric Martin —
June 8, 2007 @ 9:49 am
What tequilla couldn’t say…
Comment by Mona —
June 8, 2007 @ 9:51 am
There is no civilized response to such filth. It is an over-used cliche, but I truly thought my head would explode when I read it.
Power Line linked to it in passing, without taking any note of the theme other than that it was an argument in favor of a pardon. What kind of minds do not immediately recoil in disgust at such deranged excretions?
Comment by monkey.dave —
June 8, 2007 @ 10:20 am
They should treat Scooter Libby like a real fallen soldier and stick him in Walter Reed and have cockroaches crawl over hi,
Comment by Eric Martin —
June 8, 2007 @ 10:51 am
Support the troops, huh?
By cheapening their sacrifice and courage? Comparing Scooter Libby to a casualty of war – a dead or wounded soldier left bleeding on an actual battlefield.
Only a claque of draft dodging, silver spooners who fought tooth and nail to avoid fighting tooth and nail would thus attempt to harvest the reflected glory of actual soldiers.
I guess using this standard, Cheney is Audie Murphy.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
June 8, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
I’m with Tequila.
Comment by KCinDC —
June 8, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
It fits with Bush’s comparison of a scratch he received clearing brush to the injuries of those he was awarding Purple Hearts to.
Comment by John Emerson —
June 8, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
Under Bush’s leadership, Libby fought bravely in the fight against the American people and the rule of law.
The state has two kinds of enemies: first, foreign states and second, its own citizens. The Straussians as much as say this.
Comment by John Spragge —
June 8, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
Point of order.
When you live in a country whose agents do things like this (see also here) a bit of hyperbole in an appeal to get Dick Cheney’s chief consigliere out of a jail sentence doesn’t exactly spike the depravity meter.
I mean, these people approved secret prisons, secret trials, and torture long before the first tank rolled over the Iraq border. It shouldn’t exactly rock anyone to the core when they show some moral insensitivity.
If George W. Bush had an administration with a moral center, or even one that knew what a moral center looks like, the history of the last six and a half years would look a lot different.
If you want something to worry about in the rhetoric of the piece Mona links to, worry about this: it carries a faint but very definite subtext of betrayal. A lot of evidence, including some letters requesting clemency for Libby, suggest that the neo-conservatives increasingly see themselves as a noble praetorian guard, betrayed by a complacent populace, and hardly bound any more to the nation that so badly let them down.
Comment by roger —
June 8, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
Ajami’s piece is just the logical conclusion of a hundred neo-con articles about the worthlessness of the chicken hawk criticism. The imagery has always been farcical – from the codpiece n fighter pilot gear Bush showed up with on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln to one of Chris Hitchens finest seizures, the Slate piece entitled “Don’t Son Me”, which was like a poem of D.C. contempt for the population and the entrenchment of privilege that allows proxy warriors to accomplish the diminishment of the republican ethos both at home and abroad.
These aren’t disgusting sentiments if one simply accepts the premise that underlies the whole Bush reign: the elite are and should be exempt from the rules governing the lower classes. From the special prisons that you can now buy into, if you have the money, in California – with their great wireless connections! – to the sending of the children of the Heritage Foundation crowd to run Iraq as a summer school project in 2003, it is pretty clear what these people think about themselves. Why not simply usurp the attributes of being a soldier, instead of being one? It is all roll playing anyway. Let the proxies pick up the garbage and fight the wars, while the really glorious people are the ones who make the speeches and are privileged and honored to be invited to sit on the boards of various corporations, like that other brave soldier, Richard Perle.
There never was and there never will be a Republic that can accommodate inequality at the level we see it now in the States. We might as well get used to it.
Comment by Jay C —
June 8, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
What Tequila said: for anyone – anyone – to make any sort of favorable comparison between the “sufferings” of a hack political operative (and convicted perjurer) like “Scooter” Libby with the very real and physical pain and suffering of Iraq vets goes way beyond the conventional parameters of “obscene”.
But for Bush Administration apologists, it’s all par for the course, I guess…
Comment by Ralph —
June 8, 2007 @ 10:52 pm
Sickening. Like a psychosis.
Bush & Co is made of people so ignorant of real life that even as adults in power, they are still playing at tin soldiers.
Comment by Alex —
June 9, 2007 @ 9:05 am
The Soldier’s Creed is not a metaphor. It is meant literally. And there is a little more to it than a line from a Rambo movie. Foo-Wad, “Scooter”, “the Dick”, “the Commander Guy” and the ‘gang’ of Patriots for Pay should try all the tenets of the creed out. Especially this one:
I stand ready to deploy, engage and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.
This is meant absolutely literally. That means get close enough to very dangerous people to KILL and/or BE KILLED.
If neo-facists like Foo-Wad want to spout off about the Creed, they are welcome to sign-up, and walk the fucking walk. Otherwise, I wish they would do all of us veterans of their shitty wars a favor and shut the FUCK UP about things they only know in a hypothetical sense.
You can read the entire Soldier’s Creed at:
http://www.army.mil/SoldiersCreed/flash_version/index.html
Comment by Bill —
June 9, 2007 @ 9:07 am
My stomach hurts, may I be excused?
Trackback by Minefeed.com —
June 9, 2007 @ 9:19 am
Simply Repulsive…
These Scooter Libby apologists have lost their minds. I give you…Foad Ajami and the disgusting [...]…
Comment by two7five7one —
June 9, 2007 @ 9:24 am
Scooter gets 30 months for being part of a lying, deceiving, irresponsible, greedy, sordid gang of thugs, and the chicken-shit WSJ publishes this tripe from Ajami.
Scooter (and the rest of the neo-cons) should be assigned fifteen years behind a wheel chair pushing some damaged veteran who is a real victim of this greatest of all American scandals.
Comment by nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez —
June 9, 2007 @ 9:29 am
first point: i agree. the entire war-hungry faction of the Right is obscene. and i think they really all fear the moral implications of him doing time, more than anything else. they still fear everyone agreeing that this war was wrongly brought about and is a Great Wrong. which it is.
secondly, it seems to me an interesting consideration—why you wouldn’t use a picture of a soldier in this argument because of the “morality of using such depictions in a political rant.” after all, aren’t the soldiers, US soldiers, being used in a political action, to political ends? isn’t that the purpose of soldiers most of the time? isn’t that actually a soldier’s inherent purpose, as Claus Von Klauswitz implied? (”War is politics by other means,” etc).
just thinking out loud. i appreciate your kind intent. but i’m thinking it won’t hurt soldiers any more to be used in your anti-war political rant than it hurts them to be used in a pro-war political occupation/invasion.
Comment by Tim —
June 9, 2007 @ 9:44 am
Eric Martin, bravo…Dick Cheney as Audie Murphy – priceless!
These people are the worst scum of the earth. They are also war criminals, liars and cowards – and those are their good points.
Comment by sy —
June 9, 2007 @ 9:45 am
WSJ transformation to Fox News complete. Congratulations Mr. Murdoch. You’ve done it.
Comment by Darren —
June 9, 2007 @ 9:45 am
Interesting insight into the role of the CIA and the State Department. They were on the “side of angels” and “multilateralists” at heart (as well as correct in their assessments) yet worthy of this authors contempt.
While Libby, Cheney, the President and fellow travelers were arrogant, contemptuous, and wrong… but somehow worthy of being treated with the same dignity and respect we accord those who actually sacrificed something?
They truly do have a very strange and alien sense of what is right.
Often times a genie is let out of a bottle… special prosecutors are appointed and the investigation takes on a life of its own… to the point where the original basis for the investigation is no longer of issue, rather the attempts to minimize involvement become the target… This was learned with the Monica Lewinski investigation…
As then, I found it very difficult to defend the fact that, as the Republicans said, he LIED… regardless of the reason for the lie, or the validity to ask the question in the first place… I would like to see the Republicans hold their own to the same standard. He LIED. Period.
Comment by isaac —
June 9, 2007 @ 9:47 am
as a veteran, i shit on them
Comment by gus smith —
June 9, 2007 @ 10:03 am
Note that the Libby defender teaches at Johns Hopkins, Wolfowitz’ old hang out. Also note that this pro-Libby rant appears the day the Charlottesville mother is incarcerated for 27 months for serving alcohol to minors at a party at her house where the car keys were surrendered and all kids planned to stay night. Or Paris Hilton gets jail time for her offense. Accountability is the common thread. Libby, a lawyer, lied during an investigation for political purposes. All the emotional appeal minimizes the application of law.
Comment by Rich —
June 9, 2007 @ 10:23 am
Back when I was in the Navy (1991-2001), I considered myself a REMF, a Rear-Echelon MF. I stayed on the upper decks and kept my uniform reasonably clean all day (I’m told the modern term is POG, Persons Other than Grunts).
Libby doesn’t even meet the definition of a REMF/POG. He’s, at best, a PowerPoint Ranger. Someone who sits behind a desk and assembles PowerPoint slideshows. He’s never, as they said back in World War II “Heard a shot fired in anger.”
Comment by CatAtomic —
June 9, 2007 @ 11:04 am
The hardcore right-wingers view just about anyone to left of Ronald Reagan to be an enemy of the state. To them, Scooter Libby was fighting the real enemy- something far more evil than any terrorist bogeyman… he was fighting dissent.
They’re supremely un-American. They’re authoritarians.
Comment by Bill in Chicago —
June 9, 2007 @ 11:07 am
Yes, but it’s not just that they’re “PowerPoint Rangersâ€. It’s that even on those terms, they have been pathetically incompetent. They have responded to the deadliest attack on American soil in this nation’s history by invading the wrong stinkin’ country. Meanwhile, those who really are responsible continue to get away with it scot-free.
Comment by Jon H —
June 9, 2007 @ 11:46 am
“He’s never, as they said back in World War II “Heard a shot fired in anger.—
Was Libby on the hunt with Cheney and the poor old bastard he shot?
“GODDAMIT, I TOLD YOU TO DANCE!”
Comment by Straight Shooter —
June 9, 2007 @ 11:54 am
“He can’t be left behind as a casualty of a war our country had once proudly claimed as its own.”
I didn’t claim him, the neocons claimed him. Libby was never anything to be proud of.
Comment by Bush is Ossama —
June 9, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
“There are some photographs available online of hideously maimed Iraq war vets. Then there are the dead ones. I’m not going to include such a graphic because I am not comfortable with the morality of using such depictions in a political rant.”
But my sweet moraly confused host – What could be more POLITICAL than dead and maimed soldiers???
Folks are dieing – Perhaps you have heard?
Children are dieing – And WE are killing them, perhaps you are un-awhere?
Telling the truth has a certain MORALITY to it that COVERING UP THE REAL TRUTH just doesn’t have, imho.
Comment by Mona —
June 9, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
To those who have wondered why I would not post a graphic of a maimed Iraq war vet, it is because whether we like it or not, such a person could believe still in the Iraq war and it would be wrong to use his or her tragedy for purposes they might find offensive. If there were some way of learning the provenance, how the picture was acquired, whether the wounded wished to have his maimed self spread all over the internet, that would also make a difference to me. But all in all, I just don’t feel it would be right to use them in a way they might find exploitative.
Comment by Graeme Bristol —
June 9, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
What makes this marginally entertaining is that the writer imagines himself sincere. Beginning with the phrase, “the nobility of this warâ€, I would have wished that we could be spared the trite clichés that have come to typify the opinion pages of the WSJ. The rest of the world sees perjury and the obstruction of justice as a somewhat serious matter. Of course, we also view torture and the suspension of habeas corpus as troublesome – or, more accurately, abhorrent – in any nation state, much less the United States, in which we had grown to expect more. I would like to suggest that the WSJ and the current American administration reconsider it understanding of justice and the rights of others. Unfortunately, I think that’s unlikely with, as Dylan pointed out, God on your side.
Consider me disgusted