That Beacon of Hope We’ve Created in Iraq
As we discuss whether to abandon rule of law in Afghanistan under General Petraeus, we’d do well to consider how the war Petraeus “won” in Iraq turned out:
On a dull December day in 2009, Rabiha al Qassab, a 63-year-old Iraqi refugee living in a quiet residential area of north London, received a telephone call that marked the beginning of a new nightmare for a family already torn apart by Iraq’s political upheavals.
Her 68-year-old husband, Ramze Shihab Ahmed, had been arrested while on a visit to Iraq, and no-one knew where he was being held or what, if anything, he had been charged with.
Nine months later, Ramze is still languishing in legal limbo in a Baghdad prison. His story lays bare the horrific abuses and lack of legal process that characterise post-Saddam Iraq’s detention system, which human rights groups say has scarcely improved since the darkest days of the dictator’s rule.
[snip]
“They beat him. They put a plastic bag on his head until he lost consciousness, and then they woke him with electric shocks. They told him that if he didn’t confess, they would make his son rape him. They put a wooden stick into his anus,” she says. “They have abused him in every way.”
After days of torture, Ramze signed a confession admitting to being a member of al- Qaeda in Iraq, a claim Rabiha says is absurd. “He would see the bombings on television and say ‘what sort of Islam is this?'” she says. “He was very sorry for all the people who died.”
Human rights experts say that Ramze’s story is far from unique. In a new report on mistreatment in the Iraqi prison system, entitled New Order, Same Abuses, Amnesty International estimates that around 30,000 people are currently being held without charge or trial in Iraq. Many are being tortured with impunity, the group says.
I’m sure our decision to put aside rule of law in favor of “the principal goal” in Iraq has nothing to do with Iraq’s embrace of the same kind of torture that we used–after the WMD rationale was exposed as a lie–to justify our invasion of Iraq.
Here’s the Amnesty report.
Thanks Marcy! Now that they have tasted it, it’s no wonder that “they hate us for our freedom”.
Are we allowed to admit that we’re after oil contracts for the MOTU’s yet? If not, the only excuse we’ve got left is that Curveball tricked BushCo.
Boxturtle (And we gotta “Support the Troops”, right?)
Certainly not! In Congress the gutless multimillionaires have no interest in “investigating” the reasons given nor the arguments and promises made by the last administration and this one about the onset of and continuation of the illegal invasion(s).
Obscene profits are being and have been made. The shiny yachts and private jets are now the toys of choice for our members of Congress. A mere millionaire is a pauper in the global power game.
We lesser people do not have the right to hear such an admission and we certainly no longer have the power to question.
I do have conservative friends who readily admit that the ONLY reason why BushCo went to war in Iraq was to go after the oil. I have thanked them for their honesty at least. They’ve stated to me that they don’t give a crap about loss of life. I’m just reporting what’s been said. Again, I appreciate the honesty. That is somewhat refreshing, albeit sad.
Scary Brown Moslems aren’t even people to a lot of those folks. So their deaths don’t really matter at all.
Boxturtle (You’d think our conservatives would get along well with other deeply religious gun owners)
Another theory would be to control the oil market pricing.
Basic supply and demand before the war Iraq provided 10% of the world oil. Remove 10% supply from the market and prices soar, basic supply and demand.
Notice how gas and oil prices doubled because of the war and haven’t returned to a normal segment of the economy . What I paid before the war for heating oil was around a dollar now it’s $ 2.50/ $3.00 a gallon. Cost of the war is tolarating obscene oil company profits, it seems.
But think of all the freshly painted schools.
Anybody checked that paint for lead?
Boxturtle (Cynical and distrustful)
Same test as for Gulf shrimp:
Scratch, sniff, safe.
I was going to ask if this is being done by Coalition/NATO troops or by their Karzai’s clones – but then it really does not make a big difference does it?
If he is still alive it is less a … “you have learned well, my good and faithful servants.” then it is a failure – “Howcome he lives? – you obviously need more training, lets call up another 30-40 thousand troops for training purposes (only).”
When they look at the decline of the US, they’ll look at the period starting with Reagan. Prominent names will be bush and obama. What a bunch of losers. It’s frustrating watching it fall apart in front of our eyes.
I would like to know if there will ever be a war you’d support…please be honest. I don’t think you guys would ever support war ever.
It’s tough to predict the future. However, I support the first Gulf War, World War II, World War I, the war of 1812, and the Revolution.
So under what circumstances would YOU not support a war?
Boxturtle (In general, if war is the answer then it’s a stupid question)
Good question. It would depend on the circumstances. I don’t support war as a reason for everything.
For those saying that they would only support war against an enemy that attacked our borders, I say: then don’t support WWI. And we should’ve only attacked Japan, then.
Delighted to hear that your making so much progress in therapy.
Yeah, well I’m also willing to give the U.S. the benefit of the doubt sometimes, too. Unlike you guys.
Better rule to live by: Always question authority, never ever give the United States government or the military the benefit of the doubt regarding any matter, and take responsibility for finding out the real facts.
I’m for finding out the facts, but also giving them the benefit of the doubt. I never said I’d blindly support them.
I gave the U.S. “benefit of the doubt” for most of 2002. After that, it became increasingly clear that benefit of the doubt was not warranted.
Bob in AZ
Heh. Good one. If we got a hubcap award around here somewhere, I’d say it belongs to you.
Bob in AZ
A war to defend our boarders, period.
We are not allowed to engage in war unless attacked directly, UN Charter.
Don’t like it then withdraw and show your support for endless war.
No declaration of war , was there? This is an invasion and occupation not a war. This war is a damn LIE and nothing less.
Congress declared war with the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq H.J. Res. 114,
October 16, 2002
Um, the that is NOT a declaration of war. It is an authorization for what is formally known as a “police action”; they are far, far different things and should never be confused.
I’m not all hung up on an “official declaration”. But lemme ask you this: in all honesty, are you telling me that if Congress authorized an official declaration of war against Iraq, you guys would all support it?
Under the facts as known either then or now, no, of course not. I am pointing out that your statement was patently false; you have retorted that the most critical legal distinctions imaginable really do not mean much and that you won’t be “hung” up by them. This tells me pretty everything I need to know about the level of your insight and commentary. Unlikely I will be wasting any more time with you.
Look, war is declared when Congress declares or supports war. There were several wars that didn’t get an “official” declaration of war. Korea, anyone?
If Bush could have received a Congressional declaration of war, why didn’t he ask for 1? My recollection is that a majority of Democrats, even with their backs up against an election, opposed the Joint Resolution in October of 2002. I wonder what the vote would have looked like in February of 2003, when the US was actually ready to invade?
Who knows? I wonder what you would have done if they still gave it?
They didn’t give it because they knew they couldn’t sell it to the American people or would look really stupid and face a voter backlash if they gave it and there turned out to be no WMD’s whatsoever. A declaration of war might have required Real Evidence. Wonder if Bush could have been reelected in 2004 with egg on his face from a Real Declaration of war?
The declarations against of war against Germany and Japan are essentially unanimous.
Congress had a way to weasel out and they took it. Maybe Bush feared impeachment if he asked and squeezed their testicles until they gave in.
If Bush really thought he the goods on Saddam, why didn’t he go for the Full Monty, and become a Real War President?
Love that response ….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ
One of the two greatest scenes in the history of film.
Here’s the other one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lj056ao6GE&p=9D15756E9132496E&playnext=1&index=66
An act can only amend the constitution for war mongers.
Only congress can declare war and they didn’t.
Why don’t we pass “One Senator a State ACT” to diminish the power of the wackos in the senate. We don’t need to actually amend the constitution according to you.
Agree.
Our military and its feckless codependent excuse for a government constitute the most dangerous terrorist organization in the world.
If some foreign power invaded the U.S. the way we invaded Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, I’d support the resistance, whom the invaders would surely see as “insurgents.”
If you support the Iraq war, I would like to ask if there is ever a war you wouldn’t support.
It would depend on the circumstances.
I supported the initial attack on Afghanistan after 9/11. But once Bush, Rumsfeld & Cheney decided that they’d rather invade Iraq, I withdrew all support for their phony imperial enterprise.
Bob in AZ
and I don’t recall Petraeus talking about how this might endanger the troops
“
link
To add a layer, a fair number of the women ended up there as hostages to start with (another war crime) so they were set up to be treated as “the enemy” and as less than human.
http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=1726
OTOH – as EW notes in her other post, it would “muck up” Obama’s interests to address hostage taking, rape and other war crimes.
Gang raping hostages, dehumanizing and torturing prisoners to knowingly extract false confessions to falsely justify aggressive war, and slaughtering innocent women and children to create a never ending supply of terrorists by driving their enraged and grieving loved ones, friends, and relatives to swear vengeance and take up arms against the United States is nothing to get upset about. They are necessary, if somewhat unpleasant activities, while conducting business as usual on the road to global hegemony and profits beyond imagining./s
Meanwhile at an exclusive men’s club somewhere away from prying eyes . . .
“I say . . .
Hey you! The cutie with the apron. Yes you. Come here,” he said as he waved her over, and ran his nicotine stained finger slowly up the side of empty glass to caress the rim. “Bring me another cognac.”
He turned to me and licked his serpentine lips. “Tell the girl what you’d like, General.”
I shook my head.
He stared at me for a full minute and, without turning to look at her, shewed her away.
“Sir, are you sure it’s safe to talk here in front of her?” I asked.
“Of course. All of the help are deaf. We punctured their eardrums as a condition of their employment and we take care of their children.”
He smiled. “Wealth has its privileges, you know.”
IMHO, we are fighting for one and only one reason: to avoid the agony of defeat.
That’s a great quote from EW at the close of her article.
May I direct readers to this, from last May:
Kudos to Amnesty for their report. The news of Iraqi torture has been filtering in for some time now, but the triumphalist media narrative on Iraq barely gives notice. Meanwhile, no Congressional notice of investigations, and the Democratic Party electoral machine, as sclerotic as ever, marches ever into defeat. Even party, not to mention morality and decency, is fodder for the imperialist war machine, which lies even as it doles out patronage and contracts to the favored few.
To the families of Iraq soldiers, and the troops and vets involved directly, how do you like that this is what you fought for. Saddam is gone, hail the new torture regime, with the stamp of American approval.
One of the striking chapters in Ghost Plane involves contrasting Bashar al-Assad being courted in Britan by Blair while Maher Arar was being tortured.
Jeff, I asked a question at the end of Mary’s diary. Do you know the answer, what this redaction is in Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s CSRT transcript, what we were doing in the 1970s that’s still classified? Or maybe the classified part is something else but we’re supposed to know about torture we were doing in the 1970s? Except I don’t.
Could be a number of things. I’ll have to look at the document to see how long the redaction is. The U.S. was certainly involved in torture in Southeast Asia, in Latin America, etc.
I would think the reference is to the Muslim Brotherhood, to which KSM belonged as a young man. They were persecuted and tortured, especially in Egypt, and while KSM was not from Egypt, it is likely he heard stories from his comrades who had been imprisoned or fled from there. The degree to which the U.S. contributed to the torture is unknown, but the reference could have been to the tremendous political and financial support of the Sadat regime by the U.S.
The redaction could refer to classified material about the U.S.-Egypt collaboration, but this is only a guess.
Thanks Jeff! I figured if anyone would know if would be you. The ACLU PDF of the hearing transcript is here. The redaction in question is on the bottom of page 24 and is about two lines.
Just buy them new and better boots.
I say we keep it simple and just tell the truth. We invaded and colonized Iraq to prevent the Chinese from getting to Iraq’s billions of barrels of oil reserves.
Period.
“Because we’re Americans and we want to.” Short snappy and has the merit of telling the truth.
Mohammed Ibn Laith.
I think it has to do with Dickless Cheney and Bush the Smaller trying to get some manhood, with Cheney the ventriloquist using little wooden boy Bush as his dummy. It’s what Cheney does, everyone is his dummy. See: Press. They wanted to torture from the beginning. Detainee 001, John Walker Lindh, was tortured, and he was an American kid from Marin County who has happy to have been turned over to Americans and would have told them anything they wanted to know. They didn’t need to torture him least of anybody, but they did.
Mary had a great quote from The Oxbow Incident in her diary: “There can’t be any such thing as civilization unless people have a conscience.” Who doesn’t have a conscience? Neocons don’t. Corporations don’t. And that’s our government.
But, respectfully, can I ask you a question? My shame and sorrow and anger over what my country has done to yours and to itself is just beyond words. But why are Muslims killing Muslims? Why can’t Shia and Sunni live together in peace? I really don’t know what’s in the Quran but I can’t imagine it’s kill your brother. This would be such a great time to show us up in comparison, but I don’t see it happening. Everybody looks lost in hate.
Respectfully? You jest! Can you say this was happening before Bush took our military there? Before we destroyed the balance of power, and disbanded their military. Why would you assume that it has anything to do with the Qu’ran? Get ready to have your ass handed to you by Mohammed Ibn Laith.
Fair enough. But I’m listening — respectfully and with interest — to whatever he has to say. I’ve read things he has written before and I would value his opinion more than anybody else’s I can think of, if he would care to share it.
I don’t know what’s wrong with “Christians.” I don’t know what’s up with Muslims. They both look hijacked to me. So I fancy this message from Michael Moore:
btw, not that it matters, but I’m fine with siting the mosque/community center just where they want it, and my idea of what to put at Ground Zero would be a hybrid of the world trade center light towers and Yoko Ono’s Imagine Peace Tower in Iceland, though with the base structure made at human scale and open (arches?) (in pairs?). I think a project that synergized the two — and twoness — would be better than either one alone and far better than whatever will be built there.
Peace )) )
Well, I’m not opposed to building the mosque at the proposed site. But I agree that I would rather want it built right on Ground Zero, as one part of whatever structure(s) are planned there. Because the World Trade Center apparently had not just one mosque in one of the towers, but a mosque in each tower. I think the Pres. ought to show some leadership and propose that very thing. He could turn it into a positive, too, I think, as a retort to the divisiveness of the extremist Moslems who want to tear us apart.
Bob in AZ
Well I’m off on my own trip. I’m loving the idea of new two, and the redemption of a memorial that learned something awful, aweful, and comes out the other side to say it, like the Vietnam memorial in DC.
I remember (or seem to, anyway, though for the life of me I can’t find it now) an interview where Bishop Tutu was talking about reconciliation in South Africa. The question was something about how hard it was for two irretrievably opposed groups to live together, come together and forgive, after such terrible crimes (Rwanda? apartheid?). And Bishop TuTu didn’t seem fazed by it, he smiled and said God made individuals, people (races/nations?) with differences, so they could meet and get to know each other. That’s the point of creation, it’s a great thing. Well. That’s where I’m going with my two thing here. Plus, I don’t see it as just Islam that’s been hijacked. My God look at Christians. They both need to find their soul again. Uncle Sam. All the miserably hijacked.
Yoko’s light tower is all about people of all languages imagining peace. I don’t know, it works for me. It rises above. Haven’t seen Obama do that since… well let me think.
Well that was a nice reverie. Just thinking what speeches Obama and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed might say if they came together at such a memorial. Grappling with it all and coming out the other side. What would they say.
Thanks.
Meanwhile elsewhere in New York…
We have yet to come to grips with the drunken rampage of Neo-con ideology that was the Chimpy years – and it’s still alive and un-well today, too.
Our problem today is that a policy of ‘not looking back’ is de-facto Enablement of the drunk’s unwillingness to be responsible for his actions.
When Bush used 911 to switch the railroad tracks of State from principled to ideological, he took US down a long, dark path of ‘fact-denial’ – instead ‘seeing’ his ideological nemesis everywhere he looked – despite much contrary evidence, and no real support for his beliefs.
By ‘not looking back’ we are empowering the angry drunks of the Tea Party to scream the self-same irrational ideological beliefs ever louder – they are more than willing to SHOUT over inconvenient ‘facts’ – like no WMDs in Iraq – in order to continue to ‘get their way’ – pursuing the ideological demons in their own heads.
These people have a disease – they can’t stop themselves without an intervention. I’m certain everyone with social work experience will second me when I say that the extremists on the Right are only going to get more extreme in their fact-denial, and their actions, with each successive enablement.
It’s clear that Enablement by ‘not looking back’ is festering the disease of irrational Neo-con ideology in the very fabric of our society. They are threatening to forcibly bring down the whole body of the Republic – if they don’t get their way.
The key to changing this dynamic, imvho, is for Obama and the Dems to concentrate on ‘doing the right thing’ – whether the Goopers agree, or not – instead of expecting a raging drunk to voluntarily abstain from drinking the gin-juice to ‘face their responsibilities.’
It’s time to start treating Boehner and the Tea Partiers like the Neo-con drunks that they are, and to get on with the sobering business of digging Our Country out of the damage done by nine years of actively raging Neo-con ideology.
We can return Our United States to the principled Rule of Law, and restore Our Honor within the Community of Nations, but We have to Stop the Rampage Within First…or Get Trampled.
My one minor point with which we do not have accord is: you failed to mention who is continually implanting those nebulous ideological demons in their heads. Thugs are constantly reinforcing all the wrong things, going farther all the time. That’s why we have blatant demonstrations of religious prejudice rearing it’s head this year more than last, and more than any other year since 9/11. That’s the election strategy of the Rethugs for the coming elections, and it will get worse for the next election once it has won this one. Maybe next election they bring out the guns. Our strategy, OTOH, is weak tea.
I agree with everything you said except:
In order to establish free markets and facilitate corporate plunder, the United States has a long and deplorable history prior to 9/11 of meddling in the affairs of foreign countries to destabilize and topple legitimate governments, eradicate their social democracies, and replace them with a bought and paid for dictator committed to brutal tyrannical governance and suppression of dissent in the name of defeating a ghost called Communism. That excuse wouldn’t work anymore after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Bush44 solved that problem by devising and declaring the Global War on Terror and Obama refined that solution to assure a never ending supply of terrorists to hunt down and kill all over the globe, including within the United States, by slaughtering innocent women and children to drive their enraged and grieving loved ones, friends, and relatives to swear vengeance and take up arms against the United States.
Absolutely brilliant and incomprehensibly evil strategy.
Not exactly an answer, but perhaps I could have asked the question better. Let’s try another approch.
If there a war that has occurred in your lifetime that you did not support? If so, why?
Boxturtle (Grenada or Haiti, maybe?)
I understand where you’re trying to go here, I really do. I’m not trying to be difficult and give you “non answers”, it’s just that, to me, this issue is far more complicated.
I don’t fully understand every single issue that was being faced in the history of U.S. warfare. My philosophy is that if the U.S. decided that it had to come to war, they had good reason to. So, if you want to read that as support, sure. Maybe, in retrospect, war could have been avoided in some cases, but I truly believe that this country does not go to war without weighing facts.
You got to be kidding.
Nope. That’s what I’m saying. It goes for any country, really.
Comment by Joffen @36:
Response by Jeff Kaye @38:
Response by Joffen @ 41:
Hitler’s invasion of Poland is a stunning example, right?
Another Nazi comparison. *yawn*
I used an extreme example to show how absurd your statement was. I’m done toying with you. Contribute substantively to the discussion or go somewhere else.
And now back to our regularly scheduled program: The Beacon of Hope We’ve Created in Iraq.
You state the obvious. The problem is that the facts the president tells us he is weighing and the objective he tells us that he has in mind are not the actual facts he’s considering or the real objective he has in mind.
Anyone who assumes this president or the one who preceded him are telling the truth is inexcusably naive.
That’s what I used to think, too. But then the backstory for the bogus Gulf of Tonkin resolution started to come out, not to mention Reagan’s bogus military adventures, and then the crappy Bush II propaganda for invading Iraq, so now I don’t trust the U.S. reasons for going to war, ever, unless there has been a direct assault on U.S. territory by a known foreign power. And I would look warily on any such response to make sure that it was credible and proportionate, and not being used as an excuse for a different agenda.
Bob in AZ
Argh. Above should have been a reply to joffin @21.
Boxturtle (Gotta remember to push that “reply” button)
Why the hell would he fear impeachment?
Bill Clinton thought there were wmd’s, too.
So what if a few people get tortured. You can’t make an omelette without bombing a few weddings.
Sure we’re murdering innocent people and are becoming the greatest threat to peace on earth, and sure we’re expanding the War on Terra to every country on the globe, but our terrorists in the CIA need to bomb civilians to get their kicks, it’s not their fault that collateral damage gets them off.
The War on Terra was won, Rahm Obomber said so! That’s what, the fourth time we’ve won it? MURKHA **** YEA! SUCK IT HIPPIES!
STOP THE PRESSES!
We have an instant FDL classic.
terrorism.
another con for the fearful/gullible.
watch “The power of nightmares”
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2798679275960015727#
Troll is getting fat and happy off the abundant food; contributing nothing.
Oops. Message received too late. No more feeding from me.
Bob in AZ
True enough. But in my defense he didn’t look trollish at first, just opinionated.
Boxturtle (Where’s Freep when we need him anymore?)
Perhaps, joffen considers itself a “realist”? And such issues of “morality” as may concern us, do not concern joffen, as joffen believes, one suspects, that states may behave amorally, for the survival of the state is the supreme “interest” of the “realist”. The “realist” believes all morality is situational, that “the rule of law” is a convenience and constitutions by their nature, “quaint”.
joffen certainly considers itself a realist, a pragmatist, and views expediency most favorably.
joffen is not here to engage, to share insight or to ponder the moment.
joffen is here to distract, disparage, and one suspects, to confuse.
joffen is here to waste time.
Why should we indulge the joffen’s whims?
DW
Joff becauzzzzzzzznnn/s
Given the beacon of hope that we’ve created in Iraq, it’s no surprise to also consider the success we’ve achieved in Afghanistan.
Tom Engelhart and Nick Turse have a lot to say about that right here.
There was a time when the U.S. respected international law — wasn’t there? Someone remind me.
Anyway, in response to joffen, the law is that aggressive war is a war crime, the mother of all war crimes because it entails all the others. The U.S. committed that crime when it invaded Iraq. Many of us don’t care what your Congress said about that — it was a violation of international law.
Our borders (note sp) aren’t the only determining factor for me. I’m close to being a pacifist, but I can accept our forces joining in legal international coalitions. Bush’s in Iraq was not that. ISAF is just barely — the UN rubber-stamped it but shouldn’t have — and we should all get out. Yesterday.
You know, I think a lot of American’s did support, not a war, but the AUMF originally issued for sending troops to Afghanistan. It was an AUMF with a defined purpose that was based on a lot of factual support (i.e., that bin laden was behind 9/11; that he was in Afghanistan; that Afghanistan was a failed state that was unable and unwilling to hand him over.)
That AUMF never was expanded to full scale occupation of Afghanistan and that’s where it was lost in part.
The AUMF for Iraq was flat out based on lies and the media helped perpetrate those lies. Iraq-9/11. It had no real definable purpose – the one sold was that we were going to get the WMDs and then would be done, but that wasn’t really it – it was Bush’s desire to look tough to dad that allowed him to be a tool for a lot of other interests.
Bernie Madoffs are made from the trust of people like Joffen.
By what authority did we bomb Kabul on the night of September 11, 2001? It was on TV. I saw it on CNN, Nic Robertson said something that floored me in my tracks, and I wrote an e-mail to Nightline about it, which I printed out and still have. So I know it happened. But nobody ever talks about it. What authority?
BTW – I’m all for a war on illiteracy and ignorance. Does that count?
First they came for the editors … and unfortunately, I was an editor, which is why I’m retired now and you’re on your own, lawyers.
That’s the one, all else is “organized” mayhem and disaster politics.
Count? It is the only “one” that adds “up” to anything.
;~DW
After all is said and done I think we all know who the most destructive enemy is to The American People, The Constitution, Liberty and Freedom and I dare say the world. Orchestrated Mission Creep has done us in.
If you’re looking for a rationale that would fit on a bumper sticker, how about:
“Iraq…Just Because We felt Like It”
Reminds me of the final exam I took in an undergraduate philosophy course in the mid-sixties at the University of Wisconsin in Mad City. The question was, “Why?”
I thought about it for a minute or two, wrote my one-word answer, turned it in, walked out, and strolled to the Pub down on State Street where I quaffed a bunch of cold ones and played Cowpoke.
Got an A.
My answer was, “Because.”
May I suggest:
Why Iraq? Because we could.
Or,
Why Iraq? Just for the Hallibut.
We must have been contemporaries. I was at U-Dub until 1966, but I didn’t go near the philosophy dept. I was too busy with Anthropology, and Mathematics. The answer to your question became well-known, although I’m not sure about the time-line. My fave hangouts were the Brat Haus and Paul’s Book Store. And Lorenzo’s.
In those days, Wisconsin was deemed ineligible for the annual Playboy “Best Party School,” because they said it wouldn’t be fair to the other universities. It was also sometime during that period that a police crackdown on a demonstration on the University Library (with the apt acronym UGLI) mall managed to radicalize my Republican father. Thereafter he increasingly considered himself as a “Citizen of the World” rather than an American.
Bob in AZ
the sixties.
a philosophy course.
a one word examination answer.
an “A”
perfect.
Or,
Why Iraq? Just for the Halliburt’n.
Psssst. I didn’t actually do that on the philosophy exam. Thought it was a great story though. Thought I should come clean on that.