The Iraqi Election

The New York Times is on point in this editorial:

"Courageous Iraqis turned out to vote yesterday in numbers that may have exceeded even the most optimistic predictions. Participation varied by region, and the impressive national percentages should not obscure the fact that the country's large Sunni Arab minority remained broadly disenfranchised - due to alienation or terror or both. But even in some predominantly Sunni areas, turnout was higher than expected. And in an impressive range of mainly Shiite and Kurdish cities, a long silenced majority of ordinary Iraqis defied threats of deadly mayhem to cast votes for a new, and hopefully democratic, political order.

That is a message that all but the most nihilistic of the armed insurgents will have to accept. Many fierce political struggles lie ahead. Yet all who claim to be fighting in the name of the Iraqi people should now recognize that - in an open expression of popular will - Iraqis have expressed their clear preference that these battles be fought exclusively in the peaceful, constitutional arena.

This page has not hesitated to criticize the Bush administration over its policies in Iraq, and we continue to have grave doubts about the overall direction of American strategy there. Yet today, along with other Americans, whether supporters or critics of the war, we rejoice in a heartening advance by the Iraqi people."

Agreed!

More on the elections results and impact...

Four More years of this...

Thankfully I wasn't the only person who thought Bush's fairy-tale inauguration speech was heavy on the "I LOVE FREEDOM" blather, short on facts and dripping in hypocrisy.

As usual the Washington Post is right on:

"President Bush's soaring rhetoric yesterday that the United States will promote the growth of democratic movements and institutions worldwide is at odds with the administration's increasingly close relations with repressive governments in every corner of the world.

Some of the administration's allies in the war against terrorism -- including Egypt,
Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Uzbekistan -- are ranked by the State Department as among the worst human rights abusers. The president has proudly proclaimed his friendship with Russian President Vladimir Putin while remaining largely silent about Putin's dismantling of democratic institutions in the past four years.

Bush's speech "brought to a high level the gap between the rhetoric and reality in U.S. foreign policy,"

Human rights experts said Bush's commitment to freedom is undercut by such actions, as well as the administration's treatment of detainees and terrorist suspects at Guantanamo, the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and Bagram air base in Afghanistan.

Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, was struck by the fact that Bush mentioned "liberty" repeatedly but did not use the phrase "human rights" as an overriding goal.

The State Department, in its annual human rights report, has cited Uzbekistan for its "very poor" human rights record, including the torture and killing of citizens in custody for political reasons. There is virtually no freedom of speech or of the press.

Yet Bush met with Uzbekistan's president in 2002 and signed a declaration of "strategic partnership," and senior officials such as Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have visited the country. The United States "values Uzbekistan as a stable, moderate force in a turbulent region," the State Department said late last year."

Here's what I stated about our support of Uzbekistan 6 months ago:

The brutal oppression against Muslims in Uzbekistan is exactly what fosters the resentment and humiliation in young Arab men that spawns suicide bombers and breeds terrorism. We should be condemning this wicked leader for his acts of brutality and rallying the international community against such a man. Instead, we are giving him huge amounts of financial and military aid because he permitted the use of military bases in Uzbekistan for the U.S. attack on Afghanistan.

If we are ever going to win this war on terrorism, we must be steadfast in our commitment to the promotion of democratic ideals. We must not succumb to shortcuts or easy quick-fix solutions that are contradictory to the values we stand for. We cannot continue to support countries that stifle democratic expression and repress the will of their people. If we show to the world, that only those countries who demonstrate a true commitment to democracy will earn the full support of the United States both militarily and financially, then maybe we can begin to fight terrorism at it roots. But if we continue to repeat the mistakes of the past, then we are doomed to reap the carnage that we sew.

A Terrorist Breeding Ground: The New Iraq

According to a report released last week by the National Intelligence Council,

“Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. "There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries."

The report, “took a year to produce and includes the analysis of 1,000 U.S. and foreign experts. Within the 119-page report is an evaluation of Iraq's new role as a breeding ground for Islamic terrorists…

President Bush has frequently described the Iraq war as an integral part of U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. But the council's report suggests the conflict has also helped terrorists by creating a haven for them in the chaos of war.

Before the U.S. invasion, the CIA said Saddam Hussein had only circumstantial ties with several al Qaeda members. Osama bin Laden rejected the idea of forming an alliance with Hussein and viewed him as an enemy of the jihadist movement because the Iraqi leader rejected radical Islamic ideals and ran a secular government.

Bush described the war in Iraq as a means to promote democracy in the Middle East. "A free Iraq can be a source of hope for all the Middle East," he said one month before the invasion. "Instead of threatening its neighbors and harboring terrorists, Iraq can be an example of progress and prosperity in a region that needs both."

But as instability in Iraq grew after the toppling of Hussein, and resentment toward the United States intensified in the Muslim world, hundreds of foreign terrorists flooded into Iraq across its unguarded borders. They found tons of unprotected weapons caches that, military officials say, they are now using against U.S. troops.

According to the NIC report, Iraq has joined the list of conflicts -- including the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate, and independence movements in Chechnya, Kashmir, Mindanao in the Philippines, and southern Thailand -- that have deepened solidarity among Muslims and helped spread radical Islamic ideology.”

We the United States of America, have created this breeding ground for terrorism. In our war against terrorism we attacked a secular nation that had little or no ties to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, and now we have spawned the unthinkable; Yet another middle Eastern conflict that the Arab world can rally around and use as evidence to confirm their fears of American Imperialism.

We had a contained dictator, with no weapons of mass destruction, and minimal ties to terrorism. (Especially when compared to other nations in the region, including our two staunchest allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) We had this dictator surrounded, limited, sanctioned, and cut off from the world.

We now have a terrorist breeding ground, an even more unstable country, unguarded weapons depots, and a rallying call for the Islamic jihadists. In hindsight its incredibly difficult to make the case that invading Iraq has made America safer. I believe quite the contrary.

Maybe Howard Dean wasn’t such a nut when he said something very similar more then a year ago. Remember, he was mocked and belittled by the media, the Republicans, and even many democrats distanced themselves from his position.

Here’s what Howard Dean had to say in 2003!!!!

“There is a global struggle underway between peace-loving Muslims and this radical minority that seeks to hijack Islam for selfish and violent aims, that exploits resentment to persuade that murder is martyrdom, and hatred is somehow God’s will. The tragedy is that, by its actions, its unilateralism, and its ill-considered war in Iraq, this Administration has empowered radicals, weakened moderates, and made it easier for the terrorists to add to their ranks.”

The war in Iraq has been a serious setback in the war on terrorism and it should begin to be viewed as such.

Time Off

I'm guessing regular readers of this site have noticed a serious decline in the number of articles and commentary I have posted and written since the election and in the past few months. I have been incredibly busy with applications to law school and offer my sincerest apologies. As I get more free time over the coming weeks, I would like to once again pick up our discussion were we left off. Sorry for the hiatus.

Preview of things I would like to write about in the coming weeks:

1. The indefinite detention of enemy combatants and the creation of a system of permanent prisons in foreign countries. AKA the American Gulag

2. The Elections in Iraq

3. Poverty Reduction programs in America

4. The role of the media in American politics

5. The future of the Democratic Party

More good news for the Rich...

From today's Washington Post:

"The White House will seek to drastically shrink the Department of Housing and Urban Development's $8 billion community branch, purging dozens of economic development projects, scrapping a rural housing program and folding high-profile anti-poverty efforts into the Labor and Commerce departments, administration officials said yesterday.

Advocates for the poor, however, contended that the White House is trying to gut federal programs for the poorest Americans to make way for tax cuts..

The plan was detailed in a December memo from the White House Office of Management and Budget to HUD. The document provides one of the first concrete examples of the types of cuts in the works as the administration comes to grips with a soaring deficit.

Congressional housing aides say the $4.7 billion Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program -- the bulk of the community planning budget -- could be cut as much as 50 percent. Cities have become dependent on HUD's development programs, especially the CDBG, which has existed for 30 years, city officials said. Stanley Jackson, director of the D.C. Department of Housing and Community Development, said the city has used CDBG grants of $21 million to $22 million a year for clinics, recreation centers, day-care facilities, literacy programs and housing development."

THESE PROGRAMS AREN'T IMPORTANT, who cares if the urban youth can read and write, or if they have a place to go after school so they don't join gangs. What’s truly important is that the richest one percent of America can get that new BMW. Priorities People!

"With housing and property values skyrocketing, the need for such programs for low-income families has never been higher, he said. "

And seriously, who really cares if that family of four living in the District has a roof over their head....I hear the grates on Constitution give off tons of heat.

Lets talk for a second about moral values, and NOOO I don't mean God, gays, or guns. Shocking I know, I mean the morality of helping poor children get a fair crack at life. I mean the morality of fostering a brighter future for our countries most destitute, because this is truly a moral issue. Should the wealthiest nation on earth use its vast resources and capital to help its poorest citizens?? Or should we give hand outs to the rich???? I will no longer be bound by the incredulous notion impressed upon us by both the right and the media, that a belief in God and gay rights are THE moral issues facing our nation. MULARKY!!!! I couldn't give a damn whether two men or women in Massachusetts want to get hitched....What truly goes against my morals, is when those in power forgo their responsibility to help out those in need.

The Christian right says that that a man marrying another man threatens the institution of marriage and tears at our nation’s social fabric… But doesn’t the Christian religion also teach the love of your fellow man, and to care for the poor?

“if one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him…” Leviticus 25:25

"If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother." Deuteronomy 15:7

"If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth." 1 John 3:17-18

I wonder if the Christian right, who so adamantly oppose gay marriage, will be equally outraged at Bush’s new proposal? Im guessing their fear and hatred of homosexuals will trump their compassion for their fellow man.

Bush's Mandate

According to the AP:

The American public is deeply ambivalent about President Bush as he begins his second term and his approval rating is lower than any recent two-term presidents, a troubling sign for his ambitious agenda, an Associated Press poll found. Bush's approval rating is at 49 percent in the AP poll with 49 percent disapproving. His job approval is in the high 40s in several other recent polls — as low as any job approval rating for a re-elected president at the start of the second term in more than 50 years.

Should we stay or should we go??

I read a couple of fascinating articles this morning on this important question. The first should be read in its entirety and is taken from a opinion piece by Ali Hasan, the last remaining reporter for The Iraqi Press Monitor of the Institute for War and Peace Reporting. This is one of the most insightful articles I have read on the current state of Iraq, and truly gives and insiders view of what is happening on the streets of Iraq. Its a long, but a very worthwhile read:

The Republic of Fear Lives On
by Ali Hasan

After a year of success in helping to rebuild the media in Iraq, we of the Institute for War & Peace Reporting have been left with only one option: to close down our Baghdad office.
We feel defeated and we are frustrated. Adding salt to our injuries, none of us Iraqis can talk about our work in our neighborhoods, and even to our close friends. We fear that we will be branded as the spies and collaborators of the occupation. There are many whom we fear: The Board of Muslim Clerics, the foreign Jihadis, Muqtada al-Sadr, Zarqawi's people, and finally Saddam's henchmen.

Before liberation we were only afraid of Saddam's people. But today the list is long.
When I first picked up Kanan Makiya's book "The Republic of Fear", (after Saddam's departure, of course), I could identify with every single word that was in it and hoped that the republic of fear had gone once and for all. But today, I feel it is business as usual: the business of fear, intimidation, indiscriminate killing, torture, and beheading.

In Iraq today, people have a myriad of violent movements to fear. Significantly, the violence and the so-called resistance are found, in the great majority of cases, in the Sunni triangle: Fallujah, Tikrit, Samara, and Mosul. These areas were favored by the former regime, and their reaction to the collapse of that regime is logical.

Almost a year and a half after the war, we are still afraid of talking against Saddam's regime. But, the irony is that this is the case in what is supposed to be an era of freedom. And we are afraid not only of the former regime but also of new figures that have popped up and been added to our list of fear.

One such figure is Muqtada al-Sadr. We cannot openly express our opinions of him, particularly opinions of disapproval. While his supporters follow him blindly, the germ of his popularity is the stand that his father, Muhammed Sadiq al-Sadr, took under the former regime. He openly stood up in the regime's face. His stand cost him his life when he was assassinated by the regime in February 1999.

As for Muqtada, he is young in terms of religious authority. He is extremely young to be a marjia or religious leader--another reason to recognize that people follow him due to his father's reputation. Yet his father's stand was powerful and brave in an age when no one dared to say anything at all except to praise the regime. Muqtada's followers see his father not him.
Another source of fear that has emerged in the wake of the US-led invasion is the Muslim Clerics Board, claiming to represent the Sunni sect in Iraq. On September 17th, 2004, Al-Hurra satellite channel interviewed Board member Sheikh Abdul Ghaffar al-Samarai. The channel asked the Sheikh to issue an edict banning murder of civilian foreigners, but the Sheikh would not. Although the Sheikh did not openly approve kidnapping and killing civilians, he did not object to it either.

Many of my friends have assured me that the Board allows the killing of any foreigner, whether a civilian or not. Recently, two French journalists were kidnapped. Their kidnappers said they would release the Frenchmen if told to in an edict issued by the Board. But the Board did not issue one. The very same Board already called for releasing all the civilians kidnapped. But the clerics contradicted themselves by refusing to issue an opinion on the fate of the French journalists.

In fact, almost all the Board's members were supporters and beneficiaries of the former regime. So, logically they are victims of the new system in Iraq. On September 6th, 2004, Al-Ittihad newspaper reported the following news:

Some information implicating the Muslim Clerics Board in most of the kidnappings is being investigated. Anonymous sources in charge of the investigation said they had received information from a neighbouring country, in addition to confessions from a kidnapped person. That person pretended not to know Arabic but listened to conversation between someone the source refused to name and another person in charge of the Board's military wing. The Iraqi services are waiting for the French journalists' crisis to end so they can make the details public.
While you are in Iraq beware of talking against the Board for you might get kidnapped and beheaded.

In the wake of the last war, I wanted to release the pressure of silence I had endured for 25 years [my age then]. But after a while, I realized we were still suffering from the fear to speak out. I do not deny that I am still afraid while writing this story. But there is always a first time, and someone must do something.

Once, my friend asked me why I thought now was better than under the former regime. I said to him, "I know that I might get killed in any of the car bombs or simply by a quarrel, or by one of the celebratory bullets Iraqis fire everyday. But this is much better than being in one of Saddam's prisons or under his reign. I never felt safe under Saddam."

I've also met a number of foreign journalists. One of them, in the midst of a conversation, said to me, "Now that you are a free man..."

I interrupted him, saying, "I am not yet free."

Officially and in reality, power used to be in the hands of Saddam and his henchmen. Today, the real power is still in Saddam's henchmen's hands. Officially, it is in the government's hands, but the current interim government is simply not powerful. Nobody fears its authority. You can openly criticize it and swear about it fearlessly. On the local radio station Dijla, guests and announcers criticize the government's performance.

The problem with the country is that it is paralyzed, and paralysis regarding security is only one side of the problem. Besides, we are just sitting and watching as if we are not involved. We were passive observers and are still so. We need everyone's support to help us stop our fears. Terrorist groups make it to the headlines simply because they stir up trouble.

The majority of us are still marginalized. Anyone can cause a disturbance and make it to the headlines, including me. But I do not want to do so. I want my country to be rebuilt. It is easier to destroy than to rebuild. And terrorists take the easy way of publicity. This indicates they are bankrupt and desperate.

I do not want my children to lead the same sort of life I had in my childhood and youth. I want them to live fearlessly. I want to put an end to "The Republic of Fear." But I cannot do that all by myself. My countrymen have to support me, even if they are afraid.

I have had long arguments with my friends about the occupation and the opponents of the occupation. I told them that I was not in favor of the occupation. On the contrary, I am totally against it. But dismissing it should not be done now, because if we do so now the country will descend into sheer chaos. I also told them that the country had been occupied for a long time. It was occupied by Saddam. And those who now claim to be resisting the occupation should have resisted Saddam.

Moreover, the Security Council resolution of power transfer gave the Iraqi government the right to dismiss the multi-national forces. But it is the government that keeps the foreign troops for security concerns. For the time being, I do agree with the government's decision, for we need these foreign troops.

I know the former regime is not coming back. But evil powers cling to this hope and even bet on it. We gave them the chance once to be in power, and we are not ready to give it twice. We should not make the same mistake twice. I am convinced that IraqÂ’s rehabilitation is just a matter of time, and it is our turn to decide how long that will take.

"It is only the Iraqi government that you can freely speak against," says Jihad al-Mandilawi, a guard.

I will post the other later today.

Torture

Today's editorial from the Washington Post is exactly right:

ALBERTO R. GONZALES missed an important opportunity yesterday to rectify his position, and that of President Bush, on the imprisonment and interrogation of foreign detainees. At the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on his nomination to be attorney general, Mr. Gonzales repeatedly was offered the chance to repudiate a legal judgment that the president is empowered to order torture in violation of U.S. law and immunize torturers from punishment. He declined to do so. He was invited to reject a 2002 ruling made under his direction that the infliction of pain short of serious physical injury, organ failure or death did not constitute torture. He answered: "I don't have a disagreement with the conclusions then reached." Nor did he condemn torture techniques, such as simulated drowning, that were discussed and approved during meetings in his office. "It is not my job," he said, to decide if they were proper. He was prompted to reflect on whether departing from the Geneva Conventions had been a mistake, in light of the shocking human rights abuses that have since been reported in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Guantanamo Bay prison and that continue even now. Mr. Gonzales demurred. The error, he answered, was not of administration policy but of "a failure of training and oversight."

The message Mr. Gonzales left with senators was unmistakable: As attorney general, he will seek no change in practices that have led to the torture and killing of scores of detainees and to the blackening of U.S. moral authority around the world. Instead, the Bush administration will continue to issue public declarations such as those Mr. Gonzales repeated yesterday -- "that torture and abuse will not be tolerated by this administration" -- while in practice sanctioning procedures that the International Red Cross and many lawyers inside the government consider to be illegal and improper.

Yet Mr. Gonzales appeared willfully obtuse about the consequences of his most important judgments as White House counsel. He repeatedly misrepresented the war crimes that have occurred, suggesting they were limited to those shown in the photographs taken by the "night shift" at Abu Ghraib, when it is now documented that abuses occurred throughout Iraq, in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo and that they continued even after the photos became public. He again derided and mischaracterized the Geneva Conventions, claiming that they "limit our ability to solicit information from detainees" and prevent their prosecution for war crimes -- an interpretation at odds with that of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the military's legal corps, the Red Cross, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and decades of U.S. experience in war.

He was asked if he believed that other world leaders could legitimately torture U.S. citizens. He replied, "I don't know what laws other world leaders would be bound by." (The Geneva Conventions would be among them.) He was asked whether "U.S. personnel [can] legally engage in torture under any circumstances." He answered, "I don't believe so, but I'd want to get back to you on that." He was asked whether he agreed, at least, with Mr. Ashcroft, who said he didn't believe in torture because it produced nothing of value. "I don't have a way of reaching a conclusion on that," he said. Those senators who are able to reach clear conclusions about torture and whether the United States should engage in it have reason for grave reservations about Mr. Gonzales.

This is bad news...

This frightening information from the New Republic today,

According to Iyad Allawi's intelligence chief, General Mohammed Abdullah Shahwani, the Sunni insurgency consists of 200,000 fighters, of which 40,000 are a hard core. "I think the resistance is bigger than the U.S. military in Iraq," Shahwani told AFP today. He claims the Baath Party--which Shahwani says has split into three (unspecified) factions--is the motivating factor behind the swelled number, yet pegged the Baathist hard core at 20,000. But that's not the whole story:

Shahwani said the resistance enjoys wide backing in the provinces of Baghdad, Babel, Salahuddin, Diyala, Nineveh and Tamim, homes to Sunni Arabs who fear they will lose influence after the elections.

Insurgents have gained strength through Iraq's tight-knit tribal bonds and links to the old 400,000-strong Iraqi Army, dissolved by the U.S. occupation in May 2003 two months after the U.S.-led invasion, he said.

Shahwani said: "People are fed up after two years, without improvement. People feel they have to do something.

The spy chief also questioned the success of the November campaign to retake Fallujah, which U.S. forces have hailed as a major victory against the resistance.

"What we have now is an empty city almost destroyed ... and most of the insurgents are free. They have gone either to Mosul or to Baghdad or other areas."

Previous U.S. estimates stated the insurgency included between 10-20,000 adherents.

I was never great at math, but it would seem to me taht we might just be creating more terrorists then we are killing.

1984

Richard Cohen wrote one of the best columns I’ve read regarding the torture scandals that continue to surround the Bush administration and soon to be Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. I've taken quite a break from blogging over the last few weeks. I'm not sure if I was too disheartened, too lazy, or still in shock to write regularly. Whatever the case may be, this article and a discussion I had last night with friends regarding the shroud of secrecy that has descended on the American judicial system has really jolted me from my slumber. Here's a large section of Cohen's brilliant article,

"In George Orwell's novel "1984," it was rats, as I recall, that were used to torture Winston Smith. It was not that the rats could do real physical damage; rather it was that Smith was phobic about them -- "his greatest fear, his worst nightmare" -- and so he succumbed, denounced his beliefs and even his girlfriend, and went back to his pub where he wasted his days drinking gin. This was Orwell's future, our present.

Orwell, however, was off by only 20 years. With immense satisfaction, he would have noted the constant abuse of language by the Bush administration -- calling suicidal terrorists "cowards," naming a constriction of civil liberties the Patriot Act and, of course, wringing all meaning from the word "torture." Until just recently when the interpretation of torture was amended, it applied only to the pain like that of "organ failure, impairment of body function, or even death." Anything less, such as, say, shackling detainees to a low chair for hours and hours so that one prisoner pulled out tufts of hair, is something else. We have no word for it, but it is -- or was until recently -- considered perfectly legal.

The administration's original interpretation of torture was promulgated by the Justice Department, under John Ashcroft, and the White House, under its counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales. The result has deeply embarrassed the United States. Among other things, it produced the abuses of Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which we were assured were an unaccountable exception. My God, if only higher authorities had known.

Now we all know. The International Committee of the Red Cross has complained that some of what has been done at Guantanamo -- Guantanamo, not Abu Ghraib -- was "tantamount to torture." The American Civil Liberties Union has complained, but that you would expect. So, though, have the FBI and military lawyers, former and current. Just about across the board, the Bush administration has raised itself above the law. It pronounced itself virtuous, but facing a threat so dire, so unique, that Gonzales found the Geneva Conventions themselves "obsolete." Such legal brilliance does not long go unrewarded. He has been nominated to become attorney general.

The elevation of Gonzales is supposed to be a singular American success story. This son of Mexican immigrants bootstrapped his way to Harvard Law School and from there to Bush's inner circle, first in Austin, then in Washington. There he came up with a brilliant definition of torture, one so legally clever that only the dead could complain and they, of course, could not. Everyone was off the hook. Is it any wonder the Senate will probably soon confirm him? By next year, he will undoubtedly receive a cherished Presidential Medal of Freedom, awarded to those who successfully serve the president but dismally fail the nation. In the audience, unseen but nonetheless present, Orwell and Kafka look on.

The revelations coming out of Guantanamo are hideous. The ordinary abuse of prisoners, the madness instilled by gruesome incarcerations, the incessant lying of the authorities, plus the mock interrogations staged for the media, in which detainees and their interrogators share milkshakes -- all this soils us as a nation. It's as if the government is ahistorical, unaware of how communists and fascists also strained language and ushered the world into torture chambers made pretty for the occasion. We now keep some pretty bad company.

The Bush administration has fused Orwell with Kafka in the same way someone fused the cry of an infant with that of a cat from the Meow Mix television commercial. The upshot is Gonzales, ticketed maybe for the Supreme Court because he winked at torture and yessed the president.

He's Kafka's man, Orwell's boy and Bush's pussycat. Know him for his roar.

Meow."